British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, April 9, 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session) (H0409pm-02) (H0409pm 02)

H0409pm-02

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 9, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 6, Number 2 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 9, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 2667 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 2668 Pets in Rental Housing Act (Bill M202) J. Kwan Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act (Bill M203) J.

Kwan Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 2668 Holocaust remembrance V. Anderson Ethanol industry in B.C. B. Lekstrom Esquimalt Neighbourhood House A. Hamilton Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 2670 Funding for inner-city schools J. Kwan Hon. G. Hogg Effectiveness of referendum on treaty negotiations J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Abbott Mental health plan funding I. Chong Hon. G. Cheema Mountain pine beetle action plan P. Bell Hon. M. de Jong Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 2672 W. Cobb J. Kwan Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 2672 Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 22) Hon. S. Hagen J.

MacPhail Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 25) Hon. J. Reid J. MacPhail Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 24) Hon. R. Coleman J. MacPhail Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 2683 Gaming Control Act (Bill 6) Hon. R. Coleman J. MacPhail M. Hunter L. Mayencourt

Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 2688 Gaming Control Act (Bill 6) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 2688 Gaming Control Act (Bill 6) Hon. R.

Coleman Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 2689 Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 18) Hon. C. Hansen Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 19) Hon. S. Hawkins J.

MacPhail Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 2692 Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G. Hogg Hon. L. Reid

2667 TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Collins: I hope the House will bear with me for a moment. I have a number of introductions on behalf of the government and then a comment I'd like to make today as well. [1405] It gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. Tan Kee Yong, chief executive of the Singapore Land Authority, and his delegation. They're visiting British Columbia to gain insight into our experiences and legal approaches to land titles, strata property and land use.

They're meeting with officials from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the Ministry of Transportation. Would the House please make them most welcome. As well, I have the honour to introduce to the House the Rt. Hon. Lord George Penrose and Lady Penrose. Lord Penrose is visiting us from Scotland, where he sits as a member of the High Court and is currently heading a British government inquiry into the near-collapse of the British life assurer Equitable Life.

Lord and Lady Penrose are in British Columbia to celebrate the birth of their grandson, Scott George Brown, who was born to their daughter Susan Brown and her husband, Mark, in Vancouver. I hope the House would also make them very welcome. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct pleasure to introduce a number of veterans with us today in the gallery: Jack Cockrell, a World War II veteran; Russ Murphy, who served in Korea; Charlie Watkins, World War II; Alan Wardell, World War II; Gordie Quan, who served in Burma and India and was a World War II demolitions expert; Ms.

Nita Walsh, World War II, served in England; Boots Gree — I doubt his parents named him that — who served in the navy in World War II; Bob Burrows, a World War II veteran; Vic Mumford, Korea; and Denis Young, a World War II veteran as well. I want to introduce them and welcome them here today, because today is a special day in Canadian his- tory. Today is the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. I have a few comments I'd like to make on behalf of the government as well. Mr.

Speaker, 85 years ago today a force of 100,000 Canadian troops set out under a creeping barrage of artillery through a no man's land of barbed wire, cra- ters and death at a place called Vimy Ridge. They faced down their fears, and by stepping onto the battlefield, they stepped onto the pages of history. The Canadians defeated an entrenched German enemy that had be- lieved the ridge was impregnable. The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a pivotal turning point in World War I and turned the momentum in favour of the allies. For Canada it was much more than a battlefield victory.

The world learned that Canadians were a cohesive, courageous and determined people, capable of great innovation, unencumbered by class distinction, and ready and able to take their place among nations. The great innovator at Vimy Ridge was Major Gen- eral Arthur Currie. In the words of one historian, he was "plucked from obscurity by the onrush of history." Prior to the war, Currie was a struggling real estate and insurance broker from right here in Victoria. He rose in rank and prominence based on his merits and for his uncompromising stance to neglect nothing in the preparation for battle.

He went on to lead the entire Canadian corps. Currie was joined by 8,000 other British Columbia troops at Vimy Ridge. Their presence was bolstered by the battlefield presence of non-combatant personnel such as nurses, doctors and chaplains.

Battalions repre- senting British Columbia include the 7th and 16th Bat- talions of the Canadian Scottish; the 47th Battalion and the 29th Battalion, known as Tobin's Tigers, from Van- couver; the 54th Battalion from the Kootenays; the 72nd Battalion, the Seaforth Highlanders, from Van- couver; and the 102nd Battalion, known as Warden's Warriors, from northern British Columbia. Many of these men returned home to a dynamic emerging nation across the Atlantic from war-torn Europe. And many stayed behind, their names etched in limestone at the base of Canada's great monument at Vimy Ridge.

I thank the veterans in the gallery for joining us today to honour this occasion, and I would ask all hon. members to take a moment sometime today to remem- ber the Canadians who fought on our behalf at Vimy Ridge 85 years ago. [1410] Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two special visitors from Richmond: Leonard and Joyce Lewis. Leonard and Joyce have b e e n i n C a n a d a f o r n i n e y e a r s n o w . T h i s i s t h e i r f i r s t visit to Victoria and their first visit to the Legislature. Will the House please make them welcome. V.

Anderson: I ask the House to join me in welcom- ing Susan Bluman. She is the grandmother of Mike, our LA, whom most of you know. She's here today as a part of our Holocaust remembrance. Susan Bluman is a survivor. Along with her are two other survivors, Sidi Schaeffer and David Schaeffer. Accompanying these folks are Leona Beutel, Josh Beutel, Robert Goldschmid and Richard Kool. Will the House please make them welcome. R. Lee: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Dr. George Bluman in the gallery today. Dr. Bluman is the head of the department of mathematics at the Univer- sity of British Columbia.

He was my thesis supervisor and m y p ro f e s s o r at U B C . He i s al s o t he u nc l e o f o u r legislative assistant, Mike Schroeder, and the son of Mrs. Susan Bluman, who was just introduced by my

2668 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 colleague from Vancouver-Langara. Would the House please make him welcome. A. Hamilton: I t ' s m y p l e a s u r e t o i n t r o d u c e J u l i e , who sits up in the balcony. Julie is the executive direc- tor of the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House. Would the House please make her welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills PETS IN RENTAL HOUSING ACT J. Kwan presented a bill intituled Pets in Rental Housing Act. J. Kwan: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. J.

Kwan: People live healthier and happier lives with pets. Studies have proven that seniors live longer and fuller lives with pets. This bill acknowledges that currently pet owners in British Columbia are discrimi- nated against in their search for rental housing. It pro- vides B.C. renters the opportunity to have pets in rental premises within reasonable limits. The bill allows land- lords to remove pets if the animal is noisy, aggressive, destructive or flea-ridden. Landlords also do not have to admit dangerous dogs, such as pit bulls or bull terri- ers.

However, it should also mean that responsible pet owners are not judged guilty and denied housing be- fore they have the opportunity to prove otherwise. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT REMUNERATION ALLOWANCES AND PERQUISITES ACT J. Kwan presented a bill intituled Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perqui- sites Act. J.

Kwan: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. J. Kwan: This act will bring a greater degree of ac- countability and openness to the process that deter- mines what we pay those government employees who serve at the pleasure of the executive council. Too often politicians seek to justify only after the fact what they have done behind closed doors. Too often, when it comes to personnel matters, the public and indeed the rank and file of the public service are the last to know how salaries and benefits of the most senior members of the public service are determined.

This bill will open that process up to a tripartite committee that will in- clude a member of the public to ensure that British Columbians are confident in the job that senior manag- ers are doing and that they're being paid adequately and appropriately for their performance. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1415] Statements (Standing Order 25

B) HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE V. Anderson: Today we participate in the annual legislative recognition of Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom ha-Shoah. Yom ha-Shoah is recognized interna- tionally as a day of reflection and commemoration of the six million innocent Jewish children, women and men whose lives were inexcusably cut short between 1933 and 1945 in a planned undertaking to exterminate a people. For years after the Second World War there was little or no discussion of this catastrophe. Yet, as time passed, it was clear that in our failure to remember, we risked repeating these events in later years.

With great difficulty and courage, the survivors of the Holocaust were encouraged to tell their stories for the benefit of future generations. We thank them for sharing with us these extremely difficult experiences. The Vancouver Holocaust Centre Society for Re- membrance and Education, in my constituency of Van- couver-Langara at 41st and Oak, was opened Novem- ber 1994 for education and remembrance. The centre is dedicated to speaking and spreading the truth about the past and breaking down the walls of prejudice and intolerance for present and future generations.

The centre's many programs, like the Gesher pro- ject's "Images of the Holocaust," contribute important new perspectives on the Holocaust's devastating im- pact on survivors and their children. Yet, at the same time, the Gesher project's moving exhibition of artwork from first- and second-generation survivors is irrefuta- ble evidence of the resilience of the community and its commitment to ensure that the Holocaust and its les- sons are never forgotten. Hundreds of people of all ages and backgrounds visit the centre throughout the year.

Classes of school children are often given the opportunity to hear from survivors who, as children themselves, faced the mur- der of family and imprisonment at Nazi camps.

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2669 It is our privilege to have come to share with these survivors and have them share with us this day. Let us, in our own prayerful silence, remember and appreciate these folks and share with them a rededication to build a world where there is peace and respect for all. Thank you. ETHANOL INDUSTRY IN B.C. B. Lekstrom: Renewable fuel ethanol is an oppor- tunity for British Columbia. Not many people know that Henry Ford built the first Model-T to run on pure ethanol.

Production of ethanol creates new permanent jobs in British Columbia, which will benefit all of us in the future as we strive to improve our economy and diversify our industries in our province today. Ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions, toxic air and water pollution and, as well, will not contaminate our groundwater. Ethanol eliminates the need for the use of MTBE and MMT at our refineries. Canada, the United States and the European Union are all moving to adopt mandatory renewable fuel standards. As well, British Columbia will be there in the future.

There are now 61 producing ethanol plants in the United States, with another 13 under construc- tion. Of these 74 plants, 33 are owned by farmer coop- eratives. In the United States, with all of these plants including the new ones coming on line, the production will be over 10 billion litres a year, twice the annual gasoline consumption in British Columbia. British Columbia is now the only province west of the Maritimes that does not have a producing ethanol plant.

In Dawson Creek, on Saturday, April 27, 2002, I wish to invite all of my colleagues to attend a confer- ence called An Ethanol Industry Opportunity for Your Community. This event is being sponsored by the Peace River regional district and presented by Bill Vanderland, president of EnerGreen Power Inc. I'm pleased to announce that my colleague the hon. Minister of Energy and Mines, Richard Neufeld, will be the keynote luncheon speaker at this event. This event will also feature expert ethanol speakers from the oil industry, agriculture and government.

We invite you to hear how British Columbia–developed technology will convert incinerated forest residues into valuable prod- ucts. These products include specialty sugars like xyli- tol for food and lignosulphonate for concrete and elec- tricity. [1420] I would encourage all of my colleagues, if the pos- sibility is there for them, to attend and learn what we can do to diversify and enhance our industry in British Columbia. ESQUIMALT NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE A. Hamilton: The town of Esquimalt has many strengths: a strong sense of community, a tradition of helping one another and working hard.

However, we also have some families and individuals who need oc- casional support and encouragement to help them overcome difficult times and work towards making a number of positive changes in their lives, such as find- ing work, being good parents, having healthy babies or staying in school. This afternoon I would like to speak about Esqui- malt Neighbourhood House, which has worked in our community for over 25 years, offering a continuum of integrated services and mobilized resources that pro- mote health, education, employment, well-being and positive social change.

People come to Esquimalt Neighbourhood House because it is a warm, welcom- ing, non-judgmental environment where they can get information or resources or participate in the many activities that support healthy families and individu- als. Much of Esquimalt Neighbourhood House's fund- ing comes from the provincial government. However, this is augmented through fundraising, enterprise and sponsorships.

The programs provided actually save money in the long term by helping people get back to work, keeping kids out of ministry care, helping stu- dents stay in school and out of the criminal justice sys- tem, and supporting families through difficult times before they become crises. Esquimalt Neighbourhood House also helps people develop their own supportive networks in the community, leading to independence from formalized programs. Among the many services that Esquimalt Neighbourhood House offers are the following.

They provide Best Babies nutritional and life skills counsel- ling, services for young moms and their babies, pre- school parent-child drop-in support and parenting skills. Esquimalt Neighbourhood House offers counsel- ling for preteens, teens and their families for individu- als who cannot afford regular counselling services. They have youth and family counsellors at four local schools, employment and pre-employment training programs, a job search centre and a computer lab to assist those searching for work.

Esquimalt Neighbour- hood House also offers the community low-cost cloth- ing and household goods and volunteer opportunities through their thrift shop. These are just a few examples of the great commu- nity service that Esquimalt Neighbourhood House of- fers. Again, I recognize Julie Holder, the board, the staff and the volunteers for their dedication. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. The member for Vancouver-Burrard seeks the floor. L. Mayencourt: I seek leave to make an announce- ment. Leave granted. L. Mayencourt: Mr.

Speaker, it seems that during the introductions we've neglected to do something very important. We want to extend our very warm wishes to the Minister of State for Community Charter on the occasion of his birthday. Thank you very much for joining me in that.

2670 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 Oral Questions FUNDING FOR INNER-CITY SCHOOLS J. Kwan: The Ministry of Children and Family De- velopment has received the report of the committee appointed to develop a funding formula for programs that serve at-risk children in the 110 inner-city schools across the province. The committee recommended that the current level of funding be maintained and guaran- teed for three years. That was two weeks ago. To the Minister of Children and Family Develop- ment: does he agree with this recommendation, and when can we expect the report to be released? Hon. G.

Hogg: The terms of reference of the report t h a t w a s r e c e i v e d w e r e t o l o o k a t t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c modelling that exists across the province for the provi- sion of services to those children in schools who may need socioeconomic support. It did not make recom- mendations with respect to funding to inner-city schools at all. That was not part of the terms of refer- ence.

It did just look at if the modelling were to remain the same, if the service were to remain the same, if the dollars were to remain the same, how they would best be distributed, consistent with updated information around the socioeconomic needs. It was not a report on recommending the services for this year or in future years. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: The Vancouver school board is meeting tonight to determine how it will deal with a $25.5 mil- lion shortfall.

It will be looking at the demand from the Ministry of Children and Family Development that it cut programs for inner-city school funding. [1425] Schools such as Lord Roberts Elementary in Van- couver are already overcrowded. Children are forced to share their education space with adult strangers. Facilities are old and insufficient for the number of students. Parents are stressed. Teachers are stressed. Children are stressed. Inner-city school programs are not a luxury; they are a necessity if we provide all chil- dren with equal access to education.

Can the minister assure us that children who need early literacy, early intervention and prevention pro- grams, and families who need translation, multicul- tural workers and outreach workers will not be aban- doned to budget cuts? Hon. G. Hogg: In fact, this government has made a large commitment to early childhood development as it expanded the funding to early childhood development specifically because of that drive and that need.

This government recognizes and appreciates the information and work that has been done by research- ers around this world — f r o m F r a s e r M u s t a r d , w h o ' s been a consultant to this government, to Clyde Hertz- man and the work that he's done locally. This govern- ment has looked at, is managing and is focusing on the recognition that those early childhood years are the most important years in terms of learning. A focus of energy and support in that area will ensure that we have children better prepared to attend school, better prepared for support at school and better prepared to learn.

That's the focus that this government is taking, using evidence-based research to put funds where they're most effective at driving the services and needs of children across this province. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary. J. Kwan: The inner-city school funding has proven to be effective. Parents are calling for this government to reinstate the $5.4 million that they have cut. Today workers at the Richmond Youth Service Agency are to be told that their contract with the Ministry of Children and Family Development will be discontinued at the end of June.

This agency has been providing necessary services to some 500 elementary school–age children over 12. Their contract was to extend to March 2003 — yet again, another broken contract. The Richmond Youth Service Agency helps children deal with social, emotional or behavioral challenges, real challenges that affect their ability to learn. Will the minister now accept his challenge? Will he stand up today for the children faced with these cuts and call on his government, his own colleagues, to en- sure that the funding is in place for this agency? Hon. G.

Hogg: This government is going through a review of some 15,000 contracts and is reviewing those based on a set of principles that look at and address evidence-based research that suggests what is the most effective way of providing services to children across this province. This government does not want to provide pro- grams for programs' sake. We want to provide pro- grams for people's sake, programs that make a differ- ence in terms of the lives of the children that we're dealing with. That is the focus that we're taking. That is the direction we're going in.

That is what the people of this province expect and will receive. We are committed to providing quality programs for children and families across this province, and that's exactly what this government will be doing. EFFECTIVENESS OF REFERENDUM ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS J. MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Aboriginal Services said that the signature requirement for the referendum is covered under the Recall and Initiative Act. Today he knows that he's wrong. Under the Recall Act, signatures must be witnessed by a registered can- vasser.

In this referendum there's no such requirement, opening up the process to forgery and abuse. Never before have ballots been treated like junk mail. British

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2671 Columbians are paying millions for a deeply flawed election process that would not meet the test of fairness in Florida. Will the Minister of Aboriginal Services stand up and admit that this referendum is so bungled that whatever the results and no matter how many ballots are returned, it's essentially a meaningless waste of millions of dollars? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G.

Abbott: First of all, I've got to say that it's a huge relief to see that at least one of four million British Columbians is still reading David Schreck's website, where one gains these absolutely fabulous insights into the psyche of British Columbians. [1430] The fact of the matter is — unlike the New Democ- ratic Party, apparently — we don't believe that British Columbians set out to manipulate, cheat and distort. They just want to have their views expressed. If the hon. member has allegations of fraud or for- gery she'd like to make, go ahead and make them.

Clearly, what we are offering in British Columbia for the first time is an opportunity for British Columbians to state their views on principles which should guide us in that very important process of treaty-making. That government had ten years to make the process work. It was a dismal failure; it was half a billion dol- lars and no treaties. We're going to turn that around, and we're going to turn it around on the goodwill and common sense of British Columbians. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: I note that the Minister of Aboriginal Services did not answer my question and continues to misunderstand the law that applies. The fact of the matter is that this referendum process is open to abuse. Yes, that is exactly the allegation. To- day we heard from letter carriers who are telling us that hundreds of ballots are being returned because Elec- tions B.C. data has errors and addresses are now out- dated. Thousands of people haven't received their bal- lots, and thousands more have received ballots that aren't theirs.

Particularly British Columbians in neighbourhoods where there's a high turnover in oc- cupancy have been disenfranchised by this process. Again, to the Minister of Aboriginal Services: how can British Columbians have any confidence in the process where thousands of British Columbians are receiving ballots that don't belong to them? Hon. G. Abbott: If I was forced to take my chances with either David Schreck or Elections B.C., I'll take my chances every time with Elections B.C.

If there are concerns with respect to the process or specific ballots, they should be forwarded via the 1-800 number or any other mechanism to Elections B.C. to ensure that this is conducted properly. Again, to go back to the point, why do these two members assume that British Columbians would set out to manipulate, distort, cheat and frustrate a system that has been put in place so we can canvass the people of British Columbia about the treaty process? We want the opinion of the people of British Columbia on the treaty process. We're going to get it.

And notwithstand- ing the suggestions of the members opposite, it is going to be a fair process, and it's going to be an opportunity to celebrate democracy again in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has the floor. MENTAL HEALTH PLAN FUNDING I. Chong: Last Thursday during the estimates de- bate for the Ministry of Health Services, the Leader of the Opposition said the NDP had funded the mental health plan.

However, during their term in office men- tal health advocacy associations were very specific in voicing their displeasure at the fact that the last gov- ernment failed to fund the mental health plan. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health clear up the confusion and outline what funding has been di- rected by this government to the mental health plan? Hon. G. Cheema: The $125 million plan is designed to increase the community services for people who have serious and persistent mental illness. In 1998 and 1999 about $10 million was spent on the plan.

From 1999 to 2001 there was no allocation by the NDP government for the mental health plan — none. There was zero allocation. [1435] In 2001-02 we've funded over $15 million towards t h e m e n t a l h e a l t h p l a n . I n t h i s y e a r ' s b u d g e t w e h a v e invested over $17 million more as part of our commit- ment to the mental health plan. We have also commit- ted an additional $138 million over the next five years for the capital projects. This is a total commitment of $263 million for the mental health plan. I.

Chong: The opposition has also claimed that while they were in government, they increased funding for adult mental health. Again, can the Minister of State for Mental Health tell us if those dollars were directed towards the mental health plan? Hon. G. Cheema: Any funding increase during the past year was primarily due to the wage compensation increases, population and demographic increases, and inflation. Let's be very clear. There was no money for the mental health plan by the NDP. They did not bene-

2672 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 fit the patient, no matter how hard the leader of the NDP wishes they did. MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE ACTION PLAN P. Bell: The mountain pine beetle epidemic in the northern interior of the province has been growing exponentially over the past few years. Currently, there's an estimated 70 million cubic metres infested, and it's estimated that this year's flight could add an additional 100 million cubic metres to that. Can the Minister of Forests give us an indication of the progress of the action plan from this past winter? Hon.

M. de Jong: The member will know, because he participated in the process last fall, that we took data and a number of recommendations from a panel of MLAs and a technical group headed by R&S Rogers into an action plan to attempt to better combat the pine beetle infestation.

Those recommendations that were acted upon in- cluded the appointment of a beetle management coor- dinator — the beetle boss, as he's become known; the designation of special emergency management zones; amendments to the Forest Practices Code regulations to deal with an expedited processing procedure that would allow us to get at infested wood more quickly; and, also, encouraging the purchase of infested woods by processors from smaller entities like woodlot licen- sees. The report is positive in this sense. I think we en- joyed good success in directing the harvest of infested wood.

The vast majority of the wood harvested was beetle-infested wood. The bad news is the weather did not cooperate, and the infestation has continued to spread. That poses an ongoing, serious dilemma for us and is something we're going to pursue as we move forward in the weeks and months ahead. Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George North has a supplementary question. P. Bell: Clearly, as the minister indicated, with the warmth of this past winter the mountain pine beetle epidemic is going to worsen.

I'm wondering if the min- ister can give us an indication of what his intentions are as we move forward and what further steps we can take. Hon. M. de Jong: One of the assurances we gave t h e s t a k e h o l d e r s i n t h a t p a r t o f t h e p r o v i n c e m o s t d i - rectly impacted was that at breakup at the beginning of M a y o f t h i s y e a r , w e ' d c o m e b a c k a n d d o a d e t a i l e d assessment of what parts of the action plan worked, what didn't, where the results were positive and where they weren't.

We're going to follow through on that in the first week in May in the Prince George area. Beyond that, I think we need to follow through on some proposals around the possibility of summer haul of infested wood. I think we need to continue to pursue with the federal government sources for funding for things like research. There are notions for log storage that I think could be of assistance. The bottom line is this: the infestation, sadly, is con- tinuing to spread at an alarming rate. There are untold millions, possibly billions of dollars in timber value that are put at risk.

The challenge is still there for us. [End of question period.] W. Cobb: I seek leave to table a petition. Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. Petitions W. Cobb: I would like to present a petition I re- ceived from the recreation society in my riding. Collectively, they received 169 signatures from Cariboo South constituents. The petition urges the B.C. government to reconsider the closure of Trumpeter Mountain to snowmobilers. [1440] J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition.

I have a petition here with 57 names, calling on the government to con- tinue its support for inner-city school funding that provides money for early literacy and prevention pro- grams, in-school counsellors, academic support and resources, recreation programs, multicultural workers and translators, early intervention initiatives and out- reach support to families. These 57 names are added to the earlier petition that I tabled, which contained 523 names, bringing it to a total of 580. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply.

For the information of members we'll be examining the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 22. Second Reading of Bills SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. S.

Hagen: I t i s m y p l e a s u r e t o a d d r e s s t h e principle of the bill that proposes amendments to the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and the Water Act, which are consistent with the government's new- era commitments and its focus on red-tape reduction and elimination of burdensome legislative require- ments. The bill also underscores government's goal of reducing expenditures and bolstering the economy while simultaneously continuing protection of the province's resources.

The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act estab- lishes a management framework for 6.3 million hectares of wilderness land in northeastern British Columbia

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2673 that was identified for protection and special manage- ment for the Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and Mackenzie land and resource management plans. The act estab- lished an approval process for the planning and man- agement of Crown land and natural resources in the management area with shared approval of responsibili- ties amongst officials within the resource ministries. With responsibility for land use planning now residing in this ministry, there is no need for one minister or designated ministry official to be involved in approvals.

The act amendments, along with the minor amendments to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act in this bill, streamline the approval proc- ess for the Muskwa-Kechika, giving the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management the sole responsibil- ity for enacting landscaping unit objectives, oil and gas pre-tenure plans and recreation plans. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will have sole respon- sibility for park management plans and wildlife man- agement plans.

Advising on natural resource management in the Muskwa-Kechika management area is a very capable and dedicated group of volunteers who comprise the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board. The board is headed by a chair who, like the other members of the board, contributes considerable free time to the work of the board. Although the original intent was that the board members not be paid, it is now clear that the duties of the board are such that the chair is required to expend a very significant amount of time on board functions. For that, it was decided that the chair should be remuner- ated.

The legislation will reflect that the chair can be paid for the important and time-consuming work done respecting board functions and management. [1445] From a financial perspective, the government makes a significant contribution to the Muskwa- Kechika trust fund each year. The act establishes a two- part trust fund. One component is the general account out of which the trustee — the minister — may make expenditures regarding research, mapping, training, advisory board expenses, administration and staffing.

Bequests and contributions and fundraising revenue are deposited to the general account unless the gift of appropriation specifies otherwise. The second component of the trust fund is the pro- ject account, from which the trustee may specifically make payments for the purpose of a project but not for administration, travel or services related to the opera- tion of the trust fund or of the advisory board. The pro- ject account accepts donations from third parties wish- ing to contribute directly to the achievement of the M- K management objectives.

Third-party contributions are matched by the government up to a certain amount. Government is currently legislated to top up the general account of the trust fund to restore the bal- ance to $3 million each year. In times of fiscal restraint those are high costs. Core review direction determined that a smaller contribu- tion to the trust fund can be made while still ensuring that the important planning and research tasks con- tinue. This bill reduces the required annual funding provided to the general account of the trust fund by $2 million, resulting in an annual appropriation of $1 mil- lion.

However, the legislation also makes it clear that there is an opportunity for government to pay more than the required $1 million when and if it can do so. This bill also emphasizes government's commit- ment to establish funding partnerships with the private sector and foundations. At present, government is only able to match third-party contributions to the project account of the trust fund up to a maximum of $400,000.

This bill increases the incentive for more partners to commit funds directly to the MK trust fund by increas- ing the amount from $400,000 to $1 million that gov- ernment will be required to match. These financial changes ensure that the Muskwa-Kechika trust fund will continue to have sufficient resources to fund the necessary planning, research and conservation work required to manage and sensitively develop this mag- nificent area. The Muskwa-Kechika management area is one of the most impressive wilderness areas in North America — and in the world.

It is rich in wildlife, mature and old-growth forests, spectacular geology formations, lakes, rivers and streams, waterfalls and hot springs, rolling subalpine and alpine areas. It is also rich in natural resources, with outstanding subsurface re- source values including extensive oil and gas potential. These resources are critically important to the northern economy and also to the health of the provincial econ- omy.

The Muskwa-Kechika management area also has tremendous cultural and heritage significance to first nations, who continue their traditional use of this land, known as Dena Keyih by the Kaska Dena people, for hunting, gathering and fishing. The proposed amendments to the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act demonstrate this government's continued commitment to the values of northern Brit- ish Columbia and particularly to the special manage- ment of the Muskwa-Kechika area.

Now turning our attention to the proposed Water Act amendments, one of the tenets of this government is that a number of regulatory processes now in place require streamlining and greater efficiency. Our new- era vision included reducing government cost through increasing efficiencies, reducing red tape and the regu- latory burden, and providing for faster approvals re- specting access to Crown resources. This bill strives to achieve all of these.

While we certainly have an obliga- tion to protect our precious water supplies and ensure that they are utilized as efficiently and respectfully as possible, we also have an obligation to those who need convenient access to water to carry on their day-to-day business operations. The proposal of the amendments are threefold. First, it establishes more flexible notification proce- dures for licensing decisions. Second, it introduces a de-permitting system for the short-term use of water in appropriate circumstances.

Finally, it ensures that em- ployees of Land and Water British Columbia continue to have valid authority in legislation.

2674 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 In order to make notification procedures more flexible, the bill accelerates access to water resources by streamlining processing time for many applications, reducing turnaround time and making the decision- making process more responsive to clients' needs and circumstances.

It also provides for reducing opera- tional expenditures for government and reducing the regulatory burden and costs borne by clients. [1450] The act currently provides that water licences can be amended in a variety of ways, such as by transfer- ring the place of use to another parcel of land. For vari- ous types of amendments, when the licence is amended, the act requires notice be given, but these notice requirements vary according to the type of amendment. Some are very time-consuming or exces- sively thorough. Others are overly prescriptive about how notice must be provided.

Further, there is little, if any, rationale for the variability of these requirements. In short, they constrain the decision-maker from exer- cising discretion as to when notice is warranted and what is appropriate in the circumstances. Government also has the authority to cancel or sus- p e n d l i c e n c e s . C u r r e n t l y , w h e n a l i c e n c e i s t o b e c a n - celled, notice of the proposed cancellation must be sent by registered mail or published in a newspaper each week for four consecutive weeks.

We are changing that so that there is no longer a requirement that the mail be registered, and we are reducing the publication period from four weeks to three weeks. This provides ade- quate opportunity for those affected or those who have indicated an interest in the licence to respond. Ultimately, officials will have greater flexibility while still having the responsibility to ensure that peo- ple's rights are protected. We are therefore amending this act to allow for this discretionary judgment regard- ing notification requirements.

This will improve flexi- bility and provide operational efficiency without jeop- ardizing the rights of others. Next, the bill provides for significant reductions in red tape for short-term users of water. As noted above, under the Water Act the property in and right to use water in a stream is vested in the government. In turn, government issues water licences to allocate specific amounts of water to persons who wish to divert and make beneficial use of it on an ongoing basis for do- mestic, agricultural, industrial and other purposes.

Those intending to use water on a short-term basis, a period of 12 months or less, apply for written approval rather than a licence from the appropriate officials. The current statutory process for issuing approvals for short-term use of water is time-consuming and sea- sonally intense, during the spring particularly. Re- gional offices are often preoccupied with other pres- sures at that time — for example, pesticide permits in freshet — and yet must deal with the applications on an urgent and case-by-case basis.

Delays can impede businesses such as road maintenance contractors, who require water on a temporary basis for various activi- ties including bridge washing and dust control. As well, the current statutory process requires that each applicant pay the required approval fee to the appropriate regional office. The cumulative application charges can be significant to small businesses, particu- larly those with wide-ranging operations such as highway maintenance. Currently, the Water Act does not authorize the making of regulations relating to approvals for short- term use.

This bill will add that regulation-making authority. New regulations would then permit the short-term diversion or use of water without written approval, provided the use or diversion was under- taken in the prescribed manner for specified sources. Any diversion or use not in accordance with the regu- lations would still require written approval. In cases where approval is not required, there would still be a requirement to notify the regional water manager to provide contact information and pay rental fees for one year. As noted earlier, however, the approval fees would not apply.

The proposed regulations will only apply where short-term withdrawals would have no negative im- pact on existing water users or in-stream needs. In other cases, a written approval would still be required, and the approval fee as well as the rental fee would be charged. Enforcement will involve monitoring records on a random-audit basis, issuing tickets for offences and responding to complaints. Offences will include failure to comply with the proposed regulation governing short-term water use. A detailed compliance strategy will be prepared as part of the implementation plan for these amendments.

In 1999-2000, approvals for short-term use were issued primarily for mining, road work, power, pipeline testing and flushing in camps. Corresponding revenues were approximately $60,000. Both the number of ap- provals issued and the associated revenues have been declining over the last six years, but the figures may rise again as resource industries recover economically. On average, over the last six years approximately 250 ap- provals were issued annually, with a value of approxi- mately $80,000.

If the proposed amendment is enacted, a portion of these revenues would be forgone, offset in part by increased workload efficiencies. Finally, the bill will address issues surrounding the authority of statutory officials. Specifically, provisions will ensure that these officials have valid authority to carry out their duties. Changes have been made as a result of government reorganization, and this bill rec- ognizes that the statutory officials named in the Water Act are now employees of a government corporation, Land and Water British Columbia, rather than employ- ees of government. Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a sec- ond time. [1455] J. MacPhail: I rise to make some comments about Bill 22 that will guide the minister on questions I'll be raising at committee stage as well.

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2675 I want to, just for moment, go back to the original Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, which is amended by this legislation today. The Muskwa- Kechika Management Area Act was really a break- through in land use planning in this province and was recognized as that worldwide — a breakthrough in land use planning. In fact, then opposition members, now government members, particularly from that area, acknowledged that it was really breakthrough legisla- tion that could form the model of future land use plan- ning.

It covers 4.4 million hectares of unspoiled wil- derness that has huge ecological significance in the northeastern part of British Columbia that's now known as the Muskwa-Kechika. The bill had four parts to it and dealt with the fact that even though it was widely recognized as the equivalent of the Serengeti of the North, one of the last large intact predator-prey ecosystems south of the 60th parallel, it also contained considerable oil and gas re- serves and valuable mineral deposits.

Careful explora- tion and development would have major social and economic benefits for all British Columbians, the gov- ernment of the day recognized. That's why more than three million hectares of the Muskwa-Kechika area were put into what are called special management zones, where resource development would be allowed to continue. There were four major components to the legisla- tion.

The first established the Muskwa-Kechika man- agement plan and allowed that all management activi- ties in the Muskwa-Kechika, both for development and for protection, must be consistent with the locally de- veloped management plan. The next component en- sured that planning must occur prior to certain activi- ties so that industrial and recreational development is orderly, efficient and integrated with other uses.

The third part of the act established an advisory board to provide a public oversight role for the Muskwa-Kechika and to make recommendations for expenditures from a special trust fund that was estab- lished in the act. Then the fourth part of the act estab- lished that the trust fund was to assist with planning and research in the Muskwa-Kechika. Then there was a legislated requirement that the provincial government fill the coffers of that trust fund at the beginning of each fiscal year to $3 million. Here's what Bill 22 does to that groundbreaking act creating the Muskwa-Kechika management area.

I think what we've got is a little bit of a grab of money, or let's just say a taking away of money from actually managing that world-class area of our province. Mr. Speaker, as I said, there was a legislated re- quirement that the provincial government fill up the coffers of that trust fund every year to $3 million. In fact, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management acknowledged that during his estimates, when my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was asking him about that trust fund.

The way it was established, just so we know how the trust fund used to work, is that the grant of up to $3 million was made each year. Then the local community or the environ- mental community or the development community could raise $400,000 of their own money, and the pro- vincial government would match those funds up to another $400,000. [1500] The Muskwa-Kechika fund, in any one year, could have $3.8 million in it, of which $3.4 million was pro- vided by the provincial government. What this legisla- t i o n n o w d o e s i s s a y : " O h , s o r r y .

W e ' r e o n l y g o i n g t o put $1 million into the trust fund." "But don't worry," says the minister. "The commu- nity can raise another million dollars out of their own funds, and we'll match those dollars." A total of $3 mil- lion is eligible to go into the trust fund, of which a maximum of $2 million will be provided by this gov- ernment, as opposed to $3.4 million previously. In fact, the community has to more than double their fundrais- ing efforts to get that maximum amount of money.

I'm not quite sure why the minister felt the need to underfund this world-class management area trust fund that was working extremely well, that was lauded by members of the current government, industry and the environmental community and that really put Brit- ish Columbia on the map of doing proper land use planning with this trust fund. Anyway, that's gone now, but we do have a hint of where the minister is going on this from his comments in estimates. He's saying the matching funds could primarily be raised from U.S. foundations and industry.

I'll be curious in committee stage to know what insight the minister has into what those U.S. foundations are and what industry will actually do that massive increase in fundraising for this very important land use area. There are other amendments, particularly to the Forest Practices Code. Once again, we see the shift in terms of responsibility for environmental protection going from the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protec- tion who is the only advocate in this government, the only person responsible for advocating on behalf of environmental protection.

The minister herself doesn't actually see that as her role, but if you were to look anywhere else in government about policing the envi- ronment and protecting the environment, it should be with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. We now see the shift of responsibility for ensuring proper environmental sustainability under the Forest Practices Code from the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection over to the Minister of Sustainable Re- source Management, who freely admits he's an eco- nomic minister. He's there to develop. He's there to cut, cut, cut.

It is disturbing once again to see the shift away from environmental sustainability in a way that in any way keeps the environment at a par, let alone more highly protected than those who would use our forests solely for economic interests. I worry about this. It is not as if the shift of the For- est Practices Code responsibility is there in a way that is then balanced back to give the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection equal authority. Her authority is gone completely under this amendment to the Forest Practices Code. I do worry about that greatly. I will be

2676 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 questioning the Minister of Sustainable Resource Man- agement very, very carefully about the effect of the lessening of all of the principles of sustainability by this shift to his responsibility. I also have concerns about whether indeed the amendments to the Water Act are simply as minor as the minister has made out in his opening comments under

section 22. Of course, the amendments to the Water Act now allow a diversion or use of water on streams for a term not exceeding 12 months. For the very first time we are now permitting a diversion of water on streams for a term not exceeding 12 months. [1505] I worry about two things. First of all, what does that do to salmon habitat? Wild stock spawn in streams. What will that mean when someone is al- lowed to divert a stream for up to 12 months? What if there's a dam on a stream that's a spawning ground for our wild salmon stock? That is of extreme concern to me.

Is it to help out independent power producers who have been asking for this? Where are the protections for riparian zones? Where are the habitat protections? As we know, this government has already made amendments that in fact do away with any sort of habi- tat protection for salmon — for finfish — in this prov- ince at all. This is just a continuation of that. Independent power producers. Have they been lobbying this government to such an extent to say: "Hey, give us those streams"? Where is there anywhere in here a protection to restore the streams after the 12 months?

What's the role for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to protect the environmental integrity of streams during this process? Mr. Speaker, I must say that I will have many ques- tions about stream protection, about regulations flow- ing from this and about possible reasons the minister has for the short-term diversion that will have long- term consequences for salmon habitat — again, a great deal of concern.

I will also have questions about whether indeed this government is committing a full $1 million, even though it's $2 million less than used to be committed to the trust fund for the Muskwa-Kechika, because the legislation says that the government will provide up to $1 million. Again, this is a bill that raises perhaps more ques- tions than it answers and certainly moves in a direction that is pro-development and anti-sustainability. R. Stewart: I ask leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members R.

Stewart: I met a few minutes ago with some very nice people from my alma m ater, Our Lad y of F atima Elementary School in the Maillardville area of Coquit- lam. It was only a few years ago that I attended that school. [Laughter.] I haven't changed a bit. Today we welcome 39 grade 5 students from both the French immersion program and the regular pro- gram, along with their teachers, Ms. Kate Copley and Mr. Tim Bourchier, and four parent chaperones from Our Lady of Fatima Elementary School in Maillard- ville. I ask the House to please make them welcome. Debate Continued Mr.

Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 22. Motion approved. Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 22, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 25. TRANSPORTATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. J. Reid: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Bill 25 includes amendments to three statutes: the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, the Ferry Corporation Act and the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. Bill 25 also provides authority to repeal the Ferry Act, which applies to inland ferries. [1510] The most significant amendments contained in this bill allow for a new part to be created in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act to provide for inland ferry administration. These amendments are in accord with the ministry's service plan released in January.

Inland ferries have been serving local residents and businesses at some locations for decades. Budget re- ductions have required the Ministry of Transportation t o l o o k f o r w a y s t o r e d u c e c o s t s . A t a t i m e w h e n t h e province is facing a $4.4 billion structural deficit, we need to ensure that ministry resources are being prop- erly managed to meet the transportation needs of all British Columbians. User fees will allow the ministry to protect and maintain these inland ferry services while also ensuring more equitable ferry service delivery across the province.

These changes fall into four basic categories. First, the hours of service will be reduced on most routes to 17 hours a day beginning May 15. The exception will be the Arrow Park cable ferry, which will be reduced to 15 hours a day from 18 hours. Where we are reducing hours, there will be a call-out procedure in place for emergency responders to access the ferry outside of

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2677 regular service hours. This emergency response has been in place for ferries that have been operating less than 24 hours a day in the past. Reaction ferry services will remain at the current levels, except for the Usk ferry, which will be reduced to 17 hours from the 18 hours presently. There will be no change of service for the Adams Lake ferry at this time. Three reaction ferry services that have alternative roads available will be offered to the communities in the private sector this year without government sub- sidy.

They are the Marguerite, McLure and Little Fort ferries. To date, we have already received nine expres- sions of interest regarding these ferries. A toll structure will be developed in consultation with communities, and the tolls will be implemented by the end of the year. It is only fair that inland ferry users help cover some of the costs of that service by paying tolls, just as coastal ferry users do. This will level the playing field for all British Columbians and help the ministry meet its budget objectives.

Amendments respecting inland ferries include the provision of a regulation-making authority to establish fares, safety guidelines and the direction of passengers and vehicles at terminals and on vessels; establishing that it is a duty of vehicle drivers and passengers to pay the required fares; and establishing that non- payment of fares is an offence and subject to penalty. The Fe rry Act wil l be repe ale d, as it does not sup- port the new inland ferry business model, and certain of the authorities in that act are also already provided for in other legislation.

Bill 25 also amends the Greater Vancouver Trans- portation Authority Act to address an issue raised by the auditor general with respect to the accounting treatment of provincially owned SkyTrain assets which are leased to TransLink. The amendment clarifies sec- tion 5 of the act to allow the current leasing arrange- ment to be treated as an operating lease, as opposed to a capital lease, for accounting purposes. This amend- ment is supported by the auditor general, the comptroller general, the Ministry of Finance, B.C. Transit and TransLink. A streamlining amendment is also included in Bill 25.

Currently, there is a provision in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act which requires the ministry seal be affixed to contracts. This requirement results in delays and costs to the private sector, as con- tracts must be sent to Victoria to have the seal affixed. Removing the seal requirement streamlines the con- tracting process and saves time and money. In addition to removing the seal requirement, a transitional provi- sion is included in Bill 25 which retrospectively vali- dates any contracts entered into without the ministry seal. J. MacPhail: I'm responding to Bill 25.

We'll be vot- ing against it. I was looking, actually, for the member for Nelson- Creston to see whether he was going to be speaking to this piece of legislation. Of course, he has taken a very strong view against the massive cuts to the inland ferry system, privatization and imposing user fees — and with absolutely good reason. These cuts to the inland ferries, the privatization and the imposition of user fees severely harm the communities who relied upon these inland ferries. [1515] Of course, it came as a big surprise.

I don't think any new-era commitment said: "Hey, we're going to privatize your ferries, cut service, cut your community off and impose user fees." I don't think that was a new- era promise, but it's one that this government has man- aged to put through in legislation, despite the fact that they know how harmful it's going to be to communi- ties. I'll quote from what the Nelson-Creston MLA actu- ally said. I expect, given this is what he's been saying, that he will actually join with me and my colleague to vote against Bill 25, because all of his words say he disagrees with everything that's in this legislation.

Let me quote from the member for Nelson-Creston. This would have been on March 20 of this year — last month: "Local residents have every reason to be upset. W h e n t h e d a m s w e r e b u i l t i n t h e s i x t i e s , t h e y w e r e promised free ferries until the bridge was built here. They're now being told that there's no free ferries, and there's no bridge." Wow, there's a brave MLA. He joins with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano to bring to the attention of his government harmful changes their government's making to their local com- munities. What's the context of that comment?

I want to be fair to the member for Nelson-Creston. Here's what the context is, and here's what this government is ignoring in this community. The Arrow Lakes ferry is one of the inland ferries for which this minister is going to charge user fees, cut service and cut off communities from their ferry. The Arrow Lakes ferry was provided after the then B.C. Hydro flooded the area in the 1960s as part of the Columbia River negotiations. Then-Premier W.A.C. Bennett promised a free ferry until a bridge could be built. The communities used to be accessible by land until the Columbia River was dammed. Mr.

Bennett, the Premier of the day, said: "Free ferry until a bridge is built." There is lots of evidence that that was the promise made. Never once did this Liberal gov- ernment say to that community: "Oh, you know, that promise that was made way back when, and we don't agree with it. In fact, we're going to cut your ferry ser- vice and charge you more." In fact, the mayor of Nakusp told the now Minister of Transportation that that promise was made, and the Minister of Transportation said that if the community can find evidence of this promise, they would get their bridge.

Of course, in this particular case it's the mayor of Nakusp who's being written off as being wrong in quoting the minister. The minister now denies ever making that promise. Today here we have the people who are the losers in this government, the community represented by the MLA for Nelson-Creston. Let's see what else the mem-

2678 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 ber for Nelson-Creston wrote. This was on March 8 of this year: "I will be meeting with community leaders and the public to develop creative ideas to minimize the impacts to residents. Lower rates for local residents, users and low-income seniors is something I'm ex- ploring for each ferry. In the Arrow Lakes area there may be a better case for special consideration in light of the promises made surrounding the Columbia River negotiations." Oops. The MLA for Nelson-Creston has been con- vinced of the promises made to the community back in the 1960s.

I wonder if he's going to stand up in the Leg- islature and tell the Minister of Transportation what he's found out and that his community deserves either a bridge or free ferry service. [1520] What are the consequences of these cuts the minis- ter is making to inland ferry service? Well, let's look at what some people in the community are saying. Let me just quote from what is called the Harrop-Procter ferry community, which are the two small but nevertheless viable communities that will be very negatively af- fected by these cuts to their ferry service.

"When the government cuts ferry service to the rural communities of Harrop and Procter, residents will have to 'shove off' from the rocky shores of Kootenay Lake and make the half-kilometre water crossing in the dark, starting April 1. The government announced plans to shut the ferry from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on February 20, 2002. The ferry is the only access in and out of the two communities for the 600-plus permanent residents.

"'The ministry staff told us that shift workers and other residents who travel by ferry at night can park their cars on the side of the road and pull their boats up on the shore, as long as they aren't in the way of ferry,' says committee chair Rick Morley. 'The ministry said they might consider installing a phone and possibly an outhouse for the people stranded on the shore when the ferry is no longer running. This is not an acceptable solution.' "The Harrop-Procter ferry has been in existence since the 1920s and has been on 24-hour, on-demand service for close to 30 years.

The announcement that the service would be cut has united the community, left shift workers high and dry and raised community concerns about how reduced ferry service will affect their access to emergency service among other things.

"With only three weeks until nighttime ferry service is cut, the residents are scrambling to find a solution. 'Without ferry service at night I might have to quit my job,' said Kristen Bompas, a 28-year-old mother of two who took the night shift so she could be with her two young children through the day and earn money to pay her taxes. 'I might have to park my camper on the side of the road and start sleeping in it.' "Nurse Patty Miller, 53 years old, is in the same boat. 'I work at least ten late shifts a month. I don't get to the ferry until 11:30 at night. How will I get home?

Am I supposed to sleep in my car? I don't own a boat, and even if I did, it's dark, the water is cold, and the waves can be big. What does the minister expect me to do?' "Procter resident Laurie Summerville has had to turn down $1,200 in shift work in April because of the uncertainty of the ferry schedule. 'That's a lot of income to lose,' says Summerville.

"Like these three residents, the rest of the community is wondering if free parking and use of an outhouse is really what the Minister of Transportation meant when she said in a CBC radio interview that 'we want to be able to find ways of accommodating them.' "Late-night shift access in and out of their communities is just one of the many concerns. Small business operators are worried tolls, to be implemented at the end of the year, will affect their business. Residents are outraged that a curfew has been imposed on them. "Without night-time ferry service, road crews won't be able to clear the winter roads.

Poor driving conditions will make it even harder for the volunteer firefighters and first responders to get to an emergency. If the emergency is on the other side, there will be a further delay while emergency crews wait for the ferry driver to arrive and start the ferry before making the five-minute crossing. "Since the government announced cuts to the entire inland ferry system, residents in Harrop and Procter have formed a committee and are working to keep their ferry running day and night. "'We met with our MLA from Nelson-Creston, who offered no support.

We've asked for a meeting with the minister and have received no reply. It appears that she has no intention to meet with us,' says Morley. 'She needs to know that it's not acceptable to implement this policy which affects our lives, our access to emergency services, our freedom of movement, our local economy and our property values on such short notice with no consultation or input.'" That was the end of the news release from the Harrop- Procter ferry committee, Mr. Speaker. Let me read another letter. This is a letter from a resident of Nelson, Gerry Kalinski. He is a retired busi- ness person.

This letter was written March 13, 2002, to the Minister of Transportation. [1525] "Dear Minister: "My name is Gerry Kalinski. I am a retired businessman recently relocated to British Columbia from Alberta. I'm a director of the Kootenay Lake hospital foundation. I also sit on a committee with a group of community leaders that is trying to help the community manage impending change in health care in rural areas. I am also a resident of Harrop-Procter.

"I reach the conclusion that your office and your ministry has made up your mind about the implementation" — he's talking about the Harrop-Procter ferry service cuts — "regardless of the conflicts in our statistics, regardless of the outcome of our cost-benefit analysis, regardless of our safety concerns for our shift workers, our seniors, our sick and our children, and regardless of any statements that you have made to our citizens and to the press regarding talks with affected communities. "I find your response very puzzling.

You are aware that there is no other route out for these 600 permanent residents in British Columbia; aware that our acute health care review report has been delayed by this very government, so we don't know how far we have to transport our emergencies; aware that we don't know yet the results of cuts to ambulance and even to whom they will report; aware that your ministry employees have not done an appropriate emergency response plan, or if they have, they have not communicated it to us; aware that we have 100 or more shift workers who will either have

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2679 to risk their lives or quit their jobs and end up on government payrolls; aware that when people quit their jobs, they will not easily find another job, given the number of other cuts in the area; aware that these people could have trouble with unemployment insurance for quitting their jobs; aware that we have firefighting issues on both sides of the water; aware that we have people here with existing illnesses that would be put into increased danger because there is no adequate emergency response plan yet." Mr.

Kalinski, a retired business person, goes on and on. He ends with: "I have a problem. When I look at this from a business point of view, I cannot understand all this added physical risk and increased financial burden to these British Columbians. I cannot understand how it is justifiable to save your ministry $25,000. Budgeting human life as acceptable collateral damage in your war to balance your budget is unacceptable to me and many other Canadians.

"Please respond yourself this time, as it is important for myself and community members to hear from you directly." That was the letter to the Minister of Transportation. Here's another one from the same community, but these are children. This letter is to the Premier, to the Minister of Transportation and to the MLA for Nelson- Creston — to all those three — dated March 14: "As the grade 4-5 teacher at Redfish Elementary School, my job entails discussion of current events in the classroom.

No issue thus far this school year has affected the students in my class as profoundly as the reduction of hours and addition of tolls of Harrop ferry — not 9/11, not the teachers' job action, not the bombing of Afghanistan. "Although my inclination is to protect the students from bad news, this past month their minds have been consumed by anxiety about how the ferry changes would affect them, their families and their friends.

The children's words for how they feel are 'worried,' 'mad,' 'upset,' 'helpless,' 'confused' and 'bewildered.' "Here are a few excerpts from their writing." These are quotes from grade 4-5 students. "'I don't think this idea should happen, because many of the kids at Redfish live in Procter, so they will have to pay every time they get on the ferry, and it's going to cost so much. The late workers won't be able to get to their houses on the other side. If you go on with this idea, then everyone will move.'" "Another one: 'My friends will move away. It won't work for my mom.

We'll have to pay.'" " A n ot h e r on e : ' You w ou ld n ' t g e t v er y mu c h m on ey from the tolls because everyone would move. Don't disrupt people's lives. All the people in Procter are upset and worried and angry too. Some of our moms and dads work early and late.'" "Another one: 'I am worried because the school bus would have to pay and because people will move away. If y our m om or d ad h ad t o g o t o w or k an d t h e f err y is closed, they'll have to quit.'" "Another one: 'I think a toll would be stupid because we already pay for our ferry in our taxes.

A toll wouldn't be good for Redfish school, because people from Harrop and Procter will move and go to a different school. I think less hours for the ferry to run is stupid, because my dad won't be able to go to work.'" That's nice. That's what grades 4 and 5 students are having to discuss in their school. It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. Let me read another letter to the editor of the Nelson Daily News, dated Monday, March 25. It's from a group of seniors.

It's an open letter to the Minister of Trans- portation. [1530] "To the Editor: "Because our MLA for Nelson-Creston has expressed little or no interest in our problem, I am writing as a senior resident of the Harrop-Procter area to express my dismay for the decisions you have made regarding the Harrop ferry. "To reduce the operating time of this ferry from 24 hours to 17 hours is troubling. As you know, this ferry is the only road access we have from our communities. Many find it callous and arrogant that you have chosen to restrict our freedom of travel by seven hours each day.

To limit our road access in this manner is rank discrimination and, we believe, a restriction of our freedom. "You have created conditions of uncertainty and fear for many seniors, who are frightened by decisions that have not taken their needs and concerns into account — for example, rapid-as-possible access to emergency care during the small hours, when seniors are the most vulnerable. This is on top of the anxiety created by the unknown decisions pending regarding our hospital in Nelson and the care — or lack of — that will be available to them.

"Also, we have been made aware that tolls will soon be placed on ferry use. Even a minimum charge of $2 each way could amount to hundreds of dollars each year for even casual use. Trips for shopping, visits to doctors and other professionals are weekly occurrences. "No other citizens are being treated in this high- handed fashion. With few exceptions, all other mainland residents have no such restrictions on access to their homes." Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on. That letter is an open letter from a senior, Agnes Marley, to the Nelson Daily News.

The local MP, Jim Gouk, the MP for the Nelson- Harrop-Procter area, also wrote a letter to the editor, dated Monday, March 11, 2002. It was an open letter from the Member of Parliament to the Nelson-Creston MLA. "The West Kootenay and Boundary area has been particularly hard hit, with closures to courthouses and forestry operations and expected hospital closures. Now I have been informed that there will be significant curtailment of the schedules for the Kootenay Bay, Harrop and Glade ferries. "I must question the wisdom and fairness of such a decision.

In the case of the Kootenay Bay ferry, this is a primary winter alternative for those concerned with their safety travelling over the Salmo-Creston portion of Highway 3, with its high avalanche risk. It is also the only route available during times that Highway 3 is closed in the winter, either as the result of an avalanche or for avalanche control. It also presents some unreasonable hardships for some Balfour and Kootenay Bay residents who need to travel during the potential shut-down periods for employment purposes. The Harrop and Glade ferries are in an even worse situation.

2680 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 "Aside from the potential employment problems mentioned above, there is the matter of public safety caused by the lack of access to and from these isolated areas. This would restrict the ability of residents to leave their homes for medical emergencies or to provide access for police, fire and ambulance services. One also has to consider what would happen if an unexpected traffic problem prevented a resident from reaching the ferry for the last trip, and they were stranded away from home. Are any of these situations fair? I think not.

"As I said at the opening of the letter, I recognize the fact that there are problems which must be addressed. Viable solutions must not simply create new problems. I realize that a number of small solutions add up. However, in the grand scheme of things, the potential savings from altering long-established ferry schedules is not worth the disruption and hardship it would cause. "I am sure that you are well aware that we work for the constituents, not the party. Occasionally, that places us in a conflict position. When that happens to me, the choice is clear: the constituents come first.

I trust you feel this way also." That's an open letter from the local MP, Jim Gouk, to the MLA for Nelson-Creston. It's quite clear that this legislation is going to do unprecedented harm to communities served by the inland ferries. It is astounding that this government, when these announcements were made in February as budget announcements, continues to proceed with these horrendous cuts — never announced, by the way, during the election.

Frankly, no one is relieved by the privatization of these inland ferries; no one is relieved about them. [1535] Let me just look at some other areas where there's been reduced service and the potential for privatization of the ferries that serve the communities of Little Fort and McLure. Who knows what will happen when that occurs? Let me read how that community views changes in their ferry service. This is from an

article in the North Thompson Times by Ann Piper: "Valley Ferry's Future in Doubt." This is where this bill confirms their worst fears that there will be privatization, imposed user fees and cut service. In fact, these may be some ferries that are actually cut — gone, sayonara. "For the communities of Little Fort and McLure, continued ferry service is a matter of concern. At Little Fort, the volunteer fire department depends upon the ferry to carry fire trucks and firefighters to the east side of the river when duty calls, and a substantial proportion of the community's tax base is there as well.

Police and ambulance personnel also rely upon the ferry for quick access in emergencies. At both Little Fort and McLure the ferry serves a first nations reserve on the far side of the river. Without a ferry, those on the far bank face a long alternate route to services available since pioneer times via the ferry." Wow! There's a new era: back to the pioneer days. T h a t ' s t h i s g o v e r n m e n t ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f " n e w e r a " f o r Little Fort and McLure.

This is an area where this gov- ernment should have had a sober second look and should have said: "We are not serving the residents in rural British Columbia well by these ferry cuts, and we should not proceed with them." Y o u k n o w , t h i s g o v e r n m e n t … . I t ' s s o f u n n y . I s i t here in question period, and I hear government back- bench MLAs from the rural areas lobbing soft ques- tions to these ministers over here every day.

"Oh, please tell us what you're doing to our rural communi- ties." Why isn't there an MLA standing up here, saying: "Why the heck are you cutting our inland ferry service to harm rural communities? Why are you attacking rural communities?" And yet not one. I don't hear one government MLA stand up and ask that. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson, whose ferries are be- ing adversely affected by this, could stand up, instead of lobbing one of his soft questions, and ask a real, le- gitimate question on behalf of his community — but no, dead silence and skating over the issues.

The Minister of Transportation continues to refuse to answer the questions of these rural communities about why she is doing this and frankly, more to the point, why she didn't tell anyone before they had a decision about what choices to make about the future of their community. Why didn't her government even r a i s e a p e e p o f a h i n t t h a t t h e y w e r e g o i n g t o s o a d - versely affect communities like Little Fort, McLure, Harrop, Glade and Procter? No, this minister decided to just issue a news release and then refer people where they…. They don't actually publish this.

You've got to go on line and find out what the details of these cuts are. Mr. Speaker, there it is. The cuts are drastic. The imposition of user fees is huge — unprecedented pro- portionately. Communities will be ill-affected to an unbelievable degree by all of these changes. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. The McLure and Little Fort ferries are going to be cancelled, as is the Marguerite ferry north of Williams Lake. Those communities have not had any success from their MLAs in defending their interests. [1540] My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be voting against this legislation.

It's unnecessary; it's ill-advised. It particularly targets for harm rural communities. Those are three reasons why, at a mini- mum, every MLA who represents these communities should vote against this legislation. Particularly the MLA for Nelson-Creston should vote in defence of his community and against this bill. [1545] [The bells were ordered to be rung.] Second reading of Bill 25 approved on the follow- ing division: YEAS — 61 Coell Hogg L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Cheema Hansen J. Reid Bruce van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Roddick Wilson

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2681 Masi Lee Thorpe Hagen Collins de Jong Stephens Abbott Coleman Chong Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Brenzinger Belsey Bell Chutter Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Bhullar Bloy MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Hon. J. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be con- sidered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 24. CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be now read for a second time. Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, amends sections of the Crimi- nal Injury Compensation Act. Members of this Legisla- ture will remember that the new Crime Victim Assis- tance Act was passed last year.

The new act transfers responsibility for criminal injury compensation from the Workers Compensation Board to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. It is designed to make services to victims more effi- cient and responsive. It enhances the benefits to victims of crime by strengthening and increasing the range of benefits provided.

These benefits include medical and dental care; vocational rehabilitation for victims of crime and members of the victim's family; income sup- port for the victim or their family for lost or reduced income; counselling for the victim or their family; counselling for the witnesses of crime; protective measures to ensure the safety of a victim; travelling expenses for a victim or their family; and compensation to the victim's family for the loss of love, guidance or affection. However, the act is not yet in force. Proclamation of this act is expected early this summer.

In the meantime, these amendments are an interim measure that makes pain and suffering awards consistent between the old and the new programs. The Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, will remove pain and suffering awards in respect of applications received on or after April 16, 2002. Applicants will still be entitled to all other bene- fits under the act. [1550] Pain and suffering awards are being removed for significant policy reasons. Specifically, our experience shows that they are inconsistent and unfair.

The awards create delays in adjudicating criminal injury compensation and generate most of the reviews and appeals. No doubt similar programs in other provinces face these problems, as most of them eliminated pain- and-suffering awards a decade ago after the federal government reduced some cost-sharing agreements for criminal injury compensation. We are going to make the enhanced benefits under the Crime Victim Assistance Act as retroactive as pos- s i b l e .

O u r g o a l i s t o m a k e s u r e t h a t v i c t i m s o f c r i m e who apply for benefits in the interim period will get the enhanced benefits that would be available under the new program. People are deeply affected when violent crime touches their lives, and we have a re- sponsibility to help quickly. This amendment and the new Crime Victim Assistance Act show that we are committed to ensuring faster access to improved sup- port services that help not only the victims but also their caregivers, children and spouses. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 24. J.

MacPhail: Let's be clear about what Bill 24 does. It removes the ability of a person who is criminally injured at work from claiming pain and suffering as a victim of crime. I remember the introduction of the amendment to this legislation in the early nineties, so I went back and researched the debate around the time when the Criminal Injury Compensation Act was amended to now include pain-and-suffering awards to individuals criminally injured on the job. I just went back to review it and see what the then opposition said about that.

I just want to make it clear that in June of 1995, the then government introduced an amendment that added pain-and-suffering awards to individuals crimi- nally injured on the job, who receive all but pain-and- suffering benefits under the Workers Compensation Act and Government Employees Compensation Act of Canada. Really, the intent of this, as the then Attorney Gen- eral said when this amendment was introduced, was so that those who are criminally injured while working are eligible for pain-and-suffering benefits under the act.

Although these individuals may receive benefits from the Workers Compensation Act, they do not re-

2682 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 ceive pain-and-suffering awards under that legislation. In effect, this amendment corrects a disparity between those criminally injured while at work and those criminally injured away from work. Now that dispar- ity, which had been corrected in 1995, is being reim- posed by this Liberal government. What did the then opposition say? Well, the Liberal critic said: "To start, the official opposition and I con- gratulate the Attorney for bringing this bill forward. It is long overdue….

The amendments to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act are unfortunately long overdue, and I must pay some recognition to the too many victims we have all been in contact with and are well aware of." Mr. Speaker, the then Liberal critic went on and on in page after page from Hansard to support the changes to the legislation that brought it into line, saying that just because you're criminally injured and you happen to be at work, you should be no less compensated than if you were away from work.

There was universal sup- port for this amendment on the very basis that it cor- rected a disparity that there was no basis for: that peo- ple who are injured on the job through a criminal act should have less access to benefits for pain and suffer- ing — which is real — than those who were not crimi- nally injured at work. I'd be happy, having done my own research, to give the Solicitor General the debate from June 20, 1995, on all of the discussion around the awarding for pain and suffering through the Workers Compensation Act that was absolutely appropriate.

There was complete agreement around that. [1555] I don't know why the minister feels the necessity to once again impose such a disparity. He says that there will be other programs to make up for it, but there can't be. The test for pain and suffering is a real legal test with a wealth of law attached to it about who gets it. It's not open to abuse, because it's an independent body that awards it. It's for the individual. It's for the indi- vidual to make up for being a victim of crime in which he or she was criminally injured.

There is no replacement program that the Solicitor General could possibly offer in this area that would make up for the reimposition of this disparity. I'm not quite sure why this government feels the necessity once again to attack working people. That's what this legis- lation does. We had legislation this morning to favour corporations. We've got legislation this afternoon to attack working people. That's what this government is all about: take from those most in need, most deserving, and give to those who are already the wealthiest in this province. Bill 24 is a perfect example of that.

Once again, let me be very clear. This opposition will be voting against the Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act for those very reasons. Mr. Speaker: O n B i l l 2 4 , t h e M i n i s t e r o f P u b l i c Safety and Solicitor General closes debate. Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, through to the mem- ber's comments, pain and suffering was allowed in for workers in 1995. We're removing pain and suffering for everyone, not being disparaging against whether they're working people or non-working people as vic- tims of crime.

We're trying to develop a program that actually meets the needs of victims quickly, one that is there for them with counselling services, loss of income and the things that affect these people. The protective measure issues, the travelling expenses issues were not there before in the old act but were all tied up into a large bundle of money that went to pain and suffering that was tied into long tribunals.

People were revictimized through the system, sometimes up to 18 to 24 months, when they should have got the services and the coun- selling they needed immediately when they were vic- timized or traumatized by being a victim of crime. [1600] I think we're moving in the right direction here by bringing it back over from the Workers Compensation Board so the ministry can react quickly, deal with is- sues around victims of crime, do it the same for every- one and do it fairly for everyone.

Having said that, I move second reading of Bill 24. [The bells were ordered to be rung.] Second reading of Bill 24 approved on the follow- ing division: YEAS — 61 Coell Hogg L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Cheema Hansen J. Reid van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Roddick Wilson Masi Lee Thorpe Hagen Collins de Jong Stephens Abbott Coleman Chong Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Brenzinger Belsey Bell Chutter Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Bhullar Bloy MacKay Cobb K.

Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2683 Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 24 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. [1605] Bill 24, Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Com- mittee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Collins: At the request of the opposition, I move that the House recess for 15 minutes. Mr. Speaker: There will now be a 15-minute recess. We'll reconvene at 4:20.

The House recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:23 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee on Bill 6. Committee of the Whole House GAMING CONTROL ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; T. Christensen in the chair. The committee met at 4:24 p.m. Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved. On

section 7. Hon. R. Coleman: I'd like to move the amendment to

section 7 that is placed with the Clerk. [SECTION 7(1), by deleting the proposed paragraph (

j) and substituting the following: (

j) must do other things the minister may require and may do other things the minister may authorize.] Amendment approved. [1625]

Section 7 as amended approved. Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved. On

section 13. J. MacPhail: Under

section 13 and I think it might be 14 as well, I am curious to know a couple of things about the amount of revenue that will be flowing in through gaming. One is on the question of expansion.

Section 13 talks about….Net income from the Lottery Corporation, other than from casino gaming and from bingo, must go into the consolidated revenue fund. The next

section I will speak to in a moment, if so directed, says that the balance of net income in each fiscal year goes into

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0409pm-02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0409pm 02
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fdd623f9d82817a7133dc3e97b0688c6920bdfba

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