Hansard -- Tuesday, May 14, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 14 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		3439

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3439
	Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28) Hon. R. Thorpe Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52) Hon. R. Coleman Forest Work Security Interest Act (Bill M205) B. Suffredine

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		3440
	Tourism in Port Renfrew area B. Kerr Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis G. Trumper International Children's Conference on the Environment J. Bray

Oral Questions		3442
	Alternative payment models for physicians J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen J. MacPhail Public input into review of Forest Practices Code D. MacKay Hon. M. de Jong Trade mission to India R. Nijjar Hon. R. Thorpe Marine diesel fuel tax A. Hamilton Hon. J. Reid

Ministerial Statements		3444
	Amendment of government agreement with Working Opportunity Fund Hon. R. Thorpe J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House		3445
	Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hagen T. Christensen D. Chutter

Reporting of Bills		3452
	Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Third Reading of Bills		3452
	Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Committee of the Whole House		3452
	Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 50) J. Kwan Hon. S. Bond B. Locke B. Penner R. Masi

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3460
	Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 50)

Second Reading of Bills		3460
	Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 44) Hon. K. Whittred J. MacPhail Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38) Hon. S. Hagen J. Kwan

Recommittal of Bills		3468
	Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21) Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51) Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House		3469
	Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Reporting of Bills		3469
	Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Third Reading of Bills		3469
	Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Committee of the Whole House		3469
	Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3469
	Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51)

J. Nuraney: I am very happy to have two guests here today, Shaheen Tejani and Kristen Collinson. These are two young business people who are helping young venture capitalists seeking venture capital, people who are looking after seed money for the new ventures. Shaheen Tejani and Kristen Collinson — I ask the House to make them welcome.

K. Krueger: The young man who has served brilliantly as the sessional assistant for the government caucus Whip's office and the Deputy Speaker throughout this session, Mr. T.J. Parhar, is in the gallery. I'd like to acknowledge his hard work and ask the House to make him welcome.

G. Trumper: I'd like to ask the House to welcome Irene Feris this afternoon. She's from my constituency, and she's also the coordinator for our emergency preparedness in the valley. We all try to figure out how we're going to get to her house when there's an emergency. She has the most amazing program in place at her house for an emergency program.

She has also gone to other places in North America when there have been disasters, and she also at times does work for me. I would ask you to please welcome Irene Feris.

Hon. L. Reid: My executive assistant, Rhonda Dashevsky, has two aunts in the gallery today: Harriet Wolfe, visiting from Vancouver, and Edie Adler from Seattle. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. Bray: It's a pleasure today to introduce two people in the House of whom I can truly say that if it weren't for them, I wouldn't be here. They are my parents, Marshall Bray, QC, and Evelyn Bray, sitting up there. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Today we have a number of guests in the House who are here celebrating Simon Fraser University Day in Victoria. Simon Fraser University, as you know, has been recognized recently in the Maclean's guide to Canadian universities as one of the finest comprehensive universities in the country. Much of that is due to the excellent educational leadership provided, I am sure, by some of the people in the gallery with us today.

I am very pleased, and I know you will want to welcome Chris Arnet; Brian Lewis; the president of Simon Fraser University, Michael Stevenson; John Waterhouse; David Mitchell; Wilf Hurd; Warren Gill; Marilyn Pankratz; Ernie Love; and Marg Vandenberg. Please make them welcome to the precinct today.

I. Chong: Today I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a class from Lambrick Park Secondary School in my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. There are about 20-plus students. They're accompanied, I think, by a number of adults and their teacher, Mr. Stu Barber. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

H. Long: I realize that we have to recognize rank first in the House and also rank last. Today in the House I have someone who ranks first in my life. That's my daughter, Brenda.

K. Manhas: I see some of our hard-working caucus staff have slipped into the chamber, so I'd like to introduce Marnie Llewellyn-Thomas, Frank Costa and Muneesh Sharma into the House.

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I am pleased to introduce Bill 28, Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002. Bill 28 enables competition in the labour-sponsored funds sector and promotes fairness for participants in the venture capital industry in British Columbia. This bill supports the public policy objective of providing choice for businesses seeking capital financing and choice for investors in labour-sponsored funds. It enables the allocation of tax credits among labour-sponsored funds registered in the province of British Columbia.

One element of our review of business subsidies was to look at issues of fairness with respect to venture capital tax credits. This bill addresses that issue and will help ensure fairness across the venture capital sector. It also supports the government's deregulation initiative with a net reduction of three regulatory requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002, which gives police new powers to deal with drivers who race. Racing is defined to make the act effective.

Every year in this province more than 400 people are killed and thousands more are injured in vehicle crashes, many of which are preventable. One of our jobs as government is to make sure that the people who enforce the law to make our roads safe have the right combination of enforcement tools to deal with drivers who put their lives and lives of others at risk by racing.

Right now, when police stop a driver for racing, they can issue a violation ticket and seek a roadside driving prohibition from the superintendent of motor vehicles. This bill gives police the additional authority to impound vehicles involved in racing for 48 hours on a first incident. Drivers who are caught racing again within a two-year period can have their vehicle impounded for 30 days.

Adding these new powers for impounding vehicles allows the police to deal effectively with the situation immediately. It will also send a strong message to drivers and to their friends that there are serious consequences for racing. Their vehicle or even someone else's vehicle can be taken away from them.

To impound a vehicle, the police will be required to (1) intend to lay a charge for a serious offence either under the Motor Vehicle Act or the Criminal Code, (2) submit a report to the superintendent of motor vehicles which may result in the superintendent issuing a driving prohibition and (3) complete a notice of impoundment.

Specific provisions in the bill allow vehicle owners, if they are not driving themselves at the time, business operators and family to gain an early release of an impounded vehicle. For 30-day impoundments people can seek a review from the superintendent's office.

Law enforcement agencies and families that have lost children have asked us to act. We've listened. The bill is an effective tool for police and sends the message that illegal and dangerous driving will not be tolerated.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

B. Suffredine: I move that a bill intituled Forest Work Security Interest Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

B. Suffredine: This act is designed to modernize the law of woodworkers' liens and tugboat workers' liens, bringing both types of claims under a single act and making the procedure to claim a lien more workable.

Occasionally forest workers are not paid for their work. A lien on the logs has always been available to them, but the existing statute is decades old and outdated. Formerly, lien claims had to be filed at the court registry in the county court nearest where the claim arose. Under the new act, claims are filed in the personal property security registry in the same way as chattel mortgages, conditional sales agreements and all other security of moveable property.

This bill gives a tugboat operator or contract logger a claim of lien similar to a mechanic's lien for the repair of a vehicle. In addition, this bill provides a procedure for enforcement. The liens will be enforceable by individuals and by companies.

The bill provides an important step in establishing a more workable procedure and process in the forestry sector. It will also simplify the current legislation, replacing two current acts with one, and advance our commitment to reduce the number of regulations.

This bill is essentially the same legislation drafted by the Law Reform Commission and recommended to the former government in 1994.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

B. Kerr: I am proud to be a part of a government that has dedicated itself to British Columbia's economic revitalization. We're committed to making British Columbia number one again.

Here in the capital region tourism is increasing significantly, and this is more good news. While we continue to lure visitors from around the world to visit our

great province, each one of us should also take the opportunity to uncover new corners of our own back yard.

British Columbia has always been recognized for its scenic beauty. It seems that every day there's a new place waiting to be discovered. I'd like to tell the House today about one such place, a special part of my constituency that offers an adventure for any British Columbian who wishes to explore their own province.

The people of the tiny community of Port Renfrew invite you to visit and experience where they live. Port Renfrew is located 1½ hours from Victoria on Highway 14, which, although challenging at times, offers scenery which can be both spectacular and breathtaking. Along the way you may catch a glimpse of some of the area's natural vitality — from black bears frolicking with their cubs to a single bald eagle hovering high above the landscape. In just a few kilometres one quickly leaves behind the stresses of life.

Or take the road less travelled. Grab a picnic and a pack, and head out on a hike through one of the provincial parks. There are hikes for any type of outdoor enthusiast from a casual wander through the woods to a summit-grinding trek. As the day winds down, curl up on the beach and watch the sun set over the ocean.

Storm watchers beware. The west coast is famous for its great storms, and history can speak of its cruel, unpredictable ways. Experience the freedom, the strength, the unimaginable power of the seas in this tiny, wildly landscaped town of Port Renfrew.

Once a logging and fishing community, Port Renfrew is a town rich with history. It has endured the rages of the seas and its share of economic hardships. Yet the resilient residents of this quaint community are working hard towards the well-being and economic growth of the community.

This summer you'll all invited to join the residents of Port Renfrew at the second annual Circle Route Cavalcade. During this annual event, the adventurous motorist leaves Victoria to drive to Port Renfrew through to Lake Cowichan and back to the Island Highway. I urge all of you to attend this event and put this motoring adventure at the top of your summer travel plans.

G. Trumper: May and June are the months recognizing ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The disease was first identified in 1869 by neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot. Today, though many great strides have been taken in understanding the disease, there is yet no cure.

I am sure that in this assembly there are those of you who have had a member of their family or a friend suffer from this appalling disease. One of the most courageous people that I have known — a close friend, Carrie — struggled with ALS while at the same time counselling individuals with terminal diseases.

It is a neuro-degenerative disease that attacks nerve cells in the brain and the spinal cord. When the motor neurons, which reach into the muscles, die, controlled muscle movement is lost. Patients in the late stages of the disease become totally paralyzed, but for most of them, their minds remain unaffected. They become prisoners in their own bodies. It is an appalling situation for them and their families.

The majority of people that contract the disease are usually between the ages of 40 and 70, although people in their twenties and thirties have also had it. While men contract the disease more often than women, factors such as race, ethnicity and socioeconomic boundaries play no part in determining who will come down with this disease.

There are some familiar faces that have suffered from ALS. Amongst these are film actor David Niven, actor Michael Zaslow and Stephen Hawking from the United Kingdom, who we see sometimes on television.

Another well-known British Columbian, Sue Rodriguez, brought national attention to the brutality of ALS. Her personal story touched many of us across Canada.

It is devastating to victims and their families. Continuing research will hopefully reveal the true causes of the disease and find a cure.

When you see a billboard advertising for ALS and you see someone with a cornflower in their lapel, please remember and give. ALS could affect someone close to you very soon.

J. Bray: Today I wish to speak about an exciting event to be held here in Victoria, May 21 to 25. It is the International Children's Conference on the Environment.

The International Children's Conference on the Environment is held every two years for children between the ages of ten and 12. It is inspired by the recognition that children need to be active participants in environmental issues. It is also a follow-up to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro. At the summit an international plan for sustainable development was agreed upon. The plan encouraged national governments to pay more attention to the concerns and opinions of young people and children on the environment.

The main aims of the international children's conferences are to increase children's understanding of environmental issues through the sharing of experiences and opinions on the environment, to improve the environment by sharing best practices and encouraging new initiatives, to provide opportunities for children to create new relationships and remove artificial ethnic barriers as well as to form friendships lasting well beyond the conference and to provide opportunities for children to collectively voice their concerns on the environment. To inspire children to think globally and act locally, the May 21-25 conference here in Victoria is

being organized by a board of directors and a planning committee consisting of representatives from all levels of government and industry in cooperation with the United Nations environment program.

It will be a four-day event and will bring together over 800 children aged ten to 12 from over 115 countries. This will be a truly wonderful experience for all the children involved and will be a terrific venue to showcase both Victoria and British Columbia to the world. It is also an opportunity for all of us as politicians, parents and adults to remember our duty to listen to the views of our young people.

These children are gathering in Victoria for a dialogue on the environment. It is the dialogue that is the key. Perhaps, in our adult world of pressures and politics, we can learn something from these 800 children and remember that our children will inherit the results of our environmental stewardship.

J. Kwan: The doctors and the government are poles apart in their ongoing dispute, and patients are caught in the middle. British Columbians want government to find a long-term solution so that every time the government and the doctors have a fight, patients don't pay with their health.

Many experts agree that a huge part of the problem is the outdated fee-for-service billing model that we've been operating under for more than 40 years. To fix the problem, the province needs to establish alternative payment models, like salaries, that take away doctors' power to unilaterally withdraw their services. To the Minister of Health Services: does the minister agree that as part of a long-term solution to this problem, the government needs to take a proposal to the table that will establish a new relationship with doctors based on alternate forms of payment and compensation?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member raises a very interesting question. Certainly, physicians in British Columbia are really in two groups when it comes to that issue. There are those who feel so strongly about fee-for-service that they would not want to practise medicine under any other model. Increasingly, there are doctors across Canada who want to go to some kind of alternative payment model. In British Columbia today we have about 20 percent of our doctors on alternative payments.

There are currently almost 100 applications for alternative payments that we are unable to process. These are doctors who would like to move from fee-for-service to alternative payments. We can't process those until this current dispute is resolved. We're anxious to get on with the negotiation to make sure that these issues can be resolved, first of all, so that the needs of patients can be met and their care is not compromised any more than it already has been and, secondly, so that we can start dealing with some of these other issues, such as the outstanding applications from physicians looking for alternative payments.

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

J. Kwan: Patients are suffering because doctors and the government can't agree on how to divide up the limited resources based on the outdated fee-for-service model. Already we have seen instances where people have been denied treatment after suffering injuries from motor vehicle accidents.

Every year B.C. graduates approximately 60 new GPs, and each one is handed a billing number. This allows them to bill the taxpayer for service, but in return there's no obligation on their part to maintain service levels. Will the minister agree that providing these new graduates with the opportunity to sign up for alternate pay models, like salaries, should be a key component at the negotiating table so that doctors can't take away the services at a whim?

Hon. C. Hansen: We certainly would like to promote that choice and that option for medical students graduating from our medical schools. That choice is there, but what we have done in the negotiations is that we have put $392 million of new money on the table for physician remuneration. That works out, if you divide it among the 7,800 doctors in the province, to an average of $50,000 per doctor in this province.

A portion of that is allocated for fee-for-service increases, a portion of that is allocated for on-call payments, and a portion of it is already designated for increases for the salaried physicians in the province. Also, there is money that has been earmarked to provide for new doctors who wish to go onto alternative payments in this year, next year or the year after.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the government and the doctors agree that $392 million is enough to solve this dispute, but the doctors can't agree amongst themselves or with the government on how to divide it up. I think the minister has just outlined the view of how to divide up the pot, but the doctors don't agree with that.

Frankly, sooner or later, with continued population growth and an aging population, the health care system is going to be under increasing stress. The question, I think, we have to deal with is: how should limited resources be reallocated? Should they go back into a system that lets a small group of doctors hold the population ransom? Or should the new resources be dedicated to alternative forms of payment that provide patients with both stability and security in our health care system?

I think there are many doctors who aren't happy with the fee-for-service model and want a different form. So is the government willing to reach out, even in

the context of this set of negotiations, and say to those doctors: "We can change the way we operate"? You, physician, can live up to your professional obligation to care for British Columbians, to be paid fairly, and in return you must ensure that British Columbians get the treatment they need regardless of the views of the BCMA. Is the government willing to perhaps put that on the table at the negotiations?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, let me quickly outline for the member what has already been agreed to in the memorandum of understanding that was signed on March 26. It was agreed that $392 million was enough to deal with all of the compensation issues for physicians in the province. That was reiterated by the president of the BCMA as recently as May 7 in a radio interview, where she said that $392 million was adequate to deal with all of the compensation issues.

In that, we have agreed that there is an additional $185 million for fee-for-service, we have agreed that there is an additional $80 million for on-call payments, and we have agreed that there is an additional $127 million to deal with the alternative payments increases that the member talks about to deal with those doctors who wish to go on alternative payments, to deal with the rural agreement, to deal with all of those other miscellaneous issues that must be covered.

What is clear is that we have put a significant amount of money on the table. It's a 20.6 percent increase in the budget for physician compensation in British Columbia from last year to this year, and we think that it's time for the BCMA to get back to the negotiating table to represent their members and to stop compromising the care of patients in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I am well aware that that's the government's position, and I'm also well aware that the doctors have perhaps changed their position since negotiations have recommenced. But I think what's missing here is an ability to tackle the single most important problem we face, and that's that doctors are under no legal obligation to provide services to patients.

Believe you me, I'm the first to admit that that is a very difficult problem to resolve, and there are huge obstacles in the way. But I think we can agree that change needs to occur, and it needs to occur soon.

Again to the minister: I believe that many, many British Columbians would support moving to an alternate system, with vigour and alacrity in that system, to salaried doctors. Can he at least agree that alternate models of payment could be and must be a key component of negotiation with doctors, which also requires them to then live up to their professional obligations to continue to provide service? The fee-for-service model doesn't allow that. A new relationship based on the alternate method of payment would allow for that.

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, we have been trying to build on exactly that. Just as a case in point, of the various places in the province where physicians are withdrawing services from their patients and denying access to care…. Where it is not taking place is in those facilities where there are alternative payments and salaried doctors in place.

The point we've been trying to make is that we do not believe that it's a one-size-fits-all model. If there are those doctors who believe that fee-for-service is the be-all and end-all, fine. We're going to set up a model for them. But we also want to facilitate the many, many doctors who would like to go on some kind of alternative payments or salaried model.

D. MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Forests. The overhaul of the Forest Practices Code is a key undertaking of this government. However, there are reports today in the media claiming that some groups have not been given the opportunity to provide input into this process. I'd like to ask the Minister of Forests to tell us what steps he has taken to ensure that all British Columbians are able to provide feedback on this important issue.

Hon. M. de Jong: We want all interested British Columbians to be involved in helping the government develop a truly results-based Forest Practices Code. We want the benefit of their opinions and advice prior to drafting and tabling legislation, hopefully, later this year in the fall.

To that end, we've developed a process which I think will ensure that everyone with an opinion on the government's discussion paper and what a results-based Forest Practices Code should look like will have the opportunity to present that opinion.

We have Dr. George Hoberg from the UBC forestry faculty coordinating the consultation effort. People can submit their written documents and proposals. They can access the website: www.resultsbasedcode.ca.

Most importantly, people can appear before an MLA committee that is travelling the province to over 14 communities. The member for North Island is chairing that committee. It's in Smithers today.

Finally, I'm very pleased to say that today the committee is hearing from the Bulkley Valley Communities Coalition, the historical association, small-scale salvagers, labour organizations, Northwest Natural Resources Network, the Bulkley Valley Cattlemen's Association, mayors, deputy mayors, woodlot associations, the Sierra Club and the LMRP lakes monitoring

committee. If you want to be heard on this one, you're going to have lots of opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine can find a supplementary for that.

D. MacKay: Again to the Minister of Forests. Protecting the environment is of utmost concern to all British Columbians. Can the Minister of Forests confirm that the results-based code will maintain B.C.'s high environmental standards?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's about protecting forests. It's about having the highest standards of environmental sustainability. It's about saying to workers and families who earn their living in forestry here in B.C. that we don't think of them as the enemy, and we actually want a Forest Practices Code that will give them an opportunity to use their inventiveness and use their ingenuity to achieve those highest levels of sustainability. It's about being able to say, as British Columbians, to the whole world that we harvest forests, we protect forests, and we do it better than anyone else in the whole world.

R. Nijjar: Recently the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise took part in a Team Canada trade mission to India. I understand the purpose of the trip was to look for new business opportunities for British Columbians. Will the minister tell us what he accomplished during this trip?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I was pleased to be the only other minister travelling with Minister Pettigrew from Canada on this mission. India, as some members would know, is the fourth-largest economy in the world, based on their purchasing power, and it's one of the fastest-growing markets in the world. The Indian economy is going through a deregulation. It's opening up, and there's going to be increased trade opportunities and investment opportunities. We're working together with the Council of Forest Industries, B.C. Wood and other industry sectors to develop a strategic plan to look at long-term trade opportunities with India for British Columbia businesses, families and communities.

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

R. Nijjar: If the softwood lumber dispute with the United States has taught us anything, it's that we must look for new emerging markets for our B.C. products. Will the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us what he's doing to follow up on the progress he has made in India?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Initially, we've identified four sectors for potential for British Columbia firms and employees: forest products, science and technology, environmental remediation and agriculture products. We are currently conducting our post-visit review and building strategic plans with each industrial sector, including the Council of Forest Industries, B.C. Wood Products, agriproducers and high-tech sectors here in British Columbia.

A. Hamilton: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Communities across Vancouver Island depend on the coastal marine industry to keep their economies thriving. The federal government recently introduced Bill C-47, which will effectively legislate an inequity on west coast ferry operators by imposing a tax on fuel that their Great Lakes counterparts are exempt from. Can the Minister of Transportation tell my constituents what she is doing to convince the federal government of the hardship this new tax will impose on B.C.'s marine operators?

Hon. J. Reid: Last year the Federal Court of Appeal did rule that this was inequity across Canada in the way that there was an exemption for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence marine operators, and our marine operators have to pay an excise tax on their marine diesel fuel. The response of the federal government was to introduce this legislation, Bill C-47, to keep this inequity that's been going on for the last 15 years. We have been responding very vigorously in opposition to this. It is not fair to the operators of B.C. There have been many, many ministers from this government who have been talking with their counterparts and protesting this and looking for ways of resolution.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I rise to make a ministerial statement related to the Employee Investment Act.

At the open cabinet meeting on August 15 of last year, I presented our government's principles with respect to reviewing and eliminating subsidies to businesses in British Columbia. As a result of my presentation, I was asked to include within my review the issue of venture capital tax credits insofar as the issue of fairness among these programs was concerned.

As my ministry conducted its review, I became increasingly concerned about the manner in which some decisions were made by the former government. Specifically, I am concerned about the process in which the former government amended its agreement with the Working Opportunity Fund. As we continued with our review, many questions came to mind. Was political pressure brought to bear? Was due process followed? Did the actions of the previous government

fetter the ability of future governments? Were the taxpayers of British Columbia knowingly put at risk?

In addition, I have concerns as to when the amended agreement was signed. Based on the materials presented to me, a number of further questions arise that I believe warrant further investigation, particularly around the fact that it appears a tremendous amount of pressure was brought to bear on this issue in the weeks and final days up to and possibly after the election day call of April 18.

I also have further concerns, Mr. Speaker. Based on the materials I have seen and the briefings I have received, it appears to me that, quite possibly, a member of the British Columbia public service was directed, either by senior elected representatives or their appointed political staff, to make sure the amended agreement was signed — against considerable advice of the public service.

This information has become known to me in discharging my responsibility as the minister responsible for reviewing and considering amendments to the Employee Investment Act and as the minister charged with the responsibility to eliminate business subsidies by government.

British Columbians expect their government to act with integrity to ensure that decisions are made in the public interest to manage against potential risk to the taxpayer, both for the present and for the future. Based on the materials presented to me, I can only reach one conclusion: the actions surrounding the amendment of the agreement do not appear to have served the public interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I believe an independent review of this matter is required. Accordingly, I am advising this House that by letter today I am requesting that the independent office of the auditor general of British Columbia review this matter and report back to this House as quickly as possible on his findings related to this matter.

J. MacPhail: I'm a bit taken aback by the fact that we have legislation introduced and then a ministerial statement of which we received no notice. My only question would be to you, Mr. Speaker, for consideration at a later date: how do the two relate? The ability for a government with an overwhelming majority, such as this, to introduce legislation and then also to take a run at some other issue that the matter deals with specifically under the legislation — for your consideration in the future….

J. MacPhail: Also, the fact that there's no notice ever given to the opposition of any of this….

Mr. Speaker: …reserves her right for a response. Your right for a response is reserved.

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

J. MacPhail: I think, Mr. Chair, we left it that I raised an issue about protecting the environmental values under section 13. The minister said — I'm paraphrasing now, but if I get it wrong, I'm happy for him to correct me — that the ultimate decision-making authority on the proper order of priority of values to take into consideration rests with the commission. Perhaps the minister could just cite for me in what part of the act the commission must determine the ranking of values.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd refer the member opposite to section 6, where it says "Purposes of the commission." "The following are the purposes of the commission: (a) to preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies."

J. MacPhail: Thank you. The question, though, was: under section 13, if a particular part of the community thinks a value has not been given its full weight in consideration by the facilitator, how does that value get weighted by the commission before a final decision is made?

Hon. S. Hagen: I assure the hon. member that this provision in section 13 does not prevent a facilitator from considering important environmental values when making a recommendation under this section to the commission and the local government, nor does this section or any other section prevent the commission from considering important environmental values when making a decision under the act. I assure you that the commission will continue to take many values and considerations into account when making decisions for land in an agricultural land reserve.

T. Christensen: I'm assuming that section 17 is a holdover from the previous act. Really, this section in particular is the one that has the potential to raise a number of concerns around private property rights, in that it allows the commission on its own initiative to identify land to be included in the agricultural land reserve, notwithstanding that the land might be owned by a private citizen. It's a section that has certainly been brought to my attention by some constituents, and they've raised a concern about that possibility.

Perhaps the minister, firstly, can confirm whether or not this section is a holdover from the previous act that really accounted for the establishment of the reserve back in 1972.

Perhaps the minister can give some indication of to what extent this section is ever used by the commission to effectively include additional land, perhaps against the wishes of the owner of that land.

J. MacPhail: Again, this is an area where it's difficult to debate because of the fact that the regulations are not before us. Let me just quote from section 20(1): "A person must not use agricultural land for a non-farm use unless permitted by this act, the regulations or an order of the commission." The regulation is absent. Could the minister tell me where in the act I can find a clear definition and examples of what the non-farm uses will be? Were they the ones the minister read off at the beginning of this debate, or are there others? Where would we actually find the listing of those?

Hon. S. Hagen: This section has not changed from the existing act. The non-farm uses are listed in the regulations, and they will be listed in the new regulations.

Hon. S. Hagen: The regulation may change, because there may be added permitted uses that have been granted by the commission in the past and will be added to the list.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that's my point, Mr. Chair. My point is that I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what changes will be in the regulations so that we can properly explore this part of the legislation.

J. MacPhail: Let me just ask this, then. This government is moving…. Let me just ask this straight up. Will oil and gas exploration now be a permitted non-farm use under the regulation?

Hon. S. Hagen: In answer to the member opposite, under section 26, there will be some delegation opportunities. One of those delegations might be to the Oil and Gas Commission, but those same uses are permitted under policy now.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister…. These aren't tough questions. I assume that the planning is well underway for what non-farm use changes will be permitted. The minister made it clear in his second reading remarks. Here's what he said: "This bill expands the power to delegate certain decision-making to other public bodies such as the Oil and Gas Commission…. This will facilitate streamlining of the process of permitting oil and gas wells."

We'll talk further about that under section 26, but under section 20, it would seem to me that the only way the minister can allow the Oil and Gas Commission to start determining the use of agricultural land would be to allow oil and gas exploration as a legislated non-farm use of agricultural land. Am I wrong? Am I missing something here? If the minister is planning on doing that, why can't he just admit it?

Hon. S. Hagen: Those uses that the member talked about are now allowed under policy. What we would be doing is using a different method of allowing them to occur. That would be under delegation agreements, where we will have a mutually agreed-to agreement and everybody will understand what the rules are, instead of having it in a more open way or, let's say, a more casual way through policy, which is the way it is done now.

J. MacPhail: I think the minister knows full well that there's a big difference in the legal challenges that can be made to a policy versus legislation.

Is the minister somehow saying that it's still up in the air about whether a non-farm use would be oil and gas exploration? Is that still open for debate?

J. MacPhail: Okay, so you know what? Maybe we'll just try, without actually saying it explicitly…. I'll say it, and the minister can remain silent — maybe acquiesce through silence. I expect and predict that the government will add to the regulations under section 20(1) that a non-farm use of oil and gas exploration will now be permitted through regulation.

D. Chutter: When a ranch business is broken up into a rural subdivision, not only is the commercial productive potential of the ranch lost, but the wildlife and plant community values are also put at risk. So often these small land holdings are heavily grazed, which certainly impacts the wildlife and other environmental values. This is particularly important in British Columbia because less than 2 percent of British Columbia is natural grasslands, and in many cases the rural subdivision activity is being concentrated in these areas.

When a ranch business is subdivided, the complications and interference of more people, more dogs, more stray cattle or other livestock, invading weeds, etc., can make it marginal for the adjacent ranch operations to continue. There's a real and sincere interest in keeping ranchland holdings intact as ongoing operating units.

Conservation covenants and the purchase of development rights are typically willing buyer, willing seller, non-regulatory processes that require no government funding. They are something that's being commonly used in places like Alberta and Montana, and they're often referred to as "keeping working ranches working." These tools give conservation organizations and ranchers themselves a chance to protect key sections of grasslands and croplands outside of any cost to or involvement of government.

In addition to an offer from a developer on a potential land site, the objective as voiced by some constituents of mine is to allow offers in a timely manner to a landowner in the form of a covenant or purchase of development right in order to maintain the business value and the environmental values.

These concerns expressed on section 22(2) will constrain the ability of a property owner to look at ways of protecting environmentally sensitive lands with conservation covenants.

The question I have for the minister is: will this particular section be an obstacle to allowing covenants and purchasing development rights to take place and to take place in a timely manner?

Hon. S. Hagen: First, let me start with the background here. Historically, the commission has reviewed conservation covenants for agricultural land as they were referred to them by the land titles office. Rather than have land titles refer these covenants to the commission, this section provides for the proponent to directly send a proposed covenant to the commission. This only occurs in instances where the covenant prohibits farm use of agricultural lands.

This section gives the commission the opportunity to ensure that agriculture considerations are taken into account when a covenant is proposed. The commission will not stand in the way of covenants as long as the agricultural considerations have been addressed. In the vast majority of situations, conservation covenants will simply be reviewed quickly and approved. In some instances, improvements may be suggested.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, and thank you to my colleague from Yale-Lillooet. I've had some of those same concerns.

I'm sure the minister is well aware of the West Coast Environmental Law Association concerns in this area as well. Is it his view that his commitment which was just read meets the test of what the West Coast Environmental Law Association is asking from the government?

I'll just quickly reiterate it. I think some of the points have been addressed by the member for Yale-Lillooet, but I will just try to get a double reassurance, if I may, from the minister.

The concern was that perhaps subsection (2) of section 22 gave the commission a new statutory power to refuse ecologically responsible covenants. I think the minister is trying to reassure that that is not the case. How is it that given the fact that there will be a much larger commission — 19 members operating by regional panels — this assurance about ecological conservation-based covenants will, in the minister's words, be, I hope, approved quickly and perhaps even improved upon? How can we be assured of that, given the basis that section 22(2) is written on almost a negative concept rather than a positive concept?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I did receive the letter from the West Coast Environmental Law Association.

With regard to section 22, as it is the commission's mandate to preserve agricultural land, it is only right that the commission also have the power to review conservation covenants which prohibit agriculture. The commission will continue its current process, as I think I said, of working with conservation organizations to review conservation covenants which affect ALR land.

This provision provides for a simple referral to the commission, not a formal application. As is now the case, the commission may make suggestions as to how environmental values and agricultural values can be better balanced. The commission does not anticipate refusing conservation covenants but rather ensuring that restrictions to protect environmental values also recognize the needs of agriculture.

The provision of the bill speaks only to prohibition of agriculture. I am assured that the commission does and will continue to agree to restrictions on agriculture where they are important environmental values.

The Chair: We have two amendments to this section. I'd like to deal with those amendments separately. The first amendment deals with subsection (1).

Hon. S. Hagen: We did deal with the first amendment this morning. Do we have to deal with it again?

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'll read the original clause that says "an agreement under subsection (1) between the commission and an authority may exempt a prescribed non-farm use in a specified area within the jurisdiction of the authority…." The amendment deletes the word "prescribed." Could the minister explain the purpose of the amendment?

Hon. S. Hagen: The difficulty is with the word "prescribed," as it requires that the uses exempted under the agreement must be listed in the regulation. Because it is difficult to anticipate all of those uses, such uses that the commission and a public body may wish to exempt, this part of the provision restricts the flexibility and scope of the delegation tool. Rather than continually adding to the regulation, identifying non-farm use exemptions is best left to the commission when negotiating an agreement with other public bodies.

J. MacPhail: Let me just ask, in the context of this amendment then, the broader question because it may be related to this amendment. That's why, Mr. Chair, I need to ask these questions before we vote on the amendment.

Again, we've sought some advice or had some advice given to us by the West Coast Environmental Law Association about section 26. Section 26 is fairly key in that it delegates the authority to local governments and other authorities such as the Oil and Gas Commission to determine non-farm use of agricultural land, as far as I read the legislation. It's fairly key. It means now that local governments and even some bodies like the Oil and Gas Commission are going to be able to determine land use on agricultural land.

The minister has read out the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission. It's found in section 6.

The concern is that we used to have the Agricultural Land Commission making decisions around land use on agricultural land. That authority is now being delegated, as far as I can tell. But it may be delegated to an authority that has, as another part of its job, a mandate completely in conflict with proper use of agricultural land.

Before we explore that broader concept, my first question is: by removing the word "prescribed" so that now it reads "an agreement under subsection (1) between the commission and an authority may exempt non-farm use in a specified area within the jurisdiction," does the minister see that as strengthening the protection of agricultural land, in that there will be fewer non-farm uses available, or the flip side of that?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer to the question is that I don't believe it's going to change, actually, the way it's happening now. It's just that we're doing it through the voluntary delegation agreements.

J. MacPhail: I'm curious as to why we're having this legislation if not much is going to change. I'm always curious when a government which is so intent on changing things from the past says: "Oh, don't worry. The legislation doesn't change anything." And not only should we not worry, but "even the amendment to our original concept of what we wanted to change isn't going to change anything."

Perhaps the minister could say what the intent of this is. Is it to narrow the exemptions? We have the words "exemption, non-farm use." Is the intention here, by deleting the word "prescribed," to allow an authority greater exemptions or fewer exemptions for non-farm use?

Hon. S. Hagen: Once the agreements are done — they're done on a voluntary basis — then the authority conducts audits and reports to the commission as required by the agreement. The other thing is that the agreement can be cancelled by either party after giving notice. There are checks and balances as to what's going on with the agreement, and pretty strong steps can be taken if things aren't being done correctly.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, Mr. Chair, we're into broader discussions under section 26, but maybe, if I could beg your indulgence, I'll complete this discussion before we pass the amendment. The votes can be taken at the same time then. I need to have the discussion before we pass the amendment on 26.

Let's just take a step back, then. If the minister is just saying that this law is now confirming voluntary

delegation agreements, could he give an example of a voluntary delegation agreement that exists?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't have the agreement with me, but the commission does have an agreement with the Fraser–Fort George regional district.

J. MacPhail: Okay. We're going to be really expanding delegation agreements, I would assume. Maybe we're not; I don't know. What's the minister's view if the delegation agreement is to an authority that has a conflicting mandate — for instance, a local government that needs to expand residential housing in order to meet a burgeoning population?

Hon. S. Hagen: The agreement would have to be based on a community plan done by the community, which the commission has supported.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that there will not be arising…? I mean, we only have one example of a delegated agreement so far. Or maybe there are others; I don't know. They're certainly not in areas like in the Okanagan, where the mandate of a rapidly developing urban area butts right up against some of the best agricultural land around. I would assume that in those particular cases there could be tensions.

How does a delegation agreement resolve those tensions or the conflicts that may arise out of them? I'm trying to read quickly to find the section that the minister said guarantees either party can cancel the delegation agreement. Could he just quote that section of the legislation, please?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's not in the legislation. It's part of the delegation agreement.

J. MacPhail: What's part of the agreement? Is there a template agreement that will now be entered into that allows for either party to cancel?

Again, I think people are looking for assurances that are written down, legislated, so I'm not sure what the minister's referring to.

Hon. S. Hagen: What I'm referring to is the delegation agreement — okay? I thought that's what we were talking about. We're talking about the delegation agreement. The delegation agreement has in it a clause that it can be cancelled by either party.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I'm just part of the great unwashed asking these questions. The delegation agreement is now legislated. It never was before, as far as I understand it. Is there a template, like a standard Coles Notes version that you pull off the Internet, which has that clause in it that will remain?

Hon. S. Hagen: Fortunately for the people of the province, those old days of prescriptive ways of dealing with things are gone. The ability to delegate through delegation agreements was in the old legislation. That's how the agreement was done with Fraser–Fort George regional district.

Each agreement will be tailored to the municipality that it's doing the agreement with. One size does not necessarily fit all, so we're trying to be as flexible as possible in dealing with the municipalities. At the same time we're protecting the overall need to preserve farmland in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Okay, let me try it this way: will every delegation agreement that is signed have a clause in it that allows either party to cancel the delegation agreement?

What about the situation about…? Let me just give you another example of where two bodies might be in conflict around use under this matter. I notice that the minister uses an example in second reading debate that there could be a delegation agreement now with the Oil and Gas Commission.

I also note the member from Surrey had moved an amendment but then withdrew the amendment. The mining industry, under the mining act, is solely responsible for reclamation, as far as I can tell. There's no requirement for reclamation…. One of the authorities of the Agricultural Land Commission is not to make sure that reclamation occurs. Could there be a conflict…? Will there ever be a delegation agreement that would delegate land use decisions that would be in conflict, for instance, between agricultural land and reclamation that is now solely the responsibility of the mining industry under the Mines Act?

Hon. S. Hagen: That would be written into the delegation agreement. If there was an area that had to be reclaimed, the Mines Act would have to be fulfilled and the area would have to be reclaimed.

J. MacPhail: My understanding is that there are mines within the agricultural land reserve. Is the minister aware of that, or is that not the case?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm informed that there aren't many, if any, full-scale mines, but there are gravel extraction areas that take place.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that is part of the Mines Act as well. That is considered mining activity.

If there is a conflict…. Let me just approach it from this perspective. If there is an exhausted mine that is being reclaimed under the Mines Act, who gets to determine…? Is that just the responsibility of the authority legislated under the Mines Act, or does the regional

Hon. S. Hagen: If the land in question is in the ALR, then the regional panel would have a say in that.

J. MacPhail: I just want to ask one more question on the Oil and Gas Commission under this particular section, section 26.

The West Coast Environmental Law Association and many others have pointed out that one delegation authority under consideration — we've already discussed this — is from the Agricultural Land Commission to the Oil and Gas Commission. The mandate of that commission in facilitating oil and gas development is potentially in conflict with the purposes of the Agricultural Land Commission.

I actually had a staff person in our office get out the two conflicting mandates, comparing section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act with the purposes section, section 3, of the Oil and Gas Commission Act.

I can read those into the record, but it's pretty clear that the purposes of the two commissions, the Agricultural Land Commission and the Oil and Gas Commission, are in conflict. How is it that the integrity of the agricultural land reserve is protected, is guaranteed in any delegated authority under an agreement under section 26, to another commission, the Oil and Gas Commission, whose purposes are completely different and in conflict?

Hon. S. Hagen: Under delegation, the authority given the deregulated powers will be required to report on its decisions and audit the performance of approved development in the ALR. For example, the Oil and Gas Commission will audit oil and gas development in the ALR to ensure that soil reclamation is carried out according to specific standards once the oil and gas extraction is finished.

The commission retains the authority for use of ALR land under the delegation agreement.

J. MacPhail: In other words…. Just for the public, it would probably be helpful when we're referring to a commission that we refer to the Agricultural Land Commission versus the Oil and Gas Commission.

Is the minister somehow suggesting that the Oil and Gas Commission won't have delegated authority to determine actual non-farm land use?

Hon. S. Hagen: They have the authority under the delegation agreement. The agreement will also ensure that the reclamation takes place.

J. MacPhail: Let me just ask this, then. The Agricultural Land Commission has as its legislated purpose "(a) to preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies."

Okay, so that's the Agricultural Land Commission. That purpose, that authority, could be delegated under section 26, the section we're talking about now. The minister says one of the authorities it could be delegated to is the Oil and Gas Commission under the Oil and Gas Commission Act.

One purpose of the Oil and Gas Commission is to provide "…for the sound development of the oil and gas sector, by fostering a healthy environment, a sound economy and social well being." Another one is to assist "…owners of oil and gas resources to participate equitably in the production of shared pools of oil and gas."

In just those two — and I just take those out as two — you're delegating the authority for the preserve of agricultural land to an Oil and Gas Commission whose authority exists to develop oil and gas fields. Isn't there any room? Wouldn't that set off a big light saying: "Whoa, just a second here. There could be conflict of purposes here"?

Hon. S. Hagen: Not at all. Oil and gas extraction can occur, farmers can earn income from the surface leases, and the land can be rehabilitated for agriculture. The two uses are compatible.

J. MacPhail: Well, I must say, many people would doubt that they're compatible at all.

The section. The West Coast Environmental Law has made some suggestions about incompatibility and about how amendments could be. I'm sure the minister has received this correspondence. He hasn't proposed to table these amendments, so I can assume that the government isn't interested in making these amendments, but let me read them into the record anyway, in case it turns out that there is conflict.

Here they are. The West Coast Environmental Law says that in order to narrow the possibility for conflict, to more narrowly circumscribe the terms under which the Agricultural Land Commission may delegate its authority, more narrowly limit the types of powers that the Agricultural Land Commission may delegate to exclude decisions in which conflicting mandates occur, specifically address the potential for conflicting mandates by establishing a clear test for the exercise of the delegated authority that is consistent with section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act and provide for the cancellation of delegation agreements where the purposes of the act are not being satisfactorily met….

I think the minister has made a commitment to the last test — that every delegation agreement will include a cancellation clause that either party can cancel.

I'm just reading those into the record. Those were helpful suggestions on how any possibility of conflict between the delegated authority and the purpose of this act could be avoided.

J. MacPhail: I was going to ask a question just before we carry on here on section 26. Do the regional panels set up have the same powers for ensuring that there's no conflict as did the former panel? For instance, on the issue of reclamation, do the regional panels have exactly the same authority under this act to deal with proper reclamation that the previous provincial panel did?

J. MacPhail: This is the section under the legislation that expands the delegation of regulation-making on numerous matters that really are integral to the purpose of the agricultural land reserve. I'm just putting it on the record. I mean, it's quite a substantial expansion from the previous act in terms of regulation-making authority, and we don't have the regulations there. We've already explored that matter.

The minister has made a commitment to take 90 days to consult with stakeholders before the regulations are passed. Given the fact that the minister has said he will consult with stakeholders, I do hope he will consult with people such as the West Coast Environmental Law Association, who have made some very helpful suggestions.

There are organizations in this province who consider the preservation of agricultural land to be very, very important. They are not farmers and are not in the business of production of food at all but understand the value of preservation of agricultural land. I urge the minister to include in the consultation around regulations the organizations such as the West Coast Environmental Law Association.

J. MacPhail: This is the section that repeals substantial portions of the Forest Land Reserve Act. Essentially, the amendments from section 64 through to section 80 have the effect of repealing the forest land reserve. I just want to make some comments here about the repeal of that.

The effect of these changes to sections 64 through 80, which essentially gut the Forest Land Reserve Act, repeals the fundamental purpose of why the forest land reserve was created. I'm going to put that on the record. The intent of the reserve was to provide a more open and accountable process for the conversion of managed forest land to urban and rural development. That was a trade-off that was actually agreed upon as a counterbalance to the generous property tax treatment that such land receives under the Assessment Act.

Privately held forest land got very, very beneficial tax assessments, so to counterbalance that, there was an act created, and it was agreed upon, frankly. It was agreed upon — there's no question — by community, forest companies and local governments that the trade-off for that favourable tax treatment was that the forest companies who were going to convert it from managed forest land to urban or even, in some cases, rural development would have to live with the tenets of the Forest Land Reserve Act.

It was a major issue. I'm surprised that the member who represents the Gulf Islands, for instance, is not up speaking to this, because this was a key issue in the Gulf Islands and also on eastern Vancouver Island where forest companies were getting into the real estate development business. They were selling off large private forest land holdings. They didn't conduct very much in the way of public process, and then, with the sale of that private forest land, they increasingly turned to the use of publicly owned Crown forest land for timber harvesting. There was a shift in pressure from the private lands to the publicly owned forest lands with no accountability by the forest companies for that shift. All the while, the forest companies also benefited from very favourable tax treatment under the Assessment Act.

This agreement, this covenant, this legislation that had been agreed upon by all to hold that shift somehow in check or to provide balance is gone now with the repeal of the Forest Land Reserve Act. It was a bit surprising that neither the explanatory notes in this legislation nor the minister's comments at either first or second reading in any way hinted that that balance now was gone completely with the repeal. In fact, the minister said the repeal of these sections of the Forest Land Reserve Act was an important step in facilitating improved management of both our agricultural and private forest lands.

I'm going to read into the record just how wrong that is and how misleading, frankly, the explanatory notes of the bill are in terms of what this does. We're repealing the key purpose of the Forest Land Reserve Act, and that's done by now removing any reference to having to minimize the impact of urban development and rural area settlement on the forest land base. That's gone; that protection is gone.

Section 66 under the Forest Land Reserve Act: removal of Crown land from the forest land reserve. However, this could perhaps be a shift that is good because it means that private forest land may have to be regulated or enforced under the Forest Act or the B.C. Forest Practices Code, and that may be a good step. However, I predict that public forest land is going to come under some sort of working forest legislation that precludes any shift of private forest land into better public legal enforcement. Let me just say that this issue will, I hope, be explored under the review of the Forest Practices Code and not be a move away, to less environmental protection by the removal of Crown land from the forest land reserve.

Section 72 is the repeal of the tax recapture provisions. Managed forest land, privately owned forest land, gets a significant break on property taxes. The purpose of the tax recapture provision was to provide some incentive to keep private forest land in the reserve as a counterbalance to tax concession benefits. The benefits remain under the Assessment Act, but the counterbalance is now repealed with this section.

Sections 67 and 70 are a repeal of consultation with local governments. That section that's being repealed required that the government had to consult local governments concerning applications to remove private land from the reserve. They are presently required to be consulted over how these decisions impact official community plans, services and growth issues. This repeal means that local governments, including the Islands Trust, will no longer have any legislative certainty that they be consulted. I expect many communities around this province will see this as a step back.

Section 71 repeals the criteria for removal of land from the forest land reserve. It not only removes the criteria that one has to consider before removing land from the forest land reserve, but it also removes the requirement to consider local government input and the requirement to even give reasons for the removal decisions. Under the new provision, the Agricultural Land Commission can make these decisions whenever it considers it to be "in the public interest." There are those who say that this change removes openness and accountability in decision-making.

Section 74 is the repeal of the opportunity for public involvement. Again, this is all in the context of the Forest Land Reserve Act. This section takes away the authority of the Agricultural Land Commission to provide notice to the public and to hold public meetings and hearings in relation to applications before the commission. Again, this is a loss of openness and accountability.

Those are all the changes that have occurred as a result of the repeal of these very important sections to really render the Forest Land Reserve Act emasculated. It is really hard to get any of that sense, frankly, from reading the section notes or from the minister's comments that somehow say that this is improved management of private forest lands.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 50; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Looking at the act, essentially sections 1 through 13 deal with consequential amendments related to the Technical University of British Columbia Act. The main thrust of the changes around the Tech B.C. provision falls under section 14, so I'll be asking most of my questions of the minister under section 14.

J. Kwan: Section 14, which is section 19 of the act, is added with the following. It allows the minister to appoint a transition administrator for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the university. It allows for the appointment of the transition administrator to rescind the appointments of the members of the board of governors. It enables the transition administrator to become the board of the university. The transition administrator may also exercise the powers and duties given to the president. It further allows the minister to direct the transition administrator to transfer the rights, property, assets, obligations and liabilities of the university as directed by the minister. That's all under section 19.1 .

Section 19.2 repeals the Technical University of B.C. Act by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I understand that the minister has made plans to place Tech B.C. under the leadership of SFU. Could the minister please advise us what plans the minister has in place to ensure that the SFU Surrey campus will offer the same programs that were offered through Tech B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: Simon Fraser University has made a commitment, and has made it very publicly, that they are going to work very hard to accommodate the students that are currently students at Tech B.C. They are going to also have the opportunity to achieve a Simon Fraser University degree.

J. Kwan: Will SFU be able to change the programming offered at the Surrey campus?

Hon. S. Bond: Simon Fraser University is working very hard to maintain the integrity of the programming of Tech B.C. They are also going to look at expanding the offerings at the Surrey campus. I am confident that the students currently enrolled will receive a phenomenal education as a result of the partnership with Simon Fraser University.

J. Kwan: Can SFU offer courses in disciplines other than technology training at the Surrey campus?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the campus is now a satellite campus of Simon Fraser University. They will be looking, I'm sure, at the opportunities available for students. That's a decision of Simon Fraser University. Our goal is to ensure that the students currently enrolled at Tech B.C. will be taken care of and will have the ability to complete a degree.

J. Kwan: The issue for Tech B.C., I think, is not just relative to the students enrolled there now. It is also, of course, the whole purpose of Tech B.C., its future and its original intention to provide an alternative marrying business technologies, instructional technologies and interactive arts in such a way that the research generated viable real-world projects. The reason I say this is this. It's not just I who has this sentiment. There are others who share this sentiment as well.

I received a copy of a letter that was sent to the Minister of Education from her constituent. This letter was also sent to all the other MLAs as well. Of all the many letters I and the opposition have received around Tech B.C., this one really puts it well from the perspective of why Tech B.C. was so attractive and from the perspective of why Tech B.C. is so important. Therefore, the issues around the future of Tech B.C. are not just related to the students enrolled there now, but also at a later date.

Let me just read parts of the letter onto the record, and maybe I can get the minister to comment on the issues that have been raised. The letter starts by saying:

Then, skipping down a little bit: bsp; "Both bsp; "When bsp; "Coming bsp; "I've bsp; "After bsp; "The

The letter was written prior to the change, so the president that's referenced, of course, is the former president of Tech B.C.

I think the writer actually put the issues of Tech B.C. together very well. It highlighted the reasons why she and her husband and others came to British Columbia and how they furthered their career development in this exciting field. It recognized the opportunities that Tech B.C. was envisioned for and the opportunities then, of course, that flow to all British Columbians for the future.

Now we have a situation where the minister advised that she is uncertain whether or not SFU will be able to change the programming offered at the Surrey campus. That decision is still yet to be made by SFU. Whether or not SFU will offer courses in disciplines other than technology training at the Surrey campus, if they do proceed, it would ultimately change the face of Tech B.C. and the purpose in which the university was set up.

Maybe the minister can advise, then: has the minister provided guidelines about the programs that should be offered at the Surrey campus?

Hon. S. Bond: No. What the minister did do was try to find a home and an ongoing program for students who currently are partway through a program in an institution which was unsustainable. So in fact, what we did was have Simon Fraser University agree to look at the programming options that are currently at Tech B.C. and make sure that the students would be able to continue in those programs.

In addition, because of the role of post-secondary education in Surrey, we believe that Simon Fraser University will capitalize on this opportunity to provide extended opportunities for students in that area. I should point out that Simon Fraser University, in terms of faculty, is working very hard to accommodate as many of the faculty that currently work at Tech B.C. as possible, recognizing the professionals that are there. They're working very hard at accommodating as many staff people as possible.

J. Kwan: Well, the only assurances that the minister has given, based on her answer, would be for the current students that are now there. There is a big question in terms of the future and the initial vision, if you will, of Tech B.C. for students not just for today but for tomorrow as well.

Tech B.C. is an innovative and dynamic organization that delivers high-quality, high-tech training to people of B.C. Tech B.C. is the only university hybrid in Canada. At Tech B.C. learning takes place in the classroom, in the real world and in the virtual world. It gives students the right mix of theory, hands-on prac-

tice and workplace skills in a high-tech environment. Research happens in interdisciplinary teams, addressing such areas as design management, on-line learning systems, human-computer interfaces and computer game systems.

Tech B.C. is an initiative that should be supported and encouraged, yet the government has chosen to hinder this innovative organization by eliminating the governing board of the university and making Tech B.C. a satellite campus of SFU. The only reassurance so far from the minister is that the students that are now enrolled will be able to complete their program. Again, I go to the point: what about the future?

Why hasn't the minister provided guidelines about programs that should be offered at the Surrey campus to ensure that the vision of Tech B.C. is going to be safeguarded and protected and so that the technology fields for the future would have an opportunity to flourish with a separate campus out at the Surrey site?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I will repeat this one more time. What we have done is ensured that there will be a presence of a post-secondary institution in Surrey, that the calibre of programming offered will be offered by the second-best comprehensive university in the country. I should just point out that as Simon Fraser University is getting ready for the fall offerings, they have actually just hired 26 faculty members that will teach in the areas of information technology and interactive arts to 400 students in two undergraduate programs and to 30 graduate students.

We know that Simon Fraser University intends to double the number of students attending the Surrey campus focusing in those areas. The list of faculty members that have been hired for the Surrey campus is extraordinary. They are from Stanford and a variety of places already mentioned by the member opposite.

In fact, Simon Fraser University in Surrey will hold an open house on May 15 to showcase its programs to potential students and the wider community. They will be able to see a virtual reality lab and meet students and faculty at the state-of-the-art campus.

That sounds to me like SFU intends not only to continue the programming that currently exists but to look at new and innovative programs. We're excited about the opportunity for current and future students at that campus.

J. Kwan: Just following on the line of questioning that I'm putting forward for flow in this House. If the minister states she's not concerned in terms of potential redirection of Tech B.C. since it is being taken over by SFU, then why won't the minister outline that explicitly to SFU? That is, say that SFU needs to ensure that the technological training at the Surrey campus is being maintained — yes, it could be expanded on as well, but it cannot diminish or reduce in substance or size — and that the changing of the programming offered at the Surrey campus has to be technology-centred and cannot be diverted into other disciplines. That's so that you actually maintain a centre of excellence, if you will, in the educational system in the technology area, to ensure that that is actually in place. Why won't the minister give that directive?

Hon. S. Bond: When we assessed the proposals for what we would do with the Tech B.C. situation, the proposal that Simon Fraser presented to us included academic programming, the costs and the transition plan for students. In fact, the Simon Fraser campus at Surrey will be contributing to doubling the number of graduates in computer science and electrical and computer engineering over the next five years. It's clear that Simon Fraser University will be continuing the excellence in information technology. They will be expanding opportunities for students in Surrey.

The Minister of Advanced Education does not tell universities what they should be offering. What we did was make an arrangement with Simon Fraser University to ensure that students currently enrolled in the Tech B.C. program would have the opportunity to complete a degree, and we ensured an ongoing post-secondary presence in Surrey.

J. Kwan: Well, if the minister is as certain as she appears to claim she is around the future of Tech B.C…. One would have thought, though, not to micromanage SFU in its management of Tech B.C. but rather to say that it is the expectation of government that the field of excellence for technology, development and training be maintained in the centre of Tech B.C….

I know the minister has stated that there's a commitment that over the next five years the number of graduates in the computer science field, etc., will be doubled. The minister is actually looking at the notion of the existing graduates. That's the only area in which she's prepared to put a directive forward to say that existing graduates should have the opportunity to graduate with their degree.

I want to make the point that we need to go beyond that. It's not just the next five years that we need to think about but rather into the future. The whole reason why Tech B.C. was established was precisely to create a centre of excellence in technological training and opportunities in British Columbia. In fact, it is the only school that offers such a combination in such an exciting field for an alternate form of economic development in the new-age job opportunities for British Columbians.

If the minister is not prepared to say to SFU that the programming and preservation of Tech B.C. should be maintained at the minimum, will the minister please advise if she has taken any measures to ensure that the funding targeted for Tech B.C. is put into the SFU Surrey campus and that SFU cannot redirect that funding to its other campuses or programs?

Hon. S. Bond: Simon Fraser University, as other universities and post-secondary institutions in this province, receives an envelope of funding. We have

made arrangements for transition costs to assist Simon Fraser University in taking care of the students that currently exist there. Simon Fraser will receive a funding envelope to address the number of students that currently attend Simon Fraser, including the Surrey campus.

J. Kwan: There is no separate allocation of the funds, then, to ensure that the funding which was formerly directed at Tech B.C. would remain at that campus. It's just one general pool that falls within SFU, and it's up to SFU to determine how the funds will be allocated.

Hon. S. Bond: Simon Fraser University will receive funding for the Surrey campus, as it does for all the other facilities, based on the students that attend there. It will become part of the regular funding package for Simon Fraser University. We have made arrangements, also, to include transition costs that Simon Fraser will need to use to take care of the transition of the Tech B.C. students.

We have been pleased with the progress made by Simon Fraser at Surrey, and we are going to continue to fund Simon Fraser University for the Surrey campus as we do other institutions in the province.

B. Locke: I want to thank the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for her interest in Surrey, but clearly she's pretty out of touch.

I just want to read a quick note from one of the editorials in the local newspaper.

I just wanted to ask the minister if she can tell us how SFU will be protected, or will protect itself, in the future so that it will continue in a solid way in Surrey.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you for the question. It's Simon Fraser University day in Victoria today, so as a matter of fact we've had the opportunity to meet with Simon Fraser University today. They see this as an ongoing opportunity for expansion of opportunities for students in this particular area. I know they are excited and thinking ahead not just about maintaining and looking at the programs that are excellent from Tech B.C. but at other opportunities for students in the province. Access continues to be a challenge for us, and we think this is a great news story.

I know that Simon Fraser plans to double the number of students participating in this program to 800 within the next couple of years. I think it's a great start and really good progress. Simon Fraser has made an excellent case, and I think the people of Surrey are very pleased. It will be a great opportunity for students.

B. Penner: I have a question for the minister, but first, before I get to that, I'd just like to offer my comments. I did not, unfortunately, have an opportunity yesterday or when the bill was up for second reading to make my remarks.

I want to commend the minister and the government for having the courage to make the right decision. The previous government embarked on many ambitious programs in B.C. for political reasons, and we are all left paying the price for those decisions. It takes courage to do the right thing, and sometimes you take some flak for doing the right thing. I do want to commend the government for doing what I think is absolutely in the best interests of the students currently at Tech B.C. and students throughout the post-secondary education system in British Columbia.

There's no doubt in my mind that this was a decision that had to be made. I stand here as a member of the Legislature who was here in 1996 and on, who, during every estimates process for the Ministry of Advanced Education, would ask questions to whoever the minister of the day was, and it was a revolving door in that ministry: "What is the total projected cost for the Technical University of British Columbia?" I never once got a straight answer.

Not in five years did I get a straight answer to that very simple question, and that told me pretty well everything I needed to know. It was going to be another NDP financial disaster along the lines of fast ferries, the Skeena Cellulose bailout and other ill-conceived projects that the previous government unfortunately embarked upon at the expense of future British Columbians and current British Columbians who are left to pick up the tab.

I know that it's uncomfortable at times to do the right thing, but in my view it's absolutely necessary to clean up the mess of the last ten years and get on and make the right decisions so we have resources for our students who are counting on the ability to access education in an ongoing fashion and to receive high-quality education.

My question to the minister: can she tell the House what type of response she has received from other post-secondary institutions — I'm thinking particularly of university colleges in the lower mainland — on this decision to merge Tech B.C. with SFU?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the comments. This was a very difficult decision, but it was centred on one thing. We wanted to find a solution that was best for students in this province. I can honestly tell you that in discussing the reaction of students to the decision we

made, as recently as at lunchtime today, an overwhelming majority of them have said: "Yes, with Simon Fraser University, it will work. It's a good model. We're pleased about that opportunity."

The choice was simple — an institution that was unsustainable. The numbers were not growing. We believe that with Simon Fraser University looking at integrating these programs into a Simon Fraser University degree, this program not only is going to be maintained but will flourish in Surrey. That is the responsibility of the minister and this ministry, and that's what we did.

In terms of looking at the reaction of Kwantlen University College in particular, I can't begin to tell you how pleased I am about the sense of partnership that's beginning to develop. While there were relationships there before as they served the needs of students, actually, Kwantlen University College in particular has welcomed Simon Fraser University to Surrey and has already begun to have discussions about how two institutions together can better serve the students in that particular area. It is a great beginning, a great partnership, and it will bring benefit to the students not just in this area but in British Columbia as SFU serves students around this province.

J. Kwan: It is appalling to hear the members suggesting that the notion of Tech B.C. was a boondoggle, because that is what the member is trying to suggest. Tech B.C. was an innovation that was brought about in trying to highlight technology opportunities and technology training opportunities in British Columbia to the point, actually, that Surrey council passed a motion in support of Tech B.C.

You know, the members from Surrey…. I know it is the practice of this government and the government Liberal MLAs not to stand and advocate on behalf of their constituents. It is the practice — I've now come to understand that close to a year after the government was elected — for them not to stand up for their own community. I've seen it time and time again, and I guess Tech B.C. is no different.

The Surrey council actually passed a motion in support of Tech B.C., and you know what? Tech B.C. was something that the previous government had thought about and innovated. Through that, there were people who came from other countries, who came to British Columbia because of the existence of Tech B.C.

Hon. Chair, if you're wondering how the question that I'm asking is related to the section that we're dealing with, it is related because what we're talking about is the dissolving of Tech B.C.

Yes, the minister says: "Well, we have found someone to take over Tech B.C., and that is SFU." I don't have a problem with SFU necessarily. I should say that right off the top; I'm a graduate of SFU. I graduated from Simon Fraser University, the Burnaby campus. It's a fine institution. Make no mistake about it. They graduate many individuals out of SFU. It's not about SFU and their ability to take over an institution.

The question that I'm asking of the minister centres around whether or not there is a commitment from this minister to ensure that the innovation that began in Tech B.C., that started to build in Tech B.C., would actually be maintained and that as a base minimum level, it would be expanded on.

I expect that with Tech B.C. under the leadership of SFU, if there is the commitment from government to ensure that it is expanded upon in terms of the technological innovations as an institution, SFU will be able to do that. I don't doubt that for one moment in terms of their capabilities. But Tech B.C. was set up with a prescribed mandate. The mandate was to ensure that British Columbia becomes the number one institution in offering technological training in an innovative way. I want to make sure that that is being preserved through this transition process.

I also want to make sure that there is a Surrey campus as well, because the site which was chosen was not only chosen for the purposes of an institution to allow for educational opportunities but also to bring economic spinoff opportunities into Surrey. That's why I suspect Surrey council supports Tech B.C.

I want to ask the minister this question. So far, what's she been advising the House is that there is no particular requirement for SFU to maintain the programming being offered at the Surrey campus. There is no particular requirement for SFU to not offer courses in disciplines other than technology. There's no requirement for SFU to ensure that the funding target for Tech B.C. is actually put into the Surrey SFU campus.

Let me ask the minister this question: will the board of governors at Tech B.C. continue to run the Surrey SFU campus?

Hon. S. Bond: The campus that's located in Surrey will be the Simon Fraser University campus in Surrey. It will be part of the responsibility of the board of Simon Fraser University.

I want to make very clear to the member opposite that looking at a solution for the Tech B.C. situation was based on what we could do to protect the interests of students at an institution where the notion wasn't inappropriate; it was the management. It was the tying of a particular institution to an extraordinarily expensive piece of real estate which made it financially unsustainable.

In fact, what we've done is protected the best interests of students. Not only are they going to continue their innovative programming, you're talking about a university that operates currently on a tri-semester system that has a reputation for innovation that exceeds many other institutions across Canada. In fact, we're giving students an opportunity in Surrey to continue their innovative programming but to look at other opportunities as well. That's our responsibility, and that's the job we're going to continue to do as government.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps on saying that investment in the community is not sustainable. We see that

throughout this government in a whole bunch of different branches. We see the Attorney General cutting legal aid offices. All 26 offices in legal aid throughout the province — sorry, not 26; it's actually over 50 legal aid offices — are being eliminated, I believe. All of those are being cut down because the government says they're not sustainable. Courthouses are being shut down because they're not sustainable. Women's centres are being shut down because they're not sustainable.

The Chair: I think it's important, member, that you stay to the subject with the Minister of Advanced Education, please.

J. Kwan: How it is relevant, Mr. Chair, to this issue here is because the minister says that all of these issues are not sustainable. When we invest in communities, it is up to the government to decide whether or not we want, as a priority, to invest in a particular community. Tech B.C. is one of those examples, whether or not we want to invest in that community in such a way that would actually sustain the community — and not only sustain the community but assist the community to flourish economically, culturally, educationally and in every aspect as well.

This government has taken the pattern. They believe that all those kinds of investments are not sustainable. We see communities shut down throughout British Columbia. Schools are closing; courthouses are closing. We see women's centres closing. We see education centres closing. What's next? What's next if government is not there to ensure that we invest in the community?

I believe in that. I do believe that the community should be invested in and that government should make that their top priority.

If the minister says that Tech B.C. is not financially sustainable, can the minister then advise us how much money she anticipates saving as a result of making Tech B.C. part of SFU?

Hon. S. Bond: The Simon Fraser University proposal — now program — will save $22.4 million over three years while maintaining the current programming, doubling the number of students to 800 and expanding the choice for students in Surrey.

R. Masi: I was not here for the second reading. I would just like to possibly make a comment on the situation in Surrey relative to Tech B.C.

R. Masi: In the suggestion that Tech B.C. was a good concept, I must agree that any endeavour towards an educational objective like that is a positive thing. However, it has to work right to be viable. Tech B.C. was not working in terms of an economic thrust, and therefore something had to be done.

I want to refer back to the whole concept of what is really needed in the Surrey–North Delta–Langley area. That, of course, is a full university. That is what all the committees that were formed over the years were aiming for, not a specialty situation, which is what in fact Tech B.C. turned out to be.

The ultimate objective of the people — I'm talking about the people that worked hard to bring a university to the Surrey area — was for a full university. I think what has happened is that the minister has worked hard to present a very sound alternative, a better alternative, to a specialty university. What we're looking at now for the future is a comprehensive university, which I hope will serve the people better and meet the aims of all those committees that worked hard to bring a real university to the area. That's very important.

In terms of the economic advantage, there's no question that Tech U had an opportunity to bring economic advantage to Surrey but failed in it. That was a failure of management, and it was an economic failure.

My question to the minister in terms of where we are right now is: will the minister give support to the aims and objectives of Simon Fraser at the present time in order to broaden the capabilities of the Simon Fraser Surrey campus?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the Simon Fraser University campus at Surrey is a win-win solution. It provides us with the opportunity to ensure that students who are enrolled at Tech B.C. will have an opportunity to complete the degrees that they began, working with Simon Fraser University now to do that. I know that the integrity of the programming and the commitment to that high-quality programming will be maintained by Simon Fraser University, and yes, I believe that Simon Fraser University has an exciting future in store for the Surrey campus. I think it is up to the university to work with the residents of Surrey and with the students who attend there to look at the needs of that particular area and create an institution which meets the needs of that area of our province.

J. Kwan: I have to say it seems to me that from this government's point of view, the only thing that is sustainable for this government is the big tax cuts given to big corporations and the wealthiest British Columbians. You wouldn't know it otherwise, because every other investment, being asked by government to invest in communities…. They say it's not sustainable, and it's economically not viable.

J. Kwan: Oh, thank you for the guidance, Mr. Chair. I thought we were engaging in second reading debate, because I heard member after member get up

and say they didn't have the opportunity to respond to this bill under second reading debate. We heard that from the member for Delta North; we heard that from the member for Chilliwack-Kent. Pardon me. I thought we were engaging in second reading debate. Oh, actually, we're doing third reading debate in this bill. I see.

Will the minister please advise: when will SFU officially take over the Tech B.C. campus in Surrey?

Hon. S. Bond: This legislation is necessary for us to begin the formal transfer of assets, etc. Having said that, Simon Fraser University and the staff and the transition system at Tech B.C. are currently underway. As has been pointed out today, even in the press release I received just on May 13, as a matter of fact, the faculty has been hired in terms of the fall opening, and progress is being made.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer the question. When will SFU officially take over Tech B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: The formal date of that arrangement has not been arranged at this point in time. We need to get the legislation through the House. The transition issues are being dealt with as we speak.

Most importantly, students' needs are being taken care of. There will be continuity for their programming. They have already had the opportunity to take advantage of meeting with Simon Fraser University, and as I've said, the overwhelming number of them are excited and pleased about the Simon Fraser model.

J. Kwan: The bill is going through the House probably by the end of today. I would anticipate that the minister would have understood that the bill would go through some time this session. There's only another week left. Next week is a skipped week, but the following week, at the end of the month, the bills will have been passed in this House. Surely the minister must have some inkling in terms of when the official date would be for SFU to take over Tech B.C. Why wouldn't she have that date in her mind? Or is she just not prepared to share it with this House?

Hon. S. Bond: I'd be happy to share it. As I've suggested, we are working on the transition issues. The formal date of transfer has not been determined, but the transition work goes on. Once this legislation is in place and we have the rest of the transition issues taken care of, I'd be happy to let the member opposite know when the formal date will be.

Hon. S. Bond: There are a variety of issues including, obviously, first and foremost, making sure the student programming is up and ready to go. There is the issue of how we transfer the assets and all of those issues between the two institutions at this point in time.

Many, many of those details have been worked out. Simon Fraser is excited and ready to go in terms of the fall opening. As a matter of fact, they're having their open house May 15, so plans are well underway. The formal transfer will take place at a date in the not too distant future.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have a comprehensive list of the transition issues, but I'm sure that the president of SFU and his staff, who are here today, would be happy to sit down and provide that information. In fact, we're looking at a fairly monumental shift when we look at transferring of records, making sure that student information is taken care of and the hiring of faculty. All of those issues are well underway.

As I've suggested, there are a number of those issues on the list I've given you. We'd be happy to sit down with the president and find out if there's a more comprehensive list that the member opposite would be interested in.

J. Kwan: I would have thought that the minister would have taken the initiative already to find out from the president of SFU what transitional issues are still outstanding and what work needs to be done. If she actually wants to make sure that the transition is smooth, the targets are going to be met and there is going to be a curriculum up and running for the students in the fall, and so on and so forth, given that SFU in fact are here today, I would have thought that the minister would have already taken that opportunity to meet with them so that she would know the answers and be able to answer these questions in the House relative to the issue that we're debating right now, which is, of course, the transitional aspects of Tech B.C. to SFU.

It stuns me, I have to say, that the minister has not taken the opportunity to do that work. One would have thought that a responsible minister would have done that. One would have thought that a minister would have taken the time to review the work and ensure the transition is indeed done satisfactorily and would have had that information. It surprises me greatly.

Hon. Chair, on this section, given that the government is going to dissolve Tech B.C…. As I have already stated on record, that is something I do not support. But given that the government's going to move ahead on that issue and the dissolving of Tech B.C. falls under section 15 of the act, I will be voting against section 15 of the act with division.

I'm not going to vote against section 14 of the act, given that the dissolving of Tech B.C. is going to take place. Someone will need to take it over. It happens to be SFU. We'll watch and see how progress is made with SFU in this area and, particularly, watch for the longevity of Tech B.C. in its original innovation — that is, to ensure that British Columbia does provide an institution for technological training excellence.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 50, Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

J. MacPhail: I rise on a point of order arising out of the ministerial statement earlier this afternoon by the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

J. MacPhail: I've had a chance to look at the remarks of the ministerial statement, and while reserving my right to respond, I do note in the statement that the minister said that he is advising this House by letter today. I have not, nor has my colleague, received a copy of the letter of his advice to the House nor any of the supporting documentation. I'm requesting, Mr. Speaker, that you seek the documents he promised to offer to us and that we receive copies. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I have not received the copies.

Hon. G. Collins: Perhaps I can provide some clarification. It's my understanding that the member was saying that by letter, he was writing to the auditor general. The letter will be addressed to the auditor general.

I'm sure that if it's possible, the minister will make that available to members. But his intent, I believe, was to say that he would be addressing the issue to the auditor general by letter today for his consideration. I'll look into it and see if the minister is able to provide that letter.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That is the way I recall the statement. The Chair will try to obtain a copy.

This legislation makes amendments to the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act. The Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act recognizes an adult's right to give or refuse consent to health care. It establishes a legal framework for the giving or refusing of consent to health care by a temporary substitute decision-maker when an adult is incapable.

For example, a paramedic may find a card in an accident victim's wallet indicating that he does not wish to a receive blood transfusion because of his religious beliefs, or a family doctor may have discussed with a patient her desire to refuse life-supporting measures.

Today we are introducing amendments that will maintain the protection of adults' rights to make decisions about their own care, while at the same time streamlining the process for health authorities, the Health Care and Care Facility Review Board and the courts.

Also, these amendments will impose a legal obligation on health care providers in emergencies to comply with a patient's previously expressed instructions or wishes. This obligation would be in effect if the providers have reasonable grounds to believe the patient, as a capable adult, had indicated that they did not wish to receive a certain kind of health care.

Across B.C. and the rest of Canada this is already current practice, and it has been clarified by appeal court decisions and legislation in Ontario.

This is an important issue — literally life or death circumstances. We need effective legislation to help respect the patient's wishes, to clarify for health care providers their responsibility to respect those wishes and, ultimately, to deliver effective patient care.

This legislation is part of our government's goal to improve the delivery and management of health services in British Columbia. British Columbians have the ability to designate people to accept or refuse medical care on their behalf in the event they become unable to communicate those wishes.

This legislation is very complex. Some additional technical problems have crept into the act through a process of selective proclamation, which further complicates the legislation. These difficulties developed when the previous government selectively proclaimed parts of the adult guardianship legislation package, a package that included the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, the Adult Guardianship Act, the Representation Agreement Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

Some sections of the act were brought into force, while other sections were not. This has created legislation that is not as transparent or effective as it should be. To smooth over the operational difficulties and to clarify and support present practice, the amendments are designed to make sure people will not be deprived of the treatment they need and want, and will also ensure that no one is forced to undergo emergency procedures they have rejected. We must focus on the wishes of the patient.

One of the difficulties caused by selective proclamation was confusion over whether or not the review board had jurisdiction to review minor health care decisions. The original intent of the legislation was that the review board did not have jurisdiction over minor health care.

Minor health care is all health care given in care facilities and much health care that is given in hospitals, including medications. Major health care, on the other hand, is anything that involves a general anaesthetic — that is, major surgery or a major diagnostic or investigative procedure — and procedures such as radiation therapy, IV, chemotherapy, kidney dialysis, electroconvulsive therapy or laser surgery.

Currently, if the patient is not capable of consent, a substitute decision-maker must be contacted every time that patient needs a painkiller while the patient is in hospital. By changing the definition of health care by including a plan for minor health care, a temporary decision-maker will be able to give consent to a health care plan that includes, for example, painkillers and changes from one medication to another to treat high blood pressure without health care providers having to go back to the temporary substitute decision-maker every time to get new consent. With this change, consent can be made for up to a year, saving time for medical and nursing staff and allowing patients to receive prompt treatment.

Mr. Speaker, we also propose to streamline the 21-day rule, currently a very complex process that confirms a patient is incapable of directing their own health care, identifies a temporary substitute decision-maker and confirms substitute consent as well as providing advice about the right of review by the review board. If a patient remains incapable of communicating their wishes, this process has the potential to cause health care delays by requiring the entire process to be repeated every 21 days until a health care procedure takes place.

Modifying the 21-day rule will simplify procedures to reconfirm the patient's incapability and temporary decision-maker's consent to within 21 days before the health care procedure is performed. This makes much better sense. It is a more reasonable process, eliminating delays in care and unnecessary administrative work.

Mr. Speaker, today we are also confirming in law for health care providers what is already current practice. The courts are clear: health care providers such as ambulance attendants and emergency department staff must not provide certain procedures if they have reasonable grounds for believing that the individual has expressed an instruction or wishes not to receive a certain type of health care.

Occasionally, a substitute decision-maker chooses a course of action that is clearly at odds with what the patient has said they would want. This puts the rights of the patient at risk and health care providers in conflict. In the event a substitute decision-maker is not acting according to a patient's wishes, this legislation clarifies the health care provider's responsibility regarding a patient's care in emergencies.

To sum up, the amendments will make significant improvements to this legislation. First, they prohibit health care providers from providing emergency care where there is a prior instruction from a patient not to provide such care.

Second, they clarify procedural requirements surrounding temporary substitute decision-makers. For example, they make the duty to consult with family members less onerous. They clarify that notice of a substitute decision-maker must be given to the patient. They expand the temporary substitute decision-maker's authority so that health care providers are not required to continuously renew the temporary substitute decision-maker's appointment.

Third, in respect of the Health Care and Care Facility Review Board, they clarify the jurisdiction to review minor health care decisions, limit the circumstances

where a new hearing is required and provide necessary information to patients' advocates.

These amendments will assist our government in its goal to improve the delivery and management of health services in British Columbia and protect adults' rights to choose their own health care.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care takes an unusual approach in her second reading remarks to this piece of legislation, as if the management of this issue in the past had been political or was inappropriately dealt with. She said several times, both at first reading remarks and at second reading remarks, things that I was taken aback by. She was somehow suggesting that selective proclamation was an act of politics and wasn't done in the best interests of the people who were affected by the legislation.

I'm just going to take the opportunity to make a few remarks about the history of this legislation so that the minister doesn't somehow suggest anything other than the best of intentions for people of all abilities to have the best health care possible.

This Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act that is now being amended was part of four pieces of legislation that dealt with adult guardianship and public trustee matters for people who in some parts of the world would be considered to be not able to think or act for themselves. The four pieces of legislation were to prevent exactly the situation where people who are most vulnerable or are at the most vulnerable times of their lives were treated under a health care system with equality and purpose that reflected the patients' intentions.

The four pieces of legislation were put out to community consultation for years, literally for years — and why? It was because the community and all the people affected by it understood the complexity of the issues. They understood how one had to proceed very carefully with all of the changes, giving patients — people in our health care system — as many rights as possible. Many of those rights had not been available to them in the delivery of health care beforehand.

In fact, there was a committee of MLAs appointed in this decade to examine how best to proceed to implement these four pieces of legislation. There was a lot of discussion by all people affected about how properly to implement the legislation. This minister calls that selective proclamation.

Well, it was certainly staged proclamation at the wish of the community. After extensive public consultation, the legislation was proclaimed in a fashion that had been recommended by the community. For the minister to come in here and amend the act is completely appropriate, if she's done the proper public consultation.

These matters are incredibly complex. I would no more say to the minister that the government is selectively amending the act than I would say to acknowledge how complex these issues are and that changes have to be made in order to keep, at the heart of our health care system, the rights and interests of every single person in that health care system, regardless of their ability to advocate for themselves or regardless of their mental disability or their physical disability.

I'm really taken aback by the tone of the minister in both her first and second reading remarks, because the community of people affected by those four pieces of legislation struggled with how to properly implement this over the course of years. It may be that the community who will be directly affected by this legislation thinks, or did think at one point, that it is completely appropriate that the designated decision-maker be called for minor health care delivery. Since the implementation of the legislation, perhaps they've revisited that and rethought it. But it doesn't take away from the original intent of the legislation to give everybody in our health care system equal treatment, fair treatment and appropriate treatment, depending on their own wishes. I hope we're not going to somehow engage in how inappropriate it was, on such complex matters, to suggest that staged implementation made perfect sense. That was exactly what the community recommended, exactly what the community suggested needed to happen.

From a read of this legislation I see that there will be changes made in terms of emphasis of health care providers over designated decision-makers, and I will be very much looking forward to hearing from the minister how public consultation led to that change in emphasis. I will be carefully searching out areas in this bill where the protection of the rights of health care providers and those of the patients receiving care are perhaps vaguely stated now and need clarification. There are certain sections of this legislation where the impact of the change affects spouses, friends, families — where the intent is not sufficiently clear. I will be seeking clarification to flesh out the meaning of some of those ambiguous areas.

I will also be canvassing, during committee stage, changes to how minor health care is dealt with by health care providers and the change in the relationship to the person who is the designated decision-maker. The minister spent quite a bit of time suggesting that the system now in place is awkward and time-consuming. She almost intimated that the matters that required approval of the designated decision-maker were petty. Perhaps a review of the intent of this legislation through unbelievable public consultation will assist in determining what the original intent of the legislation was, demanded by the public, and how these changes affect that original intent.

I will also be examining changes to the process of reviewing decisions of the board and what that means to interested parties that no longer have any recourse to question the decision of the board. Perhaps the minister has done public consultation since being elected that supports these changes. I'll just be canvassing the nature of that public consultation.

I will also be examining, at committee stage, changes to the process of appealing a decision which on the face of it shifts the balance of interests away from family, from friends, from spouses. Maybe that, again, has all been discussed under public consultation, and the public is now demanding this shift in balance.

I have, with my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, a true commitment to making sure that we protect the rights of patients receiving care no matter what their physical or mental condition is, balanced along with protecting the rights of health care providers. To suggest any other intent is simply motivated by, I would say, ill intent. If there's any suggestion of that, I hope the minister removes that from her mind right now.

The discussion at committee stage will be about ensuring that the shifts in balance are appropriate and have been based on public consultation.

Hon. K. Whittred: I would like to thank the member opposite for reminding me of the history of the adult guardianship legislation. I recall that it was before the House, in fact, when I was first elected to this House in 1996. It was indeed a long process that this House went through to finally bring those pieces of legislation to be enacted.

I look forward to hearing from the member in the committee stage. I believe that we do share a common goal, and that is to ensure that for the people who are needing care, their rights are respected and upheld.

Hon. K. Whittred: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 44, Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

This bill is an important step in reforming this province's environmental assessment process. During the past 30 years, the application of environmental assessment in British Columbia has grown to the point where it is now applied to the larger projects in most sectors. Until 1995 these assessment procedures had evolved separately for each sector. For example, there was a mine review process, an energy project review process and a process for major industrial plants, such a pulp mills and smelters.

In 1995, after an initial failed attempt to introduce legislation, the previous government consolidated reviews under the current Environmental Assessment Act. At that time the Liberal opposition supported the legislation, which appeared to balance the need, on one hand, to involve affected parties and protect the environment and, on the other hand, to avoid delaying sound economic development.

However, during the almost seven years of experience with the current act, the process has proven to have serious limitations in terms of procedures becoming too rigid and inflexible. The act lays out one and only one review procedure, but the reality is that one size does not fit all in these reviews.

The goal of Bill 38 is to establish more streamlined and flexible environmental assessment procedures for major projects. The bill will allow the neutral environmental assessment office to have the broader discretion to customize environmental assessment procedures on a project-by-project basis, taking into account the particular circumstances presented by each project.

I must emphasize that we are not proposing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The new process will continue to produce high-quality environmental assessments on projects, ensuring that project development is consistent with the demanding standards this government has set for itself in protecting the environment. Project reviews will be thorough and transparent and, at the same time, more focused and timely.

The most noticeable difference is that the process will not be prescribed in detail in the new act and will be determined for each new project. This does not mean that process design will be random. Detailed operating procedures will be developed to provide guidance on this.

Like the current statute, this bill provides for an open, integrated and neutrally administered process for assessing the same broad range of project effects: environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects. The environmental assessment office will remain in place as a neutral agency to manage the process but with clearer accountability and responsibility for doing so. It will be headed by an executive director who, with assistance from senior-level project directors, will determine and manage the review procedures for most projects.

Where projects present special circumstances, the environmental assessment office may ask me, as the minister responsible for the legislation, to decide what kind of review procedures would be best. Depending on the situation, I will have a range of options to choose from. For example, if a more formalized type of review is warranted to air public concerns, I could convene a public hearing or appoint a special commissioner to conduct the environmental assessment.

Like the current act, this bill provides for meaningful involvement by the public, project proponents, first

nations, local governments, provincial agencies, Canada and, where warranted, British Columbia's neighbouring jurisdictions. However, unlike the current act, project committees will not be steering group reviews. That task will now fall to the environmental assessment office in most cases. The office may choose to work with smaller technical committees on specific issues from time to time.

The bill continues to provide for cooperative review arrangements with federal environmental assessment procedures to help minimize overlap and duplication. The increased flexibility found in the bill should help facilitate this.

As under the current act, the reviewable projects are to be defined in regulations. As minister, I may also designate projects to be reviewable under the act if I feel that this is in the public interest. Project proponents will also be allowed to opt into the process if they wish to take advantage of some of its features, such as the one-window contact point with government or the legislated time limits or access to cooperative review arrangements with Canada.

Under this bill, the proponent of a reviewable project must obtain an environmental assessment certificate before implementing the project. A proponent who receives such a certificate must carry out the project in accordance with the certificate. There is an exception to this process. In situations where the environmental assessment office determines that the potential for adverse impacts is deemed insignificant for a project, the office can issue an exemption. It is expected that such a waiver would be rare and utilized for situations where a project is inadvertently and inappropriately captured by the legislation. Exempted projects would still have to obtain any other required permits and approvals.

The overall thrust of this new legislation is consistent with broader government policy directions. The environmental assessment procedures established under this bill will support integrated, scientifically based and principled decision-making on major projects by providing ministers with balanced, well-organized information on project effects. At the same time, consistent with this government's deregulation goals, the process will be more timely and cost-efficient. It will be less regimented and will allow proponents more freedom to determine best how to tackle issues without impinging on government's oversight and review functions. In a broader sense, the bill will contribute to the government's goals for a thriving economy based on sustainable economic development which provides economic benefits while protecting the environment and ensuring social and community well-being over the long term.

J. Kwan: The purpose of Bill 38 as described by the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is to streamline the environmental assessment process to make it more efficient and more timely. I have no doubt that this bill is designed to coincide with the government's deregulation effort, therefore helping this minister's bid to ensure certain access to land.

It is easy to see how this government wants to streamline the environmental assessment process. It requires industry to slow down, think about their development plans and find ways to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Unfortunately for this big business–driven government, the environmental assessment process ties things up just a little bit too much. It costs money, they say. It takes time, they say. Supposedly it is a barrier to investment in this province.

I have to admit that, yes, it takes time. Yes, it causes industry an extremely small amount of money. But it is time and money well spent. It should in no way be a barrier to investment.

I want the Liberal back bench to particularly pay attention to this next part. No matter what they have been told, environmental assessment is a valuable activity for the province, for industry and for the communities.

I would like to take this opportunity to read from the decision in the case of Labrador Inuit Association v. Newfoundland, Minister of Environment and Labour, Newfoundland Court of Appeal, September 22, 1997, paragraphs 9 and 10. It reads as follows:

Environmental assessment is an integral part of economic development, not an administrative hurdle. That is the message from the courts. This government and its members need to move away from the line of thinking that environmental assessment and consideration are barriers to growth.

The environmental assessment process does not need deregulation and streamlining as much as it needs consistent and comprehensive analysis to ensure long-term economic sustainability. This government needs to stop looking at the short-term impacts of their deregulation efforts and look at the benefit that strong environmental considerations have on the long-term

Let's take a moment to consider cost, a very important consideration in this Liberal government's new era. Worldwide, environmental assessment costs on average less than 1 percent of the capital costs of a development project. That figure is no different in British Columbia. Certainly, 1 percent of capital cost is worth the extraordinary benefits that a thorough, comprehensive and effective assessment provides. However, when one looks at the changes being made by this legislation, the Liberal logic starts to break down. First of all, costs are already minimal. Streamlining is not needed for any monetary savings. However, these changes could very well increase the percentage of a project's capital cost spent on environmental assessment. How does that fit in with this new era?

More importantly, however, this legislation takes away some fundamental and crucial aspects of environmental impact assessment, all in the name of deregulation and streamlining. The minister has said: "Environmental assessments under this legislation will be thorough, timely and fully transparent to all who have an interest in them. " What he is not saying is that these changes will make the environmental assessment process more effective.

Bill 38 eliminates many of the strengths of B.C.'s environmental assessment process. Under this legislation, project committees, public advisory committees and environmental assessment boards will be lost. These provisions in the current legislation are the backbone of public consultation and participation in the process. Without them, communities, first nations and concerned citizens will lose their guaranteed consultation.

From the environmental assessment office website: "The Environmental Assessment Board carries out public hearings for project approval applications referred to it by the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the responsible minister. At the conclusion of a public hearing, the board will make recommendations to cabinet as to whether or not the project should be granted a project approval certificate." Removing the legislative provisions for the Environmental Assessment Board is a major blow to the independence of the process and the opportunity for experts on specific matters in specific regions to be directly involved.

The really disappointing change, however, is the removal of the project committee stage. Originally, after an application for project review arrived, a project committee was established to provide the executive director and minister expertise, advice, analysis and recommendations as well as to advise the executive director and the minister on the results from the public advisory committee and to comment on the potential effects and mitigation opportunities involved in the project. The project committee was legislated to include representatives from the government of Canada, the government of B.C., affected municipalities and any first nation whose traditional territory is involved. Bill 38 will remove this much-valued guaranteed involvement in the process.

Furthermore, the elimination of public advisory committees will do certain harm to the ability of the public to be involved. Public advisory committees for each project could include individuals interested in the project and representatives of various organizations. This committee could make information requests of the proponent, provide a forum for public discussion and make recommendations to the project committee. This whole process will be lost.

By removing the project committee stage and moving towards this flexible approach, this legislation removes the public's guarantees for public notice and participation. Furthermore, it grants far too much power and discretion to the minister and the executive director.

This is supposed to be an open and accountable process steered by the public, not subject to political interference. Concerned citizens will no longer have the opportunity to actively participate in the direction an assessment proceeds.

Then there are the first nation concerns. These changes will impact the ability of affected first nations to receive notice and access to information, as well as actively participating in the process via the project committee, thus losing their ability to have a direct impact on the nature and the direction of the assessment review and recommendations for decisions.

The same concerns stand for municipalities and local governments. They, too, will lose their valued role as project committee members and the ability to make final recommendations.

These changes are a major step backward for first nations involvement. Removing the project committee has serious implications not only for project reviews but for treaty negotiations as well. Any first nation in treaty negotiations that has been anticipating the ability to reply on the existing project committee process to protect their interests post-treaty may be forced to go back to the drawing board and begin negotiating environmental assessment provisions in their treaties.

I have to wonder if this possibility has been considered by the minister or his staff. It deserves a significant analysis. Such actions could in the long run cost more money and increase the time it takes to approve projects. Removing the legislated involvement of first nations in the project committee stage could cause serious disruption to treaty negotiations and project approval and development.

In place of the project committee and the Environmental Assessment Board, we see that the executive director, appointed by cabinet and the minister, has total control over the prescribed requirements for projects and review. This runs totally counter to the well-established trend in environmental assessment that the process be run by an independent agency. The neutrality of the environmental impact assessment process will be weakened, if not totally abandoned.

The existing Environmental Assessment Act, which was amended in 1996, clearly defines a public process for review, establishes review committees and allows the minister to require assessment of other projects not covered by the act. In contrast, the new act allows the minister to define the new process for each application and to exclude projects from review. The environmental assessment officer will not have the power to assign a review to a commission or require public hearings. Only the minister will have the power to require these key elements of the existing process to be used. Where is the independence and neutrality?

The new act will subject applications to a higher level of political interference, as existing powers are transformed from citizens and the environmental assessment office to the minister. New powers will also be granted to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management — not even the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection who, one would think, should have control over the development of a project that could have detrimental effects on the environment. The environmental assessment office, supposedly a neutral provincial agency, is now in the position of asking ministers for policy direction in relation to applications rather than basing decisions on sound science and public concerns.

Also, this legislation removes the standardization from the process that ensures a level playing field among proponent developers and industry. Instead of trying to streamline and impact the quality of a highly valuable economic and environmental tool, this government should be placing a high priority on the effectiveness of environmental assessment, not the speed at which it occurs.

During estimates the opposition asked the minister who would be consulted and who had been consulted around the major changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. In response, the environmental assessment office provided the opposition with a list of names associated with the environmental assessment advisory committee, which provided advice and feedback to the environmental assessment office.

The information provided by the environment assessment office around our estimates question said: "This group, the environmental assessment advisory committee, assisted in the development of the act and continues to act as a standing advisory committee to the deputy minister of the environmental assessment office."

The current membership includes Jerry Lampert, Business Council of B.C.; Alan Young, B.C. Environmental Network; Pat Moss, B.C. Environmental Network; Lloyd Manchester, B.C. Environmental Network; Lynn Bueckert, B.C. Federation of Labour; David Luff, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; David Parker, Mining Association of B.C.; Ken Vance, UBCM; Dave Park, Vancouver Board of Trade; Karen Campbell, West Coast Environmental Law; Doug O'Mara, Canada West Ski Areas Association; Mark Angelo, Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C.; Glenda Ferris, Tahltan Technical Working Group; and Rick Krehbiel, First Nations Environmental Assessment Working Group.

I would like to thank the minister for providing the list of people that his ministry has consulted with on the changes to this act. Now that we've seen the list, the opposition would like to take this opportunity to ask the minister if he would be able to table or provide us with the results of that consultation process so that the House may learn, prior to engaging in committee stage debate, where the advisory committee stood on the changes in relation to the actual changes presented.

I would think it's safe to assume that several of the groups represented on that consultation list would have major problems with several aspects of the legislation and various changes made from the original act, since Bill 38 weakens the public consultation structure and the accompanying regulations change what types of projects are reviewable, reducing its comprehensiveness.

Just in case the consultation process around Bill 38 was not as thorough as it could have been and for the benefit of all members in this House, I'll run down what many academics and various organizations see as important aspects and benefits of comprehensive and effective environmental assessment legislation.

Environmental assessment is not a barrier to a thriving investment climate in British Columbia but an important and valuable tool. It should be standardized, not discretionary, with ample opportunity for openness and accountability, as comprehensive environmental assessment is actually a good investment.

An environmental impact assessment is a process of (1) prediction and analysis, identifying and predicting likely or potential environmental effects of a project or activity; (2) mitigation, developing measures to reduce adverse effects; and (3) monitoring, keeping track of the actual effects of the project and the success of mitigation measures.

Strong, comprehensive environmental assessment ensures impact awareness and stewardship by minimizing negative impacts of development. It ensures standardization by creating an even playing field among industry and government as costs associated with environment assessment apply equally to ensure fairness.

It ensures that proponents develop an understanding of land use issues. It ensures collection of baseline data information that assists with monitoring and mitigation efforts of similar projects. It ensures that proponents examine real project environmental costs, including construction, operation and decommission as well as social, economic and environmental costs at all stages of a project.

It ensures stability for cumulative effects on a particular ecosystem to be accounted for, and it ensures public involvement so that anybody concerned about a particular project or plan has the opportunity to participate and express concerns. This includes stakeholders, concerned citizens, local governments, etc.

It also ensures project evaluation, which ensures accountability of the proponent.

Finally, it ensures comprehensiveness. It is a tangible tool to implement the ecosystem-based management approach. The process ensures proponents examine the impact on the four biophysical spheres — which are the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere — in relation to social and economic concerns.

One of the major things the current Environmental Assessment Act does is lay out specific requirements around what must be included in a project proposal and review. These requirements will fall victim to Bill 38 and its obvious attempts to help the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management's deregulation count. However, these requirements have many benefits not only to the proponent but to the stakeholders and the general public.

There are 12 steps that I'd like to review. Step 1 is project descriptions, which includes (a) project rationale — why it is needed, where, when and how — and (b) alternatives, an exploration of alternatives which fosters innovation, allowing useful redesigns to appear. Going through this process and creating a very detailed and well-thought-out project description can be a very valuable asset to proponents or developers to avoid unexpected costs.

Step 2 is preliminary assessment of a proposed project. This is the opportunity for a proponent to flag potential impacts and begin the public notification process.

Step 3 is preliminary assessment of existing environment. It examines any special concerns like sensitive areas, endangered species, social concerns, heritage sites, etc. Partnerships between proponents and government can use this opportunity to build the knowledge base and improve baseline data collection.

Step 4 is the preliminary assessment of impact area. It looks at the geographic area in size and what the potential impacts may be. Proponents can examine comparable environmental assessment reports, which allows for government's and industry's collective knowledge, information and understanding of issues to increase.

Step 5 is selection of environmental parameters and identification of the major environmental, social, cultural and economic issues that need to be addressed. This is best done with public consultation, as it is the public who will have the specific information and concerns.

Step 6 is compilation of existing information. Proponents collect and review existing data, literature, etc., before heading to step 7, which is field surveys and data collection, site-specific work to collect new information or data based on the acknowledged environmental parameters and socioeconomic issues.

Step 8 is description of the existing environment without the project, the detailed site-specific description that becomes the baseline for impact assessment or what changes will occur. This stage will assist future similar projects in their environmental assessment process.

Step 9 is impact prediction. This is the stage that compares a proposal with existing projects and professional judgment to determine what the potential impacts are. This is obviously not a definite process. This is why there is a need for monitoring.

Step 10 is mitigation. Once potential impacts are identified, proponents can work towards and implement efforts to minimize adverse affects of the project.

Step 11 is monitoring, collecting data to see if predictions were correct and to examine the success of mitigation efforts. This is an extremely important and valuable exercise as it allows for assessment of mitigation efforts which can lead to innovation and improved share actions by industry and government.

Step 12 is long-term monitoring. The final stage is to determine if everything is going as expected and adapt if new or unexpected issues arise.

Of course, throughout every stage public consultation is involved. The current Environmental Assessment Act includes legislated requirements for all of these 12 steps, including comprehensive public review and direction. However, the new legislation will impact the standardized approach and allow for discretion by the executive director and the minister on what of these 12 crucial components will be included and to what extent. It allows for too much political involvement.

There have been many studies and academic reports which outline what ideal environmental assessment legislation should look like. Now, granted, some of these suggestions have not been included in the act so far, but I would suggest that this government should take this opportunity to incorporate more of the ideal components, not eliminate them as it is intending to do now with Bill 38.

First, I would like to look at ideal administration components. One, independent or third-party environmental assessment authority. In this case, the independent party in B.C. is the environmental assessment office, which was designed to be transparent and democratic, keeping the politics out. However, this legislation doesn't build on this ideal but weakens it by giving discretionary powers to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

Two, standardized and harmonized guidelines and procedures should be in place. The original Environmental Assessment Act has standardized requirements for project reports and consultation processes. However, Bill 38 removes the standardization and opens the door for varying practices at the discretion of the executive director or the minister. This is called flexibility, but if requirements for review are streamlined, valuable processes and information-gathering will be lost. Without standardization, the door for inconsistency and unfair treatment is opened.

Three, specific qualifications for environmental assessment practitioners. This is something that has not

been included in the B.C. legislation so far, but with this government's shift towards results-based management, a more complex and demanding system for business and industry, setting specific guidelines for the qualifications for people undertaking environmental assessment will become necessary.

Four, participant intervenor funding to assist and encourage valuable public participation. Intervenor funding allows concerned citizens or groups to receive funding while participating in the environmental assessment process of a project. This is something done in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act but not in B.C. However, intervenor funding should be introduced as an option since the legislated requirements for project committees, public advisory committees and environmental assessment boards will be removed under Bill 38. Without guaranteed legislated public consultation, intervenor funding will become crucial.

The second area of ideal environmental assessment components is consultation and decision-making. Firstly, there is broad stakeholder consultation and oversight. This was a component that has been dealt with quite well in the current act. The establishment of the project committee and its required membership ensured first nations as well as municipalities and regional districts had the opportunity to participate in the review and make recommendations. As I've already mentioned, Bill 38 guts this provision, eliminating yet another ideal component of environmental assessment.

Obligatory public hearings and distribution of information is also a necessary component of the environmental assessment. However, under this bill there is no legislative requirement for public hearings. This is a major change that will dramatically affect the ability of the bill to achieve widespread consultation.

Furthermore, the executive director of the environmental assessment office under Bill 38 will be given the discretion to determine which documents relating to a project, if any, will be publicly accessible and the format of these documents. So much for open and transparent government.

The existing processes generally require all documents to be available, and most have been in electronic format, readily accessible via the Internet. The new act could legally permit the executive director to keep project documents from widespread distribution or limit access to a reading room in Victoria. This does not appear to reduce red tape. Rather, it reduces public input, comment and consultation.

The last area of ideal environmental assessment that I would like to discuss is scope and format. Ideal environmental assessment should examine social, economic and environmental considerations, with particular attention to valued ecosystem components in a standard structure. However, Bill 38 removes the legislative requirements of issues to be addressed and formats, leaving it to the discretionary powers of the executive director and the minister. This will have a major impact on the consistency of project reviews and the ability of government and industry to track overall cumulative impacts.

As well, incorporation of local knowledge is another crucial ideal component that was part of the project review committee. Local governments, experts and first nations all had guaranteed access to the review process to make recommendations to the minister. This process and an extremely valuable part of the overall picture is lost, all in the name of efficiency over effectiveness.

Finally, there is the emphasis on impact prevention. There are no legislative requirements for proponents to develop alternative plans and endeavour to find ways to reduce negative impacts.

In general, there are many strengths to the process as it exists now. These include bringing scrutiny to projects; promoting sustainability for future developments; increasing awareness for public and proponents; forcing stakeholders and proponents to address environmental issues and look towards stewardship and innovation; establishing and increasing the knowledge base for industry and government; providing for public consultation and participation; providing for good long-term investment for industry in the province with low cost to proponents, as the current process — average costs to proponents are less than 1 percent of capital costs; enabling legal enforcement; and establishing the opportunity for adaptive management, as proponents can learn from others' experience. Many of these strengths will be weakened by Bill 38.

Mr. Speaker is advising that I should adjourn debate, so I move that we adjourn debate. I will have more to say on Bill 38.

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move that the proceedings relating to third reading of Bill 21, intituled Agricultural Land Commission Act, and of Bill 51, intituled Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, be declared null and void and that the said bills be recommitted forthwith with respect to sections 91 and 58 respectively.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Let's take them one at a time. Shall leave be granted?

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

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 51; H. Long in the chair.

H. Long: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises and reports Bill 51 complete without amendment.

Bill 51, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.


	YEAS — 58

Coell	L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Weisbeck	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Bell	Chutter	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Lekstrom	Sultan	Hamilton
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan