2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001

Volume 2, Number 27

[ Page 805 ]

MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001

           The House met at 2:03 p.m.

           Prayers.

Introductions by Members

           Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I can't claim that this particular person is present in the precincts, but I know that all members of the House would like to be sure that the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier has our best wishes and, more importantly, that Hamish Michael Marissen-Clark is welcomed appropriately into British Columbia as one of our newest citizens. I hope all the House will make him welcome.

           Hon. T. Nebbeling: Today in the House we have with us Jody Allen. Mr. Allen is a resident of Victoria. However, this is the very first time that he is visiting us in the House. I hope he will be witnessing an invigorating debate, and that may lead to him coming back to the House on a regular basis.

[1405]

           D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you today two members of my family. My son Anthony Hayer and my nephew Nicklos Lundman helped us with our barbecue, which we had over 1,000 people attend last Sunday. Also in the gallery with us today are Bill Reid, president of the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce; Ron Watson, executive director of the Surrey and White Rock Home Care Association; and Martin Van Huizen, vice-president of Field & Marten Associates. They are also residents of my community. Would the House please make them welcome.

           Hon. S. Hagen: We have in the precinct today two guests from San Clemente, California: my wife's uncle, Art Schleger, and his friend, Sherry Bozeman. Would the House please make them welcome.

           J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today is a very talented woman from my constituency, Elizabeth Ferguson, who has just completed her bachelor of arts with distinction in environmental studies and German from the University of Victoria. Also, she has won a Rotary ambassadorial scholarship and will be travelling to Oxford, England, this fall to complete her master of science in environmental change and management. She has come to the Legislature to see this wonderful building, to see us in action and to get a firsthand look at government. I would ask the House to wish her good luck in her studies and also to welcome her today.

           Hon. S. Santori: In the gallery today I am very pleased to welcome some good friends and constituents from the city of Trail. Here today are Argero Quiriconi and his wife, Lorena Quiriconi, as well as their daughter, Lucia MacLean, and her two sons, Jeff and Michael. This is Argero's and Lorena's first trip to Victoria even though they have been living in British Columbia since the early fifties. Also, all the way from the beautiful region of Tuscany in the province of Pisa, visiting, are Mara Parenti and Guiliano Parenti. I would ask that the House make them feel welcome.

           E. Brenzinger: Today I am proud to introduce my beautiful daughter and her boyfriend, Kirsten Brenzinger and Jay Tottle. Would the House please make them welcome.

           V. Roddick: I have two introductions to make. First, there is a young couple up in the gallery today from my riding of Delta South, a businesswoman who has enabled me to pursue provincial politics and a budding scientist who is currently taking his PhD in genetics at UBC. Would the House please make welcome my daughter and her husband, Kate and Layne Harvey, on the occasion of their fifth wedding anniversary.

           Second, Mr. Speaker, is a businessman also from Delta South who succinctly described my move from selling fertilizer to that of politician as a relatively short step — a man who, of course, now has to do everything that his daughter directs him to do from the business point of view. But he still manages to find enough spare time to enthusiastically drive Miss Daisy. Will the House please welcome my husband, Noel Roddick.

           R. Lee: I would like to introduce four visitors from Burnaby North today: a graduate from Simon Fraser University, Anne Lee; a Burnaby North secondary student, Jarek Lee, who is talented in playing the piano, violin and trumpet. Another outstanding pianist is Montecito Elementary attendee, Darek Lee. Throughout the last school year Darek enjoyed the guidance of his teacher, Ms. Gaetz. Each student in her class had the opportunity to prepare and deliver over 25 speeches, almost once per week. Last, but not least, an energetic preschool student, Leanne Lee, is an exceptional tap dancer and artist. They are all members of my family. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

           R. Visser: Today I have some visitors from the North Island to introduce to the House. In the gallery are Deb Lloyd, my constituency assistant; her daughters, Crystal and Angelica Lewis; and her mother, Evelyn Brendeland. There's also Andy Adams, a past riding association president for the North Island, and some very close personal friends of mine, Dennis Morgan, and his two daughters, Sydney and Carmen. Would the House make them welcome.

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I have a number of visitors today from my constituency. Visiting us are Bhupinder S. Gidda, Arinder Kaur Gidda, Gursimran K. Gidda, Mehroop S. Gidda and Jyoti K. Sangha. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

[ Page 806 ]

           L. Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a good friend of mine, Mr. Bob Quartermain of Vancouver-Fairview. Bob worked on my campaign and is an executive with the mining companies Silver Standard and Golden Knight. It gives me great pleasure to have him here today. We had lunch earlier, and he said that the last time he was in question period was in Great Britain, with Margaret Thatcher on the hot seat. So he's here to see how we compare in terms of being civilized. I hope that the House will give him a good show.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Suzanne Boucher-Chen, a director of Mirant; and John Maher, a project developing manager for Mirant. They're a company that's investing heavily in electricity and oil and gas in the province of British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

           P. Wong: I would like to introduce Siu wan Ng, my constituency assistant, together with her husband, Po wah Ng, and her four-year-old son, Gent Ng, who is my youngest political adviser. Also, I would like to introduce Daniel Cheung, a B.C. Liberal youth leader who is going back to Saskatchewan next week to complete his university degree. Would the House please make them welcome.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: On behalf of my colleague from Penticton–Okanagan Valley I'm pleased to advise the House that yet another world record was established this past weekend in British Columbia: 1,994 participants took part in the Iron Man in Penticton, establishing a world record this year.

           Interjection.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Just wait.

           Also participating were 4,600 community volunteers, from nurses to doctors, massage therapists, Penticton Search and Rescue, and paramedics from throughout the province of British Columbia. Amazing — 39 countries were represented. The winner of the women's was Gillian Bakker from Winfield, British Columbia, and the winner of the men's was Peter Reid from Victoria, British Columbia. Would the House please give them their congratulations.

Oral Questions

RESPONSIBILITY OF MUNICIPALITIES
IN ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING CODE

           J. MacPhail: Last Friday the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that the municipality of Delta had a legal duty to enforce the building code and had failed to do so adequately. The court said that there was a clear responsibility for the municipality of Delta to enforce the building code.

           To the minister responsible for leaky condos: can he assure us today that his government has made a decision to not bring forward legislation that would allow municipalities to avoid their responsibilities arising out of the leaky condo crisis?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer to the member's question is no. We have no plans to bring in legislation to exempt municipalities from that responsibility. In fairness, though, I have not seen any proposal at this point from either the municipality or the Union of B.C. Municipalities with respect to this matter. I understand, through the channels of media, that they have some plans to do that. Of course, we will receive their request respectfully when it arrives. But the short answer is no.

           Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.

[1415]

           J. MacPhail: Actually, it isn't the UBCM that this government should fear; it's his own Premier that he should fear. There are reasons why the minister should be worried about what his own government will do. He wasn't here in 1995, but the then Leader of the Opposition introduced a private member's bill here that remains on record, which would have removed any legal responsibility on the part of municipalities to enforce either the local statutes or the B.C. Building Code. His own Premier introduced that. So if the now Premier had his way, leaky- condo owners in Delta would still be stuck with the bill. To the minister responsible for leaky condos: could he reassure us that his own Premier's private member's bill that we have right here will not become the law of the land in British Columbia?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I understand that the Premier has no plans to introduce a private member's bill into the Legislature with respect to this matter. While we would certainly welcome any advice that the opposition may have with respect to this, again, in deference to the courts and to local government, I think we have to, first of all, acknowledge that it was an important decision that was rendered on Friday. It may, subject to appeal by Delta, be a precedent-setting decision with respect to resolution of the leaky-condo matter. But again, I don't think we should try to anticipate too much here. I think it's very important that we give careful scrutiny to the decision that was rendered on Friday and try to govern ourselves appropriately. Obviously, this has been a very important issue — a very key problem in people's lives in the lower mainland, particularly.

           Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition with a further supplemental question.

           J. MacPhail: The now Premier's view remains on record in his private member's bill, which has not been changed. In fact, I would say that we have even greater concern that this Premier wants to continue to provide incentive to municipalities to not properly enforce

[ Page 807 ]

building codes and to not properly inspect construction sites. Leaky-condo developers have reason to expect favours from this government, given the private member's bill. In fact, the construction and development industry has given more than $2.5 million to the B.C. Liberals in the last five years.

           Again, to the minister responsible for leaky condos: can his government reassure, given their current practice of giving favours to everyone who contributes to their party, that they'll stand up against the construction industry and not bring in legislation to allow the municipalities off the hook?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I find it deeply ironic that this member, who led a government that dithered on the leaky-condo issue for a decade…. All they could do was point fingers, and it appears that all they can still do is point fingers on this issue.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Hon. G. Abbott: Rather than try to address the issue at hand, all that government was able to do was point fingers, try to lay blame, and they're still stuck in that mode. It's time to move ahead, hon. member. It's time to get real about this problem. This government is determined to turn around the housing industry and the construction industry through some positive policies, for a change, and get beyond the decade of decline that was sponsored by that government over there.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[1420]

           J. Kwan: The minister is absolutely incorrect. It was the previous government that launched the Barrett commission. It was the previous government that established the….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

           J. Kwan: It was the previous government that established the interest-free loan program. It was the then opposition members who opposed every step of action we took. Maybe the minister should check his responsibilities — the minister responsible for leaky condos — on what actions were really taken and where his government stood on that issue.

           On a different track….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Please continue.

TUITION FEE REVIEW

           J. Kwan: On a different track, I have the privilege today to ask the first written question from the public. These are questions I have been asking the minister responsible for weeks around this important matter, and to date she refuses to answer. This question is to the Minister of Advanced Education.

           The question comes from Jaime Matten, Chairperson of the University of Victoria Students Society. She asks this question to the minister responsible for universities and colleges. "Please describe your planned process to review the tuition fee freeze. Please include the following details: time lines, including starting date; participants, including registered associations; hearing dates and locations; and the role of private providers."

           Hon. S. Bond: I am absolutely delighted that the first question we are receiving through this process is coming from a student. I think that's exciting. It talks about opening up the process and listening to students, and I think it's a great one.

           We made at least two commitments to students in this province that I'm happy to speak about. The first one, which will give students a sense of assurance, is the fact that we honoured the tuition freeze and, more importantly, fully funded it for the coming year. We actually fully funded that particular promise.

           The second promise that we intend to honour our commitment on is the process of consultation. I'll be very pleased to announce in the very near future the exact dates and the process we intend to use for the tuition freeze consultation. In my very early discussions with stakeholders we've already talked very superficially with a number of groups, including the Canadian Federation of Students and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, about how we might effectively conduct that consultation.

           Within the very short term we will announce the locations. The participants will be students, administrators and educators, with possible avenues for other, broader consultation.

           Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplementary question.

           J. Kwan: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. There is a study that was just released today, and it was put forward in the Vancouver Sun. USC Education Savings Plans released the 2001-02 guide to university costs in Canada. B.C. residents pay some $4,000 less a year in tuition — two-thirds of the national figure and the lowest overall cost in the country.

           My question to the minister responsible, the Minister of Advanced Education, is: why is there a need for review when it is clear that tuition fee freezes help students? When it is clear and is validated by others who have looked into this matter, why would you dither on this issue? Commit today to all the students in British Columbia that you will continue the freeze over the

[ Page 808 ]

next years to ensure access to education to all students in British Columbia.

           Hon. S. Bond: One of the prime reasons we are going to have a look at this issue is one that is raised continually. That's the issue of increased access and opportunities for students. Perhaps the most significant reason that some of those access issues are a problem today is that universities and educators are telling us that they haven't fully funded the tuition fees, causing more complications.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Cariboo South has the floor.

[1425]

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON U.S. DECISION
ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS

           W. Cobb: Last week our Forests minister travelled to Montreal to discuss the softwood lumber agreement with our federal and provincial counterparts. Will the Minister of Forests tell us — the many families and communities who depend so heavily on the forest industry for their livelihood — what actually was accomplished at that meeting?

           Hon. M. de Jong: At the meeting in Montreal on Friday B.C. made our presentation to the other provinces: our three-pronged, tracked strategy for moving forward on our objective of securing free trade in softwood lumber products with the U.S. I'm happy to report to the House that we received support from all of the provinces and the federal government and that really for the first time in two decades, when we confront the Americans at the table later this week, we will be doing so with a single, strong Canadian voice unified in pursuit of our objective of free trade.

           I'm also pleased to report that we secured agreement from across the country for participation in the public campaign we are launching within the United States to remind Americans of how damaging this is going to be not just to trade relations with Canada but also to Americans who want to purchase homes and Americans involved in the home manufacturing business.

           Lastly, I am less pleased to report that we have not yet secured agreement on a program that would assist companies who might be experiencing difficulties with respect to the bonding requirement. British Columbia raised the issue of employing the Export Development Corporation as a mechanism for doing that, but we have not yet secured that agreement.

           Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo South with a supplemental question.

           W. Cobb: I also understand that the minister is going to meet with the federal government and with our provincial representatives next week on the softwood lumber agreement. Can you enlighten us on what's going to happen there?

           Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry. I do recognize you. The Minister of Forests.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I always want to follow the rules in this chamber, Mr. Speaker.

           To the member: first of all, what I hope we emerge with out of these discussions is a specific work schedule. This is a matter of far too great importance to British Columbia and indeed to the country to allow the Americans to try and postpone or drag their feet on this. So I look for us to have a firm schedule of meetings that will emerge from Thursday's discussions.

           I also want to test, in a very direct and specific way, the Americans' commitment to actually achieving a long-term agreement. This question has emerged far too often. It's softwood lumber 5, and we don't want a softwood lumber 6, 7, 8 or 9. Forest-dependent communities deserve to know that their governments, both at the provincial and at the national level, are approaching these talks with a view to securing a long-term strategy.

           We're going to test Americans. We're going to say to them in our public campaign that the time has come for Americans to hold their protectionist-minded politicians to account — those people who, under the guise of presuming to protect a few jobs in the southern U.S., are going to put thousands of Americans out of work in other parts of the country and price housing in the U.S. out of the market for thousands, if not millions, of Americans.

           Mr. Speaker: Since the Speaker inadvertently prolonged question period, I'll allow one more question from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

REVIEW OF REFERENCE DRUG PROGRAM

           J. Kwan: B.C.'s reference drug program has saved some $224 million over six years to improve Pharmacare and B.C.'s health care program. This government and the drug lobby may not like the reference-based program, but health experts have determined that it provides for good patient care.

           Last week this Minister of Health Services let British Columbians down, choosing big business, big tobacco, over the health of workers in return for big election donations.

[1430]

           The drug lobby has given over $60,000 to the Liberals. To the Minister of Health Services: is the drug lobby also going to get what it paid for from this minister: an end to reference-based pricing?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not sure if that member has read some of the mail that's come into her constituency office over the last five years, but I've certainly read the mail that's come into mine. It comes from individual patients, individual British Columbians, whose access to the medications recommended by their doctors has

[ Page 809 ]

been frustrated. So we have said we are going to review the reference drug program to see if we can find a more cost-effective alternative that will allow patients to get access to the medications they need and still allow us to contain costs within the Pharmacare program.

           [End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

           Hon. G. Collins: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, on amounts borrowed by government 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. These reports provide an overview of the province's growing activity in fiscal year 2000-01.

            As well, I have the honour to present the following reports: the British Columbia Arts Council annual report, 2000-01; Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission annual report, 2000-01; the B.C. Housing annual report, 2000-01. These are all 2000-01, so I'll just read them: the British Columbia Heritage Trust financial statements, the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, the homeowner protection office, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, the Northern Development Commission and the British Columbia Pavilion Corporation, 2000-01.

Petitions

           K. Stewart: I request leave to table a document in the House.

           Leave granted.

           K. Stewart: This document consists of 1,214 letters compiled by the Pitt Polder Preservation Society in support of the preservation of the Codd Island wetlands.

           P. Wong: I have the honour to present a petition supporting the Vancouver downtown east side health services initiatives.

Orders of the Day

           Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I call the following motions on notice. I call Motion 3.

           Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

MEMBERSHIP SUBSTITUTION
FOR CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE

           Hon. G. Collins: Motion 3 is a motion of substitution. It reads as follows:

              [That Mr. Johnston be substituted by Mr. Hawes as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations.]

           Motion approved.

POWERS OF
SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

           Hon. G. Collins: I call Motion 4. It reads as follows.

           [That in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Special Committee of Selection, the committee 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; to determine the membership of any select standing or special committee of the House; to deposit a copy 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.]

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I call Motion 6.

           Leave granted.

[1435]

REFERRAL OF REPORTS
AND MANDATE OF
CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE

           Hon. G. Collins: This motion reads as follows:

           [That annual reports and performance plans of British Columbia Crown Corporations be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations.

                In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee be 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 when 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 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.]

           I just want to say that this is an issue that has come before this House time and again — that is, the charging of the Committee on Crown Corporations. It's something that has been talked about for many years but hasn't been done since, I think, early or mid 1970s. It's an opportunity for the Crown corporations, which

[ Page 810 ]

constitute an entity equal in size to the core part of government, to come to the Legislature and present business plans, budgets and to have those up for discussion and debate by Members of the Legislative Assembly. I think it's a good move, something that we've looked forward to for a long time, and will help to increase the accountability of Crown corporations.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I call Motion 7.

           Leave granted.

MANDATE OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE

           Hon. G. Collins: I move

           [That the Select Standing Committee on Education be empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations by consulting with educators, students, parents, administrators and other British Columbians on the following matters:

                1.            (a)            measures to improve access, choice, flexibility and quality in public education; and

                               (b)            measures to strengthen our network of colleges, institutes and on-line learning throughout the province.

                2.            Consider any other matters referred to the Committee by the Minister of Education and  the Minister of Advanced Education.

                3.            Prepare a report no later than February 28, 2002 on the results of those consultations.

                In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the select Standing Committee on Education, the Committee shall be empowered:

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

                               (b)           to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned 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.]

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I call Motion 8.

           Leave granted.

MANDATE OF FINANCE AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

           Hon. G. Collins:

           [That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the pre-budget consultation report prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to:
           1. Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;
           2. Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2001 on the results of those consultations.
           In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:
           (a)           to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;
           (b)           to sit during period in which the House is adjourned and during any sitting of the House;
           (c)           to adjourn from place to place as many be convenient; and
           (d)           to retain 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.]

This is a motion that was first moved through this Legislature last year. It is a motion that, by statute and by the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, charges the Standing Committee on Finance to consult broadly with British Columbians across the province in regard to the budget that's coming up next year for introduction on February 19. It is something that I had the opportunity to participate in last year, as well as other members of the House. This year will be no different, other than that we've had to move the timetable up a little bit as a result of the changes of the budget date, a fixed budget day being February 19. This committee is supposed to report no later than November 15 as opposed to last year, which I believe was December 31.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I call Motion 9.

           Leave granted.

REFERRAL OF
STATUTORY OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICES COMMITTEE

           Hon. G. Collins: I move Motion 9, standing in my name. This is a somewhat different motion. I'll read it into the House:

        [That annual reports, performance plans, budgets and business plans of the following statutory officers

[ Page 811 ]

be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services:
           (a) Auditor General
           (b) Chief Electoral Officer
           (c) Child, Youth and Family Advocate
           (d) Conflict of Interest Commissioner
           (e) Information and Privacy Commissioner
           (f) Ombudsman
           (g) Police Complaint Commissioner]

           This motion is important for a number of reasons. Certainly, over the last number of years that I've been a member of this House, as well as others, it became apparent that those officers of the Legislature find that they rarely have an opportunity to communicate or to get feedback from members of the Legislature, to whom they're accountable. This provided an opportunity for those officers of the Legislature to have their performance plans and their budgets come before a committee of the Legislature for discussion, debate, questioning back and forth and to get some input. In the past officers of the Legislature have indicated their desire to have more correspondence and communication with the members of the Legislature, other than when their position comes up for review every six years.

[1440]

           This, I think, will provide that opportunity as well as somewhat add to the accountability of their office and will remove the requirement for them to appear directly to Treasury Board for the pursuit of an appropriate budget. This provides them the opportunity to present to members of the Legislature and have them make a recommendation to Treasury Board.

           I think it's a first step to improve the accountability of those officers, and I think it's a good innovation. It's something we can try, and perhaps in future years we may be able to find other committees that these officers will report to as opposed to Finance. But for a first step we felt it would be good to try it with this committee, whose makeup is very similar to that of the Public Accounts Committee.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I call Motion 10.

           Leave granted.

MANDATE OF HEALTH COMMITTEE

           Hon. G. Collins: I move the following:

           [That the Select Standing Committee on Health be empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the changes that are necessary to improve the provision of health services in British Columbia, and to ensure that government expenditures on health care services are sustainable, and in particular to:
           1.            Conduct broad public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding:
                          (a)            the sustainability of the health care system in its current form and historical rate of spending;
                          (b)            immediate and medium term solutions to better plan and manage public health care services, costs and funding pressures;
                          (c)            measures to improve and renew the provision of health care services in British Columbia in order to ensure the long term sustainability, accessibility, quality and timeliness of health care services, as well as improve health outcomes and the overall health of British Columbians; and,
                          (d)            other issues as may be determined by the Committee.
           2.            Prepare a report by December 15, 2001, on the results of those consultations. In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services, the Committee shall be empowered:
                          (a)            to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
                          (b)            to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned 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.]

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I call Motion 11.

           Leave granted.

APPOINTMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES COMMITTEE

           Hon. G. Collins: I move the following motion:

           [That a Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives be appointed for the 37th Parliament, pursuant to Section 9 of the Recall and Initiative Act, R.S.B.C. 1966, c. 398, and the committee be comprised of members of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills established this session.]

           That's a standard motion required by the Recall and Initiative Act to have a committee of the House in place in the event that the public should successfully complete the requirements to introduce an initiative. That initiative would be referred to this committee by statute for review, and that may happen. We can see what the public has in mind for that committee in the next number of months ahead.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I call Motion 12. 

[ Page 812 ]

           Leave granted.

REFERRAL OF
AUDITOR GENERAL REPORTS TO
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

           Hon. G. Collins: I move the following motion:

           [That reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and in addition that the following reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts:
               o          Managing Interface Fire Risks (June 2001)
               o          Report on Government Financial Accountability for the 1999/2000 Fiscal Year (March 2001)
               o          Monitoring Credit Unions and Trust Companies in British Columbia (March 2001)
               o          Management Consulting Engagements in Government (March 2001)
               o          Follow-up of Performance and Compliance Reports (December 2000)
               o          Governance and Risk of the Fast Ferry Project (October 1999)
               In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered:
               (a)        to apoint of their number, one or more subcomittees 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; and
               (d)        to retain 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.]

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I call Motion 13.

           Leave granted.

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS
FOR THIRD SESSION
OF THIRTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT

           Hon. G. Plant: He's going to read every word of it.

           Hon. G. Collins: I have no intention of reading all of Motion 13. I know members of the House would rather I didn't, other than to say that it is the fixed parliamentary calendar. It lays out, as well, some of the sitting days for the future. I know members have been eagerly awaiting passage of that motion, so that's all I have to say about it. I call the vote.

           [That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows for the duration of the Third Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament, commencing February 12, 2002:
1.            That Standing Order 2 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

Sittings

Daily sittings.
           2. (1)            The time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as fol lows:

           Monday:                      Two distinct sittings:
                                                 10 a.m. to 12 noon
                                                 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
                                                 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. effective March 4, 2002
           Tuesday:                     Two distinct sittings:
                                                 10 a.m. to 12 noon
                                                 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
           Wednesday:               2 p.m. to 7 p.m.
                                                 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. effective March 4, 2002
           Thursday:                    Two distinct sittings:
                                                 10 a.m. to 12 noon
                                                 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

           (2) (a)            During the Third Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet:
                    (i)         from February 12, 2002 to May 30, 2002 inclusive, and
                     (ii)        from October 7, 2002 to November 28, 2002 inclusive.
                 (b)            The House shall stand adjourned dur ing the weeks of March 25, April 22, May 20, October 14 and November 11, 2002.

2.              That Standing Order 3 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

Hour of interruption.

            3.            If at the hour of 6 p.m. (or 9 p.m. after March 4, 2002) on any Monday; 6 p.m. on Tuesday; 7 p.m. (or 9 p.m. after March 4, 2002) on Wednesday; or 6 p.m. on Thursday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the Chair:

            On Monday            until 10 a.m. Tuesday
            On Tuesday            until 2 p.m. Wednesday
            On Wednesday      until 10 a.m. Thursday
            On Thursday           until 10 a.m. Monday

subject to the provisions of Standing Order 2 (2) (b).

3.              That Standing Order 25 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

Routine Business

Daily routine.
             25.         The daily routine business of the House shall be as follows:

[ Page 813 ]

          Prayers (morning or afternoon sitting)
             Introduction of Bills
             Statements (Standing Order 25b) (afternoon sittings)
             Oral question period (15 minutes, afternoon sittings: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday)

__________

             Presenting Petitions
             Reading and Receiving Petitions
             Presenting Reports by Committees

__________

             Motions on Notice
             Written Questions on Notice
             Proposed Amendments on Notice

Orders of the Day.

            The order of business for consideration of the House day by day, after the above routine, shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:

Monday
10 a.m. to 12 noon
(Private Members' Time)

             Public Bills in the hands of Private Members
             Private Members' Motions
             Private Bills
             Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice

             Neither voice votes nor divisions, on Orders of the Day, will be taken in the House or in Committee of the Whole during Private Members' Time, but any request for a voice vote or a division will be deferred until thirty minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House on the Monday, unless otherwise ordered.

Monday (afternoon), Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday
(Government Days)

              Throne Speech Debate
              Budget Debate including Committee of Supply
              Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice
              Private Bills
              Public Bills in the hands of Private Members
              Adjourned debate on other motions
              Private Members' Statements (6 p.m. Wednesday)

4.           That Standing Order 25A be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

Private Members' Statements

Private Members' Statements.

              25A.            (1)            Every Wednesday at 6 p.m. four Private Members may make a statement, notice of which has been tabled no later than 6 p.m. the preceding Monday.
                                  (2)            The order in which such statements are to be called shall be determined by lot by the Speaker, before appearing on the Orders of the Day.
                                  (3)            The time allocated on Wednesday for statements and discussion thereon shall not exceed one hour, and the time for each statement shall be limiited to 15 minutes as follows:
                                                 Proponent: maximum of 7 minutes
                                                 Any other Members: maximum of 5 minutes
                                                 Proponent in reply: maximum of 3 minutes
                                 (4)             Private Members' statements shall not be subject to amendment, adjournment or vote.
                                 (5)             Statements and discussions under this Standing Order:
                                                   (a)            shall be confined to one matter;
                                                   (b)            shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same Session;
                                                   (c)            shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House, in respect to which a Notice of Motion has been previously given and not withdrawn;
                                                   (d)           shall not raise a question of  privilege.

5.            That new Standing Order 25B be adopted:

Statements

Statements.

              25B.            Three Private Members shall be permitted a two minute statement each day immediately prior to Oral Question Period subject to the following guidelines:                                  
                                  (1)            A Member desiring to make a statement shall so advise his or her Whip 24 hours prior to the relevant day the statement is to be made.
                                  (2)            Party Whips shall confer to settle the names of the three Members who will be recognised for "Statements" for the following sitting day and shall advise the Speaker by noon of the day in question as to who has been selected, together with the topic of the statement.
                                  (3)            Statements under this Standing Order shall be subject to the ordinary parliamentary rules of decorum and debate.

6.            Oral question period Friday.

           47B.               This Standing Order is repealed.

7.            That new Standing Order 81.1 be adopted:

           81.1                (1)            When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to

 [ Page 814 ]

allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and the motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.

                                  (2)            A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of section (1) of this Standing Order in respect of proceedings at one or more stages of a public bill, may propose without notice a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at one or more stages of a public bill. The motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this section of this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned.]

[1445]

           J. MacPhail: I note that the order is a sessional order, and my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I would be happy, at the end of the session or during the session, to work with all members of the Legislature to fully apprise whether it's working as we move along and what changes, if any, need to be made. I make that offer but do note, for the House, that it is a sessional order.

           Hon. G. Collins: I thank the member opposite for her concurrence in moving this motion forward. I think it's an innovation that for the most part was completed prior to the election, and the previous government and that member, as well, played a role in that. The motion is there; it is a sessional order. The attempt is to give us an opportunity to try it out and see how well it works. If it doesn't work, then it will die, and we'll be back where we are today. If it does, we can move forward. If we find any opportunities to improve it along the way, the House is more than able to do that, and certainly we'll do that with consultation of all members of the House.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Plant: I seek leave to move Motion 5 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance in Votes and Proceedings.

           Leave granted.

MANDATE OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

           Hon. G. Plant: Motion 5 states:

           [That the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters and issues concerning questions which the Government of British Columbia should submit to voters to implement the Government's commitment to "give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations, through a one-time, province-wide referendum," while ensuring that constitutionally-protected aboriginal rights and title are respected; and,
           That the Committee report their recommendations to the Legislative Assembly no later than November 30, 2001.
           In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, the Committee shall be 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 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;
           (e)            to permit minority opinions in a report of 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 the period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

           The motion includes some standard motion language, but two clauses of note are, first, the requirement in the motion that the committee report their recommendations to the Legislative Assembly no later than November 30, 2001, and, secondly, the provision — which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unusual in this chamber — that in addition to the usual powers, this committee shall be empowered to permit minority opinions in its report.

           The making and, I hope, the passage of this motion and the work of the committee will give effect to several new-era commitments. First is our commitment to indeed give British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty-making through a one-time provincewide referendum within our first year of forming government. Second is our commitment to ask an all-party committee of the Legislature to consult with British Columbians, including first nations, to draft the referendum questions. Third is the broad commitment, which is reflected throughout all of our new-era commitments for first nations: our commitment to make and negotiate workable, fair, affordable treaties for the benefit of all British Columbians, first nations and non-aboriginal people alike.

           This motion today keeps faith with the people of British Columbia by ensuring yet one more time in yet 

[ Page 815 ]

one more way that we intend to keep the promises that we have made. One of those promises is a commitment to treaty-making.

           You know, when the province of British Columbia sits down at the treaty table, it does so as one of three parties. It sits at a table that has the government of Canada at it, and it sits at a table that has the first nation whose claim is being negotiated. Each of those parties brings to the treaty table their own hopes, their own dreams and the interests of those they are there to represent. And each of those parties is entitled to bring to the treaty table their own vision of what they seek to achieve at the treaty table.

[1450]

           For eight years or so British Columbia has been at that table negotiating treaties. To date, under the B.C. Treaty Commission process, not one single treaty has been concluded. I think that and other facts constitute evidence that the treaty process has not worked as well as it could. One of the reasons why I think the treaty process has not worked as well as it could is because those who have sat down at the table on behalf of the people of British Columbia have not done so with a clear mandate of what it is that the government representing those people, the province of British Columbia, wishes to achieve at the treaty table; what it is that the government, province and people of British Columbia wish to achieve from treaties.

           Treaties do involve choices, because as the dreams, visions and objectives of the parties at the table will differ, there will be a need to find new, creative and different approaches to the problems that are raised at the table in order to achieve, through negotiation, the compromise and consensus that's needed if we're going to have workable, affordable and fair treaties.

           I think that for too long in British Columbia, if not the single reason certainly one of the major reasons why the province has not represented itself as well or as clearly as it should at the treaty table is because the people of British Columbia have been disengaged from the treaty process. For too many people the treaty process, which at the end of the day will affect all our lives significantly, is something that happens somewhere else and is being done by some other people. What we need to do is bring it home to the people and give them a voice in a process that will only work if it's done for them and with them. The referendum is a marvellous opportunity to ensure that the government, this House and the Legislature can connect with the people of British Columbia for the first time since this process began and ask of them: “What are your hopes and dreams and visions for this process? What is it that you wish to achieve from treaties in British Columbia?”

           It's a process that I think is a constructive, bridge-building, positive dialogue for constructive, bridge-building, positive change. I recognize that it's a challenging process. Standing here today as a member of government, I wish the Chair of the committee and all of the members well as they embark upon what I'm sure will be a challenging and at times difficult task.

           It is an important task. There are those who have said that this referendum process will not help treaty making. There are those who have said that the referendum is some tool to mask our opposition to treaty making. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nonetheless, those who are members of the committee about to go out and do this work will have a task that faces them, which is to listen to the voices they hear but to do so in a way that ensures that the message is that this government intends to respect and protect aboriginal rights, that it will use the referendum as a tool for respecting and enhancing aboriginal rights, that treaty making is not about eroding minority rights and that referendums are not about eroding minority rights but rather are about protecting them. Those are challenging messages.

           Let me just briefly deal with two or three opposition comments made. I don't mean the members of the opposition, although I look forward to their remarks. Out there in the larger public there have been people who have asked questions and raised concerns about this referendum project. Some of them have said: “You cannot conduct a referendum on this issue, because it is a referendum that will affect minority rights.” Well, they have made that claim. This notice of motion is drafted in a way that is intended to ensure that our commitment is kept. Our commitment is that the referendum will honour and respect aboriginal rights, and that commitment is expressed right in the words of the notice of motion itself. People have asked that question. We have said: “What can we do to assure you that the referendum will not be about undermining aboriginal rights?” We have put that language right in the terms of reference.

[1455]

           People have said that referendums are divisive. Well, democracy is a marvellous thing, and people can say anything they want in a society — not quite anything they want, but people certainly have scope for free speech in our society in a way that's virtually unmatched in any other democratic society in the world. I am sure that people will say the most amazing things about treaty rights, negotiating treaties, referendums and aboriginal rights.

           What I say to the people who are concerned about whether this referendum will be divisive is to stand back for a moment, take a deep breath and join with us in the journey to make the referendum a process that brings people together, which unites British Columbians around a common goal of resolving the claims of aboriginal people that have for too long remained unresolved. Join with us to make the referendum something that is not divisive but, rather, that brings the people of British Columbia together on this issue that is so urgently important to all British Columbians.

           There are people who say we should not embark upon a project of a referendum because of concerns that we will hear unpleasant voices, that rocks will be overturned and that people will crawl out from under those rocks and say things that we do not think should be said. Well, it is a democracy; people are entitled to say things. And when you turn over rocks, the most surprising things will happen. But let me say this: I believe that the people of British Columbia support 

[ Page 816 ]

treaty making. I believe that the people of British Columbia want to bring resolution to these long-outstanding questions and to achieve in our lifetime a new era of reconciliation and respect between the first nations of British Columbia and non-aboriginal British Columbians.

           So what I say to the people who are afraid of the contrary voices is: speak louder. Let your voice be heard. Let your voice in support of treaty making that does achieve certainty and finality and a measure of equality in our society be the voice that is heard when those who have not made up their minds are trying to make up their minds. Yes, there will be other voices. I would not wish that it were any other way. I welcome all voices in this debate. And I say to the people who want the treaty process to work: let your voice be the voice that prevails.

           Mr. Speaker, fear is a technique of the opposition to all change. This is clearly something new. This is clearly a new experiment in a form of direct democracy on a subject matter that is critically important to the future of British Columbia. We should not allow our concern about what this process might become to overwhelm our commitment to make this process what it can become, which is a way — for the first time in a decade or, who knows, 127 or 128 years — of engaging the people of British Columbia in a dialogue about how we can achieve reconciliation and respect with first nations, how we can make treaties that will resolve longstanding grievances and build a better future for the first nations of British Columbia and for all British Columbians — a future that includes economic opportunity for all British Columbians, a future that includes social justice for all British Columbians and a future that includes workable, affordable, fair treaties for the first nations of British Columbia.

           So I say to the members of the committee: good luck and Godspeed. I look forward to hearing back from you on or before November 30.

           J. MacPhail: I noted with interest that the Attorney General suggested that it was fear that would impede this process and that no one should be afraid of this process. I spent the weekend consulting around the province on the terms of reference for this motion. It isn't fear that will impede this process; it's suppression that will impede this process. I'm afraid to stand up today and say that the terms of reference on the motion for conducting a referendum suppress voices.

[1500]

           The process is loaded; the outcome has been determined. There is not a question about whether the province should hold a referendum, but merely how a referendum should be held, Mr. Speaker. It is the suppression of a legitimate debate about whether or not a referendum should proceed that undermines the whole set of words that were just articulated by the Attorney General. If there is nothing to fear, if it is a process about treaty making, then why limit the terms of reference about what questions can be asked in this process?

           I have spent the weekend, along with my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, surveying a wide range of British Columbians on this matter. Virtually every single one of them had hoped that the government would not proceed down the path that they have proceeded. I talked to business people, I talked to church groups, I talked to first nations leaders and first nations people, I talked to federal representatives, and I talked to just my constituents about this referendum question on aboriginal rights. To a person, they did not understand why the government was proceeding in this fashion, and they were afraid about the turmoil that would result because of the very one-sided approach, the loaded approach, that the government was taking to this matter.

           You know, the Attorney General can stand up and say that they have taken care of the protection of the constitutionality of aboriginal rights. But in fact, it is not this government that has any right to put that matter to a referendum. If it's a constitutionally protected right, in this particular case the courts would decide that. A government can't decide that. The courts have decided that issue already. What they've said is that those constitutionally protected rights should be negotiated. The Delgamuukw decision has decided that for us. The Sparrow decision has decided that for us.

           In fact, the courts have very clearly said: "Negotiate. Make treaties through negotiations." What this referendum question does…. It doesn't in any way make it more open and more accountable and softer merely because they've included that proviso. The government has no control over that proviso. What they are doing is saying that the treaty-making process, the terms by which this government will make treaties, will be subject to a referendum. That's what this question is about.

           There are those who would say that this government has qualified it by entrenching the constitutionally protected rights. That's ridiculous; it means nothing. It still says that this referendum process of determining how the question will be asked is still this government acting unilaterally — unilaterally — without consultation from everyone who is affected, to determine by referendum the treaty-making process. That's what this is about. Indeed, although the Attorney General tries to stand up and say it's not about the majority determining minority rights, it is about the majority determining minority rights.

           The public wants to have a say in the treaty-making process. The public should have a say in the treaty-making process. Over the course of the last ten years there has been consultation on the treaty-making process. There have been advisory committees having a say and input on a regular basis. If this government wanted to broaden that consultation, there have been offers about the way they could broaden that consultation. The First Nations Summit itself offered, as recently as ten days ago, a public process for input into the treaty-making process that wasn't about them unilaterally asking through referendum, by a loaded process, a question that already has a predetermined outcome. 

[ Page 817 ]

           People around this province who don't want the turmoil and the chaos and the uncertainty that this referendum process will bring about have said that there is a way to have public consultation amongst everybody who's affected by this, amongst everybody who has a right to make treaties, including first nations people. Why is it that first nations and aboriginal people are completely excluded from this process? Why is it that the question isn't being put forward about whether or not to hold a referendum?

[1505]

           Well, I can hardly understand why, with the stubbornness that the Premier has pursued this matter, when virtually no one has asked for a referendum on this.

           My colleague asked whether there was one business person who has come forward and said, "Please have a referendum on the treaty-making process," and the Attorney General failed to give her the answer of one single business person. There are lots and lots of business people who have said over and over and over again: "We need to get on with negotiating treaties. That will be the only way we will bring certainty to our economy."

           Rest assured that our economic circumstances are not improving as we speak. They're showing signs of trouble daily. Daily our economic circumstances in this province are showing signs of trouble. This government is going to exacerbate that trouble by throwing the province into a process of turmoil about whether or not to bring certainty to the treaty-making process. Why not just get on with a public process about how we improve the treaty-making process, not about whether we should have a treaty-making process? That's what the referendum will be about.

           There are people who have stood up, who are now advising the Premier…. There are people who sit in the Premier's office each and every day, advising him on an hourly basis, who have said, when they were part of a group called Voice…. I think it was Citizens' Voice on Native Claims. Martyn Brown, who's now the chief of staff to the Premier, when he headed up that organization, said: "Under no circumstances should land be on the table in treaty making." Never once has the Premier said: "Now that Martyn Brown is in my office, that is not my view." Martyn Brown advises the Premier each and every day, and it was only months ago that Martyn Brown was travelling the province saying: "Under no circumstances should land be part of the treaty-making process."

           Is that what this is about? Is that what this process is about — to have a referendum on whether land should be on the table? Is that what this referendum process is about? I say yes, it is. I'd like any member of the Legislature to stand up and tell me how that is going to bring economic certainty to British Columbia in times of a softening economy and how that is possibly going to bring about good treaty making and a quick resolution to it.

           The Chair of the committee, who was an opponent of the Nisga'a treaty, spoke publicly as an opponent of the Nisga'a treaty, and I have not heard him renounce that opposition to the Nisga'a treaty process. So I would suggest that the fix is in, that the process is loaded and that the outcome has been determined. I would say that under no circumstances would anybody in British Columbia assume that this government has the right to unilaterally impose its view on the rest of British Columbia.

           I also know that this government, when they were in opposition, treated select standing committees with disdain when they thought that the process was not an open and accountable one. The previous government had a committee on the MAI, and this government, when it was in opposition, withdrew in protest from hearings around the province and never, ever held themselves accountable. They didn't set up any alternate process. They just withdrew in a petulant way from the select standing committee.

[1510]

           Well, I can tell you something. The New Democrat opposition will set up an alternate process. We will be setting up an alternate process that includes everybody in this province, which will hold hearings around the province that give the public the right to what it is that they desire. The public deserves and wants a say in the treaty-making process, though. But they don't think a unilateral, narrow referendum question that has already been predetermined and that's a loaded process is the way to go.

           They don't think that's the way to go, so we will not be participating in the select standing committee because of the fact that (1) it's a loaded process, and (2) the outcome has already been predetermined. The Premier has said as recently as days ago that he will proceed on the basis of a referendum outcome that will permit only a question that will lead to, "Yes, there has to be a referendum," and nothing else. He won't allow for any discussion about whether a referendum is the right way to determine how to improve our treaty-making process.

           The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be setting up public consultations as an alternate to this select standing committee, and we will be giving all British Columbians a say in the treaty-making process that doesn't have a predetermined outcome, that doesn't have a loaded process in place. For that reason, we will not be supporting this motion.

           Mr. Speaker: You've heard the motion, No. 5 on the order paper.

           Hon. G. Plant: I want to express my gratitude for the remarks made and to say with respect to the Leader of the Opposition that if she wants to go out and conduct her own process to consult with British Columbians, I hope she will share with us their views. I hope that in the fullness of time, she'll be able to stand here and support treaty making and support public consultation.

           If she hears from British Columbians on the way in which they think the position of the province should be put forward at the treaty table, then I certainly hope 

[ Page 818 ]

she'll share that with me. We did campaign on a promise to the people of British Columbia that we would give them a say on treaty making, on the principles that should guide treaty making through a one-time, provincewide referendum.

           It's a promise we made to the people of British Columbia. We said: "If you elect us, this is what we will do." Having been elected, we intend to keep that promise not just because we were elected, but because it's a good promise. It's a good commitment to make to say to the people of British Columbia: "Why don't you join in with us in treaty making?"

           You know, the referendum cannot be about infringing aboriginal rights and title. It will not be about infringing or undermining aboriginal rights and title. It is the courts that determine the scope of aboriginal rights and title, not us sitting here in this Legislature or even the citizens expressing their wishes through a referendum.

           We want to make sure people understand that our commitment is to respect and protect aboriginal rights and title, and that is why those words are in the Notice of Motions. Having made just one or two comments on some of the remarks made by the opposition leader, I hope all members of the House will join in support of Motion 5.

[1515]

           Motion 5 approved on the following division:

           

YEAS — 74
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Weisbeck	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

[1520]

TERM OF OFFICE
FOR ACTING CHILD, YOUTH AND
FAMILY ADVOCATE

           Hon. G. Plant: I call Motion 2 standing in my name on the order paper. For the information of members who don't have it in hand, I will remind them and you that Motion 2 is:

           [Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly recommend to the Lieutenant Governor pursuant to section 14 (2) (c) of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act (as amended by Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001) that the end of the term of the appointment of the Acting Child, Youth and Family Advocate made the 19th day of May, 2001, be 12 months after the date of the said appointment.]

           J. MacPhail: Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, we had a debate around this on a miscellaneous statutes bill where the opposition made its views known in terms of the advice to the Attorney General on how to proceed properly with making sure that the office of the child and youth advocate remain independent and that that role be filled as quickly as possible. I would just note for the record that those comments can be found in Hansard.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the members' information, we will be discussing the estimates of the office of the Premier.

           The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 3:24 p.m.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
(continued)

           On vote 9: ministry operations, $20,373,000 (continued).

           J. Kwan: I'm going to start questions around the core review process. Could the Premier please explain what he has in mind with respect to the core review?

[1525]

           Hon. G. Campbell: We expect the core review to deal with some significant issues with regard to government. We want to be sure the government is doing the right things. Therefore, the first question we ask in the core review is: what should government be doing? If government should be doing a function, how is it doing it? Are there better ways of doing it so taxpayers get more effective use of their tax dollars in delivering services that they demand?

           The core review will include all services of government and the major Crown corporations. It will also include a review of the 790 agencies, boards and com 

[ Page 819 ]

missions that are currently in place. Again, rather than simply taking for granted that the structures of government in the past have worked, we're going to examine them and ask fundamental questions about them. Hopefully, this will allow us to move forward in a way that will allow us to protect health care, public education, public transportation, public safety — some of the things that are of critical importance to the people of this province.

           At the end of the day, the core review process — and this is important, I think — is not about saving dollars or not saving dollars. It's about asking ourselves fundamental questions about how government works, what government should do and how best to deliver those government services.

           J. Kwan: The cut of one-third guideline. Where did that come from?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I apologize; I didn't hear the question.

           J. Kwan: We understand that there is a projection of cutting the budgets by about one-third. I'm asking the Premier who came up with that, and where did those guidelines come from?

           Hon. G. Campbell: There are no specifications in the core services review process whatsoever about the cutting of budgets.

           J. Kwan: What about the cutting of regulations by one-third?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The government did, in the election, undertake to reduce by one-third all government regulation of business. We intend to do that by eliminating thoughtless, duplicated, expensive regulations that don't deliver the results that people are expecting.

           J. Kwan: This directive of cutting the regulations by one-third seems to go directly counter to the assumption that the core review is an open process. So how does the minister square those two separate assumptions? One is that the core review will proceed on its own, and then a determination will be made as to what should be cut or what should be done. On the other hand, there already is a directive that says one-third of the regulations would be cut. Therefore, there's already contradiction in the directives that have been given on the core review. How does the Premier square those two contradictions?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, there's no contradiction. The core services review is about what government does. It asks some fundamental questions, as the member knows. What are we doing? Why are we doing it? How are we doing it? Can we do it better? How will we measure whether the services we want to provide are being provided properly or not? Does it meet some fundamental tests? Is it in the public interest? Is it affordable? Is it effective? Is the government the best way to provide those services? Those are questions we're asking, because without asking those questions, we don't know where we should be focusing our resources.

           The issue of eliminating one-third of the regulations for business is actually quite a bit different. It's about how we accomplish the goals that we've set for ourselves as government. There is no question that the extent of regulation that's imposed across business and the private sector economy in this province is unprecedented in the country. We actually have regulations that tell autobody repair shops that they're supposed to be dusting their blinds at a particular time in a particular way. I see no way that that actually contributes to better autobody repairs.

           What we're saying, first, is that the core review is about what government's doing, how we do it. It asks a question which I think we should always be asking ourselves: can we do it better? Can we give taxpayers better value for their dollar? Can we measure what we're undertaking to do so that taxpayers can hold us to account for what we're doing?

           That's what the core services review is about. The deregulation undertakings that we've made have to do with regulation imposed on business. Again, one is about what we're doing; another is about how we might do it.

           J. Kwan: The core review process. Would the review be conducted by a coordinated central body established by government, or would it be conducted by each of the individual ministries?

[1530]

           Hon. G. Campbell: Each ministry and each Crown corporation is undertaking its own core review. That then comes forward to the core services review committee. That is reviewed so that we are looking not just from the perspective of individual ministries but from the overall objectives of government. At the end of the day, it is the government that undertakes these activities and is held to account for them.

           J. Kwan: Will the Premier himself be making final determination of what services or programs are kept or eliminated?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Again, ministries initiate a core review on my direction. This is not a one-person government. The Premier is a member of cabinet. Ministries prepare their information, and it goes to the core services review task force. Those recommendations go to the cabinet, and cabinet makes decisions.

           J. Kwan: Will the public know, and how will the public know, what programs or initiatives are eliminated?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Certainly the public will know the results of the discussions. First of all, the letters that have gone out on the core review are available to the public through the Internet, on the Web. Secondly, there will be presentations from minis 

[ Page 820 ]

ters to open cabinet meetings with regard to some of the things that they've found and the policy discussions that we've had. Thirdly, we will have an opportunity for review of specific legislative changes right here in this Legislature, which is an open public body, and we will then make decisions.

           Indeed, compared to previous governments of any political persuasion, this is one of the most open and accountable decision-making processes that's ever been established in British Columbia.

           J. Kwan: Will the Premier or the ministers be going out to the community to consult with the community on values and contributions of programs and initiatives? Will that be a public process whereby individual ministers, with the list of programs that they're responsible for, will be going out to community organizations and to the public to seek their advice and consultation?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Ministers certainly are inviting feedback from communities. They will not necessarily be going out to communities. They will be dealing with their ministries, with their core services review.

           As I've said, there are a number of ways that individuals, agencies and those involved in government services can include themselves in this. One is through the Web. Another is directly through their program providers. All of those things are going to be part of the core services review. Open cabinet meetings will give ministers a chance to lay out some of the issues that they have in front of them.

           Again, I invite all members of the public — and I invite the opposition, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Vancouver-Hastings — to submit their suggestions for issues that they think should be dealt with in the core review.

           The core services review is about deciding some fundamental things. What should government be doing? If government should be doing something, how should it be done? Are we getting the most effective response for the tax dollars that are invested? How should we measure what we are doing? How should we measure whether we are being successful or not? Too many programs have been brought in by governments in the past which have no accountability, no measures in them, and in fact the demand for results simply isn't there.

           To the member opposite: we have been very clear that we think we have to restructure government so that it's open, accountable and resource-driven. The core services review is a first step in that restructuring.

           J. Kwan: In Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, as an example, many of my constituents do not have access to a website or to the Internet. They don't have the access to travel to attend cabinet meetings. Nonetheless, I'm sure they do have a lot of thoughts and opinions with respect to the core review process. They, too, would like to contribute to the process.

           The reason I ask whether or not the ministers will be travelling the province is that I think going out to the communities and talking to people around the review is of utmost importance to ensure maximum participation with the various barriers that people face.

           The other aspect is the language barrier. Many people have different languages and may have difficulty with the language. How do they participate in the process of ensuring that their voice is also heard through this exercise of the government?

[1535]

           So could the Premier please give us some assurance of addressing those areas for individuals not just in my constituency but throughout British Columbia, where access is a barrier in terms of providing information? Certainly, I hope that the ministers would be undertaking a consultative process to ensure that there is maximum input from British Columbians.

           Hon. G. Campbell: We will certainly try and make sure that British Columbians both are aware of the undertakings that we've made and are included in the discussions. Indeed, there are many constituencies that will be concerned about this. I invite the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to participate in a constructive and positive way with regard to this. I am sure that she hears from her constituents. I am glad to hear from her. She can do that as a fundamental role as an MLA. That's what I'm encouraging every MLA in this House to do: make sure that their constituency's voices and concerns are heard as we go through this important process.

           There are issues with regard to language, etc. Again, I am glad to hear from people with regard to those. The government, as the member opposite knows, works to try and make sure that people are communicated with in a broad range of languages. We'll continue to do that.

           J. Kwan: My question to the Premier is: how does he propose to do that? I understand he says: "Well, MLAs will undertake to do that work." No doubt. However, this is the core review initiated by the Premier, by his government, and I think the Premier and his government have the responsibility of ensuring that that consultation process is in place and not just simply saying: "MLAs will do that work." Clearly, there is a process that he's setting in place for the review. In that review he has to be mindful of issues around barriers, whether they be language or otherwise. How does he ensure that in the process he's putting in place, those barriers are taken down?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I know this may be a surprise to the member opposite, but I actually believe that MLAs are excellent spokespeople for their constituencies. I expect them all to be spokespeople, and unlike previous governments, I expect them all to contribute. So I welcome the contribution of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant or the member for Vancouver-Hastings as I would from the members from all other constituencies in the province.

           J. Kwan: Whether the Premier is just trying to avoid the question or trying to evade the question…. 

[ Page 821 ]

The question is very specific around the government's plan, in the core review process, for ensuring that barriers are taken down for members of the public, for British Columbians, to participate in and provide input into this review. I have mentioned some of the barriers that exist for people and that I think it is vital for British Columbians to put forward their own voice directly to government, to the core review process. So I'm asking the Premier: will he commit today to ensure and direct that each of his ministers will go out to the community and have public hearings and also have materials that are multilingual so that the public can indeed participate to its fullest in this core review process?

           Hon. G. Campbell: My commitment to the people of British Columbia and to the member opposite is that we will do what we can to make sure that people have the opportunity to include themselves in this process. We have already undertaken a far more aggressive consultative process than anything that was ever imagined by the previous government or governments prior to that government. So we will continue to do that, but we will also continue to move forward with the core services review.

           I don't want any illusions here. The damage that was done over the last decade is significant. The damage that was done to services for people who are in need was significant; the damages that were done to the services that that member's constituency counts on were significant. We intend to act quickly. We intend to act by including people, by talking to people, by informing people. We intend to make sure the public understands what we're doing and why we're doing it, and we accept the fact that the public will hold us to account for the actions and the decisions that we make.

           J. Kwan: Those words all sound very nice, but the question is this: will the Premier commit to public hearings and also ensure access to language for the information of members of the public to ensure maximum participation in the core review process?

           Hon. G. Campbell: We are ensuring maximum participation.

           J. Kwan: Do I take that to mean that the Premier is committing to public hearings and to ensuring that there is multi-language access to the core review process?

[1540]

           Hon. G. Campbell: I have answered that question. We're ensuring maximum participation as we move forward in the core review process.

           J. Kwan: I would beg to differ with the Premier. He has not answered the question. My question is very simple: will there be…? Let me just break them down one by one. Let me ask the first question. Will there be translation into different languages of the core review documents and information flowing from the government so that response could also be solicited from people who speak different languages?

           This is the new era, I guess, because when asked a specific question on the issue of accountability and on the question of openness, the Premier simply refuses to answer. Perhaps he views the multicultural community throughout British Columbia as not a significant component in terms of their participation in the core review process. I would beg to differ with that perspective. They have a vast wealth of knowledge and information with which I know that they would want to participate in this process, but there's no assurance whatsoever from this government in this new era that there is that maximum participation. I think that's just a shame, because what I worry about is that this whole exercise is just a public relations exercise — likewise for the people who are faced with multiple barriers in terms of their participation, whether it be poverty, whether it be literacy questions or whether it be access, even, by way of transportation.

           I know that the government relies on the website, in terms of access for people to participate. I know that a lot of people don't have access to websites. Not everybody has a couple of thousand dollars' worth of computer equipment in their home, and not everybody necessarily even knows how to work with a computer. I know constituents of mine who have trouble even sustaining a telephone, let alone advanced technology in that way. Yet there's no commitment whatsoever under this new era of government — this supposedly open era of government — to ensure that there is that kind of participation from all walks of life, not just from Howe Street but also from Main Street as an example, in terms of their participation.

           I think that's a shame. The Premier needs to get up to give that reassurance. That's what he promised during the election. He promised he would ensure that all British Columbians will have access to this government, and he has shown no commitment today. Why won't he get up and commit today, to simply say: "Yes, there will be multilingual access. Yes, there will be barriers taken down. And yes, the minister will have public hearings and go out and travel throughout the province, wherever people are. They will be there to talk to them and solicit and consult with them"? Why doesn't he just simply get up, do that and make that commitment, and therefore ensure that it is indeed an open, transparent and accountable process?

           Will there be any appeal process from those members of the public who disagree or who may be hurt by a proposed cut through the core review exercise?

           Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned to the member, the core review exercise is being initiated by ministries. Ministers will bring those forward to the core review task force. That task force will submit its recommendations to the cabinet. Cabinet will make appropriate decisions. Where there are legislative changes that are required, obviously, the Legislature will review those in some detail and pass judgment on them.

           There is no one who suggests that the core review is not a fundamental program for government. We have 

[ Page 822 ]

said that we will follow the multicultural policies of the past. We have said that MLAs from all constituencies are invited to be part of this. We have said that it is available on the website. I believe that we will be including far more British Columbians than have been included in these processes in the past. We will be open and accountable for the decisions that we make.

           J. MacPhail: I've tried to get a very quick briefing from my colleague, so forgive me if the Premier has already answered some of these questions. It's fine for him to just tell me that he has already answered it.

[1545]

           One of the things that I think we have to be careful of in the core review process is an examination of how changes to programs affect different parts of society. My colleague has mentioned one: the multicultural community. I think there's an acceptance by British Columbians that not everybody uses all of the public services in the same way. Seniors use public services in a different way than young people use public services. There are public services that affect women disproportionately, and there are public services that affect people going to school, mainly young people, in a different way. Has the Premier's core services review committee…? We've seen the questions that need to be asked, but I note the absence of a particular lens being put over each and every service — like a lens about how this affects women. How does this affect seniors? How does it affect youth? Is that part of the core services review?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I think all members of government and all MLAs and the members opposite, as well, are invited to be part of this so we see the different lenses that different people put on from different walks of life and different parts of the province. The reason the ministers are encouraging participation from service providers is so that they hear that broad range of inputs. The reason we make this open and available through the website is so that we see an even larger number of reviews, ideas and suggestions for improvement from the people of British Columbia.

           I think there is a multiplicity of lenses, to use the member's term, that are available. That's why we encourage both the member for Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to participate in this.

           J. MacPhail: It's my understanding that the core services review is ongoing. It's already started. I was wondering whether the Premier could actually say, given the work that's been done to date, whether any of those specific lenses have been applied.

           Hon. G. Campbell: The first lens we use in terms of the core services review is exactly the lens the member opposite suggested: should government be doing this? Why is government doing it? Indeed, in the discussions that have taken place, there are many people that come with different opinions. That's the reason you have a task force committee for review. That's the reason you send the ministries out to deal with their client groups.

           It seems to me the critical thing here is to recognize that this is a way of us moving forward and making sure the critical services to people in this province are provided in a thoughtful and cost-effective way.

           J. MacPhail: I know the government repealed the regulatory impact statement legislation, the Regulatory Impact Statement Act. That was a lens that required everything to be reviewed in the context of the impact it would have on the economy. But it also had a practitioner's lens incorporated in it as well. What replaces that in terms of the core services review?

           Hon. G. Campbell: There are a number of things that replace it. The first thing that replaces it is the Members of the Legislative Assembly. You know, I understand that this is a change, but I'm counting on the Members of the Legislative Assembly to bring forward the voices from their communities, the great disparity and diversity of voices in their communities, to help us as we move through this critical question.

           The critical issue under core services review is: what are the most important things for us to do? And as we decide what's most important, then what is the most effective way for us to do them? There are a number of tests. They're available for the public; they're available for the members opposite. I think it's very important…. The members opposite should understand this: we have some major challenges confronting us in the province. How we provide critical public services is one of them, and I think that's what is fundamental about the core services review.

           J. MacPhail: I had started a line of questioning along with my colleague a few days ago about just how the Premier will form his decisions based on the multitude of committees that he had established, one of which is core services review. Just today we established another legislative committee that's going to be performing a budget consultation. It's going to be travelling the province. I think it has to report by November 15, and it will be looking at getting public input on the budget.

[1550]

           It will be separate and apart from a core services review. I expect that the Premier may be surprised at the different points of view brought forward by the public — not surprised because the public is fickle; they're not fickle at all. But the public expects that governments can provide tax cuts, that they can provide increases in funding for education and health, that they can provide not only tuition fee freezes but also reductions in tuition. They expect governments to do that. So I expect that in the budget consultation, the Premier will get a series of pieces of advice from the public on how he should spend, because that's certainly been the experience of every other public budget consultation which has happened over the course of the last eight or nine years.

           Of course, we also know from a series of estimates that both my colleague and I sat on the opposite side of the House on, there was question after question after 

[ Page 823 ]

question from the now government, then-opposition, about how we could spend more. On the other hand, you have your core services review, which certainly seems to indicate — I may be misreading it — that there will be some cuts. I know the Premier has said as recently as a few minutes ago that there won't be cuts, but I predict there will be some services that the core services review comes up with where they will recommend to the government that they not proceed. Once again, this is along the same theme. I am really interested to know how the Premier will make the decision in the face of competing and contradictory advice from his various reviews.

           Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, I thank the member opposite. I think she's actually helped describe exactly why you have committees that go out and talk with the public.

           I don't think there's anyone in British Columbia who doesn't recognize that there are huge demands put upon the public purse. There's also no one in British Columbia who doesn't recognize that people in our province have worked a lot harder and fallen behind. Our economy has fallen behind the rest of the country. Part of the task we have as we go out — whether we're having the health committee go out and work on the issues that people deal with in health, how we manage that system and how we make it sustainable; whether it's the finance committee going out to hear what people's ideas are on the budget…. I don't find any of those things outside the realm of the core review.

           How do we make decisions under the core services review? I have answered this three or four times now. I don't know how I can answer it differently, hon. Chair, but let me say: the ministers are going out. They're part of this review. They're dealing with their client groups. They come forward to the core review task force. The task force reviews that, asks a number of questions and makes recommendations to the cabinet. The cabinet makes decisions. This is not a one-man government, as maybe some members here are used to from other times. This is a time when we use not just the cabinet but members of the Legislature as we make decisions. We'll make those decisions openly. We will have presentations to open cabinet. As we make those decisions — and many of them will be difficult; I don't think we should pretend they won't be difficult decisions — we will then be held to account by the public for the decisions that we make.

           J. MacPhail: Let me offer something to the Premier. It wasn't a trick question. When the Premier goes out and consults widely on a series of issues that have competing interests, the Premier maybe could give comfort to the public and say: "I understand that I'm asking competing questions here, but let me tell you, public, where I'm going on certain matters."

           For instance, the Premier was willing to run a $1.5 billion deficit in order to give a tax cut to corporations and the wealthiest, which wasn't discussed during the election. The Premier was willing to run a $1.5 billion deficit. Perhaps the Premier could give comfort to the competing questions by saying: "Listen, public. On the matter of protecting and enhancing spending in health and education, I'm willing to run a deficit." Has he thought about doing that?

           Hon. G. Campbell: We have been very clear with the public on what we're going to do. What we're going to do is restore our economy, encourage private sector investment and say to individual British Columbians: "When you work hard, you can get ahead. You can provide better for your families." As we build that private sector economy, we are going to regenerate the resources we need to protect our critical public services.

[1555]

           We also said during the election that we were going to review our public services. That's part of what the core services review is about: what are we doing? Why are we doing it? How should we do it? How do you measure results? All of those things, to be candid, hon. Chair, should have been done years ago. They haven't been. They're being done by this government, because we told the people of British Columbia we would do it.

           J. MacPhail: Let me try the question again. The Premier repealed legislation that would have required a reduced deficit every year, to be balanced in the year 2004-05. In fact, the Premier brought in legislation that didn't require any such accountability in terms of fiscal responsibility. In fact, a deficit can be run and can be increased each and every year until it actually has to be balanced in the year 2004-05.

           Given that the Premier has lessened fiscal accountability in terms of reducing the deficit, can the Premier offer assurances that a deficit will be considered to protect health and education as he does the core services review? That would make the budget consultation process a little easier.

           Hon. G. Campbell: What this government has done is exactly what it said it would do. We have committed to maintaining health care and education budgets. One of the reasons that we did not agree with the previous government's schedule is that we had no confidence in their numbers. It turned out that we were right.

           We are committed, as we have said to the people of British Columbia, to maintaining health and education budgets and to having a balanced budget by the third complete budget. We intend to focus our resources and our energy on making sure that health care and education are provided to British Columbians as the two most critical public services that this province provides. We recognize that creates a number of significant issues for us. We intend to work with British Columbians on those as we move through the months ahead.

           J. MacPhail: If we're actually going to have a discussion that's helpful to the public, the Premier has to be straightforward. The '99-2000 books closed out, with approval from all of those who get to approve, at a surplus of $40 million. The books for the province for 

[ Page 824 ]

the year 2000-01 closed out with a $1.5 billion surplus, for those who have the right to make these decisions separate and apart from the previous government. So that's two surpluses. That's absolutely two surpluses.

           I'm not sure what it was about the books that the Premier didn't trust. Was it that he thought the surplus was going to be less? Certainly the revenue forecasts that were made, which the government challenged when it was in opposition, have met the test of review, his own review. If it's the rate at which future expenditure occurs, that's exactly what we're talking about right now. There were decisions made by previous governments to ensure that expenditure for health and education would continue and that they wouldn't be overtaken by tax cuts.

           I'd like to know what it is that the Premier mistrusts about the books. Is it the largest surplus that he inherited and then turned into the second-largest deficit by giving away a tax cut? There were choices that were made, and the choices that were made in the previous budget were to protect and enhance health and education spending. That's what I'm trying to address here.

           The Minister of Finance stood up and said that all health and education spending increases would be tied to growth in the economy. We see today, much to my chagrin…. I hope desperately that the changing forecasts are reversed. We will not, as opposition, stand up each and every day, like the now government did, and bring about a doom-and-gloom scenario that in some ways becomes self-fulfilling, with an economy that rests a lot on psychology. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I want the economy to work.

           We see the headlines in the papers today, and for the last several weeks, about how there's a reversal in economic growth with our trading partners. What I know is that there's a way that a government can choose to deal with an economic downturn, whether that be the softwood lumber dispute or a softening of the economy with our trading partners — which is exactly what happened during the mid-nineties, '96, '97 and '98. There's a way that governments can deal with that. That cycle is repeating itself now, and all I want to know is: what happens to health and education spending and the pressures in health and education spending if the economy softens beyond the predictions of this government?

[1600]

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me go back to the core review. The core review is not about cuts of any sort. It is about asking ourselves what it is that the government is doing, what it is that the government should do and how it is that we should do it so we get the best benefits and the best results for the taxpayer. That's what the core review is about.

           The member opposite will know that our government will rise and fall on our financial management, just as her government rose and fell on its financial management. I have no trepidation whatsoever in saying that we are on the right track. We are protecting health care, and we are protecting education. We're going to restore this economy so people have a sense of hope and prosperity in this province again.

           J. Kwan: To date, under the core review process, what programs have been cut by the government, and what programs, if any, have been increased by the government?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The core services review has just commenced. We have had two or three ministries that have come and made an initial presentation. No programs have been cut.

           J. Kwan: We saw the minibudget that was introduced earlier, and we know from that process that a number of programs have been cut. The child care program, as an example, has been reduced. We know that on the environmental front — on climate change, on the major issue around air quality, on the question as it relates to air quality — programs have been eliminated.

           We know that there are other initiatives and programs with the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, particularly in the area of community services and volunteer services, that have been cut. There are a lot more. The Buy B.C., B.C. Sharing, program was initially eliminated. Then the government restored it for one year, and that program is now also subject to the core review.

           We know there have been a number of programs that have been eliminated. Therefore, what others are there? When some of the programs have been eliminated, it is not apparent to the public.

           Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite makes my point. I did not say that no programs had been cut by government. There obviously have been. That is part of the budget review process. It will continue to be part of the budget review process. The core services review is not part of the budget review process.

           J. Kwan: So there's the budget review process, and there's a core review process. The budget review process is aimed at cutting programs. The core review process, so far, is termed not to cut programs, although I fear that it would be another euphemism in terms of the process of eliminating and cutting programs.

           What other processes are there in terms of initiatives and programs that would be considered by this government for elimination — the Progress Board? In terms of that separate process, would that be yet another process in terms of reviewing programs and to look at how programs that are delivered to British Columbians would be eliminated?

           Hon. G. Campbell: There are a number of processes at work in any government, and I am sure the member opposite as a former member of cabinet would recognize this. The core review process is about asking a series of questions, all of which I have identified and the member can make herself acquainted with through the website. We would be glad to send her any infor 

[ Page 825 ]

mation that she would require, but I'm sure she has access to the website.

           The budget management process is a different process, and I will resist the temptation to respond the way I could. Let me simply say that the budget management process is about properly managing the resources of the people of British Columbia so they get the services they deserve and the results they deserve.

[1605]

           We know the previous government had virtually no budget management process. If they did, we wouldn't have seen some of the disasters we saw under the previous government. The Progress Board we talked about the other day. It's completely different. The Progress Board is to establish an outside board that can set some standards for British Columbia to meet, so we know what our competitors are doing. We can see what's happening with regard to economic activity, social activity, social benchmarks, environmental benchmarks. Those should be set up outside of government so that that board can hold us to account. That's what we've done. It is a totally independent board. It will set standards; it will hold us to account for them.

           We see that as part of the tools to help meet the challenges the member for Vancouver-Hastings pointed out to us — that there are many conflicting demands on government, on government's resources. Our task as a government is to balance those demands and make the best choices that we can — and we recognize that making these decisions is about making choices — and to be held to account for those choices. At the end of the day, what we want to ensure is that the people of British Columbia are getting the services they need and they deserve.

           J. MacPhail: We already see competing pressures daily on the government. You know, perhaps just the pressure of the decision around leaky condos may have a fiscal pressure on the government. It may not, but it may. So I'm just wondering — and it really is practical detail that we're asking for here…. The Premier is in the middle of the core services review. There were some commitments, which various communities may have strongly held views about, that communities have asked for, particularly.

           I note with interest one commitment that affects my community but also affects communities that are now held by private members from the government, and that's the PNE. I know that the PNE has been to the core services review. I'm wondering if the Premier could just tell us how it works in terms of the review. Did the community of Surrey participate in the core services review of the PNE? The board members were fired just last week, so I assume the government is now getting input solely from the bureaucrats, the officials, the public service officials that they appointed. What's the input that would go forward on the core services review to determine the future of the PNE?

           Hon. G. Campbell: It's ironic that the member opposite raises the PNE, because I remember as the mayor of Vancouver that when she was running for office, she came and committed that she was going to make it a park very quickly. We're now 11 years later, and it's still not a park.

           What we've done with the PNE is exactly what we said we'd do. The minister now has a group of people on an interim board. The minister will hand to it the PNE and its future. He will handle it, I'm sure, in talking to people from Surrey as well as talking to people from Vancouver.

           J. MacPhail: I don't know whether or not that was a cheap shot that the Premier took. I'll assume it wasn't a cheap shot. I also remember my three-year-old son, on that day, lobbying the then mayor of Vancouver to keep Playland there. He took my son's advice under advisement as well.

           The fact of the matter is that there's been much public input into the PNE by the community in which I live, by the PNE board that was fired — it had community reps on it — by the city councillors of Vancouver and by the park board but also by the community of Surrey. That's new development. All of that discussion has taken place. The municipality of Surrey has done a lot of hard work on the future of the PNE. I'm just wondering whether any.… And maybe MLAs from Surrey, if they're here, could stand up and perhaps contribute on behalf of the Premier. But what input did the city of Surrey have in the core services review of the PNE?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I just answered that question. The board was changed. The minister responsible will be dealing with the municipality of Surrey as well as the municipality of Vancouver.

           J. MacPhail: But the core services review has already taken place for the PNE. All I'm wondering is…. The MLAs can stand up and say it themselves. The Premier said the MLAs would have input. It was them who would guide the core services review process. Did the MLAs from Surrey appear before the core services review over the issue of the future of the PNE?

[1610]

           Hon. G. Campbell: Just so the member is clear with what I said, I said that any Member of the Legislative Assembly is welcome to have input into this process. The minister is now in the midst of the process. We have an interim board for the PNE; that is correct. That interim board will be carrying out the review process. It is not complete. Both municipalities will be consulted with, as will, I'm sure, the Minister of Agriculture and others that are interested in this issue.

           J. MacPhail: I was actually trying to understand. I guess I can go ask the MLAs directly myself whether they appeared before the core services review on the PNE. I certainly have a great deal of interest on behalf of my community. I know the agricultural community has a great deal of interest. I met with them last week, and they're very nervous about the actions that were taken by firing the board and very nervous about the 

[ Page 826 ]

future of the PNE as well. All I'm trying to do is find out some avenue for input through the core services review from the people who are worried about the future of the PNE.

           I think my colleague has some questions on core services.

           J. Kwan: On the issue around the core services review, previous to today I asked the Premier the time lines for the core services review. Is he anticipating that the time line will still be maintained? What kind of time line is he anticipating?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The first phase of the core services review will be complete by the end of October.

           J. Kwan: How many phases are there?

           Hon. G. Campbell: There will be four phases.

           J. Kwan: What's the time line for each of the respective phases?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Different phases obviously have different time requirements. We'll be glad to get the details of that to the member opposite and all members of the House.

           J. Kwan: When does the Premier expect the fourth phase to be completed?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I would expect that all phases of the core services review will be complete by May 17, 2005.

           J. Kwan: So the core review would be ongoing for the entire term of this government.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, we would like to do the core services review and complete it as quickly as possible. If the member opposite wants a deadline that she will know that it's all been done by, it's May 17, 2005.

           J. Kwan: Is the Vancouver agreement part of the core review?

           Hon. G. Campbell: One of the things we have undertaken is to live up to the commitments that have been made in the past. We are working with both the city of Vancouver and the federal government. I don't expect that the Vancouver agreement per se is part of the core review.

           J. Kwan: Previously, under the Vancouver agreement the city, the federal and the provincial governments had committed to a series of initiatives for the Vancouver agreement, including 600 units of affordable housing that were allocated. Are the 600 units of affordable housing that were agreed to by the three levels of government under the Vancouver agreement going to move forward?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The province intends to work with the city of Vancouver and the federal government to make sure that the results that we have looked for in the Vancouver agreement are met.

           I do want to be clear and straightforward with the member opposite, however. I do not, in fact — and the government does not — assume that all of the policy decisions made by previous governments that were not funded or were partially funded, which were dealt with in press releases, are necessarily going to be forthcoming. We have been very clear with the city of Vancouver that we expect them to take the lead in the Vancouver agreement. We have been very clear with them that we will be there to help and assist them as they move forward with this very important decision-making process. That is our commitment, and that will be maintained.

[1615]

           J. Kwan: Specifically with respect to the 600 units of affordable housing that were allocated under the Vancouver agreement as part of the many initiatives that the three levels of government had embarked on, will those 600 units of affordable housing be committed to and carried forward by this government?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I cannot commit to those until we've had a chance for the full review with the city of Vancouver. We intend to do that with them to make sure we're maximizing benefits to the people that those services are supposed to serve.

           J. Kwan: The 600 units of affordable housing that were committed to under the Vancouver agreement…. The funds actually came from the provincial government through its budgetary allocations through the Ministry of Housing. While I appreciate that consultation with the city of Vancouver is important in terms of site allocation and so on, the funding component of it has been committed to by the provincial government. Is that commitment still there to ensure that those 600 units of affordable housing will be built?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Same answer as before.

           J. Kwan: I'm unclear as to whether or not there is commitment from this government to continue to support and commit to those 600 units of affordable housing that were budgeted in the previous budget and formed part of the Vancouver agreement. It's easy to say that this government will simply pass it on to the city of Vancouver.

           Let me ask the Premier this question. The city of Vancouver mayor, Phil Owen, has committed to the four-pillars approach to addressing substance misuse in our community throughout British Columbia and particularly in the city of Vancouver. That was something that was endorsed by all three levels of government: the federal government, the provincial government and the city of Vancouver. Is it this government's intent to commit to the four-pillars approach, a comprehensive approach to substance misuse? 

[ Page 827 ]

           Hon. G. Campbell: Same answer.

           J. Kwan: Has this government zero direction whatsoever in terms of its own thoughts with respect to the strategy in addressing substance misuse in the downtown east side community and throughout British Columbia? What is this government's strategy for addressing substance misuse in British Columbia?

           Hon. G. Campbell: This government is committed to do a number of things. First, we have committed to a long-term plan to deal with substance abuse. The Minister of Health Planning is working on that. I would encourage the members opposite to participate next year in her budget estimates to make sure they're aware of that. Secondly, the government intends to provide for health services. Addiction services are clearly a major health issue that we have to deal with. Thirdly, this government has committed to a Minister of State for Mental Health that has clearly interrelated problems.

           And fourthly, we intend to work with the city of Vancouver and the federal government to make sure we're getting the kinds of results that people need so people get the care they need and so that we can get on with building a healthier society for everybody.

           J. Kwan: Under the Vancouver agreement, one of the pillars is a harm-reduction pillar in the comprehensive approach to substance misuse. Is this government committed to the harm-reduction pillar of a comprehensive strategy for substance misuse?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Same answer as I gave to the member before. We will work with the city of Vancouver. We intend to encourage the city of Vancouver to take the lead.

           J. Kwan: The city of Vancouver has already taken the lead in coming forward with its own report on the four-pillar approach to substance misuse. I assume the Premier has already received a copy of this report. If he hasn't already, I can certainly dig it up from my files and forward it to him. The mayor of the city of Vancouver has been very clear. In fact, I'm sure the Premier would have that information on it. I'm interested in knowing whether or not the Premier himself personally supports the four-pillar approach to substance misuse.

           Hon. G. Campbell: As I've said, the Vancouver agreement was an agreement that was entered into by the previous government. We have every intention of living up to the spirit of that agreement. We will work with the city of Vancouver and the federal government to make sure people get the services they need.

[1620]

           J. Kwan: I've written to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services regarding the Vancouver agreement, as he is the minister responsible for the Vancouver agreement, asking him the intentions of this government with respect to the Vancouver agreement; asking him the intentions of the government's commitment to the four-pillars approach, including all options under harm reduction initiatives; asking him this government's intention on the 600 units of affordable housing that were budgeted for and committed to by the Vancouver agreement; asking him about the commitments of the government in committing to an expansion of methadone services and detox services throughout British Columbia; asking him all of the relevant questions in ensuring that the Vancouver agreement continues on as it was envisioned, as a five-year comprehensive approach to addressing this very complex issue.

           To date I have not received a response from the minister responsible for the Vancouver agreement, and that's why I'm asking these questions here of the Premier. I think it is of the utmost importance not only for me as MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant but also for all British Columbians. The strategy around the Vancouver agreement is to start with the downtown east side community but not just in the downtown east side community. We know that in Surrey, in New Westminster, in Cranbrook, when I travelled to Cranbrook earlier…. There are issues around substance misuse in those communities.

           We know there is an epidemic right now in our community, where people are dying of HIV and AIDS, and the spread of hepatitis C is in just astounding proportions. Through the Vancouver agreement the process was initiated to begin tackling and addressing this issue in a coordinated way, with the three levels of government. I know the business community is very concerned about it, and part of the four-pillar approach, of course, is to look at community economic development initiatives as well as enforcement initiatives, harm reduction initiatives, and prevention and treatment strategies.

           All of those pieces are major components of a comprehensive approach. I am asking the question: where does this government stand in terms of that, outside of just simply saying: "We're going to give the lead to the city of Vancouver"?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Well, let me start by saying that it's actually significant that we're saying the lead's going to go to the city of Vancouver. I think it's significant that we've said that we intend to live up to the terms of the Vancouver agreement. I also think it's significant that the member has sent a comprehensive letter to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, and I can assure the member opposite that she will get a response from the minister which I'm sure will be satisfying to her and the people she represents.

           B. Penner: A question for the Premier. Tens of thousands of Fraser Valley residents remain concerned about the serious threat that the proposed SE2 power plant poses to human health and the environment. Early last year the previous NDP government refused to seek intervener status during hearings in Washington State looking into this project. During the election 

[ Page 828 ]

campaign B.C. Liberals promised to seek intervener status if elected to government on May 16. Can the Premier bring us up to date on the status of this new-era commitment?

           Hon. G. Campbell: On June 29, SE2 submitted a somewhat revised submission to Washington State's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Within hours of that, both myself and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection submitted a request that British Columbia be granted intervener status. On August 1 intervener status was granted. That will allow us to present a number of concerns that British Columbia has with regard to the SE2 power project before the committee. We understand that those hearings are likely to start in the fall, probably sometime in October.

           Because we're interveners, as the member may know, we also have the opportunity to cross-examine the proponents for SE2. The province has retained the services of David Bricklin. Mr. Bricklin is a lawyer in the Seattle area who is well versed in these types of regulatory proceedings. I am advised that SE2 has a number of hurdles that it has yet to overcome.

           I would like to say that the province of British Columbia does have intervener status. We're confident in the expertise and ability of Mr. Bricklin. We believe that we'll be successful, and it's in no small part because of the hard work, energy and enthusiasm of the people of the Fraser Valley to protect and preserve as much as they can of their airshed, which has been under attack for some time through a number of pollutants. We will do everything we can to stop the SE2 power project from going ahead.

[1625]

           J. Kwan: I wish I could get as decisive an answer from the Premier for my set of questions around the Vancouver agreement. The Vancouver agreement is indeed a very important piece that relates to the health and well-being of the community as well as of the individuals in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It's not just for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant but throughout British Columbia and ultimately across the country, as it is intended to be broader than just an initiative targeted for the downtown east side.

           The Mount Pleasant community is also very interested in the Woodward's project. The Woodward's project was committed to by the government to ensure that there's affordable housing within it. What is the stance of this government on that issue?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is reviewing the Woodward's project. There are some grave concerns about the price that was paid for that building, in terms of the marketplace. We will review that, and the minister will be making his recommendations.

           J. Kwan: When the project was purchased, there were independent assessments in terms of the value and price of the project, and the building was bought within the scope of the independent assessments. Am I clear in understanding from the Premier that the Woodward's project is now under part of the core review?

           Hon. G. Campbell: No. The Woodward's project is part of the minister's responsibility to look at the commitments made by the previous government, to see whether they were sensible commitments, whether they were economically justifiable and what results we could expect out of them. I expect the minister to report back to the government and make his recommendations.

           J. Kwan: What is the time line in terms of that exercise?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell the member opposite, but I'm certainly glad to get the information for her.

           J. Kwan: Will the Premier also commit to supplying information to me with respect to what aspects of the Woodward's project will be reviewed? Is it about the price? What other components will the minister be conducting in his review? As well, will the minister be consulting with SFU, which submitted an application to the previous government to prioritize the arts precinct as the commercial component of the Woodward's project on the ground floors? Will the minister also be committing to work with SFU on the Woodward's project and its review?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The minister will be including not just the city of Vancouver but also Simon Fraser University and the Minister of Finance. This is an undertaking where indeed we intend to include the talents of government in assessing the project and how and if we should move forward in view of the financial constraints that we face.

           J. Kwan: Will the Premier commit that the minister will also consult with the Woodward's co-op, which clearly is a major proponent of the project, in his review?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the minister will have the opportunity to consult with the co-op.

           J. Kwan: Will the Premier ensure that the minister will provide to me all of the information he receives through his consultation, so I may also review what information has been brought forward by the ministry from the community?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Within the constraints of how the province makes its decisions and how the previous government made its decisions, I'm glad to make sure that the information is available. Indeed, as we move forward there will be a broad consultation, and we will be making information available to members of the public as well.

           J. MacPhail: I want to continue along sort of the same vein but shift ground a little bit. It's the linkage between community services and the core services re 

[ Page 829 ]

view but also tying it into a review process the Premier has set up: the Community Charter Council. We had an interesting discussion during the legislative debate about what would be included in the Community Charter Council activities and what wouldn't be included. I'll deal in a very minor way with that in a few moments.

[1630]

           One of the issues I've had feedback from the public on was the lack of commitment by the minister responsible to release the report of the Community Charter Council publicly. Am I using the term Community Charter Council right? I think that's it.

           There's a clause in the legislation that says the report will be released to the executive council. It's by the government's own legislation that the report is directed to the executive council. I'm wondering whether the Premier could reassure the public, because I guess it was the time of day when lots of people heard that discussion on TV. There was concern that the minister wouldn't commit to releasing the document publicly. He said it would go to the executive council, and then it would be up to the executive council. The only reason the report goes to the executive council is because the government itself determined that. Is there some reason why such a report wouldn't be made public?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The legislation that's recommended for the community charter will be made public and will be submitted to the Legislature. Draft legislation is not always made public. I don't think there's a point in putting draft legislation before the public before we've had a chance to review it in government to see what the policy issues are and what concerns there may be for government.

           I want the member opposite and everyone to know that obviously, as we move to pass a community charter, it will be public. There will be ample public opportunity both for discussion of it and for debate within this House. I think the critical component of this is indeed that the Community Charter Council itself is aimed at ensuring that municipal voices are heard as this is developed and that we create a community charter that works in the best interests of the province and the municipalities across this province.

           J. MacPhail: Actually, the discussion we had was about the report being made public, and we had some debate. It got a little bit confusing with the minister, because he at one time said there was draft legislation, and then he said there wasn't. But we take the government's commitment that there isn't draft legislation already done.

           It's the report of the Community Charter Council. This is the only way the public has input. There are actually not community representatives on the council, so the public will have input through the hearings. It seems to me that even though the report may contain draft legislation, it isn't the legislation of the government. There's no Legislative Assembly protocol or Legislature protocol around that.

           It's not the legislation the government intends to introduce that we want released before the actual introduction of the legislation; it's the report that we want released. Is that what the Premier is committing to make public?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I want to be clear. What I'm committing that will be made public is the draft community charter legislation. The report on the community charter that will be submitted will be equivalent to advice to cabinet, and the member opposite knows that advice to cabinet is where building legislation is often not made public. In fact, what I believe will happen is that because of the way this report is done, the vast majority of it will be public because of the participants. We have mayors of municipalities that are going to be part of these discussions.

           The intention is not to make the report public prior to going to cabinet; the intention is for the report to be considered by cabinet, to draft the legislation. Then the bill will be put before this House, and the entire public of British Columbia will have a chance to comment on it and make their voices heard.

           J. MacPhail: The only reason it's advice to cabinet is because the government decided it to be. I recall in past days where the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, demanded that the documents be made public, and they were. They were made public the minute they were released, even though they were going to cabinet for consideration. I'm just worried. It must have been the time when it was on TV, because there has been reaction to the refusal to release the document publicly. It's like saying that we can't do it because it's advice to cabinet. But it was the government itself that made it, by legislation, advice to cabinet.

[1635]

           The legislation the government introduces may be qualified by the report the council puts together. There may be alternate views contained in the report. There may actually be a legitimate, thoughtful discussion around the draft legislation that's included in the report. That's why I'm asking the Premier to make the document public. It's nothing that he himself has not asked for consistently and constantly in the past.

           Hon. G. Campbell: The legislation is straightforward. The report will be made to cabinet. The cabinet will consider the report and consider the legislation. There will be no gags on any of the members of the Community Charter Council. They will be able to respond as they see fit. The legislation will be decided on by cabinet and will be laid before this House for debate, consideration, deliberation and decision.

           J. MacPhail: If the public wants a copy of the document, then it's up to one of the committee members to give it publicly. Is that what the Premier's saying?

           Hon. G. Campbell: No. The member knows that's not what I said. What I said was: the report is part of the advice to cabinet. The report will be used as cabinet 

[ Page 830 ]

makes its decision. Cabinet will make its decision and will lay the legislation before the public. As far as we're concerned, that report will be confidential until the legislation has been decided. Whether or not it's public after that will be up to cabinet to decide or, I suppose, up to members to decide.

           J. MacPhail: I just advise the Premier that that may not…. I'll just give him the feedback. As opposition, we receive feedback, and it's immediate in this day and age of communication. I'm just advising the Premier that that may not meet the test of what the public expects on this very important matter. I leave it up to him to decide what to do with that.

           Two things in terms of the Community Charter Council activities. One of them is very current, and the other is one that we explored in the debate around the legislation. The first one is in the area of the leaky-condo crisis. We certainly see that part of the approach that may be taken by municipalities — this was public as of today — was a request to have their liability either shared or alleviated.

           We know what the Premier's view in the past has been around this matter. It was very much to exempt municipalities from their liability in these particular matters. However, he has not acted upon that as Premier. But I would expect now, because that exemption from liability would have to be included under legislation that will arise out of the community charter…. Does the Premier see that as the avenue for discussion in terms of the municipalities' recent request? If so, is that the area where condominium owners would also have input into that kind of limited liability or liability exemption? That's one question.

           The other question is concerned with the ward system for any municipality. We were told that even though there was a principle in the charter council's mandate that they would determine the democratic principles under which they would be elected, that would not include a discussion around a ward system. Perhaps the Premier could explain why not, in the last circumstances, and what he would see in the first circumstance — how that discussion would unfold.

           Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, with regard to the leaky-condo situation, I think it is clear that everyone shares responsibility here. One of the goals of our government is to make sure we work with municipalities, with the federal government, with condominium owners, with builders and with designers to make sure we come up with a comprehensive solution that will make some sense. That's what we intend to do.

           We have outlined a number of things that we think the previous government should have done. The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services has only been a minister for 90 days. I can guarantee the member opposite that he will act far more expeditiously with regard to this than the previous government did.

[1640]

           Secondly, with regard to the ward system, I think that when you look at how people are governed, we will in fact, by the time the community charter has been completed, allow municipalities to make their own choices, as opposed to the province trying to impose what is a politically convenient choice for the province on a local municipality. I personally have been a supporter of the ward system. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the people of Vancouver haven't agreed with that.

           So it will be up to the cities to decide how people should be elected. The term will be set in the charter at three years. There may even be discussion about allowing different communities in different parts of the province to apply different terms, up to a maximum term. The whole purpose of the community charter is to recognize that one-size-fits-all solutions do not work. What may work for one provincial politician's political supporters or constituency may or may not work for another provincial politician's political supporters or constituency.

           The community charter is there to create a provincewide framework, a legal, legislative framework in which municipalities can act so that we no longer suffer from the myth that one-size-fits-all works and so that we allow municipalities to make their own choices.

           J. MacPhail: Sorry. I hope I'm not provoking the Premier here. I'm not looking backward; I'm looking forward here. I take it that the issue of a ward system will actually be part of the community charter discussion, based on the comments he just made now. That's what I understand him to say. Certainly, I wouldn't presuppose what the discussions would be, whether it be one-size-fits-all, different levels or whatever. I'm pleased to hear that the nature of how politicians are elected, including a ward system, will be part of the Community Charter Council's mandate.

           I know that in the past the Premier himself said that it required 60 percent approval, by referendum, to bring in a change and bring in a ward system. I don't expect that's what he'll include as a mandate for his referendum on treaty negotiations — or maybe it is. Certainly the city of Vancouver has voted in the majority for a ward system, but not at the threshold that the Premier himself set, which was 60 percent. That's one point.

           On the issue of leaky condos, I think this is way too big an issue for sniping — way too big an issue. The Premier himself, during the election, actually gave praise…. The handling of the leaky-condo crisis was the one area where the Premier praised his nemesis, the former government. So I don't know why there's sniping occurring now. It's a crisis of huge proportion. It's an unfolding matter as well. The court decision of Friday adds to the discussion and the determination of the future rights and future compensation of people who have leaky condos.

           So it's not about the election. The Premier made his voice very clear during the election. He was pleased. He thought the progress that the government of the day had made was what was needed. He added no more solutions to it. So now I'm asking the Premier to work with us to move forward on it. Is the Community 

[ Page 831 ]

Charter Council the place that will hear the debate about liability of municipalities in the case of leaky condos?

           Hon. G. Campbell: No.

           J. MacPhail: If the municipalities will not be contained under the community charter — I understand that the community charter will be the laws by which municipalities are governed — then in what avenue would the municipalities have that discussion with the province?

           Hon. G. Campbell: In the Legislature.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I don't understand that answer. I literally don't understand it.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Bill 12 was discussed in the Legislature the other day. The Community Charter Council was highlighted in that. The terms of reference for the Community Charter Council were established in that.

[1645]

           There will be a bill prepared that will be submitted to cabinet and will be submitted to the Legislature. Any decisions regarding any issue in that bill will be decided right here in this Legislature. It will not be decided by an advisory committee.

           If indeed there were to be any suggestion that we were going to change the municipal liability, that would be decided right here in the open Legislature for the public to see, for the public to debate, for us to be held accountable on. I want to take the member up on her offer. There is a comprehensive program that is necessary to deal with the leaky-condo problem. It is a program that involves not finger-pointing but getting the facts.

           The member opposite says that the now government didn't have any constructive suggestions to make with regard to the leaky-condo issue. I would suggest it was the previous government that blocked out those suggestions. Indeed, the current Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General had a number of suggestions that were made to the previous government. The industry had a number of suggestions that were made to the previous government.

           We intend to deal with this matter in a comprehensive and thoughtful way. The minister is establishing a process that will do that. It will include not just the people who have unfortunately been caught in the personal disaster of the leaky-condo situation but also industry representatives, municipal representatives, provincial representatives and federal representatives, so we can come up with a program that will put this behind us once and for all. Equally importantly, we'll do everything possible to prohibit it from taking place again in the future.

           J. MacPhail: I hope I'm not frustrating the Premier. This is a matter of immediate concern, and it's very current, so I seriously hope I'm not frustrating him. I think this is a matter that's of great concern to lots of people. I understand that the Minister of Public Safety made some suggestions, and those suggestions can be reviewed in the context of the current situation.

           The courts determined that there was liability of the construction company, and I know that the minister, the Solicitor General, wanted to give greater say to it being sort of a self-regulating industry. The public will judge whether those suggestions were appropriate or not. The way the previous government set up a monitoring system and an accountability system was to have an independent body maintain accountability and provide warranty.

           This matter is unfolding, and I accept that the Premier has made a commitment that if there's going to be any change in liability, it will come before the Legislature. The only reason I pursued this was that his private member's bill was an amendment to the legislation that now will be changed under the community charter, so that's the link.

           I'm glad to hear him clarify that it won't be dealt with, with that — that the link is no longer there, that it will be a separate matter debated in the Legislature. That will be, I assume, welcome news to at least leaky-condo owners. I'm not sure municipalities will view that…. We'll see. I'm sure we'll get reaction immediately on that matter, so I appreciate the clarification the Premier has given.

           J. Kwan: Just relating to issues around the community charter, during discussions with the Minister of State for Community Charter I asked a question around an order of government. Within the mandate or principles, if you will, outlined for the Community Charter Council, one of them referenced an order of government.

           I asked the minister if it were the intent of the government to allow for the council to explore local governments as a third order of government. His response was that it would be up to the council to decide. I ask the Premier: is it his intention, behind the principles of the community charter, to allow the council to explore local governments as a third order of government?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Clearly, any changes that we make in British Columbia would have to be done within the constitution of Canada, but that will be something the Community Charter Council will be making recommendations on.

[1650]

           J. Kwan: If the council comes forward to say that local governments should be made into a third order of government, the scope of the work given to the council allows for that. You have just confirmed that the scope does allow for that. This government is prepared to entertain local governments as a third order of government if that comes back as a recommendation from the council.

           Hon. G. Campbell: We are prepared to entertain the advice of the Community Charter Council. As I 

[ Page 832 ]

mentioned, there will be a report, and cabinet will then consider the report and make its decisions.

           J. Kwan: The reason I asked the question is that it's one that is very important not only for local governments, of course; but on the flip side, it is equally important for the aboriginal community. I note this Premier has already established that through the referendum process, the scope is going to be the questions of the referendum but not whether or not there should be a referendum, as an example.

           I know that the then opposition, the current government, took the Nisga'a people to court on the issue around governance, particularly on this matter. I know that self-government is a critical issue for the aboriginal community. I ask the Premier: why would he limit the scope of the referendum question to just what the referendum questions will be, as opposed to the broader scope that he has allowed the Community Charter Council to embark on in this process of determining the responsibilities of local governments?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The Premier has not decided on the questions that will be asked in the referendum. I have asked a legislative committee to do that. That legislative committee will report back to the Legislature by November 30.

           J. Kwan: What I said was that the Premier has decided on the scope of the questions or the area of the work that the committee would undertake, and that is not on whether or not there will be a referendum but rather what the questions will be. On the other hand, for the Community Charter Council the scope is much broader. They are even allowed to entertain the idea of a third order of government for local government.

           What I'm saying is: why are there two standards? On the one hand, for local government they can entertain the whole idea of a third order of government. But for the aboriginal people, where self-governance is a major issue for them, there is no entertainment whatsoever in terms of the principles associated with the negotiations, but rather simply the question of the referendum — not whether or not there will be a referendum question, but the narrower scope of the work of the committee.

           Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, the Legislature is the group that decides the terms of reference for a select standing committee of the Legislature. What we have asked of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters and issues concerning questions which the government of British Columbia should submit to voters to implement the government's commitment to give all British Columbians a say.

           Let me go back to this. I understand that sometimes this might be difficult. Our government ran on a series of commitments. One of those commitments was to have a referendum — a one-time provincewide referendum — on the principles that will inform the treaty mandate for provincial negotiators at the treaty table. We said we would do that while, obviously, protecting aboriginal rights and title, as we must under the Canadian constitution. That's what we've asked to do with regard to the referendum. I believe the referendum can be a unifying process that will allow us to move forward together, and I think that's what's critical about the referendum.

           What we have said with regard to the community charter is that we welcome the advice from the Community Charter Council. The cabinet will consider it and then will bring forward their recommendations to the Legislature in the form of legislation. The public will have an opportunity to review it and to determine whether or not this is a positive step for British Columbia to take.

           J. Kwan: I'm now going to refer to the meeting that took place with the First Nations Summit and the provincial cabinet on August 17, 2001. The summit had actually submitted a submission to the cabinet, and there are a number of issues.

[1655]

           First, relating back to the referendum, I quote from their document. It goes on to talk about how they do not support the referendum, and it says:

           "We cannot overemphasize how divisive a referendum would be. Indeed, we suggest an alternative in which we would very likely participate. This exercise could be coordinated by the B.C. Treaty Commission or by a task force with nominations from each of the three principles. The provincial government and the other two parties to the process, the federal government and the first nations, could review the 19 principles that were accepted, re-examine them, advertise them and consult with as many people as possible in the province of British Columbia about them.

           "This could certainly restart the process in a positive manner. It would at least be a positive step that would achieve the consultation that the Premier says is required even though the treaty process has been open to the public and completely transparent from the beginning."

           I ask the Premier: why did he just out-of-hand reject this offer from the First Nations Summit?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Let me deal with two items. Firstly, we made a commitment to the people of British Columbia that we would have a provincewide referendum on the principles that would inform the treaty mandate. I have been very clear with the task group of the First Nations Summit with regard to that. In the meetings that they've had with me, they've said: "We disagree with you." They have said that they think there are other ways we can do it. They've also said that if we're going to get on with it, why aren't we getting on with it? So we intend to get on with the referendum. They know that, and we said that both at the first meetings with the task group as well as at the major cabinet meeting with all the members of the First Nations Summit.

           Secondly, for the member to suggest that we have rejected other suggestions made by the First Nations 

[ Page 833 ]

Summit is simply not the case. We are in fact building a strong and, I think, a positive relationship not just with the First Nations Summit but also with aboriginal communities and leaders who are outside the treaty process, and with aboriginal people who are no longer on reserve. That's what our intent is: to continue to build a positive relationship. But it's going to be a relationship that's based on the government keeping its word.

           One of the first things they said to us at the First Nations Summit on August 27 was that one of the challenges they faced as first nations at the treaty table was that British Columbia negotiators didn't seem to understand what their mandate is. We'd like our negotiators to know what the mandate is, we'd like First Nations Summit to know what the mandate is, and we'd like the federal government to know what the mandate is. We believe that a referendum is a way of revitalizing this process.

           It in no way excludes the other positive and constructive recommendations that have been made by representatives of the First Nations Summit as well as those outside of the First Nations Summit.

           J. Kwan: According to the information I've received from the First Nations Summit, it is clear that on the issue around the status of negotiations with the province on treaty making, it has all but stalled. I read this, and I put this also as a question to the Premier: how does one expect negotiations to continue when this is the situation as it stands now?

           The following issues are of importance to the first nations currently in the process of treaty negotiations. I know they are considering all the issues to be important, but of primary concern to them at this time is the status of the negotiations. This is, as they advised, the status of negotiations. Perhaps this is misinformation, and I would love it if the Premier would provide information to verify whether or not this is indeed the status of the negotiations. I will quote as follows:

           "While negotiations have begun or are beginning at all tables, an extremely limited mandate read by provincial negotiators seems designed to kill the B.C. treaty process. We have been advised by first nations that until further notice, the new provincial mandate prohibits provincial negotiators from discussing any of the following key issues at treaty tables: (1) self-government and the sources for self-government; (2) general provisions and all related legal issues; (3) fiscal relations; (4) taxation; (5) constitutional status of land; (6) the inclusion of fee simple lands and treaty settlement lands on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis; and (7) first nations management or co-management of resources.

           "It is the perspective from the First Nations Summit that the removal of substantive issues from the table severely impedes the negotiation process. Stripping provincial negotiators of any opportunity to discuss anything substantive is unconscionable. Discussions on the substantive issues must begin now."

           Given that these items have been taken off the table, how does one anticipate that negotiations will continue?

[1700]

           Hon. G. Campbell: Well, first let me correct the record. It was the previous government that stopped negotiations. It is this government that restarted negotiations.

           Secondly, the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations has been very clear that at the negotiation table there are a number of issues that can be dealt with and that we will proceed with. For example, in this House in this session we have had to deal with the Sliammon first nation, who felt that the previous government had undermined their negotiations. Rather than have that negotiation undermined, I directed the Minister of Forests and the minister responsible for aboriginal treaties to go and rectify the damage that could have been done to the treaty process by those perhaps unwarranted, perhaps unnoticed and certainly uncalled-for actions by the previous government. We did that, and I'm sure that will go through the House.

           We had to send out a message, clearly, to the Nisga'a that we intended to live up to the commitments that were made by the previous government with regard to the agreements that had been made. We sent that message, and in fact we got letters from the Nisga'a saying: "Thank you for living up to the agreement." We intend to continue to do that.

           At the negotiating table, as I'm sure the member opposite will know, there is a whole range of issues that can be negotiated as part of treaties. What's the land that's available? How do we manage resources? All of those issues are going to be part of what takes place at the literally dozens of treaty tables that are there. We intend to continue working constructively with the First Nations Summit to identify those issues.

           The minister responsible has met on a regular basis not just with his negotiators but with individual first nations about how they can negotiate. The frustration that was identified by the First Nations Summit about the length of time this takes, about the lack of mandate that the provincial government has had in the past and about the lack of mandate that the federal government has had in the past are things that we take to heart. We intend to work with those first nations to move forward with resolving treaties in a thoughtful, comprehensive and inclusive way. That's what we're undertaking to do, and that's what we intend to do.

           J. Kwan: With all due respect to the Premier, it was not the former government that said to the aboriginal community, to the First Nations Summit, that self-government and the sources for self-government are off the table. It is not the previous government that said general provisions and all related legal issues are off the table. It wasn't us who said taxation, constitution, status of land, inclusion of fee simple lands as treaty settlement lands on the willing-seller, willing-buyer basis, first nations management and comanagement of resources…. It was not the previous government who said that these items are off the table. It was this government — your government — who said that. As a result of that, the First Nations Summit is saying that stripping provincial negotiators of any opportunity to 

[ Page 834 ]

discuss any substantive issues is unconscionable and thereby severely impedes the negotiation process.

           If the Premier and this government are truly interested in earnest in this process of engaging in negotiations for the purpose of treaty making, then he would instruct his negotiators to put these items back on the table so that indeed there's an opportunity for treaty making and the process of treaty making to begin once again.

           I see the Premier does not dispute the fact that he has taken these items off the table, thereby impeding the negotiating process. Therefore, ultimately it has the potential of killing all treaty making and negotiations in the province, which will add to economic and social uncertainty for all British Columbians. I would urge the Premier to consult with the Attorney General and all of his executive council to ensure that treaty making is of utmost importance in priority for British Columbians and to instruct his negotiators to put these items back on the table so that we can begin the process once again

           I have a question for the Premier with respect to these items. Will he commit today to reinstating these items for the negotiators — for them to bring these items back to the table in the negotiation process?

[1705]

           Hon. G. Campbell: What we have said to the first nations…. Number one, let me be clear. There are a number of items. The member has highlighted some of them. The first nations have highlighted some of them that they feel are off the table. The Attorney General, the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations, deals with each one of these things in a specific way, because just as one-size-fits-all solutions don't work for the entire province — believe it or not — one-size-fits-all solutions don't work for first nations and treaty negotiations. What I said, and what is true, is: this government didn't take all items off the treaty negotiation table. This government didn't put a stop to all treaty negotiations. It was the previous government that did that. That was one of the first things that the First Nations Summit pointed out to us. Their frustration was that unilaterally, without any consultation with the other two parties, the previous provincial government, which that member and her colleague sat on, put a stop to all treaty negotiations and all treaty negotiation tables.

           What this government has said is: that was wrong. We have reinitiated the treaty negotiations at all tables that are ready to go forward. The minister responsible has said: "These items today are not on the table. You are welcome to come and raise issues with us. You can." They have; they will. We intend to move forward with treaty negotiations in good faith so that the aboriginal people can take the word of this government. When they say something, they know that they can count on us delivering on it.

           J. MacPhail: I wasn't going to enter into this discussion, because I understand how frustrating these processes are. Really, the Premier only has to deal with two of us. I hope he'll just bear with us on this.

           You know, these matters were discussed during the election. I think the Premier is revisiting history here. There were AIPs reached prior to the election, so I'm not sure where the Premier is getting his information that negotiations stopped. AIPs were reached. The other thing is that the First Nations Summit made their voices heard during the election, and first nations leaders did make their voices heard. It wasn't in support of the Liberal Party platform.

           The other feedback that I'm getting — just for the benefit of the Premier — is that British Columbians are actually wanting him to look forward now. The time has come. The constant looking backward to find fault is not working. That's the feedback. For this kind of discussion, for the Premier to somehow assume that the First Nations Summit didn't take a stand during the election and the stand was somehow anything other than against the Liberal Party's platform is to misrepresent what happened during the election. I just want that to be put on the record.

           I have a particular concern around this government's urban first nations strategy. Both the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I have ridings that together have the largest off-reserve aboriginal population in all of Canada — not on a percentage basis but on an absolute number basis. What is the government's off-reserve, urban aboriginal strategy?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I can tell the member opposite that I think this is very productive, what we're going through. I think we now understand why we're going forward with the referendum. I think we understand what we're trying to do to move the treaty process forward. That's one of our commitments and something we intend to continue to move forward with.

           The member opposite is correct. We are very concerned about aboriginal people who are not on reserve. We have undertaken to do a number of things. The first is the establishment of the new Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ministry aimed specifically at recognizing that the services that go to aboriginal people, regardless of whether they're on reserve or off reserve, are of critical importance to those people, just as you would expect. I think that too often previous governments have forgotten aboriginal people who were not on reserve.

[1710]

           Second, we have undertaken to provide for what we call a first citizens forum. The first citizens forum is aimed at bringing together aboriginal people — not necessarily the political aboriginal leadership but individual aboriginal people — to come forward and talk about the issues they face in their day-to-day lives. That will be hosted on an annual basis at the dialogue centre in Vancouver. Hopefully, it will be able to connect to first nations people in other communities around the province.

           We've undertaken to make sure that the digital divide that is starting to be created between urban and rural British Columbia and aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbia is bridged. The Premier's 

[ Page 835 ]

Technology Council has been asked to come forward with recommendations on how we can do that.

           All of this is built around a fundamental principle that I believe many first nations and first nations citizens — aboriginal people — share. That is that the services that we often take for granted as non-aboriginal people have not been easily accessible or easily provided to aboriginal communities across the province. We intend to try and do that. We intend to try and do it with our urban aboriginals, those who are living in the lower mainland, those who are living in the constituency of the member for Vancouver-Hastings. We intend to make sure that aboriginal people themselves are there to identify the problems they face and the challenges they are confronted with every day, as well as the solutions that they think we can provide to provide them with the tools they need to build a more prosperous and healthy life.

           J. MacPhail: One of the issues that we face on a daily basis is exactly how to deliver on what the Premier has just suggested. There's also a debate about who should be included in developing a strategy for off-reserve first nations and aboriginal needs. There are three or four groups that have been at…. Of course, there was a table established for off-reserve, urban aboriginal issues. Will the Premier be including in his process for moving forward the Métis, the United Native Nations and the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres in proceeding with the strategy he's outlined?

           Hon. G. Campbell: All of those organizations will be included in the ministerial consultations and recommendations for how we can move forward. The intent of the first citizens forum is not to simply appoint people who happen to belong to organizations. It's to reach out to aboriginal people across the province and to include them. Frankly, at this point there will be many different options that we will consider before we come to the final conclusion on that.

           J. MacPhail: Has the membership, by name, of the first nations forum been determined? And how will the Premier determine that?

           Hon. G. Campbell: We have set goals for ourselves to try and make sure that aboriginal people from across the province are included as citizens of British Columbia who can make a contribution. We will look at regional representation. We will look at people that are on reserve as well as off reserve. We will look at bringing in people who are involved in the treaty process as well as people who are not. Aboriginal educators, aboriginal caregivers…. Obviously, there is a huge array of opportunities there. Our goal, so the member opposite understands it, is so that when we have the first citizens forum…. There are 153 chairs in the dialogue centre, and probably close to 110 of them will be occupied by aboriginal people from across this province as they express their goals, their commitments, their problems, their concerns with what's taking place in their day-to-day lives.

           J. MacPhail: I wish the Premier well in this. Certainly, I hope that he will consult the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me in terms of membership, for this reason alone: during this election campaign — maybe to the Premier's chagrin on one particular day, which was unfortunate — there were a lot of activists that emerged, many of them young but ready to participate. So we would certainly have suggestions for participation on the first nations forum.

[1715]

           Secondly — and I expect this is advice that the Premier himself already knows — in order to get a very representative view of issues facing all first nations and aboriginal communities, it's going to require him to give financial support to people to participate. It's no secret that first nations and aboriginal people are amongst the poorest in the province and often don't have the personal resources to dedicate volunteer time. I'm sure the Premier fully understands that.

           The last issue, of course, is that there may be frustrating…. I actually don't know how the First Nations Summit or aboriginal groups have responded to the Premier's proposal for such a forum, but there will be times when there will be competing but not non-collegial points of view expressed across the community. The first citizens forum has to have some way to allow for those competing interests but still allow for the overall good to be maintained. The one example that I think of right now is what's going on at Sun Peaks, and that's almost an intergenerational frustration that can't be ignored.

           I just want to note for the record that the advice the Premier received from his own fiscal review panel said: "In addition to taxation, the regulatory burden and the complexity of land use planning and approval processes are factors in the investment climate. Finally, we believe that the uncertainty related to aboriginal land claims has a negative impact on economic growth and activity." It is with that in mind that we give consideration to the uncertainty that I believe will be exacerbated by the process on holding a referendum.

           With that, I think we'll move…. Just so the Premier knows — but I'm sure he's been advised — we want to have a discussion on ICBC, and then that'll be it.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say clearly to the members opposite that they are welcome to submit recommendations for who they believe would be positive contributors to the first nations forum. I welcome that offer from the member opposite and from her colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

           The member for Vancouver-Hastings is correct; I did have an interesting visitation with a number of first nations people on, I think, May 15, 2001. Who could ever forget? I'm glad to tell her that one of the primary spokespeople who I actually did meet with on that day…. I met him at the Blockbuster video that I occasionally visit, and he suggested that he was ready to 

[ Page 836 ]

participate with us in a constructive dialogue. We're ready to participate with them.

           The critical component to me, with all of this — and I welcome the comments of the member opposite — is simply this: aboriginal people require services that meet their needs. Some of their needs in different parts of the province may be different from other people's needs, but generally speaking they're the same needs. They need good-quality health care. They need educational opportunities for their kids. They need economic development opportunities.

           We need to work with aboriginal leaders across this province and aboriginal people — people who don't decide to seek an elected chief's position and maybe lots of aboriginal women, aboriginal youth. We want to work with all aboriginal people in this province to give them a sense of hope and opportunity again.

           I don't want to stand here today and suggest to anyone that we have all the answers, but I know this: we're ready to work with all aboriginal people in this province to try and come up with answers. We're committed to making this work. We're committed to making treaties work. We think we can do that, and we welcome those of goodwill who are going to join us in accomplishing that goal.

           J. MacPhail: Just to move to the future of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, I know the position of the government is to make the Insurance Corporation of B.C. more competitive. Has the Premier held meetings with any groups or people in recent weeks, since his assumption of office, about how that may occur?

           Hon. G. Campbell: No.

[1720]

           J. MacPhail: Let me outline a couple of issues around opening up the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to be more competitive. There's certainly a question about a level playing field or a fair playing field that I know has been discussed in the past. It was from an approach, though, that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was required by legislation to provide mandatory coverage and yet the other insurance companies were not required to provide mandatory coverage, but they were allowed to have a competitive approach on optional coverage.

           There were some who said that led to private insurers having an unfair advantage in the provision of coverage. It was called….

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: Well, no. Unfair…. I'm trying to think of…. It had something to with a postal code — that they offered insurance by postal code. Of course, then the exclusion was by postal code as well, meaning that if you were in a high-crime, high-risk area, private insurers didn't offer insurance or refused mandatory or even optional coverage in that area.

           That was approached from levelling the playing field so that everybody had to offer competitive services across the board but not on the basis of discrimination. I'm wondering whether the Premier has any thoughts on…. Is that the kind of approach he means to making ICBC more competitive?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Well, let me start by saying to the member opposite that what we have said clearly is that we want to introduce competition. The member opposite has raised a number of issues — which are legitimate issues of public concern, I think — that the ICBC board of directors will have to consider. I've had two brief meetings with the new Chair of the ICBC board. He believes these are very complicated issues that have to be done within a broad public policy framework. He is starting by trying to get ICBC focused back on what its initial mandate was: to provide automobile insurance to British Columbians at the best possible value. That's where we come from. We believe introducing competition will make a difference to that.

           There is a continuum that clearly has to be examined by the board for their recommendations to us. We are looking forward to those recommendations. I don't prejudge them. I also don't prejudge how complicated some of this is. There's been a lot of review done about ICBC in the past, and there will continue to be. But our goal is to provide automobile users and drivers with the most cost-effective insurance package that we can. We want to introduce competition into ICBC, because we think that will help improve service and drive costs down. We are looking forward to the recommendations of the ICBC board in that regard. The government will have to make those broad public policy decisions.

           J. MacPhail: Will the ICBC board be conducting a public review? This is a fairly important issue, I would say. I think there are about three million policyholders. There are four million people in British Columbia, not all of whom can drive, but there's the business fleet aspect of it as well. Will there be public input to the ICBC board as they conduct the review, and is there a time line on this?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I can't tell the member opposite exactly what the time line is that the board is going to deal with this on. I know they have just been appointed. I think they've had a couple of meetings. This is off the top of my head; I don't want to commit to the member that they've had a couple of meetings.

           I am glad to let the member opposite know the process that the board decides they're going to go through. I think that clearly, we should all understand in this House that the government will be accountable for the broad public policy decisions. We have asked the ICBC board to come forward with their recommendations on how we can get the best value for drivers in British Columbia, how we can encourage competition so that we increase both service and value. And I'm glad to outline in the future, when I have it, the process that the ICBC board is recommending. 

[ Page 837 ]

           J. MacPhail: One of the things that ICBC, of course, is responsible for currently is the Safer Roads program. I'm not sure whether that's what the Premier meant to target by saying "getting back to the provision of automobile insurance." I firmly believe that the two are inextricably linked, and the records on what used to be called Road Sense but is now, I think, called Safer Roads programs have proven to be invaluable from a road-safety point of view.

[1725]

           I also know that these programs are provided by funding from ICBC. They're an investment, in my view. I understand that some may have a different point of view. Actually, I don't know whether anyone in the government has a different point of view on this or not. The Safer Roads program is an investment in holding rates constant or even reducing rates for policyholders of ICBC.

           So again this is a process question for the Premier: do the Road Sense programs form part of the core services review, or are they part of the review that will be done by the ICBC board about making ICBC more competitive?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I think that's a very good example of what the ICBC board will be doing. The member for Vancouver-Hastings has identified what she thinks is the case, which is that the road safety programs are critically linked to the reduction of insurance premiums. If the independent board of ICBC believes that is the case, then I would assume they would recommend the road safety programs, and my expectation is that we'd say "Fine."

           Say the independent board of ICBC doesn't agree with that assessment. I'm sure the member opposite would agree that people can make judgments on those things. They will have to come forward to the government and say: "We don't think this is the task of the ratepayers of the province; we don't think ratepayers get any benefit of this." I'm just hypothesizing that they could say this. "We don't think there are any benefits to ratepayers. In fact, we think this is the way the government is hiding some of its costs for highway and road safety improvements, and therefore we don't want to do it anymore."

           The government could look at that and say: "Thank you; we understand that. We are asking you to do that, deliberately and explicitly, within the framework of your insurance policy holders, and they have to pay for that."

           Or we could say: "Thank you very much. Your job is to supply the most cost-effective automobile insurance rates that you can in the province. We think there is a public objective in providing these safety things, and we'll pay for that."

           So we are being upfront and open and accountable for those decisions. We can only get to the bottom of that when we examine it, when we ask the independent board to examine what's taking place in ICBC. That's exactly what we've done. That's an example of where public policy decisions that aren't driven by strong insurance principles, which are visited by a government, should be upfront and open, and we should be accountable for them as opposed to the board being accountable for them. We don't want them hidden anymore; we want them up front.

           J. MacPhail: Well, I look forward to that process unfolding. It's one that I think is very important.

           One of the things, of course, that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia must guide itself by now is the legislation that requires it not to discriminate on the basis of rates provided. Will that protection remain as part of the review, or is that up for review as well?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The ICBC board of directors have been asked to proceed unfettered and look at the challenges we've put before them. We want excellent automobile insurance for the public in British Columbia. We want it to be as cost-effective as possible. We would like them to introduce the element of competition into automobile insurance in British Columbia.

           I do not prejudge what they will come back with. They may come back with recommendations for changes in legislation, or they may not. My objective is not to guide them; it's to ask them to ask the tough questions and to come back with their recommendations.

           J. MacPhail: It will be interesting if indeed the board of directors of ICBC gets to set the parameters for review. I certainly hope that the ICBC board of directors sets parameters of review that first of all, the public has input into, because there are very strongly held views about the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Those views have shifted over the course of the last five or six years — at least, if you take the public research into account. It's not going to be a slam-dunk to determine exactly what the public wishes to happen to ICBC.

[1730]

           So it is the one area where I think government has to take its responsibility in terms of setting parameters for change. I would just urge the government to set those parameters for review on the basis of input from all MLAs and not just the board of directors of ICBC.

           J. Kwan: I know that my colleague has said that Crown corporations like ICBC would be the last area of questions. I do have one small area where I'm interested in the Premier's response. That is in relation to the additional $300 that is provided to individuals who are deemed to have a wasting disease when they're receiving income assistance.

           Prior to the election, that initiative was committed by government, and it was budgeted for. I'm wondering what the status is with respect to that commitment.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Thank you for the question. My understanding is that that commitment by the government was not funded or was partially funded. The minister is now looking at what policy directions the 

[ Page 838 ]

government can take to try and make sure people in British Columbia get the care they need.

           J. Kwan: In my recollection, the program was funded and budgeted for. It had gone through all of the processes of government, Treasury Board, etc., and so the dollars are there. I can tell the Premier — and I'm sure he knows this — that people who are diagnosed with a wasting disease are urgently in need of these extra dollars for them to access dietary food, water, etc. It is life-threatening for them. That was one of the reasons why we expedited that decision — to ensure we could provide assistance to the individuals who need it. That is particularly the case for people who are suffering from HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, etc., — but not just those diseases, also cancer amongst others. All of those determinations, of course, are made by medical practitioners — therefore the broad term "wasting disease."

           I would urge the Premier to commit to that program. It is a need, and it does help to improve people's quality of life and in some cases even save lives. So I hope the Premier will commit today to ensure that program is indeed in place.

           Hon. G. Campbell: My understanding is that that program was one-third funded. The minister is now trying to find how that program can be delivered in view of the lack of funding that was provided before. We are not hesitating for a moment to point out to people that the funding wasn't there. I'm glad to get that and show the member opposite the commitments that were made previously, and she will see that indeed it was announced, but it was not funded.

           J. MacPhail: Prior to calling the vote on the Premier's estimates, let me just make a couple of concluding remarks, because I think we'll be concluding our business in the coming hours.

           It has been an interesting session. We are in a time of change in this province. It is a time when much of that change has been debated thoroughly in the previous months, and it also has been a time when change has not been debated. Certainly people were put on notice, but it wasn't debated, and it wasn't discussed. I will be spending time, along with my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, ensuring that British Columbians' voices — regardless of any position they took in the previous months — are heard, and they're part of discussion as change occurs.

[1735]

           The government has set a very interesting agenda. Before the next session there will be much work that takes place amongst legislative committees, government caucus committees, cabinet committees, various reviews and task forces. We, as a small but hardy opposition, will do our best to participate and also to do it in a way that understands the outcome of an election but also understands that there's a very viable role for the opposition to play in holding the government accountable. We don't have the energy or the resources to oppose simply for the sake of opposing. In a way, that might be fortunate. It certainly is fortunate for the government, but nevertheless, that's the outcome of the election. But it may be fortunate in the way that our contribution has to be foresightful — I hope insightful — but certainly it will be with our energy focused on what the real priorities of British Columbians are and what they expected for change. I know it's a huge task, but it is one that we will take seriously as the months unfold.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I welcome the comments from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. Let me say this: I recognize that in a democracy we have to hear from many voices. Our goal and objective, as we have committees travelling in the province on critical issues like health care and aboriginal affairs, is to open up government to hear from the people of this province. I know there are voices of opposition. Indeed, in a democracy we would all fall far short if there were not opportunities for opposition. Let me say that the opposition that's created is done with the best of intent, and I appreciate that.

           Let me also say that time is not our ally here. I believe personally, and I believe that the people of B.C. believe, that we lost a lot of time. We have to move quickly; we intend to move quickly. We intend to move thoughtfully, but we intend to move quickly.

           I encourage public debate, whether it's through committees like the Health committee or by inviting people who are concerned about education to come and actually make representations to the Education committee of this Legislature. For literally the first time in a generation, I'm welcoming that. Whether it's teachers, administrators or educational leaders, I know they care passionately about what they do and how they do it. We must hear their voices. When we deal with aboriginal communities across this province, as we said at the First Nations Summit, we want to hear from the leadership. We want to hear from those who are in the treaty process and those who are out of the treaty process. We want to hear from aboriginal women and aboriginal youth. One of the great opportunities we have as a Legislature is to take all 79 MLAs, 79 elected representatives, and say that all of you are a critical component to solving the problems we face in the province.

           Over the next few months, to the members opposite and to all of the Legislature, we have some enormous issues confronting us in British Columbia. We have an unsustainable health care system that people are depending on but that doesn't deliver the services they want when they want it. We have a public education system that we must move up to the top-quality public education system in the world, where kids get the opportunities they need and where we create choices and an environment where teachers and students alike can learn in different ways at different paces and different times, so we get the results that we demand. We have the softwood lumber dispute which will have enormous social impact on thousands of people across this province if we don't handle it with a unified voice, focus and a dedication to those people who live in those resource communities as well as to people who live in our urban communities. All British Columbia depends on forestry. All British Columbia depends on fair and 

[ Page 839 ]

open access to all of the markets of the world, and we will fight to make sure British Columbians have that. We welcome the members opposite — their solutions, their recommendations and their ideas on how we can do that.

           As we move forward and look at the community charter, we know that is a significant issue which will change how government works in the province. It will hopefully change it so it works better. Instead of imposing one-size-fits-all blanket solutions across the province, we actually can have a provincial government that allows for individual and community responses that reflect on the vast diversity of a province like British Columbia. I think there is a great deal we can do as a Legislature. I invite the members opposite to join us in doing that. I hope that four or five years from now, this Legislature will be a much different place than it was four or five years in the past. My hope, also to the member opposite, is that the people of British Columbia feel they've been included.

[1740]

           We won't always agree on everything that's done or every decision that's made. The member for Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant have identified some areas where they have some concerns. It's legitimate for them to bring them forward. We intend to work with them. We intend to try and create an environment where they can participate, where they can be critical if they feel it's right to be critical and where they can be supportive if they feel it's right to be supportive. Most importantly for all of us here, we want to reach out to British Columbians to bring their talent, their ability and their solutions to the fore, because without them we know we won't succeed.

           Vote 9 approved.

           Vote 1: legislation, $43,625,000 — approved.

           Vote 2: auditor general, $7,817,000 — approved.

           Vote 3: conflict-of-interest commissioner, $314,000 — approved.

           Vote 4: Elections B.C., $33,581,000 — approved.

           Vote 5: information and privacy commissioner, $2,344,000 — approved.

           Vote 6: office of the child, youth and family advocate, $1,355,000 — approved.

           Vote 7: ombudsman, $4,765,000 — approved.

           Vote 8: police complaints commissioner, $1,299,000 — approved.

           Vote 49: B.C. family bonus, $120,000,000 — approved.

           Vote 51: commissions on collection of public funds and allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 — approved.

           Vote 53: environmental boards and Forest Appeals Commission, $1,967,000 — approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

           Motion approved.

           The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

           The committee reported resolutions.

           Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

           Hon. G. Collins: Forthwith.

           Motion approved.

[1745]

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on August 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 and 27 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $24,440,680,000, this sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2001, and section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 2001, and as granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I also move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $1,496,685,000, this sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2001, and section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 2001, and as granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the capital, loans, investments and other financing requirements for the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

           Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2001-2002

           Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2001-2002.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. 

[ Page 840 ]

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operations of government programs for the 2001-02 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by the Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates.

           The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the report of resolutions from the Committee of Supply and, in addition, has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

           It is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

[1750]

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would ask that you remain in your seats for a few moments while the bill is being circulated.

           In keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

SUPPLY ACT, 2001-2002
(second reading)

           Hon. G. Collins: This supply bill is the final supply bill for the 2001-02 fiscal year, the first having been passed on March 29, 2001, and the second having been passed on July 31, 2001, when the Legislative Assembly previously authorized appropriations for this fiscal year.            

           This bill requests supply of $24,440,680,000 for voted expenditures as outlined in section 1 and schedule 1 of the bill. The bill also requests supply of $1,496,685,000 for voted capital and loans, investment and other financing transactions as outlined in section 2 and schedule 2 of the bill. The preamble to this bill includes a reference to the $500,000,000 forecast allowance included in this year's budget. The preamble reference complies with the disclosure requirements contained in section 7 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the expenditures of the government for the 2001-02 fiscal year.

           I move second reading of Bill 21.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

           Bill 21, Supply Act, 2001-2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, 2001-2002

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 5:53 p.m.

           Sections 1 and 2 approved.

           Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

           Preamble approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 5:54 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

           Bill 21, Supply Act, 2001-2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 26, Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act.

[1755]

TIMBER SALE LICENCE REPLACEMENT
(SLIAMMON FIRST NATION) ACT
(second reading)

           Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly to my colleague the Attorney General, my thanks for introducing the bill in my absence on Thursday.

           Bill 26 allows the government to honour our commitment to preserve the integrity of the proposed Sliammon agreement-in-principle and specifically the proposed Sliammon treaty settlement lands as initialled in that agreement-in-principle. Bill 26 is also a reflection of the Premier's specific direction that steps be taken to ensure that the integrity of that pending agreement-in-principle can be preserved.

           The bill cancels two small business timber sale licences which were awarded after the agreement-in-principle was initialled and enables the Minister of Forests to offer alternative licences of similar value to affected licensees. Bill 26 demonstrates, in short, that the government is committed to building on treaty work that has been performed to date and is committed to negotiating workable and affordable treaties that will provide certainty, finality and equality for British Columbians. In short, Bill 26 gives the Sliammon agreement-in-principle that has been initialled but not ratified a chance to succeed.

           Those are my comments on second reading.

           Motion approved. 

[ Page 841 ]

           Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered, with leave, today.

           Leave granted.

           Bill 26, Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Petitions

           R. Stewart: I ask leave to present a petition.

           Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. Leave is not required.

           R. Stewart: I have the honour to present a 400-name petition regarding another symptom of our long-neglected forest sector, the impending closure of Coquitlam's Fraser Mills.

           Hon. G. Collins: I'm going to be moving a short recess in a few moments. I just want to advise the House that upon return, we'll be starting with Bill 26 in committee stage followed, in order, by Bill 23, Bill 10, Bill 24 and Bill 25.

           With that, Mr. Speaker, I move this House stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.

           Motion approved.

           The House recessed from 5:59 p.m. to 6:32 p.m.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

           Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee debate on Bill 26.

TIMBER SALE LICENCE REPLACEMENT
(SLIAMMON FIRST NATION) ACT

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 26; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 6:33 p.m.

           Section 1 approved.

           On section 2.

           J. MacPhail: I actually would ask the minister's indulgence to explain sections 2 and 3 together for me. I understand his remarks in second reading and appreciate his action on this, but for the record, I ask that he explain the cancelling and then the re-awarding under section 3. So they really have to be dealt with together, if I may.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I think it is worth a brief explanation. What happened is on February 24 the agreement-in-principle was initialled as opposed to ratified. There were, I think, certain expectations that existed at that time, particularly on the part of the Sliammon. Because of the situation, other arms of government continued about their business, and what we ended up with was that prior to the agreement-in-principle being ratified — and it still hasn't been — two timber licence interests were issued that are included within those lands identified within the agreement-in-principle. That engaged the attention of the Sliammon, as one might imagine, in a way that said: "Hang on, we have an initialled AIP here, albeit not a ratified AIP, and interests within the land selection are now being impacted by the Crown, and that concerns us."

[1835]

           The third parties affected, unaware of other things existing within the realm of government, then were left in a position where they had done nothing wrong. They had responded, and the licences were actually issued in accordance with existing government policy. But that dilemma that existed, as the member may know…. We took steps, first of all, to meet with all of the parties — the Sliammon and the two licensees that were impacted. Ultimately, that gave rise to a part 13 suspension order.

           We have undertaken, by virtue of this bill, in effect to try to find some replacement timber, but the means by which that can happen, I have learned in my short time as minister, are very limited. The Forest Act does not actually provide, except in very limited cases, for the direct awarding of timber licences of this sort. This bill does two things. It meets the Sliammon desire to have those two licence interests actually cancelled. The best we could do under existing legislation was suspend them. This cancels them and says to the two licensees: "Having done that, we are now going to undertake to find replacement interests and provide the minister with the authority to make that grant where no other legislative authority would exist to do that."

           J. MacPhail: Since the introduction of the legislation, has the minister heard from any party who is opposed to the introduction of this legislation?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I have not — recognizing, of course, that the bill was introduced, I think, on Thursday in my absence.

           J. MacPhail: Were all parties fully consulted before this occurred?

           Hon. M. de Jong: The Sliammon certainly were, and they were the party — it won't surprise the member — that brought the matter and the concern to the attention, actually, of the Premier and the Attorney General and received the assurance that we would do what we could to preserve to integrity of the AIP.

           I actually travelled to Vancouver — that's not a big deal — to meet with one of the licensees and to the Sunshine Coast to meet with the other licensee and, quite frankly, explain the problem. Maybe this is a good time to put on the record my thanks to those two licensees for understanding the problem and agreeing to work with the government to try and find a solution. This piece of legislation is about trying to find that solution and about trying to give the as-yet-unratified Sliammon AIP a chance to succeed. Those discussions took place. 

[ Page 842 ]

           Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 6:38 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

           Bill 26, Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. G. Plant: I call committee-stage debate on Bill 23.

[1840]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2001

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 6:40 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

           On section 4.

           J. MacPhail: On section 4, it's a substantial section of the Health Act that deals with the making of regulations for the prevention, treatment, mitigation and suppression of disease and regulations respecting those matters. That's what section 4 of this particular miscellaneous statutes amendment act amends.

           It seems to me that the consequences of this are meaningless for the public, so clearly there must be another reason for doing this. If the minister could just, for the record, explain the change.

           Hon. G. Plant: The change in section 4 of the bill simply modernizes language. The word in the act, prior to the amendment, is "therein," which is one of those words that the authors of the revised statutes in 1996 were trying to get rid of when they revised the statutes of British Columbia. There is no intent to change any of the meaning. It really is something that arose out of what is described for me in my notes as a word-processing error.

           Section 4 approved.

           On section 5.

           J. MacPhail: This is a change that really changes the future of available funds from small businesses to have access to loans from the government. Perhaps the minister could just explain the reasoning. I assume that this follows from his presentation to the cabinet of a couple of weeks ago, but perhaps the explanation could be garnered.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: In fact, on August 15, I made a presentation to cabinet. The principles of business subsidies were approved by cabinet. Subsequent to that presentation, I put forward a recommendation about removing these funds as a signal of how serious our government was in keeping its commitment to its new-era promise. That's exactly what this change in legislation does. It's our commitment to British Columbians that's laid out in our New Era document.

           J. MacPhail: Did the minister consult with business groups prior to repealing this section of the legislation?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes.

           J. MacPhail: What was the result of that consultation?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Changes to the legislation.

           The small and large business community totally supports that government should not be picking who the winners and losers are. What businesses of all sizes want in British Columbia is a level playing field. They know that good ideas are bankable at banks. Venture capital funds exist. Actually, we've received endorsements from the business community — all sizes: small, medium and large — on these changes.

           J. MacPhail: So there is unanimous support from the business community for no longer providing commercial loans.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me say once again that these changes, as approved at cabinet, reflect our commitments as laid out in our New Era document. The election on May 16 received the endorsements. Consultation with business leaders of all sizes after the election totally supports the removal of this program. We've had applause and congratulations from across the province on this move.

           J. MacPhail: My job is just to ask the appropriate questions so that British Columbians can judge the actions as the matters unfold. The minister is saying that there's unanimous support for the….

           Hon. G. Plant: That's your word. He hasn't used the word "unanimous" yet. You keep using it. He hasn't used it.

[1845]

           J. MacPhail: Once again, I appreciate the Attorney General's interjection here, and guess what. There's no secret conspiracy going on here. I asked if there was unanimous support, and the minister stood up and said….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, members.

           J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure what's happening.

           Interjections. 

[ Page 843 ]

           J. MacPhail: Well, is there unanimous support? I asked that question, and the minister stood up and said: "There's absolutely across-the-board, total support." Is the word "total" different than "unanimous"? Let me ask that question.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm not going to get into a debate here on the definition of words. I think the intent….

           J. MacPhail: We wouldn't have had to if the Attorney General hadn't interjected.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: I don't think that I interrupted the member when she asked her questions. I will try once again to answer this question.

           I have consulted widely on this issue. Have I received 100 percent endorsement from everyone in British Columbia? I can't answer that question, because I haven't asked everyone in British Columbia. What we have received is overwhelming support to remove yet another tool of the previous government to try to pick winners and losers in the business sector. The business sector wants the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. I have received wide support for the decisions that we have made to date reflected in this legislation.

           J. MacPhail: I hope for the members opposite that they don't misunderstand my questions. The minister may recall that I actually stepped down as Minister of Finance and resigned. I don't disagree with the government's direction with the industrial incentive fund. My only caveat is that I wish to explore this briefly with the minister. It is my recollection that there were times where, with new industry, new technology and innovative business proposals, banks simply refused to step forward and support the initiative. There was a solid business plan in place. It was a complete boost on paper from the business plan that it was good for the British Columbia economy and that jobs were being created. But banks, often driven by an agenda from central Canada, just simply refused to support the business.

           I remember on one occasion where the banks in terms of approaching their commercial loan profile had said that the hospitality industry was not a good bet. Across Canada, the major banks said the hospitality sector was a no-go. They didn't deny it. So any business enterprise that had a solid business plan and was a sure bet but, for the thinking of central Canada–driven banking, couldn't get a loan…. There was the odd occasion when I, as Minister of Finance, bought that argument.

           There were times when the film industry was simply off limits to investment. It was on that basis that there was an occasion for the industrial incentive fund to give commercial loans, completely within the context of terms and conditions repayable on commercial rates, where there was no greater risk than a commercial risk to the taxpayer where loans were given from the industrial incentive fund.

           Is the minister aware of those kinds of banking fiats that come from central Canada, which overlook the strengths of the British Columbia economy? How does he anticipate filling in that blank?

[1850]

           Hon. R. Thorpe: I thank the member for that question. Actually, in the past ten years I have heard that comment from time to time.

           Since forming government and being sworn in on June 5, I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of financial institutions — some would be termed as chartered banks — and other organizations. I'm very confident in the business climate in British Columbia. The confidence that the financial community has about the direction of our government, the fact that we have lowered personal taxes and are starting to make our small business and other business taxes competitive…. We're committed to reducing regulation by one-third; in other words, unleashing the power of free enterprise at the small level and larger levels.

           I have every confidence in my discussions so far that the finance community at large will be there to finance on commercial terms the brightest and best ideas in British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: Well, often these matters aren't driven domestically or locally; they're driven from the headquarters of the major banks in both Toronto and Montreal. Has the minister given that consideration? I will tell you that decisions are often decided across Canada on the basis of how the Ontario and Quebec economies go, not on the basis of how the British Columbia economy goes.

           Has the minister explored with central Canadian banking headquarters their somewhat central-Canada approach to loans based on economic strengths that exist here and that may not exist in Ontario? Secondly, has the minister explored the attraction of any banking or financial institution headquarters to British Columbia?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: The answer to the first question is yes, I have talked directly with three of Canada's largest financial institutions. They have a renewed optimism for British Columbia, and we're excited that they feel that way.

           Secondly, as the member knows, there's a bank with its Canadian head office located in Vancouver. The member may remember bringing in amendments for corporate capital tax ceilings. We've had meetings with them, and they too are encouraged about the future of British Columbia, just as we are. So the answer to the member's question is yes.

           J. MacPhail: Yes, and I also remember the members of the then opposition objecting to any changes to support the headquartering of the HSBC here. The members opposite spoke out vehemently against any support we gave for a headquarters operation.

           On the issue of the industrial development incentive fund, has the minister received any commitment 

[ Page 844 ]

from industries such as the forest sector, the mining sector, the technology sector or the hospitality sector for capital investment in this province?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: I fail to see how that links with these proposed legislative changes here.

           J. MacPhail: Well, in fact the Industrial Development Incentive Act was to encourage investment and growth in sectors of the British Columbia economy that couldn't get loans elsewhere. They were commercial loans, and that was the basis on which the loans were given.

           I recall that very recently the Minister of Finance made a speech to the board of trade, and basically the thrust of the speech was: "Okay, we've done our bit as the government. Now you've got to do your bit for investing in this province."

           With the repeal of this fund, it won't be through commercial loans from the provincial government that investment will occur. What commitments, if any, has this government made for corporate investment, either through capital or operating, into this province?

[1855]

           Hon. R. Thorpe: The only encouragement — and, I must say, very positive encouragement — we've received after my colleague the Minister of Finance tabled his economic and fiscal update on July 30 and made announcements with respect to the reduction in some taxes that had put British Columbia in a non-competitive situation with other competing jurisdictions…. As early as today another company let me know that they're about to announce another investment in British Columbia, because our elimination of the 7 percent sales tax on machinery and equipment has now made that particular company, whose name I can't mention — and I'm sure the member would understand that…. We are now competitive with Alberta. They're going to invest in British Columbia as opposed to Alberta. That's the positive kind of encouragement we're getting, and I've had that back in my own riding from other companies also.           

           J. MacPhail: In fact, that is good news, and I welcome that. However, I also know there are indicators in the economy that are softening, particularly in retail spending, tourism spending and hospitality spending. I think there will also be softening indicators around the new economy investments, particularly technology. We've seen that right here in this community. I'm sure the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill can confirm that, in terms of job loss.

           I'm wondering, with the repeal of the Industrial Development Incentive Act, what the minister's advice is, particularly for new economy initiatives where the charter banks, the big banks based in central Canada, have shut them out.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Unlike the previous government, our government is not going to — for lack of a better word — slag the major financial institutions of this country. We're going to work with them and talk to them about the positives of people investing in British Columbia, about a new era in British Columbia. So far our indication from the major chartered banks of Canada is that they welcome the opportunity to grow their investment portfolios here in British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: What are the practical details of that plan?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: It's not our plan; it's the banks' plan. And I'm not here to discuss the banks' positive outlooks about underwriting loans here in British Columbia. We're just excited about the fact that they're looking at British Columbia through very positive eyes, and they're excited about the future in British Columbia, just as our entrepreneurs, small businesses and large businesses are. That's the answer to that question.

           J. MacPhail: Actually, my experience is that you have to do more than be optimistic and hopeful and that it requires hard work with the financial institutions. Does the minister plan to travel to the headquarters of any of the major Canadian financial institutions to encourage them to take their barriers against investment in the new economy off British Columbia?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: My colleague the Minister of Finance has already started that. Yes, together with my colleague the Minister of Finance, we will be visiting all major financial institutions across Canada and British Columbia to tell the story of opportunity in British Columbia. We're very excited about those possibilities in the months ahead.

           J. MacPhail: With the repeal of the Industrial Development Incentive Act, the relationship for funding commercial loans between a company that wishes to invest in the growth of British Columbia and a financial institution is straight to the chartered financial institutions.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: The answer is no.

           J. MacPhail: Well, what other relationship…? I thought that was what we were saying — that with the removal of this, the relationship is between the companies wishing to have a commercial loan and the chartered banks. There will be no government assistance. Or is there another avenue that the companies could choose?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm surprised that as a former Minister of Finance the member is not aware of credit unions, venture capital funds, venture capital organizations…

           Interjection.

[1900]

           Hon. R. Thorpe: …and, as my colleague here says, angel investors. There are all kinds of investors out 

[ Page 845 ]

here. Quite frankly, as we make British Columbia a much more attractive place for capital to flow, it's amazing how money from around the world will flow to British Columbia to support good ideas, to support small businesses. It's not just banks that support and lend money on a commercial basis.

           J. MacPhail: I appreciate the minister's boosterism, and I certainly hope that it works. My question, though, was about the relationship now between the entity needing the commercial loan and the financial institutions or the financial entity — that the path will now be straight to those, and there will be no other path. I appreciate and certainly hope that the minister's boosterism actually pays off.

           Section 5 approved.

           On section 6.

           J. MacPhail: Again, the only reason I rise to ask these questions is because it's a bit unusual for a new government to bring in such minor changes in terms of — how can I say it? — things that perhaps are administrivia. I just want to check to make sure that's all it is. It is unusual to….

           I'm sorry. I'm on section 7 — my apologies.

           Section 6 approved.

           On section 7.

           J. MacPhail: Again, my questions go to…. My gosh, we'll get through this if we can have a tone of civility to it. So on the question of section 7, an explanation, please. It does seem to be a bit of administrivia that we're dealing with in terms of a new government. So an explanation for the public….

           Hon. G. Plant: As the member would know had she taken me up on my standing invitation to provide her with a technical briefing on all bills that we're introducing, this provision changes a typographical error in section 10(3) of the Livestock Act.

           Section 7 approved.

           On section 8.

           J. MacPhail: The conflict-of-interest commissioner was recommending a change to the Conflict of Interest Act. I'm wondering if the minister responsible could answer whether this meets the changes that the conflict-of-interest commissioner has requested and what consultation took place.

           Hon. G. Plant: In the aftermath of the election and the taking of office by the new government, there were members of the executive council who carry on a business and who had discussions — in general terms, I think — with the conflict-of-interest commissioner about the possibility of entrusting their businesses to trustees, within the meaning of section 9 of the act.

           One of the challenges presented by section 9 in its current form is that if a member of the executive council complies with subsection 9(1)(b) — that is, makes a decision not to carry on a business by entrusting the business to a trustee — there are some requirements that flow from that. One of them is that the trustees are under an obligation to report material changes in the assets and liabilities contained in the trust "to the member and the commissioner immediately after the changes have occurred."

           The idea was to try to ensure that we could actually create the vehicle of a blind trust in British Columbia. The commissioner's view was that you couldn't create a blind trust under this act as it was worded because of the requirement that the trustees report changes to the member. So the recommendation was made that we try to make changes to section 9 which would allow for the creation of a blind trust. That is what the change in section 9 is all about.

[1905]

           There are a couple of changes to section 16, which are in the next section, that deal with the same general question or issue.

           In response to the member's question on whether there was any consultation, this was an issue brought to our attention by the commissioner. We looked at it, and we certainly had some discussions with the commissioner, but there was no broader consultation — not that I'm aware of, anyway — in respect to these provisions of Bill 23.

           J. MacPhail: Does this meet the test set out by the current conflict-of-interest commissioner, according to him?

           Hon. G. Plant: My understanding is that the commissioner has seen these amendments, and they meet his requirements, so he is in a position to do the other things that have to be done under section 9(4) before you can actually create a blind trust. As the member knows, I'm sure, but I've got it here in front of me, the provisions of the trust have to be approved by the commissioner. The trustees have to be approved, and there are some other provisions. This is one element of that, and my understanding is that the commissioner does approve of it.

           J. MacPhail: When this section is passed, what proactive actions does the executive council have to take?

           Hon. G. Plant: The members of the executive council who wish to comply with the prohibition on carrying on a business by entrusting their business to one or more trustees have to submit a form of trust deed to the commissioner for his approval. The trustees must be persons who are at arm's length from the member and must be approved by the commissioner.

           Then there is an obligation on the trustees that they do not consult with the member with respect to managing the trust property. The trustees will be under the 

[ Page 846 ]

obligation to provide the commissioner — within 60 days after the formation of the trust and, after that, annually — a confidential report in a form acceptable to the commissioner, disclosing the assets, liabilities and financial interests contained in the trust.

           If we move along to section 16, the member knows there is an annual disclosure obligation that we all have as members. In the case of a member of the executive council who is doing the blind trust thing, the member is not under an obligation to disclose the assets, liabilities and financial interests contained in the trust.

           Of course, the member won't know, because those things are in the blind trust, and it's the trustee of the trust who will have to make that disclosure. That's a bit of the detail, really, but essentially that is what it's about.

           J. MacPhail: Do the time lines currently set for declaring a material change apply?

           Hon. G. Plant: The obligation to disclose material changes will arise in the context of the annual confidential report filed under the provision we are looking at right now.

           Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

           On section 11.

           J. MacPhail: I want to spend a few moments on this with the minister responsible, if I may, because it's a matter close to my heart and my riding as well. A couple of things just to report to the minister…. I know the member for Vancouver-Burrard was at a function at the PNE late last week, as was I, and there was some conversation about the future of the PNE.

[1910]

           It arose in the context of the logic behind the minister's action and the timing. I just note for the record that a majority of the appointments were coming to an end at the end of September and that the minister could have taken action then, just in renewal or non-renewal. There was a great deal of discussion, I must tell the minister, in a non-partisan but political way, about why he took the particular actions when he did and what his intent was in replacing a broadly based board with, I think, three public service officials and the ability to appoint up to five.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: I believe that the dinner the member's referring to took place on Thursday evening. I was over there on Tuesday for some presentations. To answer the question, as the member knows, changes to this board can only be done through legislation. It was certainly not the most opportune time, but given the situation we believe that what we have done is the right thing as we now move forward. The three assistant deputy ministers who have been appointed — two from my ministry and one from Finance — are professional public servants who are now going to work with the management of the PNE and work through our core services review. Quite frankly, it had to be done because of legislative requirements at this point in time.

           J. MacPhail: Yes, and I know that when the minister was there on the Tuesday, the day that the firings occurred, he was actually working with the Chairperson of the 4-H Club, who was then fired from her position as a director on the PNE, much to the consternation of the whole fair. I just want to go through some of the changes that have occurred as a result of the minister firing the entire PNE board and replacing the board with three public servants. There was an element of broad-based appointments to the PNE.

           Again, the PNE is the longest-in-existence tourist attraction in British Columbia. It's a huge wealth generator in British Columbia, and there's a lot of emotion attached to the Pacific National Exhibition. It's not without controversy in my own community — it rests within my riding — but I must say that the Pacific National Exhibition provokes strong views in almost every British Columbian who has been here for more than six months. It is a huge employer of youth, and it also is the place where the agricultural community comes together to show off its wares, so to speak.

           It is from that point that the discussions occurred on last Thursday night, which was the president's dinner at the PNE. The board appointments that did exist prior to the firing of the board and this piece of legislation being introduced were broadly based.

[1915]

           There were representatives from the city council. Don Bellamy, a longtime city councillor in Vancouver who used to be a neighbour of mine, was involved with the Pacific National Exhibition for 60 years — 60 years. John Plul, who was a proud supporter of this Liberal government, had been a longtime volunteer at the Pacific National Exhibition, and he had recently been an actual director of the board. Carole Olsen, the Chairperson of the 4-H Club, the community group that brings our young people into the agricultural community and the value of agriculture to our economy, was working with the minister on that day last Tuesday when she was fired. Dave Long is a retired member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, but he had a longtime involvement with the Pacific National Exhibition and is a great advocate of the PNE now. George Chen, Tom Falkes, Merrilee Robson…. Members from Surrey, this is another area where appointments such as Sukhdev Brar and Ellen Guerrero-Campbell, Laura Johnston, Amrik Sangha, all from Surrey…. Those members had been appointed because of the plans — one of the possibilities for the PNE — to relocate to Surrey as was the wont of the Surrey council.

           Then, of course, my longtime friend and community activist, Shane Simpson, who worked very closely…. During a time, which the Premier referred to in his estimates, when there was controversy about whether there could be a wedding, a marriage of convenience, between the greening of Hastings Park and the Pacific National Exhibition existing at Hastings Park…. I must say that Shane Simpson did an incredi- 

[ Page 847 ]

ble amount of work, as a board member of the PNE, to make sure that the community interests were carried forward and that the greening of Hastings Park took place while the PNE still existed there.

           So the discussion at the PNE president's dinner asked: "What will be the input of the community — either the community of Surrey or the community surrounding Hastings Park now — about the future of the PNE?"

           Hon. R. Thorpe: The member, I believe, is perhaps unintentionally trying to suggest that we weren't working cooperatively with people and that we were cold and heartless to people. In fact, the former president, who I sat with on Tuesday at the presentations of the 4-H awards — and I must say congratulations go to all of the participants, especially the winners from Abbotsford, in winning the Kiwanis trophy — said publicly that the PNE will go on and that we shouldn't get too upset about these things. Other members have said that. I met with members of the Agriculture Advisory Committee that day. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and myself have talked. We know the importance of agriculture. We know the importance this has for young people of British Columbia in coming together and sharing their experiences and, quite frankly, showing British Columbians the future of farming in our province.

           We have to move forward. I've heard the member say many times that we have to move forward. We are moving forward with a core services review. We believe that having three professional, dedicated public servants on that review working together with the very professional management at the PNE…. Even though on the day I was over there, on Tuesday, it was raining and it was not a nice day, I toured the entire site with the management. I was encouraged by the management. I saw all the young people working in rather adverse conditions and saw smiles on their faces. We know the importance of young people working in British Columbia perhaps a little bit more than some of the other members on the opposite side. We are committed to working with the communities and listening to the voices of the communities to ensure that we go forward with the best possible option.

           Let me also say that these are not easy things to do. But quite frankly, people have told us that as we embark on our core services review process, now perhaps — after ten years of uncertainty — there will be certainty as we go forward. We're committed to that.

[1920]

           J. MacPhail: The former president of PNE gave an eloquent and impassioned president's last address last Thursday. Yes, he said that one of the reasons why he was surprised was because he had cooperated so fully with the core services review of the government that had already taken place.

           He also gave a very eloquent speech, which those who were present could recount, about how when he took over the PNE, it faced a deficit situation, there was controversy in the community about the future of the PNE, there were bad relations with the park board — or tense relations, I should say, between the park board and the city — and now the PNE is in a situation where there is a greening of the park that's very beautiful, and it meets the community needs. The PNE is in a surplus situation, there are good working relations with the city of Vancouver and the park board of Vancouver, and there are excellent relations with the agricultural community. As he pointed out, the roots of the Pacific National Exhibition are to highlight the successes of the agricultural community in British Columbia. Nevertheless, he said that regardless of all of that and even though his term ended at the end of September, he was fired.

           That sent a tremor through the community. The combination of the firing of the board and the ending of the Buy B.C. program of this government sent a chill into the agricultural community, many of whom spoke to me that evening. So it is with trepidation at best and great suspicion at worst that the community proceeds, wanting to know what the future of the PNE is.

           It is appropriate, I hope, Mr. Chair, to ask this question now, because it's a very small qualifier of a future section that deals directly with this. Why were the firings made retroactive?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Actually, the three appointments were made with the first reading to facilitate as we move forward with the core services review.

           J. MacPhail: The PNE had already had its core services review; that had been complete. I think the community needs a better explanation than that. It's very unusual to fire people retroactively until the legislation is passed. What was the hurry in putting in place the three bureaucrats?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the member's facts are incorrect. The core services review is not complete. We're in the process. We believe the streamlined board of the three professional public servants of British Columbia will allow it to move through the process in a much quicker and more detailed manner.

           J. MacPhail: The Premier, in his estimates, said that the core services reviews were going to be very much initiated and provoked by the MLAs. Have any of the Surrey MLAs made a presentation to the minister responsible on the core services review process about the future of the PNE?

           The Chair: Shall section 11 pass?

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could I have an answer to my question? It's pretty straightforward. The Premier said that in his estimates.

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: I did ask the Premier, and the Premier said…. 

[ Page 848 ]

           Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering who's chairing this meeting.

           The Chair: Member, you have the floor. You've asked the question; the minister has given his answer. You are now responding.

           J. MacPhail: The minister said…. I'm asking about the future of the PNE.

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: No, your House Leader's arguing with the Chair.

           Interjections.

           The Chair: Order, members.

           J. MacPhail: The minister said that the core services review of the PNE has not been completed. I know that the presentation by the PNE itself has been made. The Premier himself referred to the fact that the core services review would largely be done by the MLAs. Have any of the Surrey MLAs made a presentation to the minister on the PNE?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Unlike the previous government, I'm very pleased that all members, all private members, have access to ministers' offices in our government. And yes, I have talked with a number of the Surrey MLAs with respect to this issue and other issues that affect Surrey.

           J. MacPhail: Yes, and I know you just turned around and talked to your colleague behind and said: "Have you made a presentation?" Perhaps that was the nature of the presentation. Is there a written presentation from the Surrey members that we could perhaps view?

[1925]

           The first time I heard about the huge method by which there was going to be change at the PNE was when the minister fired the board. Has the minister received written presentations from the Surrey MLAs that I could have access to so that I could also participate?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: No.

           J. MacPhail: So what was the nature of the presentation from the Surrey MLAs?

           The Chair: Member, I just want to remind you that under standing order 61, the questions must be relevant.

           J. MacPhail: Well, I'll tell you how it's relevant to the community who's at the PNE. They're nervous about the future of the PNE. I can't understand. If there's nothing hidden here, what's the problem with answering these questions?

           This is about the future of the PNE. The board has been fired and replaced with what one could call trustees. There is huge change occurring at the PNE. The lease is running out with the city of Vancouver. It's a huge economic generator. It's the presentation of the agricultural community from across British Columbia. This has given a signal that there is change. Is there some other forum under which we could explore the change that is occurring at the PNE?

           This occurred after the estimates of the minister responsible. It was not announced during his estimates, and no one anticipated the firing of the board and replacing it with trustees. The Premier himself said that the review of the PNE would be part of the core services review. He also said that the MLAs are responsible for ensuring that the core services review is done in the proper way.

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: I fail to see how this is out of order.

           The Chair: Member. Member.

Point of Order

           Hon. G. Collins: As House Leader, I want to raise a point of order on this. Perhaps I can help the member opposite by explaining how her question and her line of questioning are out of order.

           First of all, this is one section of a miscellaneous statutes bill. It is how the board, by legislation, was removed and a substitute board appointed. That's the extent of that legislation. In fact, this afternoon the member opposite canvassed at length with the Premier the very issues she's attempting to recanvass here with the minister on a section of a bill which deals specifically with the way these members were removed from office and new members were appointed. That's the extent of it. The member has had plenty of opportunity to canvass those issues. She did that this afternoon at great length and got the answers that she wanted. I suspect it's for constituency reasons that she's attempting to recanvass it here, and I respect her for trying to do that. The reality is: the questions are out of order.

           J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I assume you're going to actually chair as opposed to the House Leader catcalling from the sidelines about what you're supposed to do. Let me just say that this is huge change, and the change is indicated by the firing of a board that was appointed from a broad community. The Premier referred the matter during his estimates to the minister responsible and the members affected. So the minister responsible is being asked questions about what the future of the PNE is on the basis of this surprise firing, the elimination of community members from the board.

           The Chair: Members, I just want to refer again to standing order 61. The questions must be strictly relevant to the section. 

[ Page 849 ]

           The Leader of the Opposition on section 11.

Debate Continued

           J. MacPhail: Let me try it from this point, Mr. Chair, because I'll tell you something: these answers won't answer the concerns of the agricultural community. It's absolutely fine if this government wants to stonewall and not answer questions about its intent.

           There are up to five directors available here that the minister can appoint. Three are bureaucrats, I think, from Victoria. Does the minister plan on appointing anyone from the communities affected?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: We will leave those options open to ourselves as we go forward. Let me just say one thing. There is absolutely no need to have legislation to have an agricultural advisory committee for the PNE. The Minister of Agriculture and I are committed to working with the agricultural committee to ensure that their needs and the needs of young farmers…. I have asked members of our caucus about those issues. We will consult widely. We will work together…

           Interjections.

[1930]

           Hon. R. Thorpe: …with the agricultural committee. I might say, hon. Chair, that for this member to attempt to attack this government for support for the agriculture committee is beyond the realm of…. It's just unbelievable, because you destroyed the agriculture community in British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: As is always with this government….

          The Chair: The Leader of the Opposition.

           J. MacPhail: Sorry.

           As is always with this government, when they're asked to answer questions that the public wants to hear, the best defence is an offence.

           I look forward to the members from Surrey standing up and defending the interests of the community of Surrey, who want the PNE and whose board members have been fired. I also take great discomfort that somehow this government is ending the Buy B.C. program and saying that there will never be any subsidies for the agricultural community, come hell or high water. The proposals to the….

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry. Does that mean that there will be subsidies for the agricultural community? Is that what it means? If that's what the catcalling from the minister is about — that he ended all subsidies for all industry except agriculture — then I'm happy to hear that. Certainly the Buy B.C. program didn't survive any of that.

           Interjections.

           The Chair: You have the floor, member.

           J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance, in his role of House Leader, doesn't need to lecture anyone in this House. I think that is completely clear by what's going on here. Mr. Chair, please. His comments from the side are completely inappropriate — completely inappropriate.

           To the minister: in his future contemplation, where no one has any idea what he's going to do in appointing the next two, will there be a member from the agricultural community appointed to the board of the PNE — yes or no?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: If in fact we fill the two other spots on the board, we will give consideration to all possible interests to ensure that the representation on the board represents as many people in British Columbia as possible.

           J. MacPhail: Will the minister reinstate a community representative from the surrounding area of Hastings Park, which is the current home of the PNE? Will he consider using one of these two appointments, other than the bureaucrats from Victoria, to appoint a community representative to the PNE?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: As I just said, should we fill the two spaces, we will look at a variety of options to ensure that as many British Columbians as possible are represented and work on the board as we go forward to create stability and certainty for the PNE.

           J. MacPhail: I have to say that this is not an issue that the public or the community in either Surrey or Vancouver-Hastings will take lightly. Despite the stonewalling by the Minister of Finance in his role as the House Leader, these are questions that were put to me as recently as last Thursday by the participants in the PNE and by the agricultural community. If the minister thinks these are not questions being raised by the community, then he misunderstands the value, the import and the place in history of the Pacific National Exhibition. His reluctance, along with that of his colleagues, to come clean on giving what the future of the PNE is on their agenda will only hurt this government's reputation in that community. And that I very much regret.

[1935]

           Section 11 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 68
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Campbell	Collins
	[ Page 850 ]
Bond	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hawes
Manhas		Hunter
NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

 [1940]

           On section 14.

           J. MacPhail: Could the Attorney General explain the logic behind that? The explanatory note is as complicated as the section itself.

           Hon. G. Plant: The explanatory note says that the enactment "allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe further criteria under which a regulation must not be accepted for deposit by the Registrar of Regulations." The two requirements talked about in the section are, firstly, that it has been examined by a person referred to in section 2 and, secondly, that other prescribed criteria have been met.

           It allows cabinet to prescribe criteria that are in addition to the required review by legislative counsel, which must be met before a regulation can be deposited and become law. It gives cabinet the opportunity to set out the criteria that must be met before a regulation can be deposited and become law, and that opportunity will be defined by regulations that will be drafted and prepared consistent with the spirit and intent of the government's commitments around regulation. As the member knows, there's a minister of state responsible for that initiative, and he is actually also able to participate in the debate if that needs to happen.

           J. MacPhail: Is subsection (2)(b) further regulation?

           Hon. G. Plant: That is what the word "prescribed" usually means. Yes, it does mean that in this context.

           J. MacPhail: What are the two regulations that have been deleted or done away with to add this regulation, as per the Premier's request?

           Hon. G. Plant: Among the many…. It is a list so long that I sometimes have trouble keeping track of it. It's only 85 days. As the member knows, we have just made some changes to the PNE Incorporation Act; we repealed the anti-SLAPP bill, and I think that was about 12 regulatory requirements; we repealed a number of things over the course of the session. I think what will happen when this particular regulation is passed is that the public will see that the investment in this particular regulation will be repaid many times over as we proceed to review the regulations of the government.

           J. MacPhail: My understanding from watching the open cabinet meeting was that there was very clear direction that when a minister brings forward one regulation, he or she is supposed to bring forward two regulations to disappear. But the way the minister describes it is that there will be a grab-bag of deregulation over here, and over here there will be regulation, and there's no linkage. Perhaps the minister could make clear what the Premier's intent was.

[1945]

           Hon. G. Plant: Actually, as it happens, I don't need to go very much further than two sections ahead. The entire Regulatory Impact Statement Act is repealed. My guess is that if I were to look in that act, I'd find more than two regulatory requirements that could be replaced by this provision here. In fact, within the very narrow compass of the precise issue and the very limited and narrow and well-defined and precise issue we're dealing with here, I think the two-for-one rule is probably more than amply satisfied.

           J. MacPhail: The minister completely misunderstands the regulatory impact statement. It is not about the creation or deletion of regulation at all. It is about when a regulation is introduced, there has to be an economic and practitioners' impact statement done. There is absolutely nothing in the regulatory impact statement that is about the creation or deletion of regulations. The links are not what the Attorney General outlines. What is the process that the Premier said in terms of the two-for-one rule as it applies here?

           Hon. G. Plant: It's a wonderful topic. I was thinking that with a little help from the minister beside me, we could probably go for an hour or so on it, but we won't.

           I gather that the tenor of the member's remarks is that she wishes to take the requirements in section 14 as being somehow relevant to the question of deregulation, because it suits her purposes. However, when I argue that the repeal of the Regulatory Impact Statement Act is relevant, she denies that because it doesn't suit her purposes.

           The member's definition of regulation is when I think I want to call it a regulation because it suits my purposes, I'll call it a regulation; and when I don't want to call it a regulation because it doesn't suit my purposes, I won't call it a regulation. I have to say that that's certainly one way to look at doing public policy, but it's not the way we intend to do it. 

[ Page 851 ]

           I do think it is relevant in this context to look at the Regulatory Impact Statement Act, and let me just look at it very briefly. Section 2: "The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations must establish and implement policies and procedures…." I mean, there is no limit to the number of policies and procedures that could be established, and all of those are just as much regulation for the purposes of the Premier's obligations….

           J. MacPhail: For 90 days?

           Hon. G. Plant: You know, few things in life are more amusing than the prospect of being instructed in the law by the member opposite. But it hasn't worked for the last five years, and it's not likely to continue to work.

           I gave the answer to the member's question. The Regulatory Impact Statement Act and its repeal, in this context, more than satisfies the two-for-one obligation as the Premier explained it in public, and I'm sure the member was paying attention.

           J. MacPhail: Actually, that's completely misleading. A regulation is something that has to be passed by cabinet and signed off and gazetted. That's what it is, and I'm sorry to instruct the Attorney General on this. I assumed that after 90 days in office, they knew that. This isn't a game. This isn't a game where the Premier can stand up and say: "We'll have a two-for-one sale, but you don't have to justify what it is you're doing."

           The legislation here says that you're prescribing regulation. You've added a regulation to the Regulations Act. Indeed, the Regulatory Impact Statement Act….

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if the House Leader could just let me finish, and then he can join the discussion.

           The Chair: Member, you have the floor. Carry on.

           J. MacPhail: In the Regulatory Impact Statement Act, there is not one regulation created, and there's not one regulation deleted. All I want to point out to the Attorney General is that the fact that he's creating regulation means that somewhere, if the Premier is going to live up to his commitment, there should be two deleted. The commitment cannot be filled by the repealing of an act that has nothing to do with the creation of regulation.

[1950]

           Hon. G. Plant: I'm not sure if the member ended all that with a question. In fact, upon further reflection during the moment that was offered to me for that purpose by the member's last remarks, I remind myself that the two-for-one situation the member referred to in the first question, which gave rise to this debate, actually does not apply to regulations. It applies to regulatory requirements and therefore does not apply in the context of section 14, which is the section we have before us.

           J. MacPhail: Well, all I can say is: how convenient. First of all, the Attorney General says that a prescribing of criteria is the creation of a regulation, and in fact it is. The fact that the regulatory impact statement does nothing to affect the level of regulation but merely how regulations are to be brought in — somehow he thinks that meets the criteria. I expect that the public will judge the missteps of the Attorney General.

           Hon. G. Collins: They're pounding on his door right now. They're signing petitions.

           Hon. G. Plant: I'm waiting for those calls and letters. I'm sure they're going to just flow right in. But here's the thing. This project we've embarked upon has been developed by a minister of state who has special responsibilities for it. He made a presentation, I think, at the last open cabinet meeting on August 15. In the course of that presentation he was, I think, fairly thoughtful and principled, as well as pretty careful about what was within the scope of this project.

           In the case of the commitment to the two-for-one, what's intended to be subject to that is the idea of administrative requirements. Now, the member who asks the questions has no difficulty in assuring the House of her profound expertise on these subjects, and I'm sure it's greater than mine. After all, she was in government for ten years.

           For the purposes of our requirement and our process, a regulation is pretty much what a regulation is — that is, an order-in-council. What happens in regulations is that regulations often include hosts of subsidiary or related requirements and obligations. That is, they become the detailed way in which people are intended to comply with the basic requirements in the regulations. The focus of our initiative is in fact on those administrative requirements when we're talking about the issue that gave rise to this discussion, which is the two-for-one thing.

           So yes, absolutely — to come back to something the member said a moment ago. When criteria have been prescribed within the meaning of what will become section 3(2)(b) of the Regulations Act, those criteria will, in point of contemplation of the law, be regulations. But because they are regulations, I don't think they are going to be subject to this two-for-one thing.

           The member stood up a minute ago and said how convenient that was. It was, I suppose, temporarily inconvenient that I omitted to include the reference to administrative requirements in the course of the discussion, but the project we have outlined and the project we have begun was very carefully explained by the minister responsible for it in the cabinet meeting on August 15. That is the project that we intend to continue to pursue. In the context of the spirit of the project, the objective here is to ensure — and that's the objective met by these provisions in sections 14, 15 and 16 of the act — that we have in place a structure that works best for the process that we intend to complete, which is to remove unnecessary regulations and to limit the impact of regulations to those that are truly necessary to accomplish the public policy purposes 

[ Page 852 ]

that we all agree are central to government issues around health, safety, education and the environment, and so on.

           Sections 14 and 15 approved.

           On section 16.

[1955]

           J. MacPhail: It's very interesting that the government makes broad announcements in its open and accountable way and then finds it very difficult and that they require three or four attempts at an explanation as to exactly how the process will work. Frankly, if the Attorney General thinks that his last explanation in any way gave comfort to anybody who cares about cutting red tape, I think he'll be sadly mistaken in terms of the public feedback.

           Here's where the rubber really hits the road in terms of their commitment to deregulation. I expect the Minister of State for Deregulation will inform us that in their decisions, as yet without explanation to the House about how the two-for-one sale on regulations will actually work…. What will be the consideration, because it was absent from his cabinet presentation, for the economic impact on regulatory change that will be given to cabinet?

           The Regulatory Impact Statement Act was a request of the business community. No one else except the business community wanted the Regulatory Impact Statement Act. They worked long and hard to bring that about. It was to ensure that cabinet had the best possible advice in terms of the impact of regulation or deregulation on the economy before it considered change. What will replace the Regulatory Impact Statement Act?

           Hon. K. Falcon: I think that the Regulatory Impact Statement Act in principle is a good idea, if it actually works.

           Interjection.

           Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you. The Minister of Finance correctly echoes that. I think the issue from the business community is that nobody is sorry to see that go, because the difference is that they understand this government is putting its political will beside actually reducing the regulatory burden. That's exactly what we're going to do.

           J. MacPhail: So far it's been a statement made, but there's no proof of that. Certainly the last explanation from the Attorney General offered no proof whatsoever. The Regulatory Impact Statement Act was used. It was used regularly. What is going to replace it — the goodwill, the hopefulness of this government? That's what people are to rely on — just the goodwill that this government will do what is in the best interest of the economy, without any proof? How is it that the public is to understand what regulatory change will mean for them?

           Hon. K. Falcon: I think what I would say to the member opposite is that there is an important difference here. You can write a piece of paper on every regulation coming forward, but what is the value of that if all you're doing is writing a piece of paper on every piece of regulation coming forward? Our goal is really much simpler. We want to ensure those regulations coming forward are results-based and focus on the result we're trying to achieve and stay away from the previous government's predilection for a very prescriptive, process-driven approach. I just want to say that our effort will result in stimulating the economy. It will result in increased efficiencies and most importantly, reduced costs for British Columbians.

           J. MacPhail: When this government decided to interfere with the regulation around the ban on smoking from the WCB, what economic impact studies did they receive?

           Hon. K. Falcon: I think there's a question of relevance here. We're speaking to a very specific section regarding the repeal of RISA, and this member is speaking to something that has been thoroughly canvassed in the past.

           J. MacPhail: That's absolutely not true, Mr. Chair. The question is the repeal of the Regulatory Impact Statement Act, which is required to give advice, when the cabinet so chooses, on the economic impact of the regulation, and there was a series of questions outlined. The government decided to interfere with the regulation from the WCB on a smoking ban. Did this government do any economic impact studies about the health costs and business costs on the change to that which would have been required under the Regulatory Impact Statement Act? That's how it's relevant.

           Hon. K. Falcon: I believe that again that question, as I've said before, is out of order and is not relevant to the section that we're debating.

[2000]

           J. MacPhail: The discussion here is about the repeal of an act that requires an economic impact statement on a regulatory change. This government changed the regulation of the WCB on a smoking ban. Let's use that as an example. They've repealed this act. This legislation repeals the Regulatory Impact Statement Act. What replaces the effect of the Regulatory Impact Statement Act, other than goodwill and a great hope?

           Hon. K. Falcon: Now I can address that point, I think. With respect to the first portion of your question, as you know, we've delayed the decision regarding the WCB question. On the second part, which is something I can address, we made a conscious decision. Our conscious decision was that we weren't interested in putting forward a regulatory impact statement on every piece of regulation that came forward, particularly when it was clear…. I'm certainly unaware of cases 

[ Page 853 ]

where in fact that caused the regulation to actually be sent back.

           What we have done, instead, is put into place some very clear criteria to ensure that new regulations coming forward in British Columbia are consistent with an economy that wants to be competitive and wants to lead the country once again. That's exactly what we have done.

           J. MacPhail: Then I gather those criteria replace the Regulatory Impact Statement Act. The delay in the implementation of a regulation is a regulatory change that I say has an impact on the economy. It will have an impact on the productivity of the employer, it will have an impact on health costs, and it will have an impact on the opportunity costs to the employers in terms of negative health consequences. It may, according to the government, have an impact on the basis of a region in the province. What criteria the minister refers to, to replace the Regulatory Impact Statement Act, have been applied to the change made in regulation announced last week, interfering with the WCB ban on smoking?

           Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not entirely clear…. That's why I delayed. I must apologize to the member opposite. I'm not entirely sure I understand the nature of the question. I think you were referring to…. Actually, I can't speculate on what you were referring to, member, so what I would say is that we made a decision as government to delay implementation of that particular policy of the WCB. I don't know what more I can add to that.

           J. Kwan: I have a simple question for the minister. The question is just yes or no. Was there a regulatory impact review of the delay of the WCB decision on the smoking ban — yes or no?

           Hon. K. Falcon: That would be a question properly suited to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour, who I don't believe is….

           J. MacPhail: I understand that the House Leader is feeding answers to the Minister of State for Deregulation. He is sponsoring this legislative repeal. He is responsible for answering these questions. It's the application of the principles that he just articulated that he can't answer. So if he couldn't understand my question, it is his responsibility to answer the very simple question by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It's his legislation that he's bringing forward.

[2005]

           Sections 16 to 21 inclusive approved.

           On section 22.

           J. MacPhail: To the minister who is sponsoring this, whose budget is this found under?

           Hon. G. Collins: Perhaps I can explain. If the member has specific questions about how the fund might operate, then perhaps she could address them to the minister responsible.

           This is a fund. Money is taken and moved from the government's borrowing from one side into a special account, which is a fund. There is no spending under this provision here until such time as the interest is spent as a result of that fund. That fund will accrue interest over a period of time. At such time as we prepare the budget for next year, for example, there will more than likely be an appropriation within the budget of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services for the expenditure of the interest from this fund. But there is currently no money in a budget. It is borrowing that will go and sit in this special account.

           J. MacPhail: So there's no new money here?

           Hon. G. Collins: In fact there is new money; there's new borrowing. As all these funds are set up essentially the same way, money will be borrowed. It will be set aside in a special account under the Special Account Appropriations and Control Act. The money will be put there as borrowing. As interest accrues in that fund, that money will be put into the budget for the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and will be an appropriation under his budget at that point in time. So there is new borrowing here, and as that borrowing accrues interest, there will be new spending.

           J. MacPhail: So the borrowing adds to the deficit?

           Hon. G. Collins: Yes. New borrowing always adds to the deficit.

           Interjection.

           Hon. G. Collins: The debt, sorry.

           J. MacPhail: What is the anticipated accumulation of interest that would be able to be spent on an annual basis?

           Hon. G. Collins: I'm not sure what the forecast would be for the accrued interest for this fund. I guess that would depend on where it was set up, but I'd be glad to get that information for the member and make it available to her as soon as possible.

           J. MacPhail: So as of April 2002, eight months down the road, there will be an undetermined amount of interest available that will be far less. It will be in the tens of thousands of dollars, and that will be the nature of the fund. How does one apply for the fund?

           Hon. G. Collins: I can answer the first part of her question. The fund will begin accruing interest as soon as there is money put into the fund. Effective the beginning of the next fiscal year, April 1, 2002, there will be available for expenditure a certain amount through an appropriation to the Minister of Community, Abo- 

[ Page 854 ]

riginal and Women's Services. How one would apply for that fund — this is the Olympic arts fund — would be something that I'm sure the minister responsible will be setting up in the near future, and you can ask him.

           J. MacPhail: Will that setting up of a fund and the application thereof involve the creation of regulation?

           Hon. G. Abbott: No.

           J. MacPhail: How will the criteria be determined, then?

           Hon. G. Abbott: We are currently developing the guidelines that will underpin the Olympic arts fund. Among the areas that will be considered in assessing future applications are arts and culture activities to promote the 2010 milestone events: provincewide promotion of the Olympic Games, of course; commissioned works in the spirit of 2010; special events and festivals prior to the games; and international touring in support of the games.

           Sections 22 and 23 approved.

[2010]

           On section 24.

           J. MacPhail: Since the announcement of that, there's been much discussion about the government's intent here, the reversal of their previous position. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could explain how the policy review his Premier has set in place led to the reversal in their position about a hydro rate freeze.

           Hon. G. Collins: It's the intent of the government, as the Premier has said, to develop a long-term viable energy policy for British Columbia, something we have not had. It is the opinion of the Premier that it will take some time to do that, given the current volatility of the electrical and energy market. There will be a review done to help to develop that energy policy. This, in fact, is exactly what we committed to do prior to the election. At some point there will be a re-regulation of B.C. Hydro under the B.C. Utilities Commission, I assume. But in the meantime, while that is happening, we felt it was important to extend the freeze as we develop that energy policy, to provide some security and some certainty for the people of British Columbia in these very volatile times.

           J. MacPhail: I don't recall the commitment that was made. Perhaps the minister could articulate the commitment that was made to reverse their position on a hydro rate freeze just before the election.

           Hon. G. Collins: The Premier made a commitment to have a long-term sustainable energy policy in British Columbia. That is the commitment that we're following through on. And as part of that, while that is taking place, the Premier felt it was appropriate to extend the hydro rate freeze until such time as that review is complete.

           J. MacPhail: The Premier campaigned against the previous government's hydro rate freezes and interference, to quote him, with the B.C. Utilities Commission. What changed?

           Hon. G. Collins: Nothing changed. In fact, the government is embarking upon implementing our New Era document. Some days the member opposite complains we're going too fast; some days she complains we're going too slow. This is an energy policy for British Columbia. It will take some time to do properly, particularly given the context of the current volatility in the energy market. The Premier felt it was appropriate to provide some stability in the intervening period. This will be complete in 18 months. We plan on being in government for a little over four years.

           J. MacPhail: Increasingly in my role as opposition, I point out with substance where the government said one thing during an election and did exactly the opposite in their first 90 days in office, and this is an example. This is a perfect example. This now-government, in opposition, spoke out all the time against the hydro rate freeze, saying it created an artificial rate. And more to the point, they campaigned about interference in the B.C. Utilities Commission's independent role.

           It is on that basis that I am quizzing the member about what the government's hidden agenda is. Clearly, at no point during the election did the Premier rise up and say: "You know what? We actually agree with the previous government's hydro rate freeze, and in fact we're going to carry on with exactly that."

           He did exactly the opposite. He pointed to the hydro rate freeze as gross interference with the economy and gross interference with an independent Utilities Commission.

           All I'm pointing out is that the New Era document never once said that the Premier was going to reverse his position on the hydro rate freeze and come around to the point of view that perhaps it was a good thing. Nor did he ever admit that he was going to not do anything but continue on with overriding the B.C. Utilities Commission in that goal of giving the best hydro rates possible to the citizens of British Columbia.

           This isn't about the New Era document. This is about this Premier doing the exact opposite of what he campaigned on.

           Hon. G. Collins: The member opposite is once again wrong; in fact, she's completely wrong. The Premier did make a commitment in the New Era document to develop a long-term sustainable energy plan for British Columbia. That is what's driving this. He's been very clear about that. The hydro rate freeze is intended to provide a certain amount of stability in the intervening period while that review is being done. That is 18 months into a mandate.

           We also made a commitment in our New Era document to re-regulate B.C. Hydro under the B.C. Utilities 

[ Page 855 ]

Commission. We will get there. We won't get there in 90 days; we never committed to get there in 90 days. But we will get there. We will be in office for more than 18 months.

[2015]

           Not everything in the New Era document will be complete in 90 days. Some of it will be complete in 180 days. Some of it will be complete in a year and a half; some of it will be complete in three years. Some of it will probably be complete prior to the next election. All of those things are going to be completed.

           This is part of it: to embark upon an energy plan for British Columbia so that we have a sustainable energy policy for British Columbia. The other part, once that's complete, is to make sure B.C. Hydro is regulated properly. Both of those commitments will be kept, and they will be kept in that order. The member should be happy about that.

           J. MacPhail: The government could easily have done what they said were going to do, which is to let the B.C. Utilities Commission do its job. In fact, the Premier said that if the B.C. Utilities Commission were allowed to do its job, there was every possibility hydro rates would fall. No matter how much the Minister of Finance obfuscates on how they misled the public around the hydro rate freeze and use it as a weapon to strike against the previous government, this is a complete reversal of what they said they were going to do. It doesn't matter to the public whether it takes 18 months or four years; it's a complete reversal.

           The Premier said he would allow the B.C. Utilities Commission to do its job, and he had every expectation that it would mean a reduction in the hydro rates. Now we see what the real intent of this government is.

           Hon. G. Collins: The real intent of the government is to make sure British Columbians have a long….

           Interjections.

           The Chair: Order, members.

           Hon. G. Collins: What the opposition at the time committed to, what the current Premier committed to, was a long-term sustainable energy policy for British Columbia. We're doing that. As well, he said we would make sure that B.C. Hydro's rates were re-regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That is still the intent of government, and we will get there. There is no confusion there whatsoever. I think everybody else understands exactly what we mean, and I think they're very happy to find that for once, certainly in the last ten years, they have a government that is actually doing what it said. I know that's a novelty for the two members opposite, who would say one thing one day and do something completely the opposite and say they were funding the mental health program to the tune of $125 million when they knew the money wasn't there.

           I understand the mass confusion by the members opposite with a government that actually does what it says. In fact, I would say that had the previous administration allowed the B.C. Utilities Commission to regulate B.C. Hydro over their term, perhaps on balance people would have had lower electricity rates. But we don't know that, because the B.C. Utilities Commission wasn't able to do that.

           Clearly, with this section we're committing to complete two commitments we made during the election in the New Era document. One is a long-term sustainable energy plan for British Columbia, and the other is to make sure that at the end of the day B.C. Hydro is being regulated properly.

           Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

           On section 27.

           J. MacPhail: Would the Attorney General please explain each and every one of the commencement differences?

           Hon. G. Plant: The way to read them is to go through the sections that are referred to. I think when one does that, one sees how it all makes sense. An example of that is subsection (7), which makes section 12 deemed to have come into force on August 2, 2001. That is the day on which the report on Provincial Court compensation was tabled in the Legislature, so the change we're making to section 12 is a change which will ensure the report of the Judicial Compensation Committee comes into force in an orderly way. In order to make sure that is so, we've written subsection (7).

[2020]

           I'm sure the member is familiar with the rest of it from her long experience in the House. This is very typical for commencement provisions in miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, but if she has any specific questions about provisions that she has concerns about, I'd be happy to respond to them.

           J. MacPhail: Well, I did. I gave my question. There's been a notable absence of explanatory notes from the bills, and I understand that's because the government has been moving with great haste. I note there are new regulations in subsections (2), (3) and (4). There are at least three new regulations there. How will the two-for-one regulation rule apply?

           Hon. G. Plant: I intend to answer the question by saying that the explanatory note for this commencement provision is, in fact, exactly the same as every explanatory note for every commencement provision I ever saw produced by that member when she was a minister. In that spirit, she now has my answer to the question.

           J. MacPhail: I understand that it's a problem for the government to actually offer explanation, but he's wrong about the explanatory notes. There have always been full explanatory notes. My question was that there are three new regulations in here, and how will the two-for-one rule apply on regulations? How will we monitor that? 

[ Page 856 ]

           Hon. G. Plant: I attempted to give the explanation earlier that the two-for-one rule that has been talked about applies to administrative requirements. For the benefit of people who are watching this debate, when governments pass legislation, sometimes the legislation comes into force the moment the Speaker gives effect to it, with the assistance of royal proclamation.

           Sometimes, in order to give effect to the legislation appropriately, it's necessary to draft regulations that give effect to the legislation. The work of drafting those regulations will take some time, and that's not a feature new to this government. It's actually something that happens in governments across parliamentary democracies.

           Sometimes as a third alternative legislation is introduced with a provision which says that the provisions will come into force by a regulation that is devoted simply to the proclamation of the legislation. It's one sentence, and it says that section such-and-such of bill XYZ or section such-and-such of the following statute comes into force. Some of these here are actually subject to that rule. I think, for example, that section 27(3) is subject to that third category.

           J. MacPhail: What this government did when they were in opposition was to treat every regulation exactly the same and say that the government of the day brought in thousands of regulations that added to the red tape. On that basis they hammered the previous government over and over about the regulatory burden. The previous member, when he was in opposition, didn't distinguish by what type of regulation. Of course, we would then argue that there were lots of regulations that were either routine or absolutely necessary and in no way contributed to the burden of red tape. This government, when in opposition, chose to treat them all exactly the same.

           It was on the basis of that very simplistic approach that they continued to say: "We're going to do a two-for-one rule." They do a great deal of grandstanding about how they're going to reduce the regulatory burden, and they didn't distinguish. I didn't hear the Minister of State for Deregulation distinguish on the basis of what kind of regulation it was. He said that for every regulation that was introduced, there would be two removed.

           Here's every single member sitting here, going: "Oh, aren't these silly questions." Well no, they're not silly questions, because this is what the government led the public to believe. For the Attorney General to stand up now and distinguish that there are certain kinds of regulations…. He certainly never did that before in terms of the regulatory burden. Never did he do that before.

[2025]

           So, Mr. Chair, the questioning — and the refusal of the Attorney General to answer it in any way that makes sense — is just to point out how ridiculous their approach is to deregulation — absolutely nonsensical.

           On the question of section 27(7), why is it the Minister of Science and Enterprise couldn't answer it? Why is it that the removal of the PNE board is retroactive to August 2? What is the intent of that?

           Hon. G. Plant: I hope the member won't take offence when I inform her that section 27(7) refers to section 12, which does not have anything to do with the PNE.

           J. MacPhail: Sorry; I stand corrected. Section 27(9) refers to the firing of the PNE board under section 11. I stand corrected.

           Hon. G. Plant: A decision was made with respect to the composition of the board of the PNE. The government wished that decision to have effect on the day the decision was made. The decision required a change to legislation, and we're debating that legislation. But in order to ensure that the decision has effect on the day that it is made, there are provisions in this bill that make the legislation retroactive, limited to a week or so ago when the decision was made.

           Section 27 approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 8:27 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

           Bill 23, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 10.

PUBLIC SERVICE
(MERIT EMPLOYMENT COMMISSIONER)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 8:30 p.m.

           Section 1 approved.

           On section 2.

           J. Kwan: Prior to the election, the then opposition, the current government, had campaigned on the promise of creating an independent merit commissioner to review the public service appointments. According to the act before us, particularly section 2(2.3), the act actually calls for it to be overseen by the current deputy for public service — that's far from an arm's-length officer — to review the public service appointments. What's changed? 

[ Page 857 ]

           Hon. S. Santori: Absolutely nothing has changed. If she hasn't referred to the manual, may I read it to her? "Pass merit employment legislation to restore a professional, non-partisan public service appointed strictly on merit and not on patronage." There was no reference made to an independent commissioner. We feel that the appointment of the PSERC commissioner being the commissioner of merit — in fact, in itself with a three-year term — does give tenure to that position. I also want to further add that the deputy minister or the merit commissioner in this respect does not report to me or to my ministry. It reports to the Legislature.

           J. Kwan: To the contrary, actually, the current Minister of Education in February, the now Deputy Premier, said that the only way to restore fairness and dignity to B.C.'s civil service was to establish an independent merit commissioner. That was what the current Minister of Education, the current Deputy Premier, had campaigned on. That's what the Premier had campaigned on. Now we see the legislation before us, and it's changed.

           Instead of a completely independent merit commissioner, it's moved to being the deputy minister, so it has changed since those times. Either that, or the Minister of Education or the current Premier provided misinformation back in February in terms of their commitment. So there has been a change. What's changed between now and then?

           Hon. S. Santori: Once again, I campaigned on what was in the New Era document, as I'm sure all of my colleagues did. I'm not familiar with what the current Minister of Education said. At this time I would suggest that it's totally irrelevant. We are totally consistent with our New Era document, and we're fulfilling that commitment.

           J. Kwan: I guess this is the new era for the Liberal government, because prior to the election and during the election they said one thing; after the election they do another. It's a complete flip-flop. Therefore, it's completely okay. And now it is just time to move on without wanting to ensure there's any scrutiny.

           Interjection.

           J. Kwan: There is a question with respect to that, and I'm asking the question with respect to section 2(2.3). Why is there a change? As I said, there was a difference in terms of what the Minister of Education had…. Actually, in this very House she questioned the issue of an independent commissioner and has said that there needs to be one and that it is the only way to restore the civil service. And now, the minute the election is over, the legislation comes in and is brought into the House, and it's a different story. It's a flip-flop, just like previously in the debate that my colleague was engaged in with the Minister of Finance on B.C. Hydro rates.

           I know that perhaps for this government, this is their tactic. During the election it was okay to say one thing, but after the election they can do another. Is that the approach that this government is intending to adopt?

           Hon. S. Santori: The answer to your latter question is no. Once again you speak about relevancy. The only thing that is relevant is what was before all British Columbians prior to the election. Do you want to take a good look at it? It's right here. It was also on the web page. This is what's relevant, this is what we're fulfilling, and this is what we're going to carry out. We can do it without creating another million-dollar expenditure. We can do it exactly the way we have planned and we have set forth in this amendment.

[2035]

           J. Kwan: There is also another discrepancy because prior to the election, the members in government now, then in opposition, campaigned on the fact — alleged — that all of the public appointments within the civil service were political in nature. They went to accuse people of their employment, went to accuse civil servants in terms of their capacity and ability and capabilities of performing their service. They went through a witch-hunt in this House, making all of those allegations.

           Lo and behold, now that they have been formed into government, they've only just come to recognize that in fact, the majority of the civil service has been undergoing the same rigorous examination of ensuring that they were put in positions they were able to fulfil — not only able to fulfil but also more than capable of fulfilling.

           That's another about-face, and I'm glad, actually. I'm glad about that point, because the government now recognizes that the civil service actually has much to offer to British Columbia in their capacity, in their role. Not only are they capable of the job, but under the previous government, in fact, they were appointed and put into positions because they deserved to be there and because they've met the merit on which they were assessed under the process already set out.

           Section 2 approved.

           On section 3.

           J. Kwan: Section 3 talks about the merit commissioner and talks about the random audits of the appointments to and from, within the public service, assessing whether or not the recruitment and selection processes were properly applied. What is the process of a random audit?

           Hon. S. Santori: It's a random review of all the appointments and hirings within all of the ministries over the period of time during which the hiring process took place.

           J. Kwan: The question is: what is the process of the random review? Would it be by lottery? Would you 

[ Page 858 ]

just pick names out of a hat, or do you have a sort of process by which you would conduct the review?

           Hon. S. Santori: The detailed procedures will be developed, but we are working in conjunction with the comptroller general, I believe, and also the auditor general with generally accepted principles on how audits should be performed.

           J. Kwan: In terms of the process, I guess that is still under review. Would the minister commit to making available to the public for scrutiny what that process would be, once it is available?

           Hon. S. Santori: It will be made public in terms of processes. In terms of individual cases, no, that will not be public, but the process will be made public.

           J. Kwan: How many audits does the minister anticipate would be done?

           Hon. S. Santori: Of course, the random audits would be driven by the process. To give the member opposite some perspective into numbers, I believe that last year there were 2,000 competitions within the public service. Conservatively, I would suggest maybe 10 percent — a couple of hundred. Again, it will be based on accepted standards and the general principles, in consultation with the comptroller general's office as well as that of the auditor general.

           J. Kwan: In this section of the act, it was stipulated that audits would be done only with respect to appointments made after June 5, 2001. What is the relevance of the date June 5, and why was it picked?

           Hon. S. Santori: The relevance there — and I would maybe like to suggest that the original comment with respect to a witch-hunt…. We just want to make it very clear and give comfort to the employees out there that this exercise and the amendment to the Public Service Act is not a witch-hunt for previous employees. We want to move forward.

[2040]

           J. Kwan: My question was specifically relating to the date of June 5, 2001. I asked a question of the minister: why was that specific date picked? What was the rationale behind that? I know that Mr. Wilkinson, as an example, is exempt from this process because he was hired on June 5. Therefore he'd be exempt from the process of an audit to see whether or not his hiring is of a non-partisan nature — which this government, when in opposition, campaigned on. During the campaign they said that was what they weren't going to do, but of course the first act they encountered once they were in government was to make a very partisan appointment of Mr. Wilkinson, who was the former president of the B.C. Liberal Party.

           Hon. S. Santori: June 5 was the day that cabinet was sworn in, and I just want to reiterate the fact that again, this is not a witch-hunt for those employees that were hired or appointed prior to June 5.

           J. Kwan: Is Mr. Wilkinson under this review, as part of this review? Or could he be under this audit?

           Hon. S. Santori: I'll keep my answer very simple: no.

           J. Kwan: So Mr. Wilkinson, the former president of the Liberal Party, will not be under the potential audit of the merit commissioner. This government, during opposition, advocated for independence of the merit commissioner to review all political appointments of government. The first act of this government is to make an appointment of the former president of the Liberal Party to a high position within the public service, which is very partisan in its nature. Yet the act that has now been brought into play…. To say that you ensure that there is no partisan appointment within this government exempts the very person who has a high political affiliation with the party. Why is that?

           Hon. S. Santori: Once again, I understand the amount of work the members opposite have had to do to keep up with this. Within the amendment itself they'll see that ADMs and DMs are excluded from this act and not just Mr. Wilkinson. With respect to your comments regarding the hiring of the deputy minister, I believe that both of you, through your own admission, have said that Mr. Wilkinson does have the credentials. Now, obviously they speak for….

           Interjection.

           Hon. S. Santori: You did. Don't shake your head. I think you answered your whole question in terms of merit.

           J. Kwan: Just imagine for a moment if Mr. Bruce Ralston was appointed, if he were in government in a deputy minister position, what you would say around that partisan political appointment. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Wilkinson has been appointed to a high position. Not only is he exempted by date here, he's also exempted by position. All the political appointments prior to this date and also those by position that are of a political nature will be exempted by the merit commissioner.

           Therefore this whole exercise is just a public relations exercise to say on the one hand that you're going to have a merit commissioner to ensure that appointments are made in a non-partisan nature. But the minute this government got into power, they actually took an about-face, changed their policy, changed their approach, flip-flopped and then began to make partisan appointments immediately — and not only just partisan appointments to any position but to the highest-paying positions within government, who wanted some of the most powerful positions within government. 

[ Page 859 ]

           This is in spite of what the Minister of Education said in February — that there absolutely must be an independent merit commissioner to review all of the appointments. Do you know what? That was before the election. Now it's after the election, and it really doesn't matter. After the election what this government does is just simply a public relations exercise.

[2045]

           Hon. S. Santori: If I could point out to the member opposite, there are 2,000 appointments over the course of the year that this amendment will apply to. In addition to that, I can assure the member opposite that with the appointments of deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, the Premier has agreed to be held accountable to those positions and will report to this Legislature on an annual basis with those appointments. I can once again reassure the members opposite that these positions will in fact be based on merit and that we do hire the best and the brightest.

           Interjection.

           Hon. S. Santori: Well, he's a lot better and a lot brighter than some people, Mr. Chair.

           On that note, as we speak we are in search nationwide for six deputy ministers as well as ten assistant deputy ministers. If it was the mandate of this government to appoint those individuals on a partisan basis, I think we could have filled the six outstanding positions of deputy minister and the ten outstanding ones of ADM. That search continues. I believe that's a clear indication that it is an open process and that we are in search of the best and brightest to bring this government forward.

           Sections 3 and 4 approved.

           On section 5.

           J. Kwan: On the piece around section 5, it talks about: for the purposes of carrying out the commissioner's duties, the commissioner is entitled to access to the ministers, boards, commissions, agencies and organizations, etc., in terms of records and information. Does this include the Premier's office as well?

           Hon. S. Santori: As it pertains to those positions that are covered within the amendment to the Public Service Act.

           J. Kwan: I'm sorry. I didn't catch the answer. Does it include the Premier's office?

           Hon. S. Santori: Yes, it does as it pertains to those positions that are covered under the amendment of the Public Service Act.

           Sections 5 and 6 approved.

           Title approved.

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

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 8:49 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

           Bill 10, Public Service (Merit Employment Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 24.

CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE ACT

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 8:50 p.m.

           Sections 1 and 2 approved.

           On section 3.

           J. MacPhail: On a radio talk show last week, the minister was talking about the application of benefits, and he was explaining the elimination of the $8 million fund under the WCB in pain and suffering awards. The reason I raise this question is that the elimination of the pain and suffering awards has given rise to a new or different application for benefits, according to the explanation of the minister. In the course of that conversation, I understood the minister to say that when the program was originally designed in 1972, the claimants were mostly male victims of assault who required wage replacement. But now, he went on to say, under the pain and suffering provisions of the WCB for victims of crime, the victims include mostly women and children who are victims of sexual abuse. What I heard as to the development and genesis of the fund was that over the years women and children who were victims of crimes of sexual assault and sexual abuse were now the beneficiaries of the $8 million WCB fund for pain and suffering. Is that a fairly accurate account of what the minister said?

           Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, it's relatively close to what I said. I'll take the member back. I think that was a quick eight-minute interview, or something to that effect, relative to this particular piece of legislation. But the 1972 comment is correct. The experience was that in 1972, that's who the victim was. We find now that more of the claims are women and children; that is also correct. Having said that, you have to finish the sentence. I also said that that group has a different need for services and benefits than the original group in 1972. That's why I felt it was important to see the enhancement and the speeding-up of the benefits for women and children who were victims of crime. I didn't say to just concentrate on sexual assault, but assault as well — spousal abuse and that sort of thing.

           The concern is to streamline this so we can get a process. I wanted to have the services for the victims of 

[ Page 860 ]

crime available to them in the community as quickly as possible and as easily as possible. I felt that by taking into account wage loss and what have you, we were covering off financial as well as psychological, as well as counselling and other assistance, relative to making these changes in the act.

[2055]

           J. MacPhail: I thank the minister for that explanation. We had some phone calls as a result of that. They were concerned about the removal of the fund on the basis of the explanation that it had now mostly gone to women and children and that somehow that undermined the original intent of the fund. That disturbed them. So it's important that the minister be given the opportunity to expand more fully on his explanation.

           The other phone calls that we have been having on this matter — and it's just an opportunity for the minister to give a fuller explanation on this — is that what…. I raise this under "Applications for benefits"; it may be more appropriate under "Award of benefits." I can ask the question, and the minister can decide where he'd like to answer it. There are services in place now offered through women's centres, through sexual assault centres. There had been much discussion amongst sexual assault centre groups that the compensation was a tangible recognition of victims' experiences and how that was a way for part of the healing process — that there were the services and then there was the compensation for the victim that allowed him or her to get on with their life in a positive and healing way. So with the removal of that, what are the services? What changes, if any, will there be in services for victims of crime, and will the changes occur in terms of a reallocation of funds? Or will the current services continue, with additional services being provided through the new $8 million that is going into the Solicitor General's ministry?

           Hon. R. Coleman: I don't mind answering the question, any portion of the bill, for the member, but I should say a couple of things. First of all, I didn't take any phone calls from that interview. I know that I did have the opportunity to listen to some of the people who were on the program — the three proponents on after I was on — and they all had mixed feelings. They weren't even agreeing among themselves as to what was good and what was bad, although it did come out clearly to me from some of the victims from an assault centre — there were two that I've heard from — who have told me that this is a good move relative to moving this back into the ministry, to getting a process that's quicker for the victims.

           In the past, in order to obtain an award for pain and suffering, the first step of the process would be to determine if the complainant was actually a victim. Under the present program, the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, this can be a very gruelling process. The new benefits, for the member's information and just so the member knows it…. One of my big concerns — and even a concern back in 1996, when I remember asking another minister of the Crown relative to this legislation — was 23 percent of the entire fund going in administration to the Workers Compensation Board and not actually being applied to services for victims of crime. That was identified early on, and I know that it's been discussed in probably every year of government since then.

           The new program provides benefits that are more responsive to the needs of victims, immediate family members and some witnesses who are significantly impacted by crime. Now there are two sets. Obviously, I think the member knows, but I should put them on the record, just so we're clear. Benefits to the victims will include medical and dental care, vocational rehabilitation for victims and members of the victim's family, income support for the victim or victim's family relating to lost or reduced income or inability to provide services previously provided to themselves or to their family, counselling for the victim or the victim's family, protective measures to ensure a victim's safety, travelling expenses for the victim or victim's family, physical rehabilitation and modification or aids for home and vehicle, repair of or replacement of prescribed personal property, counselling for witnesses of crime and funeral expenses for families of victims.

           The enhanced program. The new benefits include income support for caregivers and children, which is eligibility for income support that will apply to caregivers who work in the home but are unable to perform their role due to their victimization; protective measures for victims, particularly stalking victims or other high-risk victims. This is something that the sexual assault centres have been asking for, for some time in cases involving particularly high-risk victims whose lives are significantly at risk. Relocation expenses including accommodation, travel, moving and other related costs will be provided to prevent loss of life.

           Expanded counselling benefits. Immediate family members will now be eligible for counselling benefits to assist them in dealing with the emotional and behavioral issues that arise as a result of the victimization or death.

[2100]

           Vocational rehabilitation for dependent spouses. Vocational rehabilitation is currently available to assist victims to overcome or adjust to the immediate and long-term vocational impact of their injury. The benefit would be applied to dependent spouses of deceased or catastrophically injured victims to assist in job-readiness retraining, vocational counselling, assessment and planning and placement assistance.

           Travel assistance for victims and immediate family members. Limited financial assistance would be made available to offset travel expenses to enable victims and/or immediate family members to attend and participate in civil and criminal proceedings, including travel to attend criminal court proceedings and parole hearings and to pursue civil actions against offenders.

           Those are the additional, mixed in with the…. These are the benefits that weren't provided before.

           J. MacPhail: I appreciate the minister reading that into the record. I didn't mean to say that the calls came 

[ Page 861 ]

into the talk show. They came into our offices afterward. I appreciate the clarification.

           One final question. Again, it pervades the bill. The $8 million that will be taken from the WCB-administered fund and transferred to the Solicitor General — that money…. How can I say this? That's additional money that wasn't there before, in the Solicitor General's budget. Is that money subject to core services review?

           Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the answer to that would be that the whole ministry is subject to core services review, so this program would obviously be subject to core services review.

           The means of bringing it back to the ministry is to get control of our administration costs relative to the management of victims-of-crime funds in British Columbia, to put it together with the $10 million to $11 million that we're already spending on victims of crime and other services to victims of crime around the province and, in addition to that, to allow for a more seamless application and approach so that we can get the services to these people quicker. As to how much of the fund will be used in any given year, it will depend on, obviously, the use of the fund by the victims of crime.

           Sections 3 to 21 inclusive approved.

           On section 22.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 22 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 22, by deleting the proposed section and substituting the following:
Information-sharing agreements
           22            (1)            In this section, "information-sharing agreement" means an agreement or arrangement to exchange, by electronic data transmission, electronic data matching or any other means, personal information about a victim, immediate family member or witness.
                          (2)            With the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may enter into an information-sharing agreement with
                                            (a)            the government of Canada or a prescribed agency of that government,
                                            (b)            the government of a province or other jurisdiction in Canada or a prescribed agency of such a government,
                                            (c)            a prescribed government outside Canada or a prescribed agency of a government outside Canada, or
                                            (d)            a public body as defined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
                           (3)            An information-sharing agreement under subsection (2) may only be entered into for a prescribed purpose.
                           (4)            The Lieutenant Governor in Council, after consulting with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, may make regulations for the purposes of this section, including regulations
                                            (a)            prescribing agencies for the purposes of subsection (2) (a), (b) or (c),
                                            (b)            prescribing governments for the purpose of subsection (2) (c),
                                            (c)            prescribing purposes for the purpose of subsection (3), and
                                            (d)            prescribing terms or conditions that must be included in an information-sharing agreement under subsection (2).]

           On the amendment.

           J. MacPhail: I assume that the minister is amending this in either full or partial response to the comments of the freedom-of-information commissioner.

           Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, we gave the freedom-of-information commissioner the opportunity to comment on the act. He came back with a recommendation. I'll just read this letter into the record:

        "Dear Minister,

           Crime Victims Assistance Act, Bill 24:

           Further to my letter dated August 22, 2001, I am writing to confirm our agreement to the amendment to section 22 of Bill 24 that was settled between this office and yours yesterday. I appreciate your willingness and the work of your staff to address our concerns and strongly support the amendment. I will repeat my support for the amendment publicly once it has been introduced in the Legislative Assembly."

           Amendment approved.

           Section 22 as amended approved.

           Sections 23 to 36 inclusive approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 9:04 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[2105]

           Bill 24, Crime Victim Assistance Act, reported complete with amendment.

           Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

           Hon. R. Coleman: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

           Leave granted.

           Bill 24, Crime Victim Assistance Act, read a third time and passed.

Tabling Documents

           J. Kwan: I seek leave to table a document.

           Leave granted. 

[ Page 862 ]

           J. Kwan: I have a package that I received from the local Emergency Aid Society, which provides emergency housing for people in the lower mainland — and I should say, actually, in British Columbia — as well as permanent housing for British Columbians. I've received in the package approximately 50 letters calling for continued support to support a non-profit housing, rental and cooperative housing supply and a comprehensive package of initiatives, including funding for new non-profit rental and cooperative housing and supplements for people renting in the private market.

           Hon. G. Collins: I have the pleasure to table the annual report of the B.C. Lottery Corporation for the year 1999-2000. I apologize for its lateness, but there wasn't much I could do about it.

           I call committee on Bill 25.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING ACT (No. 3)

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 25; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 9:07 p.m.

           Sections 1 and 2 approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 9:08 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

           Bill 25, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I've been informed that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and would ask members to please remain in their seats.

[2110]

           His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

           Law Clerk:

           Constitution (Fixed Elections Dates) Amendment Act, 2001

           Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001

           Public Service (Merit Employment Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001

           Community Charter Council Act

           Parental Responsibility Act

           Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001

           Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001

           Lobbyists Registration Act

           Skills Development and Fair Wage Repeal Act

           Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001

           Crime Victim Assistance Act

           Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3)

           Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act

           Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001

           Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001

           The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001

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

           Clerk of the House:

           Supply Act, 2001-2002           

           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.

           Hon. G. Gardom (Lieutenant-Governor): Before I leave this evening, I would ask you to join with me in a round of appreciation for the honorary aides-de-camp, who perform a marvellous service for this office. They're all volunteers, all without compensation and, unfortunately, most often without thanks. I'm delighted to have Captain Price representing them tonight.

[2115]

           His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

           Hon. G. Collins: Mr. 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 second session of the thirty-seventh parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he 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. In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that this House do now adjourn. I wish everyone a happy last few days of the summer, and I hope you have a safe fall.

           Hon. G. Collins moved adjournment of the House.

           Motion approved.

           The House adjourned at 9:18 p.m.

 

---

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2001: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175