2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 46)

Hon. G. Plant

Business Corporations Act (Bill 47)

Hon. G. Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Nurses in B.C.

S. Brice

Actions against Liberal MLAs

J. Nuraney

Work of emergency preparedness volunteers

S. Orr

Oral Questions

Irene Chanin's position with BCBC

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Santori

Hon. G. Campbell

J. Kwan

Referendum on treaty negotiations

K. Johnston

Hon. G. Plant

School district funding

R. Sultan

Hon. C. Clark

Sale of Vancouver Canucks hockey team

J. Kwan

Hon. R. Thorpe

2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympic bid

M. Hunter

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Petitions

J. Kwan

Second Reading of Bills

Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act (Bill 39)

Hon. M. de Jong

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 40)

Hon. M. de Jong

Irene Chanin's position with BCBC

Hon. G. Campbell

Second Reading of Bills

Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 41)

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Hunter

G. Trumper

Committee of the Whole House

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

Hon. K. Falcon

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. R. Neufeld

Reporting of Bills

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35)

Third Reading of Bills

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35)

Committee of the Whole House

Food Safety Act (Bill 37)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Food Safety Act (Bill 37)

Committee of the Whole House

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

Hon. M. Coell

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

V. Anderson

S. Orr

J. Bray

[ Page 3275 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Mayencourt: I have some good friends in the gallery. I'd first like to

introduce Josef and Gita Bakalinsky, who are visiting here from my riding,

Vancouver-Burrard. Would the House please make them welcome.

Directly

behind them are two gentlemen that have been very helpful to me in my campaign

times, Tex Enemark and Michael Hillman. Would the House please make them feel

welcome as well.

[1405]

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm delighted to introduce two old friends to the gallery as well:

Tex Enemark, who is well known to these buildings as a former deputy minister

for previous governments; and a man who served as, I think, my father's campaign

manager — or it was the other way around — when they were seeking office in

Burnaby, Mike Hillman. I hope everyone will make them both welcome.

Lekstrom: It's not often that I get to rise in the chamber to introduce

guests from my constituency. It's a long way, and….

Interjection.

Lekstrom: Just about.

I have the

privilege today to introduce two friends of mine from Dawson Creek who are down

here visiting. I would like the House to please make welcome Mr. and Mrs. Court

Wright from Dawson Creek, who have contributed greatly not just to Dawson Creek

but to the northern area in its development. Please make them welcome.

S. Orr:

I have the pleasure today of introducing two special people. Mr. Bob Kennedy is

the regional representative for the Emergency Social Services Association, and

with him is Ms. Kelly McReynolds. She is the coordinator of the disaster and

international services for the coastal region. Will the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I'm pleased to introduce Anne Sutherland Boal. She's our province's

first chief nurse executive. This is National Nursing Week, and Anne has been

visiting nurses throughout B.C. and joins us today in the gallery.

If you

recall, she was appointed last fall, and she's been very busy implementing the

province's $21 million nursing strategy. Anne has been investing quite a bit of

time working on the long-term provincial health human resources plan. She's met

with nurses across the province — registered nurses, nurse educators,

researchers, registered psych nurses, LPNs. You name it, she's met with them.

She's working very hard for us. Certainly, in this time of change, as we're

implementing improvements to the health care system, she is reaffirming our

commitment to nurses and showing that we do value them and we are going to make

sure that they can deliver quality health care as we make the necessary changes.

I want to

thank Anne for her commitment to nurses, and I ask the House to join me in

making her welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

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

intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 46, the Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 2002. This bill amends five statutes which are under the

responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General.

Last summer

we introduced and passed the Lobbyists Registration Act, which contains an

exemption for members of various public boards and councils. The act as passed

last summer, however, did not include an exemption for employees of bodies that

represent those boards and councils. The amendment to the act introduced here

today adds such an exemption to ensure that employees of these representative

bodies have the same level of exemption that the school boards and municipal

councils already have under the act.

The

amendment to the Lobbyists Registration Act also includes a correction to an

oversight in the original drafting. A reference was omitted to a

regulation-making power, and

section 11 is amended to add that necessary

reference.

[1410]

The

amendments to the Offence Act will streamline the hearing of motor vehicle and

other violation ticket disputes. Those who dispute the fine amount or request

time to pay will be able to do so in writing rather than appearing in court.

When an offence is being disputed, the enforcement officer who issued the ticket

may submit his or her evidence in writing rather than attending the hearing.

addition, the amendments I am introducing will provide for a reduced fine if the

defendant pleads

[ Page 3276 ]

guilty and pays the fine within 30 days, thereby providing an incentive for

persons to pay their ticket within the prescribed time. This is estimated to

reduce the number of disputes by as much as 2 percent, thereby reducing costs to

the justice system.

I am

introducing amendments to the Provincial Court Act which are intended to support

the changes to the Offence Act and also to implement changes recommended by the

2001 Judicial Compensation Committee with respect to judges' pensions. The

Sheriff Act is amended in ways that I will make clear in second reading.

Finally, the Supreme Court Act is amended to remove an anomalous requirement for

a Supreme Court justice to reside in the Peace River district.

I move that

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

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 46

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

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

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. G.

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

Business Corporations Act.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that Bill 47 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I am pleased to introduce the new Business Corporations Act, which

will govern how companies are created, dissolved, organized and managed in

British Columbia.

The new

Business Corporations Act replaces the 1993 Company Act. It will enhance British

Columbia's potential as an attractive jurisdiction for incorporation and assist

in rebuilding a competitive business environment in the province. The new act

will provide British Columbia corporations with greater flexibility in the areas

of corporate governance, corporate finance and fundamental corporate changes. As

well, it will reduce the regulatory burden — for example, by removing

regulatory overlap with the securities legislation. The new act will also result

in improved efficiency for the corporate registry and business in British

Columbia by accommodating electronic filing and search capabilities.

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 47

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) NURSES IN B.C.

Brice: This is Nursing Week, and as such, I wish to recognize the

significant role that nurses play in caring for all of us. There are 35,000

registered nurses in B.C., 2,000 registered psychiatric nurses and 5,000

licensed practical nurses. As this is Nursing Week all across the country, I

would especially like to draw attention to their contribution in maintaining the

health of British Columbians.

Nurses are

and will continue to be the largest group of health care providers in the

province. Our government has made a commitment to addressing the challenges that

nurses have identified as affecting their abilities to provide optimal patient

care. The Ministries of Health Planning and of Advanced Education have

implemented strategies to address these concerns. Our government has taken

actions through a number of strategies to increase the number of nurses entering

or returning to the profession, including increasing the number of education

seats and the successful recruitment of foreign specialty nurses.

understand that the return-to-nursing program introduced by the Minister of

Health Planning has had a tremendous response from both foreign- and

B.C.-educated nurses. Our government has supported continuing education through

a distribution of specialty education grants to health authorities and nurse

innovation grants to allow nurses the flexibility to design their solutions to

the specific needs they face.

In addition

to nurses who are providing direct care to patients, it's important to

acknowledge nurses in leadership positions, nursing educators and nursing

researchers.

[1415]

Finally, I

want to acknowledge the new graduates across the province that have dedicated

their time and careers to nursing. They are the future of the profession, and we

thank them for their commitment. I applaud the value, knowledge, compassion and

strength with which all nurses fulfil their duties and recognize their

contribution to the health and well-being of all British Columbians.

ACTIONS AGAINST LIBERAL MLAS

Nuraney: I would like to raise a matter of a very serious nature today. I

feel very disconcerted, almost angry, when I hear of some of the tactics used to

express contrary opinions. For example, the offices of a number of MLAs were

forcibly occupied and damaged, and the Premier was recently mistreated on his

flight back from Kelowna when some members of a union accosted him.

These are

cruel, uncivilized tactics similar to the ones I experienced in the Congo, where

I used to live under a regime that had no regard for democracy. We lived under a

dark cloud of fear where anarchy pre-

[ Page 3277 ]

vailed, and we were continuously threatened. These were the very reasons why

I left that country.

The recent

activities remind me of those conditions, and I am ashamed of these methods. The

organizations that deploy these destructive tactics could, in my opinion, use

their abilities more constructively and help us to rebuild our province.

We live in

a society that is civilized, where the tenets of democracy are the very essence

of our being Canadians, where dialogues are employed to iron out differences and

where confrontations take place around tables and not on the streets. These are

values that demonstrate the markings and makings of a civilized society.

Those who

are dissatisfied with the actions of the government have avenues open to them to

bring forth their concerns. After all, we are all wanting what is best for

British Columbians.

People

spoke loud and clear in the last election and gave this government an

overwhelming mandate to effect changes — changes that would correct the ills

of the past. It is understood that some sections of our society may have

philosophical differences. But these differences should be dealt with through a

democratic process and not through unruly, unlawful and violent means.

I stand

here today in the House to deplore these activities that contradict the very

principles of decency and a civilized society. I pray that a better

understanding may prevail.

WORK OF EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS VOLUNTEERS

S. Orr:

This week is Emergency Preparedness Week, and the theme is "Keeping Canada

Safe: Emergency Preparedness Begins with You."

Six

thousand volunteers are registered with the provincial emergency preparedness

programs in emergency social services. These volunteers provide immediate help

to people who are forced from their homes because of fires, flood, toxic spills

or a major catastrophe such as an earthquake. These wonderful volunteers not

only give of their time but are trained to provide emotional and physical

support, as well as food, shelter and clothing.

[1420]

On a more

local level, in my area Mr. Bob Kennedy is the Emergency Social Services

Association's regional representative for Vancouver Island. Bob and his team do

a remarkable job, and I have firsthand experience of this.

Like all my

fellow MLAs, I keep a watchful eye over my riding of Victoria-Hillside, and

whenever there is a disaster that requires Bob's services I try to attend,

especially when it involves my constituents losing their homes.

The most

recent example for me was the fire at one of our local hotels in which 50 of my

constituents lived. This blaze started in the early hours of a very cold morning

and raged most of the night. At 2:30 in the morning I arrived, and as always,

there was Bob with his volunteer team already fully set up and organized. They

had a B.C. Transit bus, warm and waiting, to make sure that everyone had

somewhere to go and sit and be warm while they gathered all the information they

needed from the hotel guests and my constituents. The Salvation Army Beacon Bus

was there to set up, serving hot coffee and snacks not only to the victims of

the fire but also to the firefighters.

He had

already organized an emergency centre for people to go to so they could find

everyone alternate accommodation, and the list goes on. At the end of that long

night and day, the emergency social services volunteer team took care of people.

They made sure everyone was safe. That is their job, and they love doing it.

I am very

glad that we have proclaimed this week Emergency Preparedness Week, and I am

glad we are able to officially thank all those wonderful volunteers for their

dedicated work. What I am really glad about is that they are here and that they

take care of us.

Oral Questions

IRENE CHANIN'S POSITION WITH BCBC

MacPhail: Yesterday we asked the Premier why a new position was created at

the B.C. Buildings Corporation for his Deputy Minister of Public Affairs, Irene

Chanin, and he didn't answer the question.

So today I

ask the minister responsible for BCBC: what is Irene Chanin doing, and how much

is she being paid?

Hon. S.

Santori: As many of you are aware, BCBC is undergoing a considerable amount

of transformation in the corporation. Irene Chanin has been seconded to BCBC.

There has been one early retirement in the communications area as well as one on

leave, and BCBC looks forward to the expertise and skills that she will bring to

the corporation.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: As of this morning there were no vacancies again in BCBC. I asked

the minister to specify how much Ms. Chanin was being paid.

The Premier

said he wanted to change the way government handled communications, and that's

why he hired Ms. Chanin as part of that strategy. We were told in estimates that

Ms. Chanin was a career public servant and would be the right person to do the

job. But as we know, the Premier's communication strategy has been an

embarrassing failure.

Will the

secondment agreement to the B.C. Buildings Corporation?

Hon. S.

Santori: Once again, I will repeat my response to your previous question.

BCBC is looking

[ Page 3278 ]

forward to the skills that Ms. Chanin brings to the table.

If you're

looking for specifics on the rate of pay, I'll take that on notice.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: The secondment that the minister talks about was never put to any

open competition. There are no new positions at BCBC. In fact, it was made up

out of thin air in order to sweep a problem under the rug.

It's been

well known for months that Ms. Chanin's responsibilities have been taken over by

the Premier's office staff, Martyn Brown and Andy Orr, and the government is

hiring an expensive ad agency to put things back on the rails. But it was only

in the last few weeks that the BCBC job was found for Ms. Chanin.

[1425]

Can the

Premier tell the House if at any time the government paid Ms. Chanin a deputy

minister's salary to sit at home?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No.

J. Kwan:

One of the Premier's…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…signature efforts to reorganize government has been a complete failure.

Rather than admit that he's made a mistake, the Premier has tried to hide the

error by quietly rewarding Ms. Chanin with a cosy, well-paid job.

British

Columbians have a right to know how much this failed experiment is costing. This

secondment is nothing more than an expensive cover for the Premier's mistakes.

To the

Premier once again: Ms. Chanin was due for a performance review at the end of

June. Instead of parachuting her into a new job with a six-figure salary, why

did the Premier not proceed with Ms. Chanin's review and terminate her contract

if it was found that she was not up to the job?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Ms. Chanin has been seconded to BCBC. When she was hired by

government, she was hired on a three-year contract. She has been seconded to

BCBC. As I said during estimates, we are in the midst of a major transition with

regard to communications. The details of that will be available to the public in

June.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

That's not the same thing, and it's also not the same thing as what the Premier

said.

The right

thing to do would have been for him to proceed with Ms. Chanin's review and end

her contract. We all know how hard it is for the Premier to admit when he's made

mistakes. I'll give him one more chance. Instead of ordering the Crown

corporation…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

J. Kwan:

…to cover his tracks, would the Premier today cancel Ms. Chanin's secondment

agreement and do the right thing: review her performance in the position she

previously held and then decide whether or not she deserves a six-figure salary?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I said earlier, as I said yesterday and as I will say tomorrow,

Ms. Chanin has been seconded to BCBC. When she was hired, she was hired by

government on a three-year contract. We are in the midst of a major change in

communications. The details of that communications change will be available to

the public in June.

REFERENDUM ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Johnston: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Treaty

Negotiations.

The treaty

referendum is an exercise in direct democracy. For the very first time all

British Columbians are being given the opportunity to have a say on the

principles that should guide this province's treaty negotiation process.

With a week

remaining in the referendum, can the minister responsible update all British

Columbians on the number of voters who have mailed in ballots?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes, I can. The information I received earlier today is that there

are 670,000 returned ballots. I do want to take advantage of the opportunity

presented by the member's interest in the subject to encourage all members of

the House and all British Columbians to cast their vote and make sure the ballot

is returned to Elections B.C. before May 15.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has a supplementary question.

Johnston: The referendum on treaty principles has been viewed by many of my

constituents as an issue that only affects rural and northern communities across

British Columbia.

Can the

Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations tell my constituents why it is very

important, regardless of where they live, to vote in this referendum?

Hon. G.

Plant: All communities will be affected by treaties. Rural and urban British

Columbia will be affected by treaties. We all live as British Columbians, as

neighbours, with and among first nations. The treaty

[ Page 3279 ]

process will be improved by a referendum that has given all British

Columbians the opportunity to provide input to government on the principles that

should guide the province's approach to treaty-making.

[1430]

As we move

forward through treaty-making to build a stronger, more prosperous province for

all British Columbians, whether you live in a city or small town or in the

country, you've got an interest in the future of the province — an interest in

treaty-making and an opportunity to participate in a democratic process that

will help build a stronger province for all of us.

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

Sultan: My question is to the Minister of Education. The government's

new-era platform states that more of each education dollar is going to be

devoted to the quality of education and less of it to bureaucracy. Now that the

new funding formula has been announced and the school districts have received

their budgets, can the Minister of Education tell us how this election promise

has been fulfilled?

Hon. C.

Clark: A couple of ways. First, we are always encouraging school districts

to minimize their administration costs. That's one of the reasons the

legislation we've introduced to the House encourages school districts to enter

shared-services agreements, which we think will help them really minimize their

administration costs.

Also, we

have created a new funding formula that will do two other things. It will allow

school districts to keep any efficiencies they're able to find in their budgets.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It will

also reduce the amount of reporting and paperwork they have to do by a third.

That means school districts will become much more interested in what they're

achieving…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …as opposed to reporting all the time on just how they're going to

get there.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano has a supplementary

question.

Sultan: The media has reported expressions of outrage from certain school

boards and from the teachers union over cuts in the school budgets. However, the

fiscal plan from the Ministry of Education shows that education spending has

actually been increased this year. Could the Minister of Education clarify this

confusion?

Hon. C.

Clark: We made a commitment in the election to protect the Education budget.

Not only have we done that, but we have increased the Ministry of Education

budget by $20 million this year. This is in the context of the largest

government restructuring in British Columbia's history. We are the only

jurisdiction in the country that I'm aware of that has undertaken this kind of

restructuring and protected the Education budget.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, order. Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition

please come to order so that we may hear the answer.

Hon. C.

Clark: We are the only jurisdiction in the country that I'm aware of that

has protected the Education budget in the context of a governmentwide

restructuring that is this large. That speaks very clearly to every British

Columbian about how dearly we value a quality education system for every

student.

SALE OF VANCOUVER

CANUCKS HOCKEY TEAM

J. Kwan:

It's just a bit much to listen to the Minister of Education. Everybody else is

wrong except…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…for this Minister of Education.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, so that we may hear the question.

J. Kwan:

On Monday the minister responsible for bailing out the Canucks said no to a

subsidy. He did not say no to using lottery moneys to help the team. He did not

say no to a special sports lottery, but the question remains of just what it is

he's prepared to do to assist the sale of the Canucks.

To the

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise: will the minister confirm today

that no new or existing revenues from gaming will go to subsidize the sale of

the Vancouver Canucks — yes or no?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Let me be clear once again for the member over there. Our government

is not in the business of providing subsidies to any business in British

Columbia.

But, Mr.

Speaker, let me tell you what our government has done for the economy of British

Columbia.

[ Page 3280 ]

We've cut taxes 17 times in the first ten months of being government. We've

reduced personal income tax by 25 percent, so people throughout British

Columbia…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1435]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: …have more money in their pockets to do what they want. We are

committed to cutting red tape by one-third, and we're well on our way to

achieving that goal.

Let me tell

you, British Columbia used to be number one. They took it to number ten, and now

we're rebuilding the economy of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

2010 VANCOUVER-WHISTLER OLYMPIC BID

Hunter: I regret that my question is not for the Minister of Competition,

Science and Enterprise. I have a question for the Minister of State for

Community Charter and the 2010 Olympic bid.

People

around our province are excited about the possibility of hosting the world for

the 2010 Olympic Winter Games.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, so that we may hear the question.

Hunter: I know that Salt Lake City recently announced a surplus resulting

from its hosting the 2002 games this past February. Can the minister responsible

for the 2010 Olympic bid please tell the House what a successful bid for the

games is going to mean to the people, the economy and the future of this

province?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Let me tell the member and the House that next year in Prague we

will be designated as the 2010 site for the winter games, there is no doubt that

the announcement….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members, so that we may hear. The minister has

the floor.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: As I said, when in Prague next year, Whistler-Vancouver will be

designated as the 2010 winter games site. With that, no doubt, will be a

tremendous boost to our economy. It will become a catalyst for a tremendous

boost to our economy.

It will

create tens of thousands of jobs and tremendous new income for the province.

Some of that money, certainly, will help and assist young athletes to find new

levels of competition and make them better athletes.

When we

were in the last Olympics in Salt Lake City, it was overwhelming when we saw our

young Canadian athletes on the winners' podium. The pride that was shared by

many Canadians and many British Columbians was felt strongly.

We want to

make sure that in 2010 we have more Canadian winners on the podium, and for that

reason we have created a program called Legacy Now. It is a fund that will

assist young athletes to compete in national and international competition.

Further funds will be made available for training programs that will make our

young athletes better athletes, will make them better champions, and no doubt in

2010 more champions will be on the winners podium.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

J. Kwan:

I have the honour to present three petitions today. The first is signed by 808

British Columbians who oppose the government's cuts to health care, Pharmacare,

income assistance for single parents and social housing. The petition asks the

government to live up to its election promises and reinstate funding for these

programs.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Please continue.

J. Kwan:

The second petition is from End Legislated Poverty. There are 2,034 British

Columbians who oppose the government's cuts to B.C.'s social safety net,

including programs for seniors, refugees and single parents.

The third

petition is also from End Legislated Poverty and is signed by 630 British

Columbians opposing changes to income assistance. The petition argues that these

changes will hurt children, single-parent families and women.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 39.

[1440]

Second Reading of Bills

PROTECTED AREAS FORESTS

COMPENSATION ACT

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the bill now be read a second time. This bill, Mr.

Speaker, applies the Forest Act's existing compensation provisions to

outstanding claims arising from the establishment of parks, protected areas and

ecological reserves under land use

[ Page 3281 ]

planning initiatives, the bulk of them having occurred in the last decade.

I guess the

question, as it is with most pieces of legislation, is: why is the bill

necessary? In this case that is a particularly appropriate question, because

during the last decade the previous administration did make a series of

decisions around land use planning, around the establishment of parks and

certain reserves, decisions that fall squarely within the ambit of a provincial

government. There is a legislative provision…. Or maybe I should back up

before I get to the Forest Act and

section 60.

When

governments make those decisions, they at times have impacts on the interests of

others. Those land use decisions and land designations impact on people,

organizations, agencies, companies that have other activities taking place,

other rights in those particular areas. That doesn't mean the decisions

shouldn't be made, but it means that perhaps as a society and as government we

have to take account of the impact those land use decisions are having.

Happily,

the Forest Act, by virtue of

section 60, takes account and contemplates and

anticipates those kinds of decisions being made and actually sets out a

methodology or a framework by which compensation can be paid in response to

those land use decisions, compensation to those parties whose interests have

been affected by those land use decisions. There is a mechanism for invoking the

provisions of

section 60 and applying them, coming up with a calculation,

embarking upon a discussion with the affected party and settling that issue of

compensation.

So if that

mechanism existed and those decisions were made, I guess the question that

arises is: why are we here today with a piece of legislation that is going to

apply back to decisions that were made starting in 1995? Well, the reason we're

here and having to do that, Mr. Speaker, is that the administration that was in

power, the NDP government that was in power, at that time chose not to invoke

those provisions of the Forest Act.

It would be

mere speculation on my part to try and explain why that is, given that the

legislative provisions existed by which that compensation could be calculated,

but they didn't invoke those provisions. It was not a particularly onerous or

complicated manoeuvre in order to do that. They chose not to. In at least a

couple of cases that has given rise to claims, and there are perhaps other

claims associated with those land use decisions.

[1445]

The problem

is this. By virtue of the previous NDP government's unwillingness to invoke

those provisions of the Forest Act, the taxpayer has been left exposed to claims

that will be brought via the courts and uncertainty associated with the

methodology or the formula that might be employed, absent the application of

section 60, to calculate what that entitlement is for parties whose rights have

been affected by those land use decisions.

It was that

failure to act that has in turn put the taxpayers at risk, which we are seeking

to address by virtue of this legislation today. The bill will address inequities

that exist or will continue to exist or would otherwise exist in the

compensation process when those harvesting rights and the improvements that

licensees may have made to the land were lost through the creation of those

protected areas.

I should

say this as well, Mr. Speaker. I point this out because it provides me with an

added degree of comfort in bringing this bill before the House. Some of this has

been litigated before the courts already. Some parties have chosen to negotiate

with the government. In some of those cases those negotiations have proved

fruitful and compensation packages have been settled upon, but some of them have

proceeded to the courts. The courts have heard argument. In a previous decision

of the B.C. Supreme Court, the ruling was that

section 60 of the Forest Act is

the appropriate mechanism and does provide the best means for settling these

compensation claims. In a sense, one can say that this act, in part, is our

attempt to codify something that the courts have already offered an initial

ruling on.

The bill

contains three main provisions to apply the Forest Act's compensation provisions

to the establishment of those protected areas. Firstly, the bill deems parks,

protected areas and ecological reserves to be deleted from applicable forest

tenures and timber supply areas on the date those protected areas were created.

That ensures that the boundaries of those tenures and areas reflect the

establishment of those protected areas.

Secondly,

for area-based tenures such as tree farm licences and woodlot licences, the bill

deems the deletion of land from the tenure to be, in fact, a deletion pursuant

section 60 of the Forest Act. This in turn allows the compensation provisions

of that

section to apply to those tenures.

Thirdly,

for tenures that operate in timber supply areas, Bill 39 deems any reduction in

the allowable annual cut of these tenures that resulted from the establishment

of the protected area to be a reduction, again pursuant to

section 60 of the

Forest Act. As with the area-based tenures that I referred to a moment ago, this

allows the compensation provisions of

section 60 to be applied towards

determining what, if any, compensation entitlement exists.

[1450]

Bill 39

also contains provisions to ensure that compensation for protected areas is only

paid as justified. In making that calculation, there are several things that are

considered. Any compensation payable to a forest tenure holder is reduced by any

financial benefit that was conferred on the holder because of the creation of

the protected area. In addition, the bill ensures that compensation is not

payable to tenure holders, pursuant to these statutory provisions, who have

already settled a claim with government. There are several examples of that.

Lastly,

Bill 39 contains provisions to ensure that compensation payable for protected

areas is limited to

[ Page 3282 ]

the amount determined under the Forest Act regardless of any court actions

that may be underway, and there are at least a couple that fall into that

category. I guess the final point is that Bill 39 is brought to this House

founded on the principle that the existing compensation provisions of the Forest

Act are the proper vehicle to address compensation for protected areas.

This bill

will ensure that forest tenure holders are fairly compensated and will bring

clarity and consistency to the compensation process for the Crown, for the

forest industry, for forestry tenure holders and for the taxpayers, who at the

end of the day are obligated to make good on whatever those compensation

settlement packages end up arriving at.

The

preferred course, obviously, would have been for the previous administration to

clearly invoke the provisions of

section 60 that were at their disposal at the

time they made these decisions through the latter part of the 1990s. They chose

not to. We don't know why that is, and it is pointless now, I suppose, to

speculate. They chose not to do that.

We are here

today by virtue of Bill 39 to bring clarity, fairness and certainty to the

process by ensuring that those existing provisions of the Forest Act,

section

60, are the methodology, the formula, that is applied towards calculating and

negotiating those compensation claims to the extent they may arise. Those are my

comments at this stage on second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

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

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

Bill 39,

Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I then call second reading on Bill 40.

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 40 be read a second time now.

This bill,

the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, contains a number of amendments —

some of them of a technical nature, some of them of a housekeeping or clerical

nature and one dealing specifically with the small business program that I will

make some comment upon. It's the type of bill that probably lends itself to

scrutiny at committee stage, given the nature of its composition.

The

amendments relating to the small business program will specifically allow timber

harvested under the program to be certified. In addition to that, we'll

establish a framework for the extension and surrender of small business

agreements. The certification provisions of this are, I think, important.

The world

has changed, and in British Columbia we are acutely aware of the need to ensure

that our product — really the best product in the world harvested by the most

talented foresters, harvesters and processors in the world — is viewed as

emanating from a process that in every way maintains the highest possible

environmental standards.

[1455]

There are

people in this House who are well acquainted with the strides that have been

made in British Columbia in achieving and moving along the path of third-party

certification. There are a number of different systems available, whether

they're international, such as ISO, or CSA, FSC. A number of these processes

exist, and what our licensees, processors, harvesters are understanding is that

in addition to their other interest in preserving the highest possible

environmental standards, there is a sound business case to be made for being

able to say to our markets around the world that we have the benefit of that

third-party certification.

If I can,

just for a moment, talk about those provisions. The amendments in this bill will

enable environmental certification standards to be included in small business

licences. Certification, as I just mentioned, does involve an independent agency

verifying that the agency, harvester and licensee standards for forest

management have been met. Enabling forest management practices to be certified

by an independent agency is clearly something that is of growing importance.

I think the

question we need to focus on with respect to this bill is its benefits to small

business and smaller licensees within the province. It will allow them to

respond to the increased demand for certified timber and wood products. That

demand may be for their own products, but the reality is that many small

businesses and small licensees in British Columbia sell to major licensees. It

may be, in part, that if they wish to continue supplying those major licensees,

they need to be in a position to demonstrate that they are complying with the

certification standards that their customer, the larger licensee, has already

adopted.

I should

say, as well, that this amendment is entirely consistent with and, in fact,

motivated largely by the government's new-era commitment to ensure that we are

not only practising sound forest and environmental management practices but that

we are telling the world and ensuring that the world is aware of that fact as

well.

The last

thing I want to say about the certification provisions is that there is a

recognition — and I think this point needs to be made — that the cost

associated with independently achieving certification through some of these

international agencies or even North American agencies can be prohibitive,

particularly for a smaller licensee. What we are saying by virtue of this bill

is that we, as the Crown, want to be in a position to add a condition to a small

business licence that says: "You will conduct yourself in accordance with

these

[ Page 3283 ]

standards." That will allow us to achieve certification for the timber

that falls within the ambit of the small business program, sparing that small

business person the cost associated with the administration and the paperwork

that is part and parcel of receiving certification but giving them the benefit,

as long as they maintain the standard. That's key. As long as they conduct their

operations in a manner that is consistent with that third-party certifying

agency, they will enjoy the benefits that accrue on the marketing side of the

equation.

[1500]

This forest

statutes amendment bill also contains amendments that will set out a framework

for the extension and surrender of small business licences. The amendments are

designed to ensure that bidders for small business licences are aware of their

options and obligations in advance, should they be successful in their bid. The

amendments relating to extension will allow a small business licensee to extend

the term of their licence, provided they meet specified requirements such as the

prepayment of stumpage. The intent of this

section of the bill is to give

licensees some flexibility over the harvest schedule, while at the same time

encouraging licensees to harvest timber during the term of their licence.

The

amendments that relate to the surrendering of a licence will allow small

business holders to more readily surrender the agreement before it expires if,

again, they meet certain specified requirements, which in most cases will

involve paying a portion of their security deposit to the government. The

importance of this — and that is specifically in allowing an agreement holder

to surrender their agreement instead of holding it and not harvesting — is to

provide the ministry and the Crown with the opportunity…

[Interruption.]

Hon. M.

de Jong: …quite frankly, to hear the angels. [Laughter.]

It will

provide us with an opportunity to resell the timber and get it out into the

marketplace to someone who can use it, wants to harvest it and therefore will be

employing people and deriving collectively the benefits that are associated with

that activity. It is, in short, to give others an opportunity where the original

licensee decides that they are not in a position or no longer wish to proceed.

The

extension and surrender amendments will not become effective until regulations

are developed to support the changes. We're going to consult with forestry

representatives in the development of those regulations.

The small

business amendments in Bill 40 will enable small business licensees to respond

to market demands and will provide the consistency, certainty and transparency

for licensees and the government around the administration of the program.

IRENE CHANIN'S POSITION WITH BCBC

Mr.

Speaker: The Premier seeks the floor.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I just want to clarify a response I gave in question period today

to a question from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. She asked if at any time

the government paid Ms. Chanin a deputy minister's salary to sit at home. I

answered no. I want to clarify that response.

On my

return to my office, my deputy minister informed me that he did instruct her to

go home and to take some time off during this period of transition, and she did

that.

Debate Continued

Hon. M.

de Jong: Continuing, then, with Bill 40, these are the more technical and

housekeeping amendments. One of the technical amendments reconciles the accepted

practice of administering Forest Act agreement harvest levels with the

provisions of the act. The Forest Act requires licensees to harvest a minimum

amount of their allowable cut during a five-year cut-control period. In certain

circumstances licensees are allowed to carry forward unharvested volumes of

timber from one cut-control period to the next. However, we have discovered that

the method by which carry-forward has been administered differs in different

parts of the province. While differing means of administration were accepted by

both the government and the licensees, we want to ensure that there is a

standard means of doing it and consistency across the board. The amendment

validates the records of the ministry in respect to carry-forward. And it

provides a definitive starting point for future administration, while respecting

the past understanding that existed between the ministry and licensees.

Another

technical amendment contained in this bill ensures that holders of Forest Act

agreements can still access Crown land after their agreements expire in cases

where they need to do so in order to carry out outstanding obligations. This

amendment provides certainty for agreement holders and ensures operations under

these agreements are in full compliance with all regulatory requirements.

[1505]

Then, in

terms of a couple of the other provisions, I'll mention two of them. One of

these amendments is to the Forest Practices Code to clarify the circumstances

under which a licensee may be exempted from the requirement to obtain government

approval of a road layout and design. A road layout and design shows the

location of the road and includes drawings of culverts and bridges. Licensees

are not required to submit them for approval in areas of low risk. However, they

are still expected to prepare them. Unfortunately, the requirement to prepare a

design was lost when the exemption provisions were moved from the regulations to

the act. The amendment restores the requirement for licensees to prepare the

layout and design.

[ Page 3284 ]

At the same

time we're taking the opportunity to match the exemption criteria for woodlot

licence holders more closely to the forest practice requirements that are

applicable to these licensees. This will make it easier for woodlot licence

holders to qualify for an exemption where, again, it is appropriate for them.

The last

amendment I'll speak about is one which is a result of the creation of the new

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. One of the functions of the new

ministry is in respect of inventories. As a result, we are repealing the

provisions of the Forest Act which require the chief forester to maintain an

inventory of forest lands.

Those are

my comments at this stage with respect to second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

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

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

Bill 40,

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call Bill 41.

FOREST (FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. M.

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

Let me make

these general observations, Mr. Speaker. One of the commitments the new

government made in the lead-up to the last election, and certainly since that

election, was our desire to ensure that opportunities for first nations were

fully taken advantage of — opportunities to ensure that economic development

and the desire first nations have to develop their local economies to the

benefit of their peoples. Where we could identify where obstacles to that

occurring existed, we have committed to dismantle those obstacles and find ways

around those obstacles.

For many

first nations, by virtue of where they live, where their traditional territories

are, perhaps one of the most obvious entries into economic development activity

relates to the forest. One of the things that I have learned very quickly is

that by virtue of how forest-management policy has evolved in British Columbia

— not over years or even the last decade, but over generations, decades —

there are a number of impediments to allowing that to happen.

[1510]

We are

confronted by the sad anomaly of a first nation on the west coast of Vancouver

Island where they very much would enjoy and profit and benefit by being more

fully integrated into the forestry economy. They are surrounded by timber but

have virtually no opportunity to participate. It must be very frustrating.

I say this

recognizing that there is another activity taking place called treaty

negotiations. That, too, is a fundamental priority for government, for the

Premier and for the minister responsible, the Attorney General. It is something

that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is cognizant of. We're all

aware of it, but we're also all aware that it has taken years since the advent

of the treaty negotiation process — a decade with some progress but little

tangible results.

This

government and this Premier have said: "Let us turn our minds not

exclusively to the process of sitting down at a table to negotiate a

comprehensive treaty settlement, but let's actually turn our minds to what we

can do more immediately to improve the lives of first nations." As I say,

for many first nations people that means finding a way to integrate them more

directly into our forest economy.

This bill

actually has two main components. It has provisions that govern how a first

nation can be awarded forest tenures, and it has provisions relating to the

suspension or cancellation of those tenures if the first nation, for whatever

reason, finds it cannot comply with the terms of the agreement which gave rise

to that award of tenure.

I will also

say this parenthetically. When I took this job, one of the comments I heard from

first nations and others involved in the forestry economy was that there was

general recognition and acceptance for the proposition I have just made: first

nations have a legitimate interest and an equal desire to be involved in the

forestry economy, but we haven't adapted our public policies to facilitate that

in an open and transparent way.

We are

confronted time and again by situations where there is at least a suspicion that

when the Forests ministry offers out a timber sale licence, the offering is made

in a way that people believe is deliberately designed to lead to a particular

result. Of course, it's always unspoken; it's rarely explicit. It does nothing

to facilitate a sense of cooperation amongst those people, first nations and

other licensees, who are competing for that wood.

There is a

sense that if we are genuine — and this government is — about our desire to

ensure that first nations are given the opportunity to develop the capacity,

which in many cases already exists, to participate in the forestry economy, then

let's be open about it. Let's actually identify where those opportunities exist

and say to everyone: "We're going to take advantage of that

opportunity." Let's do it openly and be candid about it.

I know a

lot of times governments present legislation, and we ask the people watching and

other members to have some faith that this is what our intention is and this is

why we're doing it. Happily, in this case we can actually point to an example.

In the short life of a new government, we have done this already.

We did it

with respect to a situation on the west coast where last year we passed a bill

— a specific bill, admittedly, that addressed a very specific situation. With

the difficulties associated with ensuring that the

[ Page 3285 ]

agreement-in-principle with the Sliammon could be honoured while at the same

time acknowledging that honouring that agreement was going to have an impact on

another licensee, finding a way to navigate through those waters proved horribly

difficult. It gave rise in part to my belief that the Crown needed an additional

tool if we were going to be serious about getting on with facilitating economic

development on the part of first nations.

[1515]

We will

obviously invite first nations participation. We will invite their application.

Their applications for licences and agreements will be evaluated under an open

and transparent system. It will admittedly be tied to their ability to

demonstrate a sound business case. That will very much be a part of this. In all

cases the licence or agreement must be in support of a treaty-related or

economic measures agreement between the first nation and the government. That

will ensure that tenures awarded under these new provisions are directed, as

well, at supporting our government's commitment as set out in the New Era document

to move ahead with interim measures and to ensure greater certainty as we move

ahead with the broader treaty-negotiating mandate.

Bill 41

also contains provisions which allow forest tenures to be directly awarded to

parties other than first nations to deal with the effects that these parties may

feel from treaties, agreements-in-principle or treaty-related or economic

measures. That speaks directly to the kind of situation I just referred to that

we were confronted with last year on the west coast, where in order to abide by

the terms of a previously negotiated agreement-in-principle, we were confronted

by the reality that a couple of small logging operators were going to have their

rights impacted. We needed a means, and we need a means, to ensure that people

are treated equitably. This represents a tool which will allow for the

government to do that.

The second

component, which I referred to briefly, does aim at ensuring that first nations

honour the treaty-related or economic measures agreement, which forms the basis

for this direct award of timber. The bill allows a provision to be placed in the

directly awarded tenures requiring the first nation to comply with the

treaty-related or economic measures agreement. What follows, of course, is that

there can be a suspension or cancellation of the direct award if the first

nation does not comply with that economic measures or interim measures

agreement.

Those

suspension and cancellation powers are vested in the minister rather than a

ministry official. I hope, and I intend to say to the House, that it is a signal

of the import of that particular power. I am actually confident of the rarity

with which it would have to be utilized.

Bill 41

does support the government's commitment to assist first nations in expanding

their entree into the business world in exploring and exploiting economic

opportunities close to their home and where they live. It is about increasing

economic opportunities and providing stability in first nations communities that

many of us take for granted where we live.

[1520]

I will

offer this anecdotally. In the short time that I've had this job, I have had an

opportunity to visit many first nations communities, whether the Ditidaht on the

west coast of Vancouver island or elsewhere in the province. The pride that

people — any people, first nations or otherwise — take in their homes, in

their community when they're working is a notion that I think everyone in this

House understands. It is not unique to first nations or non–first nations.

It's just that the opportunities for first nations to participate more fully in

the forestry economy have been much more limited. This is not going to solve

that overnight, but it is, I think, a step in the right direction. It provides a

tool that will help us address that problem, and it is why the bill comes to

this House, obviously, with my recommendation and my request for the support of

members.

Hunter: I rise briefly to just speak about this bill, because I have to

confess that when I first saw the title and the words "first nations

development," my mind was cast back ten years or more to an initiative of

the federal government which went under a similar titular head. It was called

the aboriginal fisheries strategy, and its purpose was to provide for economic

development opportunities, amongst other things, for aboriginal people.

I was taken

by the minister's statement that many of our co-citizens, aboriginal people, are

surrounded by trees but provided no opportunity to benefit. I heard those words

ten years ago in the world of fisheries said by federal officials, senior

officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from Ottawa, so I was a

little bit nervous, and the minister knows I was nervous, when I first heard of

this initiative.

It is with

considerable relief and, in fact, gratitude that I read the bill and see that

this bill sets out not the rather perverse approach of the aboriginal fisheries

strategy, which took from Peter to pay Paul, which created penury in formerly

very vibrant aboriginal communities in coastal British Columbia to benefit other

aboriginal people. Rather than do that, this bill sets out clear objectives of

using natural resources which we are entrusted to manage for the people of

British Columbia, our forests, to improve the economic viability of our

co-citizens who are aboriginal people in the clear context of the purpose of

moving forward with treaty negotiations and supporting that very important

objective.

I find, Mr.

Speaker, that being the central purpose of this bill — its transparency; its

attempt to be reasonable, rational, to take a sound and sober approach and leave

the power to make these important allocation decisions in the hands of a

minister accountable to this House and to the people of British Columbia…. I

find that this bill is indeed a long, long way from where, when I first read the

title, I thought it might be leading us.

[ Page 3286 ]

I believe

that this bill, in fact, represents one more step in a number of steps this

government is taking to develop the kind of clarity and certainty that the

forest business needs. It sends signals outside of the forest business community

that we intend to develop relationships with our aboriginal people using our

natural resources in a sensible and transparent way. On that basis, Mr. Speaker,

I am pleased to offer my support for this bill.

Trumper: I would like to add my support for this bill.

I come from

a riding that has a large aboriginal population. Some of it is in the semi-urban

area of the Alberni Valley, but some of them live on the west coast and are

isolated in many ways and have not been able to participate in the growth of

economic development for themselves.

One of the

things I hear all the time from my aboriginal friends is that they want to be

part of the economic diversification and the prosperity that goes with it for

their people. Some of them live in conditions which are not satisfactory and

which I find very disturbing. They have a very high unemployment rate in their

areas, and they want to have the opportunity to participate with their friends

and neighbours in the areas that they live.

[1525]

I have

been, over the years, very involved in treaty negotiations at the local level. I

have also been the community representative on some of the groups, which

included aboriginal and Ministry of Forests and the forest companies, trying to

come to some agreements for them to be able to do forestry in their various

areas. It's been difficult for them to get agreements between the various

parties. I was very privileged to be asked by the aboriginal community to be the

community representative sitting at the table. Those discussions have gone on

over the years. Some of the discussions have been very fruitful and successful.

There have been agreements that have been worked at and agreed to in my area

between some of the companies and the aboriginal nation.

I believe

that Bill 41 will enable them to participate in the industry, will enable them

to be part of the industry that takes place in my area and also right through

British Columbia, but will also enable them to come to some agreements. I have

always said that the treaty is the icing on the cake. We need far more

agreements between aboriginals and other economic ventures to improve their way

of life and their standard of living in their particular areas. This is part of

it.

I want to

commend the Minister of Forests for putting this bill forward. I think it is a

great step forward for all people involved in the industry. I look forward to

seeing some of those results taking place and seeing growth take place in the

aboriginal communities in my area and also right through British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The question is second reading on Bill 41.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41,

Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I'm calling Committee of the Whole to consider Bill

Committee of the Whole House

DEREGULATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:29 p.m.

Sections 1

to 21 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Could the minister please explain the intent behind

section 22?

[1530]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm joined by Mr. Grieve from the ministry.

short, the

section allows for the provision of a pilot or pilots or trial that

will allow for the allocation of timber-cutting rights on the basis of area as

opposed to volume. The member may have more questions about why that is deemed

to be worthy for us to investigate. I'm happy to provide her with that

additional information.

MacPhail: As I understand it,

section 8 of the Forest Act currently

regulates it on the basis of volume. Is that correct?

Hon. M.

de Jong: That is correct.

MacPhail: So this implements a trial program expiring about five years down

the road on regulating AACs based on area of land, as the minister has said,

rather than volume. What does the trial program entail?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The first thing I'd like to tell the member is that what's

contemplated here is a consensual arrangement between licensees and the Crown

where the licensee is actually interested in making the shift that would require

some adjustments to the terms of the licence itself.

[ Page 3287 ]

I'm advised

that there are three TFL holders at the moment who have expressed an interest.

We would define, obviously through negotiations, the area, make the adjustments

to the licensing documents and then proceed on the strength of the defined area

as opposed to the volume. To anticipate where we might go with this exchange,

the notion in

part is that there will be licensees who believe they may be able,

through advanced practices like intensive silviculture, to improve the return on

the land. If their licence is guided purely by volume, there is less incentive,

obviously, for them to make those advancements.

MacPhail: How will the government be monitoring progress on this trial

program?

[1535]

Hon.

M. de Jong: Certainly, all of the other statutory provisions that govern

forest practices continue to apply. The member knows, because she has commented

in the past, that some of those statutes — the Forest Practices Code in

particular — are under review at the moment.

I may have

misunderstood the question, and the member may be speaking to how we judge the

success of the program. If that is the thrust of the questioning, then I think

that over the longer term it will relate, in part, to whether or not the

practices employed will lead to improved harvest volumes. That's obviously

something that takes some time to measure. Is that, in part, the…?

MacPhail: I'm just trying to figure out how the government will judge

whether this should be expanded as a trial program. I'm trying to figure out the

benchmarks of success. Secondly, then, on this, are there any parties interested

in pursuing this?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The answer to the second question is yes, there have been

expressions of interest.

With

respect to the first question, there are measurements as they relate to forest

sustainability. That is something, as the member knows, that the chief forester

verifies on a regular basis and actually makes determinations around annual

allowable cuts. There is an immediate measure.

I also want

the member to know that we are, at the moment, exploring the degree to which

defined area management in certain geographic areas of the province might

represent a more viable and more efficient means by which to manage forests.

That relates to things like we've just talked about.

Annual

allowable cut determinations are obviously a measurement as they relate to

forest practices and performances, and there's a component of requiring

coordination amongst licensees themselves who might be operating in a defined

area. I don't think there's any secret about an interest in many quarters to

examine this with a view to its possible broader application.

Sections 22

to 26 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This repeals sections that provide environmental safeguards by

requiring a designated environmental official to review a forest development

plan that covers an area that includes a community watershed. Particularly,

41(7)(

b) states that the environmental official must approve the portion of land

under question if "the designated environment official is satisfied that

the portion will adequately manage and conserve the forest resources of the area

to which it applies."

[1540]

The way

this will now work, I assume, after the repeal of that

section is that the

district manager will be the only person to approve the forest development

plans. That's how I read it. To the minister: who will ensure that the forest

development plan adequately manages and conserves forest resources now that this

section is being repealed?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't quarrel with the first part of the member's analysis. In

effect, the point I want to make is that all of the rules as set out under the

guiding legislation continue to apply under the present regime. Two government

officials sign off on the plan. Once this amendment has passed, if it does, one

official will sign off on the plan.

The

assessment by both ministries with responsibility under the present regime is

that the duplication served no purpose and that all of the safeguards as they

are set out in the regulatory regime apply and will continue to apply. Instead

of getting two government signatures, the licensee or the applicant will need to

get one.

MacPhail: The two officials that had to sign off before were a forestry

official and an environment official. Let me just create a scenario for the

minister, then, of why I'm curious about this. It is because it's also no secret

that this government is moving toward self-regulation by resource-based

companies, and I'm wondering what stutter steps are in place in a move toward

self-regulation solely with the companies self-regulating.

Who is

there to maintain the environmental initiatives? Who is there to uphold the

environmental principles? Forestry managers are going to be incredibly busy with

their own role in relationship to the industry, and now we have a situation

where it's just the district forest manager signing off on a plan that will

increasingly become subject to a self-regulating industry. Those are my

concerns. Perhaps the minister could address them.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I can, and I appreciate this is the appropriate forum for the

member to put her concerns on the record. Let me try to deal with this in two

stages. The advice from both ministries, compelling in the way it was presented,

was that all of the regulatory safeguards continue to apply. There was no

purpose served in having sign-off by two officials where they were applying

precisely the same set of considerations.

[ Page 3288 ]

Admittedly,

this is a deregulation bill, where the minister of state responsible has

attempted to identify areas where that degree of duplication exists, and we've

candidly dealt with it. This is an example of that. Now, the member speaks to

another issue, and we're going to have ample time to discuss that in the weeks

and months ahead through the discussion around the results-based Forest

Practices Code discussion paper.

My hope is

that we will have legislation that I know will be vigorously debated with this

member, but I think and I know that we can maintain those standards. In fact, in

some cases, we can heighten the standards within the ministry and, with

dedicated enforcement and compliance officers, ensure that those standards are

being applied.

[1545]

I should

say that dedicated compliance and enforcement officers, in a way, haven't

existed heretofore because of the manner in which government has been structured

and the ministry has been structured. We will at last, if and when we get to

restructuring around a results-based code, have people who are dedicated

entirely to the function of ensuring compliance and ensuring that those

standards are met.

That is

admittedly a discussion and a debate for us to have at another time. I think it

will probably be a prolonged debate, because there are many issues and questions

that people have about a pretty significant shift from a prescriptive regulatory

document to one that is built around achieving certain objectives.

MacPhail: My concern here is that the deregulation is taking place where

somehow this government identifies duplication as assuming that the district

forest manager and the environmental official have absolutely common interests.

That's not the case; it's not the case at all. There's a tension between those

officials, and rightly so — rightly so.

Here, under

the guise of duplication, the environmental official's sign-off is being

removed, and it's left up to the district forest manager to sign off. I

understand that the debate is down the road, but this is, under the guise of

deregulation, taking a very concerted, one-sided approach to forest management.

Sections 27

to 29 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move the amendment to

section 30 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[SECTION 30, by deleting the proposed

section 30 and

substituting the following:

Section 143 (3) is amended by striking out "24

(2)" and "72 (2)".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 30

as amended approved.

Sections 31

to 35 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Can the minister explain the necessity to repeal this part that

deals with the Hospital Foundation of British Columbia?

Hon. C.

Hansen: This particular provision for a B.C. Hospital Foundation was put

into the act a number of years ago to take advantage of certain federal tax

advantages that were in place at that time. Since the federal tax rules have

changed, there is no longer a need for this particular provincewide foundation

that was set up as an agent of the Crown of British Columbia, totally distinct

and separate from the various hospital foundations that we have set up as

societies and not-for-profit organizations throughout the province. This is

simply removing the reference to this provincial Crown-owned foundation, as it

is no longer required.

MacPhail: The minister is offering reassurance that this affects in no way

any individual hospital-based foundations.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Yes, that's correct.

Sections 36

to 44 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: I'm just curious as to this one. This is a bill dealing with

deregulation, and this amends the Mineral Tenure Act. It repeals paragraph (

p) and replaces it with (p), (q), (r), (s), (t), (

u) and (v). Just help me here

with how this is deregulation.

[1550]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, I agree. I asked some of the same questions, but it got

placed in this bill. It's there. It actually facilitates the ministry to improve

the ability to manage mineral titles by introducing more regulatory-making

powers. It makes the ability to make more regulations.

MacPhail: Maybe the Minister of State for Deregulation could answer this

question. Tell me how this particular

section contributes to the tally. How many

get added to the plus side, and how many get taken away?

My question

to the Minister of State for Deregulation is: removing one

section and adding

seven — just help me with where the tally stands after we pass this amendment.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Just to clarify. This is actually an enabling section. This would

enable the regulations to be brought forward, which would then, of course, be

included in the tally.

MacPhail: Yup, it enables prescribing, specifying, specifying, respecting,

requiring, prescribing and then

[ Page 3289 ]

any other matter if we haven't covered it in those first ones.

We've got a

tally going here. I think there's a big board somewhere. I think there's a

two-for-one principle that applies to the board. Just help me.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I think the key for the member to understand is that this says they

may prescribe. Until they actually do prescribe, we wouldn't include it in the

tally. That's a very important distinction. We want to make sure that there's

accuracy in the tally. You need to understand the distinction between enabling

and actually prescribing.

MacPhail: Well, then back to the Minister of Energy and Mines: did the

Ministry of Energy and Mines ask for this? If so, what's the intent of use?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, we asked for them.

MacPhail: I guess we'll be expecting the Ministry of Energy and Mines to use

it pretty soon. There are seven different ways in which he can do his business.

Let me count the ways: seven. Does the Minister of Energy and Mines have to get

rid of seven, 21 or 14 different regulations?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Maybe I can help shed some light on this. Actually, the regulations

are in place. The regulations were there under the last administration, but they

were not legally enforceable without these changes.

What we

have done is make the regulations that were in place under the previous

administration now legal through the addition of these.

appreciate that it's not removing a whole bunch of statutes, sections or

whatever. But that's basically what it does. I think that's pretty

straightforward. I appreciate that it's adding some. I guess I'm going to have

to figure out a way to take away some more, and you and I can have another

debate about that at another time.

MacPhail: I appreciate the rescue by the Minister of Energy and Mines. As

always, he's forthright. I was just curious as to a tally. I appreciate his

explanation.

[1555]

Here's why

I'm just curious. We've been here Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I think the

majority of questions at committee have been asked by two people in this

chamber. We try to limit our questions in this chamber. We were looking for

deregulation in the bill, as opposed to re-regulation. That was only my

curiosity, through to the Minister of State for Deregulation. I sure hope I'm

not letting other things slip through that perhaps are re-regulation under this

bill.

Section 45

approved.

section

MacPhail: Could the minister explain the intent of this section, please?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: This is a deregulation much similar to what the Forests minister

explained before. Responsibilities are transferred from the Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection to the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Rather than having

two approving officers, you now have one approving officer with one statute that

covers what happens on the mining site. It's an ability just to have the

responsibility with one person, but with the same responsibilities that would

have been under the act with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

MacPhail: I'm wondering: did the Minister of Energy and Mines consult with

the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection on this change?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes.

MacPhail: I'm curious to know what the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection said, because here's what this

section does. We're repealing the

requirement under the Mines Act for the owner or manager to submit a site

profile if they're applying for a permit or if they're applying for revisions to

conditions of their existing permit. According to the Ministry of Water, Land

and Air Protection website — pretty current, actually — site profiles are

forms that require information about the past and present uses of a site, as

well as basic land descriptions. They require readily available information and

should not require the assistance of a consultant to complete.

The

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection goes on to say, specifically in

relation to the mining industry: "Site profiles are an important new

mechanism for the province to screen potentially contaminated sites." Given

that fairly enthusiastic support by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection, what was the reply when the Minister of Energy and Mines consulted

with her?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, again, I'm going to say that the specific amendment —

I'm going to read this to her — to the Mines Act eliminates the need to submit

a site profile under the Waste Management Act when mining operation has already

been permitted under the Mines Act.

MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware of that, but what we're trying to figure out

— and there are many thousands of people in this province trying to figure out

— is what the commitment is to sustainability in this province and to land use

in a sustainable way.

[1600]

What this

amendment does is say the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, who was

until this amendment an enthusiastic supporter of these site profiles and goes

as far as to say: "Don't worry, companies; you don't need a consultant;

don't do a lot of money…." They've done everything possible to make it as

company-friendly and business-friendly as possible. That's gone now. The

overview, the protective watchdog nature, of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

[ Page 3290 ]

Protection is gone. It's up to the mine owners themselves to tell us all of

these issues.

Perhaps let

me ask this: is this a further step toward industry self-regulation?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The Mines Act has similar if not almost identical requirements on

minesites. That's all we're doing. I know it's a hard concept, but we're trying

to move away from having hundreds of people run around the province when we can

do it more efficiently with less and still retain the high environmental

standards that we have in our mining industry in the province of British

Columbia and have had for a long time.

I'm sure

the member would agree with me that the mining industry is very environmentally

conscious about what goes on, on the land base. They're very careful about what

goes on and have been recognized for that many times over. This is in no way to

treat the environment any differently than we have before. It's a simple

streamlining.

MacPhail: Well, perhaps we're repealing the

section under the Mines Act that

requires this. Were there two sections in the Mines Act that were exactly the

same? Perhaps the minister could point to the

section and read out of the Mines

Act the

section that now does exactly the same thing.

Hon. R.

Neufeld:

Section 10(1), and I'll read it:

"Before

commencement of any work in, on or about a mine, the owner, agent or manager

must apply for and obtain a permit from the chief inspector and must, as

part of this application, file with the district inspector a plan outlining

the details of the proposed work and a program for the protection and

reclamatation of the land and watercourses affected by the mine, including

the information, particulars maps established by the regulations or the

code."

MacPhail: It's the minister's view that that replaces what now is required

as a site profile under this section?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes.

MacPhail: Thank you for that.

My final

question is: where is the requirement that the chief inspector must not approve

an application until that is done — all that is taken into account? That's

what this

section says.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, in

section 10(1) it says: "Before commencement of any

work…a permit must be obtained."

Sections 46

to 55 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to add

56.1 to the bill:

[SECTION 56.1, by adding the following section:56.1

Section 105.91 (4) is amended by adding ", 105.95" after

"105.93".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 56

as amended approved.

Section

56.1 approved.

[1605]

Sections 57

to 68 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This

section dissolves the B.C. Health Research Foundation. Could

the minister explain the recent history of the B.C. Health Research Foundation?

Hon. C.

Hansen: This, like the Hospital Foundation that we were describing earlier,

was set up as an agency of the Crown specifically to take advantage of the

federal tax rules that were in place at the time. Those particular tax

provisions no longer exist, so there's not the advantage there that there was

prior. Now, with the establishment of the Michael Smith Foundation, the

functions that were undertaken by the Health Research Foundation have been moved

over to the new Michael Smith Foundation.

Sections 69

to 75 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:07 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 35,

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, reported complete with

amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. K.

Falcon: With leave of the House, now, hon. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 35,

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 3291 ]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call committee on Bill 37.

Committee of the Whole House

FOOD SAFETY ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 37; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:10 p.m.

Sections 1

to 32 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:10 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 37,

Food Safety Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Can I ask for a short recess? We're just getting the troops down

here, and I will be calling Bill 27.

Mr.

Speaker: We will just take a five-minute recess.

The House

recessed from 4:12 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call committee on Bill 27.

Committee of the Whole House

EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE

FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:15 p.m.

On

section

Hon. M.

Coell: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 1 standing in my name on

the orders of the day: [SECTION 1, in the proposed definition of

"dependent child" by deleting "a child who" and substituting

"a child, other than a child who is 18 years of age and is a person with

disabilities, who".]

the amendment.

J. Kwan:

The amendment makes reference to the definition of a dependent child. It looks

to me like the major change here relates to the age of a person, changing it

from 19 back to 18 to qualify. Is that correct?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, that is correct.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise: is the change of the age from 19 back to 18 a

result of the community advocating for that change?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, that's correct. The community pointed out that there was a

potential gap in service between 19 and 18, so we've changed it to 18.

J. Kwan:

I understand that in the act there are two

definitions, one that relates to a

dependent child and then another one that relates to dependent youth. Could the

minister please explain the differences between these two

definitions?

Hon. M.

Coell: A dependent youth is a person who is 16 to 18 years old, and a

dependent child is under 16.

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry. The minister says the dependent child is someone who is under 16, but

yet the act actually says a dependent child is someone who is 18 years of age

and is a person with a disability. There's a discrepancy with respect to what

the minister just advised the House.

Hon. M.

Coell: Dependent youth is a subset from 16 to 18, and dependent child is 18

and under.

J. Kwan:

From a qualification point of view, how does that differ? Is there any

difference?

Hon. M.

Coell: These are children in a family where the family is on income

assistance, so you have…. Children under 16 are required to be in school, so

they would be covered by the School Act. The subset, 16 to 18, would be children

that we would want to work with to have an employment plan and to work with,

with the employment programs.

[1620]

J. Kwan:

Is the minister saying that a dependent youth means an individual who has

reached the age of 16 and that when a youth has reached the age of 16, they're

expected to engage in an employment plan with the ministry if they're not in

school or even if they are in school?

Hon. M.

Coell: If for some reason they're not in school, then they would be required

to have an employment plan. Now, that employment plan might well say that you

are involved in a school program other than school. It could be a training

program. They

[ Page 3292 ]

would either be part of training programs or be returning to school at that

age.

J. Kwan:

A dependent child, according to the definition of the act with the

amendment, is anyone who is age 18 and under. A dependent youth is anybody who

is 16 and over. There is a two-year period in which there's an overlap —

you're both a dependent youth and a dependent child.

Hon. M.

Coell: The dependent youth is a subset of the zero-to-18 dependent child.

The reason for that is so that someone who had reached the age of 16 would be

covered under the School Act and be required to attend school. From 16 to 18

that would allow for an employment plan to assist a 16-, 17- or 18-year-old in

developing some plans for their future.

J. Kwan:

If an individual is, let's say, 19 or 20 and the individual is still in the

home with the family, is that person then still classified as a dependent youth?

Hon. M.

Coell: At age 19 they would have the right to apply for income assistance on

their own and wouldn't necessarily be part of a family.

J. Kwan:

Yes, but if they don't apply on their own, if they're not living

independently, are they still qualified as a family unit for income assistance?

Or would that person be required to go and work, under the employment plan

definition?

Hon. M.

Coell: There's no change from the legislation now. When someone reaches 19

on B.C. Benefits, they would apply on their own. It's the same in the new act.

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry; I don't think the minister understood my question. I know of

cases where people have not applied on their own. They stayed with the family

unit when they reached the age of 19. In that instance, I'm asking the minister:

would that person be classified under the definition of a dependent youth and

would therefore still be classified as a family unit for the purposes of

collecting income assistance?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the only area where that might happen is if someone was 19

and attending school. They would let you continue to finish the school year even

if you had turned 19, but at the end of your school year you would be able to

and have the right to apply as an individual. The person is now considered an

adult.

[1625]

J. Kwan:

Just for the purposes of discussion, let's just use the age of 20. If the

person is 20 years old and is still attending school, then that person is

eligible to receive income assistance with the family unit under the definition

of dependent youth. Am I correct in assuming that? Let's just start with it

piece by piece.

Hon. M.

Coell: No. In B.C. Benefits legislation that isn't the case, and it wouldn't

be the case in this legislation as well.

J. Kwan:

I know of a case where a person was older than 19 and needed to collect income

assistance, and an individual was behind in their schooling — fair enough.

Because the individual was an immigrant and there was much catching up to do,

she was behind by several grades. By the time she was 20, she was only in grade

11. The ministry did try to cut her off and told her to go get a job at

McDonald's. The matter was appealed, and the case was won. She was allowed to

stay with the family unit, so she was not cut off income assistance as a family

unit. Is the minister now saying that under this act, that is no longer the case

— that the person would indeed be cut off, and she would not be qualified as a

dependent youth for the family unit?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm not familiar with that case, but there is no change from B.C.

Benefits to this act.

J. Kwan:

I'm not asking the minister to be familiar with that case. I'm illustrating,

simply by bringing that case forward, to get clarity in terms of the

definitions

of the eligibility that would apply under this act, what is deemed to be a

dependent youth and what is deemed to be a dependent child. In that instance

that person was qualified to continue to receive income assistance. If there's

no change, then one would assume that if a case like that surfaces today, that

individual would be qualified to receive income assistance with the family unit.

Is the minister saying that that is not the case? I personally know of a case as

such.

Hon. M.

Coell: As I say, I'm not aware of that case. There has been no change

between the BC Benefits Act and this act for eligibility.

J. Kwan:

I just want the minister to advise me. In that scenario, if there's no change

and because I know of a case where someone is qualified and is deemed to be able

to receive income assistance with the family unit…. Can the minister then

advise me: should a person like that come forward today and need to receive

income assistance with the family unit, would that person be qualified, and what

category would this person fit — under what definition?

Hon. M.

Coell: Clarification. Under the current legislation and under the

legislation that's in committee stage, a person could still live with the

family, but they would have income assistance as an individual. They wouldn't

necessarily be part of the family package of income assistance, but they could

still live with the family and collect income assistance over the age of 19.

J. Kwan:

Is the minister then saying that that individual would be eligible for income

assistance in the full amount? Or what portion of the income assistance

[ Page 3293 ]

would this individual be qualified to receive? Is it the shelter and the

support portion?

[1630]

Hon. M.

Coell: It would depend on the circumstances, and I don't have enough

information to be able to tell you exactly what level of income assistance that

individual would be entitled to while living with a family unit.

J. Kwan:

What kind of special circumstances would the minister consider? Under the

current act before any changes, if an individual is qualified for income

assistance and is living with a family unit…. As I mentioned, I know of a case

where a person is over the age of 19 and is qualified for income assistance as a

family unit, so the rate which the individual is getting within the family unit

is how many people there are, and then they get the rate accordingly.

The

minister is saying that perhaps varies in different circumstances. Under what

circumstances would it prompt a different rate for this individual? I'm unclear.

Maybe the minister could advise under what definition a person would be

qualified and then qualified for what.

Hon. M.

Coell: I really don't have enough information on this case, but the

guidelines are the same in B.C. Benefits as they are in this act.

J. Kwan:

Then let me ask this question of the minister. It's unclear to me in the

definitions of this act, and perhaps it's because the regulations are not ready.

The minister does not have the regulations with him, so he's unclear as to who

is qualified for what under what definition. Let me ask the minister this

question.

The

minister has said that if you're 19 and over and you're still living with a

family unit, then you're qualified to receive income assistance on your own.

Let's just say there's an individual who is 20 years old and still living with a

family unit. The family unit is not qualified for income assistance. Is this

individual then qualified for income assistance on his or her own?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll do the best I can for the member. If they're 20 years old and

living with a family unit that isn't on income assistance, as I heard the member

say, if they meet the income and asset test personally, they can apply and

receive income assistance.

J. Kwan:

Then, in that instance, would the person be eligible to receive income

assistance both for the shelter portion and for the support portion?

Hon. M.

Coell: A single employable would receive the $185 support and then up to

$325 shelter, based on actual costs, if they were paying rent to their parents

and had a cheque or a receipt. That's no different than it would be today.

J. Kwan:

If the family unit is qualified for income assistance and you have an individual

who is 20 years or older who is also qualified for income assistance, then would

that be deemed to be two separate family units that are eligible for income

assistance?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, that's correct.

[1635]

J. Kwan:

They would be processed separately as two separate family units. That is to say,

both family units would be entitled to the shelter portion as well as the

support portion separately.

Hon. M.

Coell: It's the same as in B.C. Benefits. The shelter costs would be shared

pro rata, depending on the size of the family as well.

J. Kwan:

Alternatively, the family unit could pool their resources. Let's just assume for

the purposes of discussion that each family unit is entitled to $325 for their

shelter portion. If their rent is $650, they could rent a place for $650 and

each pay $325?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, that's correct.

J. Kwan:

The minister advised that the changing of the definition of a dependent child

from 19 to 18 — the amendment we're debating right now — was a result of

advocacy groups lobbying for the government to make that change. Could the

minister please advise who he consulted with that yielded the change?

Hon. M.

Coell: The main groups were the Canadian Mental Health Association, the B.C.

Association for Community Living and the B.C. Coalition of People with

Disabilities.

J. Kwan:

Under the dependent child definition, if a person who has a child with a

disability…. When that child turns three, is it expected that the parent or

parents look for work?

Hon. M.

Coell: Just to clarify. That question would probably be under Bill 26. The

answer is that the person would not be required to seek work. They would be

exempt.

J. Kwan:

I could be incorrect, and I would appreciate clarification from the minister. I

believe this fits under Bill 27, unless the minister is advising me that if a

family unit — let's assume it's a single parent — has a child under the age

of 18 who has a disability and the family unit is in need of income assistance,

the family unit goes to apply, that family unit, I would assume, because the

child has a disability and is under the age of 18, would qualify for income

assistance under this act. Or is the minister advising that is not the case, and

that family unit would only be eligible for income assistance under Bill 26?

Hon. M.

Coell: Again, there's no change between the BC Benefits Acts and the act in

committee stage.

[ Page 3294 ]

The parent

is not a person with a disability in both acts. It's because the dependent is

under 18 that Bill 26 would be the bill that the person would apply under.

[1640]

J. Kwan:

The minister keeps on saying that there's no change between this bill and Bill

26. I just want to point out there are substantive changes between this bill and

the former BC Benefits Act. The BC Benefits Act did not threaten to cut people

off income assistance after they've been on income assistance for two years. It

did not cut people's rates for different family units in terms of different

sizes and so on. There's substantive difference in that. I would appreciate it

if the minister didn't portray it as though these changes are essentially the

same, because they're not. There is substantive difference here relative to the

application of assistance to British Columbians.

The

minister is saying that for people who have a child with a disability, if the

parent does not have a disability, they would not be able to get income

assistance under Bill 27. The child who has a disability would not be able to

get assistance under the definition of "dependent child."

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, the same as it is currently.

J. Kwan:

Then what is the purpose of the "dependent child" definition? The

adult who doesn't have a disability but has a child who has a disability under

the definition of "dependent child" in this act is not qualified to

receive the disability rate. So what's the purpose of having a dependent child

with a disability in the definition of Bill 27?

Hon. M.

Coell: Maybe just a clarification on the amendment. The amendment works,

actually, the opposite way that the member is looking at. We're moving from 19,

and the amendment is 18. So a person can apply on their own, if they have a

disability, at 18 rather than 19.

J. Kwan:

If a person is able to apply for income assistance under Bill 27 — when that

person is independent of age, that is to say — then the only criterion that

would be required is an age limitation — but not to say that is an age

limitation, as well, in a person with disabilities. One would assume that when

you're eligible to apply under Bill 27 for disabilities on your own, you're a

person with disabilities already. There's got to be a reason why there's a

definition for "dependent child" and for defining the age of what is

deemed to be a child and then also to say that you must be a person with

disabilities. This whole act, for anybody who's qualified, already applies to a

person who has disabilities.

[1645]

Hon. M.

Coell: Clarification: the dependent child is 18 in this act and 18 in BC

Benefits. It allows them to apply on their own and, if approved, to have the

benefits that they're eligible for. The amendment is moving that to 18 so that

there isn't a service gap between 18 and 19.

J. Kwan:

That's not what I'm asking. I understand the age change, and I agree with the

age change. That was part of the lobbying of the broader community, which I

support — for them to reduce the age to 18 from 19, which it formerly was.

The

question I have for the minister is this. This definition of a dependent child

doesn't just address the issue around the age. It also stipulates that that

child is a person who is 18 years of age and has a disability or disabilities.

I'm asking why the minister has that phrase in this definition if it makes no

difference to the rate at which the family is entitled to support.

One would

have assumed that if you were an individual, an adult, who is caring for a child

who under this definition is someone who is 18 years or younger and has a

disability, it would entitle that family to a different rate of qualification.

That's why I would have assumed that in the phrase which says it's a person,

that "and is a person with disabilities" is included in it. If that

serves no purpose whatsoever because the evaluation for eligibility is based on

the adult, and if the adult doesn't have a disability, then that person doesn't

even fall under the application for income assistance under 27. That person has

to go to 26.

The fact

that this act says a dependent child is a person "who is 18 years of age

and is a person with disabilities" leads one to think there is a special

reason why it is written in such a way — that it is identified as a person

with disabilities. One would assume, then, that a child who is 18 years of age

or under and with a disability would entitle that family unit to qualify under

Bill 27, but the minister is saying that is not the case. I am confused as to

why and what the purpose of this is.

The

minister had also said that once the person reaches the age of 18, that person

is entitled to receive benefits on his or her own. If it is a person with

disabilities, then that person would be applying under Bill 27 on their own. If

they can identify the disabilities, they then qualify for the disabilities rate.

There is no need, then, for the highlighting of the phrase that says "and

is a person with disabilities."

I'm not

understanding why that phrase is there. What purpose does it serve? Maybe the

regulations will tell us something. We don't have a copy of them, so I'd like

the minister to please explain that.

[1650]

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll try and explain. If they're 18 and have a disability, they can

apply on their own under Bill 27. If they're 18 and don't have a disability,

they would still be a dependent child.

J. Kwan:

I know that. If they're 18 with a disability, they apply for it on their own, as

though they were an individual. They're not defined as a dependent child. But if

you were 18 without a disability, you're still a dependent child, and if your

parent has a disability,

[ Page 3295 ]

you're still a dependent child. But if your parent was not a person with a

disability, then you apply under 26. So what difference does it make if you are

a dependent child, under Bill 27, if you have a disability or not? It makes no

difference whatsoever. Am I right?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm having difficulty understanding the question, and I apologize for

that. Could you repeat it for me, please?

J. Kwan:

Let me just go through the scenario again for the minister.

We're

talking about Bill 27. Under Bill 27 there's an amendment that the minister has

tabled. The definition for a dependent child is "a child, other than a

child who is 18 years of age and is a person with disabilities." It goes on

to describe the associated clause with that. The main piece here is that this

child is 18 years of age and is a person with disabilities.

Now, if you

have a situation where an adult has legal guardianship or custody or is the

parent of the child and has a disability, then that adult is able to apply for

income assistance under Bill 27 and is entitled to receive the higher rate, the

continuous definition for disability — for two people. So, it's just the adult

and the child, 18 years of age. Irrespective of whether that child has a

disability or not, the rate is the same that this family is entitled to receive

under the act. If the adult is a person who does not have a disability,

irrespective of whether that child is 18 years of age or has disability or

otherwise, that family unit is only entitled to receive income assistance under

Bill 26.

That's what

the minister told me: under Bill 26. Maybe I'm wrong on this. I'm just going to

pause here for a moment and let the minister respond to see whether I'm right so

far.

[1655]

Hon. M.

Coell: The question was: if someone has a child with disabilities and

they're on income assistance through Bill 26, what happens when that child with

disabilities hits 18? The child would then apply under Bill 27. So the parent

may still be receiving income assistance under Bill 26; the child at 18 would be

receiving income assistance under Bill 27.

J. Kwan:

That's not my question at all. Here's my question. In this act the minister has

brought forward an amendment to define a dependent child. In that definition

there are two pieces associated with it. One is an age requirement — 18 years

of age or younger. That qualifies the person to be a dependent child, and that

child is also a person with disabilities. So there are two aspects to a

dependent child under Bill 27.

If you were

a family unit…. Let's just assume for a moment that this is a single-parenting

family unit with two people, the child and the adult. If the adult is a person

without disabilities, then that person, even if the child has a disability per

the dependent child definition under this act, that family unit is only able to

apply for income assistance under Bill 26. That's what the minister told me.

If that

adult is a person who has disabilities and is also with a child with a

disability or a child without disabilities, that family unit is entitled to

receive income assistance under Bill 27 — the continuous category. So my

question to the minister is this: what is the purpose of highlighting the

dependent child on two aspects — not only the age aspect but, more

particularly, on the aspect of the person with a disability? What purpose does

that serve?

The fact

that it is here — it's not and/or; it says that a dependent child is a person

who is 18 years of age and is a person with a disability — leads me to think

there is a reason why that phrase about a person with disabilities is there.

What is the intent behind that phrase?

One would

assume that it allows for the family to receive continuous assistance for the

family unit. Maybe the minister can clarify that. I don't understand. If this

serves no purpose at all, why is it here? The fact that it is here with a

distinction under the amendment, then it has to serve a purpose of something.

What is that purpose?

Hon. M.

Coell: Let me just try this for clarification. The term "dependent

child" with respect to a parent means a child, and then we have other than

a child — the key word is "other" — who is 18 years of age and is

a person with disabilities. It goes on to say "who resides in the parent's

place of residence for more than 50 percent of the time of each month."

[1700]

J. Kwan:

So the minister is saying it serves no purpose whatsoever. It serves no purpose

whatsoever, then, if you're a child who is 18 years of age and with a

disability. In any event, if you're an adult who has qualified for income

assistance and you don't have a disability, even though your child has a

disability, you have to apply under Bill 26. So it serves no purpose at all.

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll try this for clarification. The intent is that if a child with

disabilities reaches 18, they can now apply for Bill 27 and receive a higher

rate of assistance.

J. Kwan:

When a person with a disability becomes an adult and is qualified to receive

income assistance, they apply on their own. That person is not a dependent child

anymore; that person is an individual on their own. One already knows that,

without the definition of a dependent child. You already know that is the case,

so the person is able to apply on their own as long as they are able to

establish that they have a disability. That applies to everyone.

It still

eludes me why there's a distinction in the act where the minister identifies

that a dependent child is a child who is 18 years of age and is a person with

disabilities. Maybe there's a rate difference, but it appears

[ Page 3296 ]

that there isn't a rate difference. That's what the minister is advising —

that there is no rate difference.

Maybe the

minister can advise me, then: if you were an adult without disabilities who has

a child under the age of 18 with a disability, what is the rate for that family

unit under this act? Maybe the minister can advise me of that.

Hon. M.

Coell: It would be the basic income assistance rate.

J. Kwan:

Well, then, it strikes me that there is no purpose in the phrase that says

"a person with disabilities." It just seems to me that if you're a

person who is 18 or above, you are determined to be an adult and are able to

apply on your own for income assistance for a person with disabilities. Then

you're not a dependent child, so it doesn't make any sense to me.

appreciate the fact that the age limitation has changed from 19 to 18, because

that is the right thing to do. It's something that both my colleague and I have

been lobbying the minister to do — to reverse the age from 19 to 18. I'm glad

that the minister is listening to the community on this issue. I hope that as we

go through the course of the bill, there will be other changes within it that

would demonstrate that the minister had actually listened to the advocate

community in British Columbia.

Amendment

approved.

section

1 as amended.

[H. Long in the chair.]

J. Kwan:

In the definition

section there are two pieces that I would like to get

clarification on from the minister. They relate to the family unit or the spouse

part of the definition for the purposes of qualification and eligibility.

Oftentimes

people face the challenge where there are two individuals formerly together as a

couple but who have split up, and for the purpose of reducing living expenses

the two individuals may choose to live under the same roof but as separate

family units, if you will — two separate individuals. People often face

difficulties in trying to qualify for income assistance as two separate

individuals because they were formerly partners.

[1705]

In the

definitions of "family unit" or "spouse," could the minister

please advise what is required for individuals to show they're separate units?

When these two individuals might have once been together as a couple but are now

separate, what is the onus of proof required from the ministry for them to show

that to the ministry — even if they share accommodations?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the simple answer is that they need to show they're not

sharing income or assets. That, I suspect, would be simple enough to do.

J. Kwan:

If both of their incomes come from the ministry, provided the ministry approves

and recognizes that they are separate entities, then they're able to establish

that. That's sort of like putting the cart before the horse. If you're applying

so that you can show that your incomes are separate, because you have no other

source of income, it's very difficult for people to do that.

On the

question around assets, in terms of sharing assets, in most instances people who

are applying for income assistance, as the minister knows, have very few assets.

The few assets they might share as they're living in the same house or the same

apartment or the same unit might be a couch or a TV, but they're not sharing

anything else. Is that enough for the minister in terms of the onus of proof?

Hon. M.

Coell: There are many instances now, and there will be in the future, where

people do share accommodation. The factors — just a few, and there would be

more. I could elaborate on more of them, but separate bank accounts would be

one. It's not a marriage-like relationship. They're not a couple. I know of

cases where they're roommates. Whatever their relationship was prior to that,

they would be judged on what the relationship is today.

J. Kwan:

So then, as an example, a separate bank account would suffice as the onus of

proof to show they're not a couple.

I suppose

the question around whether or not they're living like a couple centres around

whether or not they sleep in the same bed, as an example. Often that information

is the word of the individuals who are applying. It's very difficult for people

to prove that. I don't know how people go about proving that.

[1710]

Sometimes

even in roommate situations — and I know of roommates who do this for the

purposes of economizing, as an example — they share a grocery bill. They buy

bulk foods together, and then they share the food, not because they're living

together as a couple but because they're living as roommates and they're just

trying to share and reduce expenses. In that instance, some of those expenses

are even shared.

Again,

they're not necessarily in a couple relationship. I just want to be clear. From

the minister: how does one go about proving this? I know of people often having

a lot of difficulties on the question around onus of proof. Particularly, they

would need the assistance of an advocate to go and justify their case. Given

that legal aid is now no longer going to be doing poverty law, advocacy and the

support of advocates is going to be severely diminished in the broader

community.

I want to

be clear for people, so they understand what the onus of proof is. More

particularly, I want the social workers to understand that distinction, so I'd

like the minister to put that on record to make it as easy for people to qualify

as two individuals sharing accommodations as for two separate units, even though

formerly they were a couple.

[ Page 3297 ]

Hon. M.

Coell: This is actually in the B.C. Benefits regulations now, and we're

putting it into the legislation for clarity. There won't be a change in

procedures.

J. Kwan:

Am I right, then, in understanding from the minister that a separate bank

account would be sufficient proof that these two individuals, who might once

have been a couple, no longer are? Is that sufficient?

Again, I

want to go back to this. The minister keeps on saying that there isn't any

change, or sufficient change, from the BC Benefits Act. The fact of the matter

is that Bills 26 and 27 revamp the entire approach to income assistance. People

are going to apply it with a different point of view and a different approach. I

want to be very clear so that people's rights are not diminished as a result.

This is a

big question that I know surfaces all the time, even under the BC Benefits Act,

no doubt. Now with this change, with Bills 26 and 27, I worry that it is going

to be even more difficult for people to qualify for income assistance and the

rights they would be entitled to under these bills.

Hon. M.

Coell: Briefly, as I said, I don't believe there will be a change. A

separate bank account is one of the factors that the ministry looks at now if

it's not a marriage-like relationship — they're not a couple. We look at

parenting considerations. The financial aid workers would look at all those

considerations. I don't believe their rights would be diminished by this exam at

all.

J. Kwan:

Again, in the list that the minister read out, the solid piece, if you will,

that one could identify and show and bring to the worker to identify that

they're not a couple would be the bank account issue, but not some of the other

pieces. It's the word of the individual. I would assume, then, that the word of

the individual is sufficient for the workers to process these applications.

Can I ask

the minister this question? Oftentimes for people, when they share

accommodations as roommates, they get one rent receipt. Oftentimes people just

get one rent receipt and not two. If they don't have two rent receipts, would

that be a barrier for people to qualify for income assistance separately, even

though they were formerly a couple?

Hon. M.

Coell: No, it wouldn't.

J. Kwan:

I'll ask the minister the questions around the employment plan. Could the

minister please advise what kind of employment plan people with disabilities

would be expected to produce?

[1715]

Hon. M.

Coell: With regard to employment plans, I would think people with a

disability designation and on continuous assistance…. There would be few

people who would have employment plans, and they would be tailored to their

needs and worked in conjunction with the strategy for employment for people with

disabilities as well.

J. Kwan:

Is the minister saying that not every person who is entitled to receive income

assistance under Bill 27 is required to produce an employment plan?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, it's discretionary and designed for those people who are able to

work, even if they're only able to work part-time or on a cyclical nature.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise how many letters he sent out advising people on

disabilities that there are changes coming and that they're expected to look for

work?

Hon. M.

Coell: We haven't sent any seek-work letters to people with disabilities at

this point.

J. Kwan:

Well, I know of people who have received letters from the minister advising them

that they have to go out and look for work, which is why there is so much

anxiety in the broader community. The minister is saying he didn't send one

letter out? Maybe it's not under the minister's signature; maybe it's under a

ministry staff signature.

Hon. M.

Coell: To our recollection, we haven't sent letters to people with

disability designation, and I don't believe staff have either.

J. Kwan:

Well, to my recollection, I know of people who have received letters from the

ministry, but I'll take the minister's word for it. He's saying that he didn't.

Well, then how will one be able to distinguish who is required to do an

employment plan and who is not required to do an employment plan?

Hon. M.

Coell: There would be an