1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1999

Volume 17, Number 2

[ Page 14471 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my privilege today to make three different introductions, if the House will bear with me. First, sitting in the gallery today is Balwant Singh Gill. Mr. Gill has been president of the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Surrey-Delta for the past four years. He is a very prominent leader in the Indo-Canadian community and also one of the significant human rights activists in the community. He has done tremendous work promoting democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. I know he's familiar to many members of the House.

Mr. Gill is a man of principle. We feel that his participation on the Human Rights Advisory Council will be a great benefit to the government because he is aware of many of the issues that face us. Mr. Gill has worked in various fields in his life. He was in the Indian army as an engineer in the Bengal engineers group. He has worked in the copper mines in Port Hardy as an electrical engineer. He has been around British Columbia; he owned his own trucking business. Balwant Singh Gill is a good friend of all British Columbians, and I ask the House to make him most welcome.

In addition, I have here three friends of mine from my East Vancouver neighbourhood: Ron Donkersloot and his son Anton and daughter Katy. Ron is principal of the Vancouver Christian School, a community Christian school in my neighbourhood, and has just spent a year at Regent College at UBC on a leave. He really does outstanding work. I'd like the House to make him and his kids welcome.

Finally, if the House will bear with me, we have one of the members of our staff who's been with the NDP caucus for 22 years and has served with distinction for various members of this House. I'm sure the members opposite would agree that working for an MLA is extremely challenging from time to time -- depending on the MLA. Virginia Garrow has survived 22 years, and is retiring today, I believe. We would all -- on our side of the House and, I hope, on the other side -- like to really congratulate her for her service and to wish her well in her retirement.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to introduce in the House today Mr. Alf Blanchard, who has been the legislative assistant to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, the member for Okanagan-Vernon and myself over this session and a number of months previous to that.

This is also a sad day because Mr. Blanchard, along with his wife, is returning to Prince Edward Island at the end of the month. On behalf of the members that I've mentioned, the official opposition and the staff, I want to thank him for his help and support and wish them a safe journey as they travel across Canada, and to wish him much success in his future endeavours.

[1410]

Hon. P. Priddy: I have the pleasure of introducing at least three Surrey people who are here today with Balwant Singh Gill, who was introduced a moment ago by the Premier. I would like the House to make them welcome, as well: Mr. Sadhu Samra, who is the vice-president of the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Surrey-Delta, which is in the riding of Surrey-Newton -- and I'm privileged to have the temple there; Mohinder Gill, who is the director of the Indo-Canadian Senior Citizens Society in Surrey; and Kushpal Gill who is an activist in the South Asian community in Surrey. I would like to say jee ayan noo -- welcome -- and sat sri akal, and ask the House to welcome them to the Legislature.

W. Hartley: I'm pleased to welcome my wife Alice, our daughter Wallis and her friend Connor. They're in the gallery; and they're here to celebrate an end to these proceedings and the beginning, perhaps, of a little more family life in the near future for a little while. Would members please welcome them.

Hon. D. Miller: On a rather sad note, I thought it would be important to make members of the House aware that I've just received information on the passing of a significant Canadian and British Columbian, Maj.-Gen. George Kitching. He was a distinguished Canadian soldier during World War II and afterwards. He was present at the surrender of the German armies in Holland. He was a tremendous community worker and volunteer in Victoria for many years, and he was closely affiliated with the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific. I'm sure that all of us as legislators note with some sadness the passing of Major-General Kitching.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want to add my welcome to Balwant Singh Gill, who is a good friend; Sadhu Singh Samra, the vice-president of the Guru Nanak Temple; Mohinder Singh Gill who's been introduced before; and Mr. Hayer.

As well, there are two other people who are actually my constituents and my very good friends: Sohan Surinder Singh Sangha and Sarwan Randhawa. Could the House please make all of them welcome once again.

Hon. L. Boone: There are three guests in the gallery who I would like to welcome here today. Marjorie McLeod from Victoria is also known as the mother of my ministerial assistant, Heather McLeod, and with her is Irene McNaught, also from Victoria. Accompanying them is Mollie Jesperson, a guest from -- and I hope I get the name pronounced right here -- Kazabazua, Quebec. Would the House please make them all welcome.

G. Janssen: Joining us today is my son Réjean Janssen and his friend Deirdre Titley. Deirdre is a music teacher in Parksville. She's originally from Lethbridge, Alberta, but due to the cutbacks in education there, she had to move to B.C. to find work.

The Speaker: My goodness, a lot of introductions today. This is great. I recognize the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. H. Lali: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. I too would like to join previous members in welcoming Mr. Gill and his friends who are accompanying him. Also, I would like to introduce three very special guests here today: my wife Rani and my children Suman and Ajhmair. They're here to join us in our festivities today and on our cruise later on. Would the House please give them all a warm Victoria welcome.

[ Page 14472 ]

[1415]

As well, I have the pleasure of introducing some tourists of Italian-Canadian origin sitting in the members' gallery up there. One is Prof. Vincenzo Mancinelli, who's head of the modern languages department at Algoma University College in Sault Ste. Marie, which is a branch of Laurentian University. Like me, he's a polyglot. For people who don't know what the term is, it means a person who can speak many languages.

Interjection.

P. Calendino: One member knows what it is.

With him are his wife Franca and his son Michael, who works for the Canadian Federation of Students office in Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: I'm pleased to close introductions today.

The Speaker: Maybe.

E. Gillespie: Oh, I understand that I'm not closing introductions.

I would like to introduce today two very special guests: my partner in life and my greatest supporter, Bruce Curtis, and our son Ceilidh Curtis -- who has, over the past few years, developed a very clear political analysis which he feels free to share with most anyone he meets.

R. Thorpe: It's a real privilege for me to have a constituent from Summerland here today, retired Lt.-Col. Harry Quarton, who spent many years with the South Alberta Regiment. Very recently, we celebrated their fifty-ninth anniversary in Penticton. Would the House please make Lieutenant-Colonel Quarton very welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon, for the first time this session, is my very supportive wife Aileen Randall. And I just want to add, hon. Speaker, that Victoria merchants are always happy when Aileen comes to town. She is here for the cruise this evening with Dale Clark and company. Would the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

WOMEN'S EQUALITY MINISTER'S SUPPORT FOR PREMIER

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. S. Hammell: Finally, the opposition across the way recognizes that women are an important part of this economy and is prepared to ask a question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. S. Hammell: From an opposition that has done nothing to support women, has spoken on their behalf nowhere and has not even supported partnering initiatives around women, it's appalling. We have raised the minimum wage. You have not supported the rise in the minimum wage -- something that you're arguing with. You're opposed to the HCL program. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, minister.

Hon. S. Hammell: . . .and that brings women into the workforce, into non-traditional jobs. You're opposed to that.

[1420]

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SUPPORT FOR PREMIER

My question is for the Attorney General. Will he tell us how he can continue to sit at a cabinet table with a Premier whose evidence under oath is not believed and who needs a criminal defence lawyer to defend himself?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When the hon. member ran in politics for election in Richmond-Steveston, I heard many good things about him. I'm disappointed today, because those good things obviously weren't true. He doesn't know the basics. The hon. member is well learned in the law. The hon. member knows that there is a principle in this province, a fundamental principle of law that applies to everyone -- the rich and the poor, the Premier and the labourer; it applies to the hon. member -- and that is the presumption of innocence.

[ Page 14473 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . .their position. I'm basing my remarks on public information.

I think it's important for us in this Legislature as the guardians of law -- not just as the Attorney General, but as the guardians of law and as the legislators in this province -- to set an example that there are some issues that are fundamental and that are more important than political partisanship.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, order, order.

HEALTH MINISTER'S SUPPORT FOR PREMIER

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

C. Hansen: . . .but not for patient services for British Columbians?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the Minister of Health has been recognized.

Hon. P. Priddy: That is clearly one of the most outrageous statements I have heard this opposition critic make. I can stand here and support this government, because I know that there's a major capital expansion going on at the Children's Hospital for children all over this province. At Vancouver Hospital, there's a $100 million capital construction going on that will benefit people from across this province. I can stand here because the West Coast General Hospital is being built in Port Alberni, and there are capital projects across this province that are benefiting. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .patients everywhere. But if it were up to this opposition, which says that $6 billion is enough for health care, there wouldn't be those patient services and there wouldn't be those new capital projects.

[1425]

LIBERAL PARTY AND BIG BIG BANKS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Easy, members, easy. Come on. Cool it, everybody -- just cool it. Vancouver-Burrard has the floor, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, Vancouver-Burrard would like to ask a question.

T. Stevenson: A good number of my low-income constituents rely on the Four Corners Community Savings bank, and yesterday I was profoundly disappointed at the Liberal Party attack on our actions to provide banking services to some of Canada's poorest people. The opposition received over $300,000 from Canada's big banks, and yesterday. . .

The Speaker: And the question is, member?

T. Stevenson: . . .their House Leader told the public it would be an easy matter to convince these big banks to help them out. My question is to the Premier: is the Premier aware of any attempt -- any attempt whatsoever -- by the Liberals to have their $300,000 corporate donors put their money where their mouth is and help make Four Corners a success?

Hon. G. Clark: I know of not one single Liberal who has lobbied on behalf of banking services for the people in the downtown east side -- not one. There are 5,000 people who didn't have banking services in the downtown east side, who now have banking services because of the Four Corners bank. We are proud of that initiative.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. G. Clark: We know you have contempt for the poor in this province. We know your views.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: We know you're opposed to the minimum wage, hon. member. We know you opposed every single initiative to promote services for low-income people. We know you're opposed to the Four Corners Bank.

On this side of the House, we're proud of those banking services, hon. members. I want you to know that this bank has a future, because the thousands of people that depended on its service are now defending it. My phone is ringing off the

[ Page 14474 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .in British Columbia.

FERRIES MINISTER'S SUPPORT FOR PREMIER

Since then, the Ferries minister has sat in that cabinet while we have watched the fast ferry fiasco, the convention centre fiasco -- while we have been treated to the spectacle of the Premier's home being searched by the RCMP. It might have seemed like a bargain in January for this minister to cross the floor. My question today to this minister is. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. The question. . . .

C. Clark: . . .was it worth it? Will he still stand here and defend the Premier, and stand up and say that it was worth trading in his principles to join this merry band across the floor?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.

Hon. G. Wilson: I, perhaps more than anybody on this side, have walked among and sat among the members opposite. I can say unequivocally that the policies and principles of this side for British Columbia are far better than what we see over there.

Hon. Speaker, my challenge. . .

[1430]

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . .on the matter of principle is to the member for Richmond East, the member for Richmond-Steveston. . .

The Speaker: Minister, minister. . . .

Hon. G. Wilson: . . .the member for Richmond Centre, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and others. If they truly believe in Liberal principles, then let us see some of them, hear some of them. Tell us what they believe in -- because they are devoid of any principle at all.

GAMING MINISTER'S SUPPORT FOR PREMIER

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: . . .its massive expansion of gaming.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

M. de Jong: Since then, the government has lost four court cases. It has spent. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

M. de Jong: . . .millions of dollars. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, in the chamber.

M. de Jong: . . .on legal and consulting fees, and we've witnessed the unprecedented spectacle. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Minister of Finance will come to order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can you please quit interrupting our member?

The Speaker: Member, come to order.

M. de Jong: We have witnessed the unprecedented spectacle of the RCMP raiding the Premier's home and office. And after all of that, the Deputy Premier leaves the House one day and says: "Gaming policy -- it was all a mistake. Just a little mistake."

My question to the minister responsible for gaming is: how can he continue to support a Premier who consistently contradicts him, and whose record of failure has set a new standard for political incompetence in Canada?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can answer that question (a) by taking it on notice; (b) by maybe trying something like a straightforward answer -- but why break with tradition now? -- or (c) by saying that I'd rather be sitting on this side of the House with a government that's done more for British Columbians in the areas of education and health care than any other government in this country, and more than that opposition would ever do.

[ Page 14475 ]

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTER'S SUPPORT FOR PREMIER

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Both sides, order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. L. Boone: It is a pleasure to stand here and support a government that made a choice -- a very difficult choice, given the push that was coming from the Liberal opposition and from the B.C. Business Council to actually make massive cuts in services, to reduce, to make 5 percent across-the-board cuts. That's what the Business Council says and the Leader of the Opposition says: "I support that; that's what we should be doing, that's what British Columbia should be doing." This government said: "No, we are not doing that. We are going to continue to support the services for British Columbians. We will not cut health care; we will not cut education; we will not cut services."

[1435]

Petitions

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure to table two annual reports: the annual report of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission for the year ending March 31, 1999, and the annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia for the year ending March 31, 1999.

Hon. C. Evans: It's my pleasure to table the 1998-99 annual report of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. P. Priddy: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors for 1997-98. It will be on the web site for people to see.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have the pleasure to table the 1998-99 annual report of the Forest Land Commission.

Hon. S. Hammell: It is my pleasure to table the 1998-99 annual report for the Ministry of Women's Equality. It is also on the Web.

Hon. D. Lovick: It is my honour to table the 1997-98 annual report for the Ministry of Labour.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have several reports, all riveting. The first one is the annual report of the British Columbia Securities Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999. I also have the report on authorized and issued guarantees and indemnities for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999. Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I have the report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, on amounts borrowed by governments for making loans to government bodies, as well as the corresponding report on loans to government bodies, amounts borrowed in foreign currencies and amounts borrowed for authorized disbursements. I have the report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998. And lastly, I have the honour to present the 1997-98 annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

Reports from Committees

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Retention and Disposal Authorities" -- the Public Documents Committee.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[1440]

[ Page 14476 ]

Motion approved.

R. Kasper: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Kasper: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Kasper: I would just like to note that the committee was very careful and very studious in its deliberations on preparing this report. After a great deal of time, the committee came to the conclusion that the act in its current form has served the people of British Columbia well. We did note 18 suggestions of changes to the existing legislation. We also noted that there are matters that considered great deliberation by the public from submissions. We noted that they were of importance, but we also recommended that those matters should not be dealt with by legislative change.

G. Plant: I just want to say a few words on behalf of the member for Okanagan East, who was the Deputy Chair of the committee. I think that for our part as opposition members of the committee, this was an important task.

The thing that I think is perhaps most gratifying to me personally as a result of the work of the committee is that the committee was unanimously of the view that the principles of access to government information and protection of privacy, which are the principles enshrined in this statute, are principles which need to continually be reaffirmed as fundamentally important in a functioning democracy. I want to express my appreciation to all the members of the committee, who I think worked hard for a very long time to bring this project to a close.

The Speaker: I will now put the question.

Motion approved.

R. Kasper: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Kasper: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Kasper: After the committee received some 95 applications from British Columbians -- and also from across the country -- of a very noted, wide variety of professional experience, the commission made a unanimous decision. I guess after we do the next vote, I shall make a motion.

The Speaker: Shall the report be adopted as read?

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Leave granted.

R. Kasper: Mr. David Loukidelis, a Vancouver lawyer who has been practising law since 1988, restricts his practice to representation of British Columbia local governments and other public bodies. As a founding member of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, he has served several years as a director and also as the president. He has written reports on a wide variety of access and privacy matters.

Mr. Loukidelis has also been a member of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy committee of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association since 1994. He has extensive experience in access-to-information and protection-of-privacy matters, which includes advising local governments and other public bodies as well as individuals and members of the media on a wide variety of issues.

He is joined here in the gallery by his spouse, Marie Potvin. Will the House please make him welcome.

[1445]

R. Kasper: By leave, I move that this House recommend that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor appoint Mr. David Loukidelis as a statutory officer of the Legislature to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the information and privacy commissioner for the province of British Columbia pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Motion approved.

[ Page 14477 ]

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PERSONAL INFORMATION AND
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

[That a Special Committee be appointed to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to:

1. the protection of personal information in private sector transactions and

2. the impact of electronic documents on privacy and freedom of information for British Columbians;

and without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider reports referred to the Committee by the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

The Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the Special Committee is to be composed of Messrs. Kasper (Convener), Calendino, Janssen and Orcherton, and Mmes. Smallwood and Walsh and Messrs. Weisbeck, Plant and Abbott and Ms. Whittred.]

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, but I show full respect to the House; they are printed on the order paper.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT AN AUDITOR GENERAL

[That a special committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of an Auditor General, pursuant to the Auditor General Act (RSBC 1996 c.23 5.2), and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee, and is also empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment of the House, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the Special Committee be comprised of members of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts established this session.]

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND
INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS

[That a Special Committee on International Trade and Investment Agreements be appointed to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Agreement and other international trade and investment agreements of relevance to the citizens of British Columbia. In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Special Committee shall:

1. Examine evidence on the key international trade and investment issues currently under negotiation and issues likely to be subject to negotiation in the near future;

2. Investigate the application of key issues arising out of these international negotiations to British Columbia;

3. Explore the implications of elements of these negotiations or proposed agreements for British Columbia. This shall include, but not be limited to, special consideration being given to:

environmental protection, including the control, conservation and protection of British Columbia's bulk fresh water;

British Columbia's agri-food sector;

British Columbia's public health, education and social services sectors;

enhanced market access abroad for British Columbia industries, investors and service providers; and

the jurisdictional authority of British Columbia's local, regional and provincial government;

4. Solicit submissions, presentations and expressions of views from experts, individuals, organizations and groups from British Columbia and elsewhere;

5. Disseminate appropriate information to enhance the levels of awareness and knowledge of British Columbians concerning the issues involved;

6. Consider the most effective and appropriate means for representing the views and interests of British Columbians on matters relating to the negotiations or proposed agreements.

Further, that the House authorizes the committee to provide opportunities for all citizens of British Columbia to express their views on these matters.

The said Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

[ Page 14478 ]

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee and;

(e) to permit television broadcasting of any public hearings the Committee may have;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly, and;

That the Special Committee of Selection be empowered to compile the list of Members for the said Committee.]

We participated in it not because the multilateral agreement on investment is a subject that is of direct concern to a provincial legislature in Canada; rather, it was really an issue that had to be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada. The only reason to justify the participation of members of this chamber in a special committee is if the powers of the province of British Columbia, as outlined under the constitution of Canada, were going to be threatened.

We got into this process, and what became very clear to us on this $206,000 committee -- which probably went up after that in terms of its. . . .

[1450]

C. Hansen: It was $206,000 that was budgeted for it. In fact, we don't know what the final cost was, but certainly I expect that it was going to be considerably higher in the end.

We wound up with hearings that were held in Victoria and Vancouver to hear so-called expert witnesses that were brought in, at considerable expense to the taxpayers of British Columbia, to appear before the committee and give us their points of view. What came out of that was really a sense that it was an issue that was not going to be threatening the jurisdiction of this province and that was being handled by the government of Canada. If you read the positions that were taken by the government of Canada -- which has responsibility for international relations, in the constitution of Canada -- this was an issue that was being handled in the interests of British Columbia.

So then, in the middle of this process -- long before we had gone out for public hearings around British Columbia; we were still in this process of expert hearings. . . . What we saw at that time was the real agenda of this government. That agenda was to basically refight the NAFTA wars, to refight battles that the New Democratic Party had lost in decades gone by. Somehow they wanted to keep this going; they wanted to keep the mythology going. They wanted to continue to spin this line to the public that somehow these mean, evil international types were threatening British Columbians. What we saw halfway through this process was a motion that they put forward before the committee. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

C. Hansen: . . .that clearly showed that they had made up their minds long before they ever went out to get input from the public. Then, in the middle of this process, before the NDP members got to take their trips to Geneva and to Paris and to Washington, D.C., what we saw was that they had clearly already made up their minds in terms of the outcome of that committee.

So what we have before us is the sequel to that standing committee. Is this the MAI committee -- the sequel? The horror continues.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

C. Hansen: The waste of taxpayers' money continues. Let's look at the responsibilities of a province in Canada. This is a province that has all kinds of problems. This is a province where, if we were going to be setting up special committees of this Legislature, we should be looking at the enormous debt that this government has grown over the last seven years. We should be setting up standing committees to deal with the growing wait-lists in our hospitals in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

C. Hansen: We should be setting up standing committees in this Legislature. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The member will take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I know that tension is pretty high here. Let's just take it easy. The more provocative we are, the more provocation comes back. So I would encourage everyone to temper their language and temper their words. I think we also want to talk about the motion that is before us, Motion 66, as opposed to some ancient history.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

C. Hansen: You know, we could be setting up special committees of this House to start looking at the funding of our school system in British Columbia. We could be looking at the

[ Page 14479 ]

I have a message for the backbench members, particularly those in the NDP caucus. It's that this is obviously an important issue -- international trade. I find it fascinating to read about it myself. But I chose to seek election to this chamber; I chose to become a provincial politician, to serve the people of this province under provincial jurisdiction. And I would suggest to each of them that at the time when they think that we in this province have adequately dealt with all of the problems that fall under provincial jurisdiction, that's when they should start looking at diverting some of their scarce time to looking at issues that should be dealt with by the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada.

[1455]

J. Smallwood: This member's arrogance is breathtaking. We have just tabled a report. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. More noise. . . . It's difficult for any of us to hear.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The member for Peace River North, come to order.

J. Smallwood: We have just tabled in this House a report of the work of the MAI committee that reflects the thoughtful input of over 300 people in this province. That is over and above the expert witnesses that were drawn from this province, from Canada and from Washington, D.C. -- not only people that participated in the development of existing trade agreements and investment agreements but people that are advisers to the government of Canada, including the negotiator for the government of Canada. We are now -- in September -- entering a new era building towards the WTO in Seattle in November.

The government of Canada, whom this member is such an apologist for, says that they themselves are prepared to take the principles that were drafted in the MAI to the WTO and extend them even farther to deal with services such as health care and education. Those are issues that are of critical importance to the people of this province. That arrogant opposition refuses to hear from the people of this province about their concerns and their experience with existing agreements that are unprecedented in Canada in dealing with the global marketplace.

Hon. Speaker, the people of this province appreciated a government that was prepared to listen to them, prepared to learn from their experience and prepared to take that experience to Ottawa and the WTO to ensure that their voices were heard.

B. Penner: I might be more willing to consider supporting this motion if I had a better idea of what the government intends to do with this committee. We have to look at experience, and experience shows us what the government tried to do with the last MAI committee. Government members were hoping to find themselves on a taxpayer-funded junket to Europe -- to Norway, Geneva and France. At a time when B.C.'s debt has more than doubled because of the NDP. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Will the member take his seat? The Chair recognizes the member for Chilliwack to enter into this debate. Other members have had their turns and can have a turn later.

[1500]

Let's take a look at some of the witnesses that the member for Surrey-Whalley referred to. British Columbia taxpayers paid $2,700 for union leader Bob White to travel from Toronto to Victoria to testify before our committee. We spent almost $3,000 to have a member of the European Green Party come from that continent to ours to offer his advice on an agreement that was already dead. Further, this committee of the Legislature offered $2,400 for the Friends of the Earth to come from Washington, D.C., to testify. Thankfully, they were unavailable and did not attend, so taxpayers did not have to pay for that expense.

Before B.C. Liberal members quit the committee after the NDP prejudged the outcome of the public hearing process, we heard one so-called expert witness suggest that international trade contributed to difficulties in the sex organs of polar bears. It sounds ridiculous, and I submit that it is. Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for this kind of NDP foolishness. Another boondoggle cannot be supported by the Legislature.

S. Orcherton: This debate is causing me some consternation and concern. I had the privilege to be on the committee, a committee that was unanimously -- by all sides of the House, even by the members opposite -- recommended to move forward out of this House. It was mandated by this Legislature to move out and talk to people in British Columbia about

[ Page 14480 ]

We heard consistently and continuously, as we ran around the province, from individuals in Nelson, Prince George, Terrace, Vancouver, Victoria -- from all over the province -- who said: "Do not believe that the multilateral agreement on investment is dead. Do not believe that it is on hold. It is an agenda that is moving forward." The member for Surrey-Whalley just spoke about the World Trade Organization meeting happening this fall in Seattle to deal with these very issues. This agreement is not dead.

In addition, the member from the opposition who spoke a few moments ago made reference to this not being the business of British Columbia; that he had not been elected to the British Columbia Legislature to deal with these kinds of issues. I think that is a shameful representation that is being portrayed by that member when he makes those kinds of comments.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities -- municipal politicians in this province -- has spoken clearly, loudly and concisely, saying that they are very, very afraid of the multilateral agreement on investment. They are very concerned about the World Trade Organization deliberations this fall. They are very pleased that the province of British Columbia -- the only jurisdiction in Canada -- has gone out to talk to the people of British Columbia. They are very pleased that the government has taken this position to hear what British Columbians have to say.

The committee heard loudly, and the members opposite, if they read report 1 and report 2, will understand -- with some clarity, I hope -- that municipal governments and regional districts in the province of British Columbia are very concerned about these trade investment agreements. You know why they're concerned? Because they cut into the jurisdiction that is rightfully bestowed upon municipal governments.

For that member opposite to say that this is outside the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia is patently incorrect. He is wrong; he knows not of what he speaks. These types of agreements go to the very issues of responsibilities given to provinces: issues around jurisdiction for provinces; issues around health care and social services; and issues, most importantly for the members to understand, around the exportation of bulk water -- an issue that is currently being considered in terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement and that I believe to be on the agenda for the World Trade Organization this fall.

[1505]

You know, hon. Speaker, for people on that side of the House to stand up and say that it is too expensive to talk to British Columbians is a shameful statement, because those same members say that we don't consult enough as government, that we as government don't go out and talk to the people enough. We went out to the people of British Columbia on this issue. I say that is money well spent -- money that will serve the interests of the people of British Columbia in terms of British Columbia's position to maintain its sovereignty over its jurisdictions in international trade agreements.

Read those reports, members. You're operating in a myopic vacuum over there. You have no understanding of what the people want in terms of agreements around trade. You have no understanding of what these issues are about. You are simply. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

S. Orcherton: Oh, I must have struck a nerve. You are simply pandering to your Liberal pals. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, member.

S. Orcherton: . . .in the federal government who are moving to simply capitulate on these trade agreements.

Thank you for allowing me to bring these remarks forward. Those members over there have no common sense when it comes to these kinds of questions.

J. van Dongen: It's a very interesting debate on Motion 66. I think it's very clear that the government members want to engage in discussion and put resources into an effort that has nothing to do with provincial jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with provincial priorities. The issues of health care and education and municipal government. . . . Those services to the public in British Columbia have been much more damaged by the actions of this government than they have by anything to do with international trade.

I see that the government wants to go ahead and set up this other committee that is engaged in areas over which this government has no jurisdiction. They're in federal jurisdiction. They certainly have impacts, but I think that the provincial government should concentrate on its own areas of responsibility that impact the public.

I want to remind the government of one of those: the commitment that this government made to set up the Crown Corporations Committee. This commitment was made in the throne speech in June '96. The Premier has complained about the lack of resources to fund this committee and about the lack of time, yet here we are, engaged in a wild goose chase on issues that are not within the provincial government's jurisdiction. I want to remind the government of the commitment it made to the public in the throne speech of June '96. It was reiterated over and over again by the Premier in August '96, in 1997 and in 1999. I'll give you a quote from the Premier: "I give you seriously the undertaking that in the next session of the House, we will, for sure, refer work to the committee on Crown corporations. It will sit and it will be significant. That's my commitment. We haven't quite got there this year, but I hope the members appreciate that it's simply because we have a fairly ambitious parliamentary reform agenda." Now, I don't know where that parliamentary reform agenda went, but certainly that comment by the Premier identifies another serious need in this House.

Yet we're off on a wild goose chase in this motion to talk about issues that are clearly not within the responsibility and

[ Page 14481 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. . . . Skeena, come to order.

J. van Dongen: . . . and by the Public Accounts Committee for the Crown Corporations Committee to review the business plans, the mission statements and the financial statements of our Crown corporations. Certainly we have seen, in the performance of some of these Crown corporations -- some of the largest Crown corporations in this province, such as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Ferries -- some very, very serious need for better oversight by the Crown Corporations Committee.

[1510]

Motion approved on division.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

[That in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Special Committee of Selection the committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House; and to determine the membership of any select standing or special committee of the House.]

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 89.

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(continued)

On section 1 (continued).

I. Chong: On section 1, prior to the break, the minister and I were discussing the Hydro and Power Authority entering into a joint management agreement. The minister at that time appeared to misunderstand or misinterpret the intent and the spirit with which I was trying to make these points. These concerns were in fact raised by those who had the opportunity and the time to review this piece of legislation. The concerns and fears that have been raised have been raised legitimately by those employees who feel they have not been informed.

[1515]

It's quite simple: if the minister had listened, then she would be able to incorporate that by removing particular words that exclude those managers and professionals. I know that Hydro is attempting to speak to those managers and professionals and express to them that there are no concerns. We've heard time and time again in this Legislature, through other pieces of legislation, that the intention is to allow for reasonableness and to allow for participation. But we've also seen that unless it is so worded in legislation, there is no reliability -- not necessarily any dependability -- that that will occur.

So I want to ensure that the minister is aware that the concerns we have are from the over 1,200 Hydro employees who are not members of the unions and 4,300 retirees who also feel that they have been disenfranchised by this section. Some 5,500 excluded employees and retirees will not have the benefit of participating with the 4,500 union members who are going to be making binding decisions on their agreement. That the agreement is binding is stated in paragraph (6) of section 1.

I would like the minister to explain to those who are following these proceedings why that will occur. Why is it that she will not consider either standing down this section or removing this section and why it was brought in in this fashion?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Here's what the Liberals are saying: the Liberals are saying that they're not out there fearmongering. I have answered that member's question about this. I have asked her for advice on who would represent these members and what format there would be to speak on their behalf. They're an unorganized group. How would the member opposite suggest they be represented? If the member opposite has some positive suggestions about how they would be represented other than what I have already articulated and committed to, perhaps she could offer that positive advice, instead of fearmongering -- as they are doing as of today, unlike the denial that she made earlier.

Here's what the Liberals are saying: "Bill 89 -- New Joint Trustee Provisions Deny Representation to Non-Union Employees." The member opposite stood up earlier just before the lunch break and said: "Oh, it's not us doing that; it's not us doing that at all."

[ Page 14482 ]

[1520]

I. Chong: If the minister had listened to our second reading debates and had accepted our amendment, which was to hoist the bill for six months, then perhaps we could have come back six months hence with a mechanism to allow for that representation to occur. But when the minister was asking for solutions, and we gave her a possible solution -- by hoisting the bill to allow for the time to set up those structures, to allow for that representation to occur -- she would not do that. She wouldn't even meet us halfway. As the Finance critic stated, we could have given the second reading. We could have allowed the six months' hoist to take place and come back a day before the next session started. We would have been able to deal with it in committee stage. By then there would have been sufficient representation; there would have been solutions by the plan members.

This is not about the unions; this is not about the government; this is not about the official opposition. This is about the plan members who want their plan protected.

On Monday, July 5, when this legislation was tabled, a letter immediately came forth from a constituent -- not of mine, but up in the Peace River area. I won't read the entire letter, but this just goes to show that this was immediate, from those who had the opportunity. This particular individual is a member of the managers and the professionals. He stated:

"Suddenly our representation is to be denied in the management of our pension contributions because we are NOT a trade union. . . . Everyone should be entitled to some representation in matters concerning such a large sum of money and such a long-term personal investment. I ask you. . .to represent myself and over 1,000 other M&P employees by ensuring that the existing legislation regarding the joint management agreement is not altered."

These letters and these concerns are coming from constituents throughout the province who were able to immediately retrieve this information and contact us. If the minister would like to continue to believe that it is not by individual plan members, I guess that's her privilege. She's not paying attention to all those plan members who are being affected.

I think I've made sufficient comments regarding section 1 in this area. Suffice to say that I know that the minister chooses to believe what she chooses to believe what she chooses to believe, without listening to those who are writing us on their own volition and not paying attention to the fear by these plan members that may exist out there. If that's what she continues to do, that certainly is her privilege.

I would still like the hon. minister to provide us with some answer as to what appropriate mechanisms, as stated in paragraph 3 of section 1, would be in place, if she even has an idea of what appropriate mechanisms would take place for this Hydro authority.

[1525]

"First. . .representatives of the management and professional employees and the retired employees will be invited to participate fully in the discussions of the joint management agreement.

"Second, that should a decision to enter a joint management agreement" -- of course, the hon. member completely misses when she says that we should hoist this for six months; there is no agreement in place, and those discussions are taking place right now -- "be reached, the authority will ensure that an appropriate process is established for appointing a management and professional employee" -- that means an appropriate process where the 1,200 unorganized management employees have an equal say in who their representative is; or maybe it would be like the hon. member says, that we hold a meeting where all 1,200 show up, and maybe that would be their solution -- "who is a plan member and, in conjunction with the IBEW and the OPEIU, a retired employee who is a plan member [will be appointed] to the board established by the joint management agreement.

"Fourth, you will make" -- this is on the arrangements directed to the superannuation commissioner -- "the appropriate plans to commence the consideration of the joint management agreement by all parties in September 1999."

I. Chong: I'm not wanting to prolong this debate on section 1 for longer than it needs to be. But even though the Minister of Finance read out the document that she has, even then there are flaws in that when she says there's full participation. There are people who are wondering what that could possibly mean. For the Minister of Finance to take this lightly and not treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. . . . I'm appalled.

I reiterate my concerns on behalf of all those who have contacted us and those who will yet contact us, I'm sure, throughout the summer in regards to section l. I recognize that there is not yet an agreement, and that is the difficulty these people are having. They do not see themselves as having the opportunity to participate. The appropriate mechanisms -- if they are as solid as they are, then why were they not included within the legislation? Why is it that as a result of all this, all these concerns, the minister has to provide this document through the authority? If the people of these pension plans felt that they could trust this government and this minister, then I suppose we wouldn't have got all these letters. But that just goes to show that the plan members are concerned, and they do not trust this government. That's why the questions are coming to our side of the House.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

[ Page 14483 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Listening to the debate, and having worked in an enterprise where a joint trustee has been in place for many, many years, I'm rather curious. The question is very simple.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps I could get the answer to the member's question by the answer that the minister might give to this question. If there is no legislation to provide for employee participation in the management of the pension fund, which this does, it would be equally true or you would draw the obvious conclusion that, without this legislation, all of the current employees of B.C. Hydro, for example -- whether they be union or non-union -- actually have no legislative mechanism. They have no legal right whatsoever to participate in any way, shape or form in the management of their own pension plan. Is that the right conclusion?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That is exactly correct. Right now there is no legislative authority for any representation by any employee. The only representation that they are permitted now is in the plan rules. It's not legislated and could be taken away at whim. It is unbelievable that anyone would say that this is anything other than a step forward in employee rights.

[1530]

Hon. D. Miller: One final question -- very simple. I want an interpretation, I guess, of that section. My interpretation -- and I just want the minister to say yes or no -- is that for the first time this legislation explicitly not only makes provision for the participation of unionized, organized workers but for the very first time this legislation makes it explicit that non-union employees, who have no formal organization and who may have some difficulty electing one of their members since there's no formal organization, are now given legislative rights to participate in the management of the trustee plan.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and that new provision also, for the very first time ever, applies to retirees as well.

Sections 2 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

I. Chong: The reason why I was satisfied with sections 3 to 13, just for the benefit of the minister, is, in fact, because the consultative process for the Pension (College) Act has been somewhat fulfilled. I see that all these changes are as a result of that consultation. However, in section 14, I see a change which is also going to be repeated in sections 21, 28 and 37 -- dealing with the idea of changing the preretirement death benefits by standardizing the benefit payable in the event of a member's death regardless of the member's marital status. This section, even though it's contained within the Pension (College) Act. . . . Although it has reached some agreement, when it is repeated for the other three statutory acts, there are concerns for those other three groups. That's why I raise it at this point. Perhaps the minister, through the superannuation commissioner, could provide some additional input here.

As I understand it, previously for those whose marital status was such that they were married, the survivor benefits that were available to a spouse were offside, if you will, from that which was permitted through the Income Tax Act. Of course, the difficulty of that is that it could require the pension plan to be deregistered or revoked, according to Revenue Canada. In order to change that, partially because of the accord that was reached last year, this change has been made. However, I am led to understand that if in fact we did not lower the bar for those in that status but maintained the status quo and even grandfathered those who will be subject to that change, there would not have been a substantial cost to the pension plan. I wonder if the minister is aware, through the superannuation commissioner, whether that calculation was made and whether in so making that calculation, it was put forward to the union representatives that came forward last year when the accord was negotiated.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it was all done with the full knowledge of everybody.

[1535]

In particular, I know that the commissioner is aware of Susan Service. For the record, she states:

"Here are my basic objections to Bill 89's changes to survivor benefits:

"1. The changes were negotiated by unions that have no mandate or authority to act on my behalf or on behalf of approximately 5,000 other vested, inactive members as at March 31, 1998.

"2. The unions are not permitted to negotiate these benefits without 60 days' notice under section 54 of the Labour Code -- [in other words,] there was no communication to the membership.

"3. The changes are, in my opinion, a breach of the trustees' fiduciary responsibility to the disenfranchised plan members.

"4. The changes are, in my opinion, contrary to section 59 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act.

"5. The changes are not necessary, to this degree, to comply with Revenue Canada."

[ Page 14484 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, we don't have that information. I would suggest that the hon. member assist the letter-writer to contact her union.

I. Chong: I suppose the difficulty is that this particular member was not contacted by the union representatives at the time when. . . . The minister indicated that when these calculations were made, or the cost values were determined, there was this communication conveyed to its membership. My point is that this was not done and also that this particular member in fact has, over the course of the last few days, tried to contact the union representatives. She has tried to gain information, and even there she has found that she has not reached a satisfactory answer. In fact, in order to find out more information about the survivor benefit changes in Bill 89, she has to put in an FOI request, which will take about 30 days to come back to her. So she is not able to confirm whether the pension boards were made fully aware of the magnitude of these changes.

If in fact the amounts are as insignificant -- I wouldn't say immaterial -- as she states, I'm curious as to why they were permitted to proceed. Many people who have their pension plans negotiated and who are given information through booklets or brochures -- or whatever they have -- expect to rely upon a certain amount of retirement security. At this point there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who have that retirement security threatened.

Again, I would like to ask the minister if that information is available, if the calculations have been made and whether or not she would at least make those available to me so that I could convey that to those concerned plan members, rather than having them wait the 30 days.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll do what I can to assist, hon. Chair. But I too would then have to go to the negotiators of the accord. The hon. member is free to do that directly herself, but if she needs assistance, I will do so.

[1540]

Also, what I would like to do is provide the information that I've received this afternoon to the minister. This has to do with the removal of spousal pension benefits, but this is in fact through the municipal pension plan. Again, it's through another section. But by mentioning it now, I won't repeat my comments in those other sections -- in an effort to save time. This particular individual is writing on behalf of the B.C. Federation of Police Officers, who are concerned about the removal of spousal pension benefits in the municipal pension plan. He writes:

"I write to you as the pension representative for the B.C. Federation of Police Officers. I understand the government is nearing third reading in the bill that will eliminate the right to a pension for spouses of contributors to the municipal pension plan who die, if the contributor was not within ten years of maximum retirement age.

"I further understand that the cost saving to the pension plan will be extremely small. Therefore the cost to maintain the status quo is negligible. Yet the loss of the benefit to a widow or widower, possibly with children, will be very substantial. It is astonishing in the extreme to me and all members of the B.C. Federation of Police Officers that the New Democratic government would even consider such a legislative change.

"On behalf of the B.C. Federation of Police Officers, I strongly urge you not to complete third reading of this bill. We will watch closely you and your government's action in this regard."

Hon. J. MacPhail: The author is misinformed. There are benefits. That plan is enabled by a municipal employees pension committee to which he can refer his issue, and they will deal with it.

I. Chong: Then perhaps what I will do is provide a copy of this to the superannuation commissioner. Perhaps he can respond to this concerned representative, because I think there has. . . . Prior to these letters coming into our office, I understand that the members writing about these concerns tried to have those fears removed by contacting their union representatives and they were not successful in doing so. I want to put on the record my very strong concerns regarding the changes to the survivor benefits. If those survivor benefits have been changed without a proper and a thorough calculation of the cost, to ensure that all those who would have been affected would in fact have been notified. . . . I would certainly hate to see, within a few months' time, a tragedy occur in which a dependent who requires a certain benefit finds that they have that amount diminished and were not made aware of these changes.

Sections 14 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

I. Chong: As I mentioned earlier, I won't repeat my comments. But again, the concerns that have been raised in terms of survivor benefits under the Pension (Municipal) Act. . . .

Sections 21 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

I. Chong: Again, on section 28, the same concerns exist regarding the Pension (Public Service) Act in regard to survivor benefits.

Sections 28 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

I. Chong: And again, the objection to section 37, as the result of the concerns raised earlier in respect of survivor benefits, still exists.

[1545]

[ Page 14485 ]

Sections 37 and 38 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 89, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed, on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 95.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS ACT

On section 1.

I. Chong: I would actually like to make some opening remarks, in an effort to proceed expeditiously through this legislation. I want to acknowledge that again I have had the benefit of some discussions with both the investment officer and the superannuation commissioner. I am grateful, and I do thank them for that.

The concerns that are raised continue to be raised by constituents who write to members on this side of the House from throughout the province and are certainly not restricted to the constituency that I represent.

I acknowledge the reason for Bill 95, which is first of all to implement the college pension plan joint trusteeship agreement. But it is also to enable the other three statutory plans, being the municipal pension plan, the public service pension plan and the teachers' pension plan.

The concerns that I will be attempting to raise throughout this legislation. . . . If I could outline them now, perhaps the staff would be able to have the answers ready when we get to those sections, so we will move through it very quickly.

I am concerned about how the three pension advisory boards will canvass their members to ensure that there is solid support for moving toward joint trusteeship. I am aware that there was a series of public hearings held for the Pension (College) Act, and I want to have some assurance that that will occur for the other three statutory pension plans and that the pension advisory boards, once this legislation is passed -- that is, enabled -- will not be permitted the sole right to move ahead without substantial consultation, as was provided in the Pension (College) Act.

Also, how will the members of the pension advisory board ensure that the plan members are informed about their pension reform and joint trusteeship? I know that two brochures have already been issued: one for the public service and one for the college pension plan. As yet, I'm not sure if the other two pension plans have brochures that will be developed.

I'm also wondering how the members of the pension advisory board will ensure that plan members have an opportunity to express their views. This is all in the context of the fact that they should have some consultation. Will each and every member of the pension plan in fact be notified, and how will they be notified? Will they be notified by direct mail, through newsletters or what have you? Will all members -- not only those who are members of the specific unions in those pension plans, but those who are retirees, excluded members and managers, etc. -- be notified?

[1550]

The members of the pension boards believe that the current legislative structure of the public sector pension plans is complex and unwieldy. That is what has been communicated. I would like it if the superannuation commissioner can describe to us what the complexities are and what it is within the legislative structure that creates this unwieldy situation for the pension plans. Are we going to be implementing administrative legal changes that are going to be beneficial and efficient?

The concern that has also been raised is that this legislation, by bringing into one act the four statutory pension plans and having each of them dealt with by schedule and then by regulation. . . . That has been a concern, because by regulation there is no assurance that possible changes in the future will have the full airing of public debate in the Legislature. That has also been a concern that has been raised by a number of plan members. Changes by regulation, as opposed to by legislation, actually move this out of being more accountable and more responsible to the plan members. If we want to ensure that they have fairness and that they have the opportunity to bring concerns to their elected representatives and that their democratic voice is heard, is this in fact the right way to go? Must this be the only way that we proceed in order for joint trusteeship to occur?

I'm also hearing from the minister that the reason we are bringing forward this piece of legislation is to enable the pursuit of joint trusteeship. Clearly enough, that is the case for the college pension plan. But for the other three pension plans, I do still question whether we're putting the cart before the horse. Why is it that each of these other three statutory pension plans could not be brought forward in isolation and dealt with at that time? The concerns that I'm being told, that I'm hearing -- and rightfully so -- are that if in fact the pension plan members want to move forward this way, then it would be just as easy to bring it forward to the government and for the ministry to introduce that legislation separately. Once having brought those together, we can then do an amalgamation, if you will, of all the particular acts.

By replacing the four current public sector pension schedules with one act that entrenches these four schedules, I'm

[ Page 14486 ]

I've listed those items in an effort to expedite some of these. I do have some questions specifically when we reach the two agencies and Crown corporations that are being established.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume that this is the range of questions that the member has throughout the bill, so let me start. First of all, the college pension plan is the model by which the rest of the consultations will take place if the various plans wish to look at joint trusteeship. I mean, it may not be an exact replica, but it is the model that will be used. I think that the members opposite recognize that it was a very successful model. So that is the intent, if indeed plan members choose to even have the consultation and move in that direction.

[1555]

On the issue of streamlining, yes, the streamlining is coming not with the administration of the plans, because we have a very efficient administration of the plans, but with the streamlining of the regulations that's going to take place. No regulation will be brought forward on the recommendation without the agreement of the pension plan boards. So it won't be government. In fact, this is taking away or removing. . . . This is putting arm's length between the government and the plans now. The pension boards will recommend a regulation, and then that will come into place.

Every single plan member will have input into this decision. The model that will be used, with modifications according to the wishes of the pension board. . . . The college pension plan will be the model on which we will move forward -- if we move forward.

The last point was: "Why not do it one act at a time?" That's an interesting approach. The request from the Liberal opposition is to bring in more legislation -- do it more slowly and in a more inefficient way. This is merely enabling legislation. The enabling legislation doesn't impose or require a mandate -- anything. It merely says, in a way that represents all plans, that if you want to, you now have the legislative authority to pursue it.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for endeavouring to answer all those questions. To her last comment, though, I do want to make the point that it's not a question of bringing in more legislation; it's a question of allowing the freedom of those plan members to decide when they can do this. I recognize that it is enabling legislation, but the fear from plan members is that when it's available and out there, they will have less control as plan members to bring the idea forward. They feel that when the idea has presented itself through enabling legislation, others would move ahead. They would not be permitted the opportunity to perhaps stop the plan from going toward joint trusteeship, because the discussions -- or whatever happens -- happen when the least amount of people are aware that this is going on.

I appreciate the fact that the college pension plan had the consultation. I think it was done at a time when people were still available and around to see that, because I believe that the discussions were all concluded by sometime in the middle of June. Should discussions of this nature take place when it would be the most inopportune time -- during summer holidays or during Christmas break time -- that would not serve those plan members well. That's why they themselves have asked: "Why do we need enabling legislation? We'll see how it works, and if we want it, then we'll come forward and do this."

So it was a concern. It was an idea that had been forwarded to me to present to the minister. It is not an idea to create more inefficiencies or more legislation, but a more representative, I guess, form of legislation.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

[1600]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The pension corporation will be a self-financing corporation, so section 13 of the act requires it to fully recover its costs. The ability to borrow will enable the corporation to make use of an operating line of credit. For example, it will allow the corporation to make a sound business decision, or decisions, regarding financing capital expenditures. Examples of possible capital expenditures include computer systems and equipment. The pension funds will benefit if the costs can be amortized over time rather than allocated to a single quarterly cost requisition from the corporation. So it's on that basis that this is there.

I. Chong: So at this point we have the administration currently being done through government, and government funding. . . . That role will now be played by the British Columbia Pension Corporation. What I understand is that with this new agency being created, the government, through the Minister of Finance, will not be setting aside an expenditure for this and that this new pension corporation will have to charge, through to the pension boards, their fees. And if their fees are not sufficient, they would have to -- rightfully so -- raise money for those capital expenditures, as the minister has stated. This new pension corporation would also have to take care of costs such as rent and leaseholds -- those kinds of things. Can the minister confirm that, or provide additional information if I'm incorrect?

[ Page 14487 ]

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

I. Chong: In the area of the pension management board having at least eight directors, I don't have a difficulty with that. I see the two directors from each of the pension boards, being one from the members and one from the employer partners. I'm just curious as to the wording here in subsection (1): "The pension management board must have at least 8 directors. . . ." Is there a maximum number of directors that will be permitted on the pension management board? What is the set number of directors that will be permitted?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's written this way because the chair could come from one of the eight plan appointees, or the plan appointees could agree to have a ninth for a chair. So the maximum is nine.

I. Chong: So I'll take it that the maximum would only be nine and that there would not be ten or 12 for any other changes. I see the minister nodding; I'll accept that as correct.

The Pension Corporation, this new Crown agency, is designed to administer these four public sector plans and also provide third-party pension administration services to such agencies as B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail and WCB. Is that also what it is limited to? Or are there others contemplated?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It can accept any public sector pension plan in B.C. that wishes to use the services.

I. Chong: One last question in this section about the Pension Corporation -- I apologize if it doesn't pertain particularly to this section -- is in terms of Pension Corporation staffing requirements. Can the minister advise, through the superannuation commissioner, what the staffing requirements would be? There are the directors, I presume. There's going to be a staff contingent. Would that be staff that will be seconded from the ministry initially as a transition? Or will there be a completely new structure set up for the staffing?

[1605]

Sections 8 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

I. Chong: At this point we're talking about the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, a new Crown corporation that is going to be established to serve and manage the investments of the four public sector pension funds and also provide some fund management services for a variety of other clients. I understand that they would be other government Crowns and trust funds.

I would just like the minister to advise whether it is mandatory that these four public sector pension plans utilize the service of the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation -- that they must have their funds managed by this corporation.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Public sector pension plans that have not moved to a joint trusteeship model of the four plans are required to use this entity. Ones that have gone to joint trusteeship are compelled to use this entity for the first year -- approximately a year and a half. After that, based on the principle of a sound business plan and in the best interests of the members, it's wide open.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

I. Chong: Again, the investment management board, the seven directors. . . . It states here that the management board must have seven directors. Is that therefore limited to the seven directors, and the board is therefore disabled if in fact it has less than seven? Or what changes can be made?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it is seven and seven alone. But subsection 19(12) says: "No act or proceeding of the investment management board is invalid merely because there are in office fewer than the number of directors required under this section."

I. Chong: I note that the composition of the seven directors is, I guess, representing the four statutory pension plans. Of the other remaining three, one will be the Deputy Minister of Finance, the other two being representatives of clients of the Investment Management Corporation. I'm wondering if the minister can clarify what is meant by these clients.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are other clients, such as the WCB, B.C. Hydro and the office of the public trustee, to name but a few.

I. Chong: Those two directors, who would come from the client base as opposed to from the four representative statutory pension plans, would be appointed as opposed to elected. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

[1610]

Schedules A to D inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 95, Public Sector Pension Plans Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 14488 ]

MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

[1615]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could we have order in the chamber, please? We have one small bit of business to straighten out here.

[1620]

Motion approved.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS ACT
(continued)

Sections 30 to 125 inclusive approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[1625]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 95, Public Sector Pension Plans Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The Speaker: We await the presence of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

[1630]

Clerk of the House:

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1999

Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 1999

Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1999

Water Amendment Act, 1999

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1999

Motor Vehicles Statutes Amendment Act, 1999

Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1999

Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1999

Company Act

Education Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999

Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1999

Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1999

Unclaimed Property Act

Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 1999

Land Title Amendment Act, 1999

Fee Statutes Amendment Act, 1999

Public Sector Pension Plans Act

Electoral Districts Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act (No. 3), 1999

Cooperative Association Act

Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 1999

Poulos Investments Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 1999

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 1999-2000

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this act.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And moreover, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are now at the end of what could have been the longest session on record. We're not sure yet;

[ Page 14489 ]

Our private thoughts actually go with each and every member in this House for a very safe and healthy summer not only for the members but also for all of our constituents. With that, on behalf of the government and all members, I wish you a very good summer.

The Speaker: I would also like to add to that. A small reception is being held in the Library for all members, their staff and the staff of the buildings.

The House adjourned at 4:34 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada