Hansard -- Thursday, May 16, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 8, No. 2 (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		3517

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3517
	Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402) R. Sultan

Second Reading of Bills		3517
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) Hon. G. Plant J. MacPhail Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52) Hon. R. Coleman G. Trumper B. Penner J. MacPhail Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28) Hon. R. Thorpe J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant

R. Sultan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a fellow mechanical engineering graduate from the University of British Columbia who somehow found his way to becoming provost of the University of Alberta and has subsequently been very heavily involved in the development of the Sea to Sky University project. Would the House please make Mr. Peter Meekison welcome.

R. Sultan: The Sea to Sky University Act is a private bill establishing the purposes, powers and governance of a new university in British Columbia. The Sea to Sky University will be located in Squamish and headed by Dr. David Strangway, former president of UBC. SSU will be a private, non-secular, non-profit liberal arts institution with enrolment of initially 400 and ultimately 1,200 students. Faculty recruitment commences this summer. Students will arrive in 2004 from Canada and abroad in roughly equal proportions. This new university will offer British Columbians expanded academic choice and a high-calibre, internationally oriented curriculum amidst a spectacular physical setting.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Yesterday the Government House Leader rose and gave the procedure for order of business and then suggested that he was in negotiations with the opposition about how business could be conducted over the course of the coming days. To date, we haven't heard anything about how those negotiations would proceed. I'm curious to know how the next five days of sittings will proceed.

Hon. G. Collins: I have been in discussions with the member's staff over the last number of days.

Hon. G. Collins: The member says: "Not since yesterday." That's because I haven't been here since yesterday, but I'm very prepared to meet with them anytime they'd like to discuss it. Those discussions will continue.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. The point of order was to suggest that the Government House Leader rose yesterday and said that he would be conducting negotiations. Nothing has happened. That's my only point.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure that between yourself and the Government House Leader, you can work this out.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, just to clarify the proceedings, we will do first reading of Bill Pr402 again.

Mr. Speaker: Now, if the member would move that it be referred to the Private Bills Committee, we'll do that.

R. Sultan: I would move again that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

This is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. I am going to outline in some detail the provisions of the bill. In doing so, I recognize that it is usually the custom to have a debate about the detailed provisions of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act during the committee stage of debate. Of course, I'm in the hands of you, Mr. Speaker, and members as to how much debate will happen now.

Let me begin by providing an overview of this bill. The Assessment Act is amended to allow the commissioner of the B.C. Assessment Authority the discretion to make an allowance for a reduction in assessed value of a linear utility that has the same functional utility as another similar improvement that is assessed at a lower value and phased in increased rates for linear utilities over a period of up to three years.

There is an amendment to the Constitution Act, and this is that amendment. The Crown Corporation Reporting Act was repealed in 1985, and yet a reference to that act remains in the Constitution Act. The amendment in this bill corrects that apparent oversight.

There are amendments to the Ecological Reserve Act. These amendments will authorize a permit-issuing framework for ecological reserves and provide regulation-making powers for the existing ecological reserve regulations.

There are amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act and consequential amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. These amendments, which flow from the work of the administrative justice project and the core services task force, will eliminate the Liquor Appeal Board.

Decisions made by the liquor control and licensing branch and the liquor distribution branch regarding the issuance of licences, imposition of enforcement penalties and the listing and delisting of liquor products sold in liquor stores will no longer be subject to appeal. However, aggrieved parties will continue to have the right to seek judicial review of these decisions through the courts.

The Liquor Distribution Act is being amended to update that act to reflect new federal legislation regarding the licensing of tax-deferred warehouses and the payment of federal excise taxes on liquor. The new federal legislation will give manufacturers of wine and spirits the flexibility to defer paying federal tax on these products until the product has been removed from the tax-deferred warehouse for sale to customers. The amendments will give the British Columbia liquor distribution branch the authority to approve the operation of private tax-deferred warehouses for the storage of wine and spirits.

The Greater Nanaimo Water District Act, the Greater Vancouver Water District Act, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act and the Local Government Act are all amended in this bill to permit members and employees of what are called greater boards to be indemnified against the costs of legal action arising in the course of their duties as a member or employee of a greater board. This amendment corrects an anomaly in the existing law. It brings the treatment of greater board members and employees into line with the employees of regional districts and municipalities. Members and employees of the greater boards are generally also members and employees of a regional district and may currently be indemnified for their regional district business. They are, however, not currently indemnified for the work they do on behalf of the greater boards, and they should be. These amendments will correct that anomaly.

These greater board and regional district acts are also amended to rationalize the property tax treatment of municipalities, regional districts and greater boards. Greater boards and regional districts are to be exempt from property tax within their jurisdictional boundaries. Outside of these boundaries, greater boards and regional districts may apply for permissive exemptions from the local municipal council or regional district board. This brings the tax treatment of greater boards and regional districts into line with municipalities.

In addition, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act is amended to add as an object of the corporation the purchase, holding, management and disposition of all or any part of a property known as Ashcroft Ranch, including the operation of the ranch and related agricultural businesses and agricultural research.

The Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) is amended to validate retroactively the corporate action of purchasing the Ashcroft Ranch, and the operation of the ranch in related activities, from the date of purchase until such time as this amendment comes into force.

The amendment to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act prospectively enables the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district to operate the ranch and undertake ancillary agricultural businesses and research as well as providing it with the power to dispose of all or part of the ranch in the future.

The Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) is also amended to both retroactively and prospectively validate existing leases on port facilities transferred under the federal government's national marine policy to local governments and designated local port bodies.

There are amendments to the Highway Act and the Motor Vehicle Act in this bill. These amendments are consistent with direction from government to explore cost-effective means of financing transportation infrastructure and maintenance. The amendments grant the Minister of Transportation the authority to authorize the use and occupation of highway rights-of-way for commercial activities and to set the terms and conditions for those activities on a case-by-case basis.

The amendment to the Job Protection Act and a consequential amendment to the regulatory streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2000 are housekeeping amendments. Although the sections of the Job Protection Act have already been repealed, the

The Land Surveyors Act is amended to support a shift towards more professional responsibility for the land survey function to land surveyors. The amendments define those who have a right to practise land surveying, establish a professional practice review program and update the corporate status and requirements for the land surveying corporation.

There are amendments to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. These amendments result in a return of authority over the grounds around the Legislative Assembly to you, Mr. Speaker. Currently, the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations has authority for these grounds. This government believes that the whole of the legislative precinct — that is, both building and grounds — should be the responsibility of a non-partisan official; namely, the Speaker. A regulation-making power will be added to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, and the regulations that currently exist and are the responsibility of the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, even though the regulations are made under the authority of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, will be moved. The provisions of this bill mean that the regulations that are currently under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act will be moved to ensure that the Speaker and his staff have sufficient authority to appropriately regulate the use of the legislative precinct.

There are important amendments being made in relation to the appointment of persons to sit on review panels under the Mental Health Act. A review panel considers whether the involuntary detention of a person under the Mental Health Act needs to be continued. Based on the research and analysis done by the administrative justice project, it was determined that the process for making appointments to these panels is presently flawed because the detaining facility and the patient each appoint one person to a panel. With these amendments, the Minister of Health Services will appoint all review panel participants to a board. The senior chair will then select from that board the three persons of each review panel, including one person from a category known as patient representative, as needed from time to time.

There are amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act. These amendments accomplish the following. They legislate existing government policy regarding a two-zone land use system for mining. They set out the responsibilities of the Mediation and Arbitration Board when addressing disputes where a mineral tenure overlaps private land. And they give the chief gold commissioner the discretionary ability to reinstate an expired mineral title.

The Mines Act is amended to exempt prescribed mineral and coal exploration activities from the requirement for a Mines Act permit. The amendments also specify in regulation a response time to the exemption application, and they include a consequential amendment to the Waste Management Act to remove restrictions respecting exempted activities under the Mines Act. The amendments also exempt the mining of aggregate from the requirement for a Mines Act permit when associated with authorizations issued by identified provincial agencies as prescribed in regulation.

The Protected Areas of British Columbia Act is amended to correct errors in boundaries. In addition, the amendments make boundary adjustments and incorporate land exchanges to allow for a ski hill expansion and a first nations shellfish aquaculture opportunity.

The Public Sector Employers Act is amended. These amendments enable the Minister of Finance to request that an employers association amend or repeal an existing bylaw or rule. If an employers association does not comply with the request, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make the changes required. The amendments also permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint a public administrator to discharge the duties of a board of directors, if necessary, in the public interest.

The bill also provides for a minor amendment to the Public Sector Pension Plans Act to enable the minister responsible for the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation to appoint an additional member to the board of directors to replace the current provision in the act that automatically appoints the Deputy Minister of Finance as a director and chair. This additional ministerial appointee shall be designated as chair of the board. The change is designed to create flexibility in the appointment process while ensuring continuing ministerial oversight.

The amendment to the Public Service Labour Relations Act is a housekeeping amendment that provides clarity and certainty to the excluded staff of industrial relations officers and employment standards officers by explicitly confirming that these positions remain excluded. This is accomplished by adding these workers to the list of excluded employees under the act.

Mr. Speaker, there were announcements in the February budget with respect to multi-jurisdictional vehicle tax rates. As announced in the budget, the amendments in this bill to the Social Service Tax Act will adjust the annual multi-jurisdictional vehicle tax rate which is imposed in lieu of the provincial sales tax to reflect the increase in the general sales tax rate from 7 percent to 7.5 percent. In keeping with notification requirements under the international registration plan, the new rates will be effective for vehicle licence years beginning on or after October 1, 2002.

Lastly, the validation section of Bill 54 will assist in the correction of the procedure used to prescribe oaths under section 70 of the Police Act.

J. MacPhail: Bill 54 is 29 pages long. It was introduced yesterday, and today here we are moving second reading of this legislation. I'll be frank, Mr. Speaker. I've barely had time to look at the first three sections of this legislation, let alone the full 29 pages;

It was part of the reason why I rose, to find out exactly what the intent of the government is on important legislation, and I received quite a flip answer back from the Government House Leader. I have very serious concerns about how we're proceeding with legislation in this sitting.

Let me just give you a couple of examples — 29 pages of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act introduced less than 24 hours ago and changing 23 acts. Not only are we changing 23 acts, but we're now changing acts that were just changed last week. We're now changing acts that are still on the order paper for debate elsewhere. We're amending the Mineral Tenure Act and the Mines Act, and last week we had legislation that I think was solely a debate between me and the minister on the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, that was fairly significant — substantially significant. It does give me warning that I should be paying very close attention to why it was that what they couldn't do then, they have to now do under a miscellaneous statutes amendment act.

I'm personally affected by amendments here that I had no idea were coming. The Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act changes the way my life is governed as an MLA. It may be a wonderful thing. It may be totally appropriate. I also know that there have been huge changes in security around here, that are already completed and that I've had no say in as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. I'm curious as to why we're making these changes now under the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. I have questions about that, but it probably won't be in a way that will be an informative debate.

There are also, by the Attorney General's own words, important amendments being made to the Mental Health Act. Well, we know that people within the mental health community have very serious concerns about mental health services being delivered under this government. The changes made to the way appointees to review panels are made were changed in the late 1990s to accommodate the interests of all those in the mental health services system: patients, families, service deliverers and institutions. Now I see the changes in the way review panels are going be appointed are being changed. I have no idea whether the mental health community supports those changes or not.

There are changes being made to the Public Sector Pension Plans Act. There's a meeting going on today with the participants, the trustees of the public sector pension plans. Did they have any idea that there was going to be a change to the legislation that governs them? I know for a fact they didn't know that.

There's a very important change to the Public Service Labour Relations Act that impacts labour legislation in this province. The government states…. This has just come into my mind. The Attorney General said it's important to confirm that industrial relations officers and employment standards officers remain excluded from union protection. Well, here's why the government's doing that. It's because they're going to, for the first time in history, force those industrial relations officers and employment standards officers to cross picket lines. I'll be meeting later today with people to discuss that. That's what they're doing. It'll be a huge change to labour relations practice in this province, and it's brought in, in the form of a miscellaneous statutes amendment.

In the circumstances of other labour legislation that's now being rushed through at an incredibly high speed, very complex legislation, perhaps people would like to understand whose lives are being negatively impacted by the legislation. The very people who have to enforce that legislation are having their lives inalterably changed in their working relationship between employers and employees.

I will sit down in a few moments, and the Solicitor General will be rising to debate the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. Yet there are also changes in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — exactly the same legislation.

It serves no public purpose for me to complain on a personal level, and I do not do so. It is our job in the opposition to ensure that this matter is thoroughly debated, and we take that responsibility very seriously, so we will do so. But the people in the public, ordinary British Columbians who are affected by these changes, at least need an opportunity to understand what those changes are.

I have concerns, given the fact that there is a huge controversy and confrontation in the hospitality industry now around liquor control, licensing — huge controversy. This doesn't come as a surprise to me, having attempted to make change in that industry myself. Yet we have changes in the legislation that may impact the very nature of the ability whether or not to resolve those matters and move forward in modernizing our liquor laws.

There are also changes to the way the Police Act is carried out. There is also change to the Public Sector Employers Act that requires further examination, given the relationship this government has established in bargaining with public sector workers.

I will be very, very diligent in examining all these matters at committee stage, but I just hope that at some point, as we conclude this sitting of this session of parliament, the government approaches important legislative changes in a more orderly way and becomes a little more adept at understanding the proper way to amend legislation that may have incredible consequences for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 54 continues. The Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I look forward to the opposition leader's contribution to the discussion about the issues that are of concern to her during committee stage debate.

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

Bill 54, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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.

The Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 gives police the ability to impound vehicles involved in road racing to improve road safety and save lives. We're making this change to deal with the serious problem of road racing in this province and the dangers and the toll it brings to our communities.

As the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, I've had to deal with this issue for some months now. I know that members of the opposition and everyone have had the opportunity to follow through as to how this has come about with some very major tragedies in a number of communities across the province, including my own.

I spent eight years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If you've ever sat on the side of the road and tried to hold someone's head together while you were giving them CPR before they could be airlifted from the side of the road after speed and racing caused an accident that put them in that type of stress, or if you've actually been at the roadside or had to attend an autopsy of somebody who has passed away, or if you've had to give notification to a next of kin — which are all those duties that were done back in those days — you know the pain that families feel when they lose a child.

In addition to that, we've lost a number of young people in my own community in the past five years, and I knew personally three of the families of those young people. They all had to do with speed, racing, dangerous driving and careless and reckless behaviour in a motor vehicle. For some young people, the chances they take seem to be the rush that has replaced other aspects within our community.

As I went through the exercise of deciding what actions we could take as a government to improve the ability to reduce or deter this type of behaviour on our streets and in our communities, I did a lot of soul-searching about the different things we could do. I did know the conclusion had to be that whatever we could do, whatever tools we could provide to law enforcement or to communities, had to be such that we would be able to use them as a package that would be used for long-term success.

I don't stand here today and believe for a second that we will, by doing any one thing in itself, eliminate a complete problem, but if a piece of legislation can allow us to deter or to remove a problem from a road to save a single life of a young person in this province, then we should be doing it. We should be taking those opportunities, frankly, so we can do this for the people who haven't lost a child.

We can do it for those people so that the next Mother's Day I'm not doing an interview, with a television camera crew asking me what I'm doing this year for the mothers that lost children in the past year. There's nothing I could do for those people except to pray for them and give them my best and my sympathies.

As we've gone through this, we looked at a number of things. One is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that the superintendent of vehicles now, with circumstances of dangerous driving or racing on the side of the road, can provide an administrative suspension to a driver of a motor vehicle in the province for up to two years. The police, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, can get on the telephone and phone the superintendent's office, make a request, give them the circumstances and move forward with a charge, and that suspension can take place.

We need to increase our education, which we're doing. We're putting together a ministerial committee which will be made up of some people that are prominent within the community and have volunteered to come and help us, along with some of the parents of children that have been lost in the last year — parents who have, frankly, a commitment to their community such that they want to be part of a long-term solution while at the same time having to live with the pain of their loss.

I applaud those people for their courage. I applaud them for the courage to do that, and I look forward to being able to put the structure of this together in the next 30 days so we can actually move forward with an education plan, enhancing the ability even further for us to take this process out to our community so that young people will pay attention.

The challenge here was suspensions, fines — and then what else? One of the messages that kept coming back to me from law enforcement was this. We can literally stop a person on the side of the road in British Columbia in a high-performance vehicle that's being driven in a manner that's dangerous to the public and that could put lives at risk. After we've done that and taken the driver's licence away at that point in time, another young person in the same car with a driver's licence can get back behind the wheel and now has access to this high-performance vehicle.

Because of the culture that's out there, there are other people that are expecting them to arrive at a certain point if it's a road race between people. Whether they're actually pressuring each other to drive from one point to another in a community in a race; whether it be from the Walnut Grove area in my community to

Seven Oaks Mall in Abbotsford to see which back roads you would take and who could get there the quickest or an actual drag race on the side of the road — a race that says that we're going to stop you from passing or we're going to pass you and we're going to do it illegally — all of those aspects of that driving could then be continued on by another party with the same vehicle.

The police said: "You know, we need to actually start to focus the minds of young people in this province. We need to let them know that there are consequences for that behaviour and that we should be taking the vehicle off the road so we can prevent the continuation of a given offence and remove the temptation for it to continue."

Also at the same time maybe, just maybe, a young person has to go home on a Saturday night without their vehicle because the police arranged for them to get home safely, which is in the legislation, and explain to their mother and father or their brothers or sisters why the vehicle isn't available for tomorrow morning for somebody else. They have to call the police within a 48-hour period to get it back if they need it for work or whatever. Then maybe the message would get through to the parents, as well, that they should be paying attention to how the driving habits of their children are evolving.

Maybe on a Monday morning at school after this has happened, another 20 or 30 young people in a classroom — or two or three or five or ten — hear about how somebody's vehicle was impounded on Saturday night for road racing in a manner that was dangerous to the public, putting people's lives at risk. Within an hour the entire rumour runs through a complete high school. Leaving that high school that afternoon, there are five people who may have, under normal circumstances, thought that it was a good idea to do this. All of a sudden they thought: "You know, I don't want to be explaining where my car is. I don't want a two-year suspension for behaviour."

Maybe we have some prevention here by having something that takes place on a road. Yet if you've been there and seen it, you have to know that whatever you can do to deter or reduce a situation like this is, frankly, flat out our responsibility to deal with.

I make no apologies for bringing this bill to legislation even though some people may be critical of it. Actually, the biggest criticism I had is that it didn't go far enough, that the vehicle should be taken longer and all the rest of it — from the e-mails and calls that I've had. I think this is a fair solution to focus the mind and give us another tool to prevent this from happening in the future.

Right now, when the police stop a driver for racing, they can issue a violation ticket, and they can seek that roadside driving prohibition. The bill gives them the additional authority to impound the vehicle for up to 48 hours on the first instance of racing. It also allows that if a driver is caught doing the same behaviour within two years, the vehicle being driven could be impounded for up to 30 days.

I anticipate that with the tools we've provided here, the uptake on the second offence wouldn't exactly be that dramatic. If somebody has lost their driver's licence for the first offence for up to two years, there's already a provision within the act that says we can seize the vehicle for 30 days if they're driving while prohibited. You never know whether there's going to be a sort of switchover, so we wanted to make sure we had that ability within the legislation.

To impound a vehicle isn't something the police can just do. They have to do it with certain circumstances because, frankly, we want to make sure that this is fair and balanced in the community but at the same time provide the tools.

When determining racing under the act, the amendments identify the different forms of racing, all of which pose serious threats to other drivers, cyclists or pedestrians. We've seen an elderly person in the community of Vancouver get killed at a crosswalk because of a street race. There are innocent bystanders to this entire action, whether they be passengers in the motor vehicle that is doing it or somebody just simply walking down the road.

Events like organized stake races and spontaneous races that we call hat races, which involve drivers that are trying to go from one destination to another predetermined destination faster than someone else by whatever route is necessary, are all covered by this act.

The police will also, in making the determination of the race, be required to lay a charge for a serious offence under either the Motor Vehicle Act or the Criminal Code. That's the burden of proof. The impoundment can't be just for the sake of impoundment. The intent is to actually lay a charge and to move forward with a charge, whether it be careless driving under the Motor Vehicle Act, dangerous driving under the Criminal Code or even criminal negligence in driving.

The fact of the matter is that in addition to that, they have to submit an incident report to the superintendent of motor vehicles, which could result in a driving prohibition; complete a notice of impoundment; and submit a motor vehicle impoundment report to the superintendent. The notice of impoundment is to be given to the driver and the tow operator and forwarded to the superintendent, who must send the notice to the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle impoundment report serves as a police officer's testimony to the superintendent to conduct a review on a 30-day impoundment.

Adding these new powers for impounding the vehicle allows police to deal effectively with the situation immediately. One of the difficulties, even in the arguing back relative to other ways of police enforcement, was that visible and immediate actions actually reduce problems on highways.

I actually experienced this back in the mid-1970s in Alberta. The province of Alberta was experiencing some severe carnage on its roads on long weekends during the summertime, particularly from the May long weekend through to Labour Day. The person in charge of

traffic in that province at that time, an RCMP inspector, decided that he was going to try something to reduce accidents involving fatalities and injuries on the highways of Alberta. What he did was extremely unpopular with the law enforcement officers, but effective.

He decreed that you would do your shift if you were on highway patrol, and additional personnel from municipal and rural detachments were seconded for the same purpose. He designated every major intersection in the province where there was a highway connecting to a highway and spots along the main corridors of Highways 1, 2 and 3. A police car would be parked there with a police officer in it and not move more than a kilometre off the highway. Their only job was to be there and be visible. That was the only job.

Now, that's pretty boring, to just sit for eight hours in a police car. After doing a couple of shifts like that, one on the Friday and one on the Monday, you might say to yourself: "Boy, I never want to do that again." But when accidents causing fatalities and injuries go down by 35 percent because somebody took that initiative, then you know that visible policing, visible enforcement, works. That's prevention.

Impoundment will also send a strong message to drivers and their friends that there are serious consequences for racing. Their vehicle or even someone else's vehicle can be taken away from them. You know, if you sit in a room like I did a couple of weeks ago with some very strong parents who had lost a child because their son or daughter was killed in a motor vehicle accident…. If you see how they hurt while trying to think of a solution so that their other children or friends of their children will never see this fate, you have to say to yourself: "What tools can I give to a community, to an infrastructure of law enforcement, so that we can actually reduce this, can actually have some impact on it?"

Specific provisions in the bill allow vehicle owners, if they are not driving themselves at the time — business operators, families, parents — to gain an early release of an impounded vehicle. On the 48-hour impoundments, the police can withdraw the impoundment at any time. For 30-day impoundments, people can seek a review from the superintendent's office. We did this intentionally, because we wanted to have a process in place so that if a parent was going to be unnecessarily disenfranchised for access to work or a business was going to be hurt because of the fact that the vehicle was needed for their business, they would be able to go to the police and get the vehicle back if they weren't the driver.

We're making these changes because I believe it is the job of government to address contemporary problems with proactive solutions. It is also the job of government 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 the lives of others at risk.

By bringing in this legislation, we are ensuring that the police have a new and effective tool to deal with drivers who race. We are also sending the message that street racing will not be tolerated in British Columbia.

When you deal with an issue like this and you see the toll on humanity, you have to take that and measure it with what the community standards are and how we can help. I believe that this piece of legislation gives us another tool that will actually reduce some of this carnage. It will only reduce it in concert with other activities, those being law enforcement being able to have the tools with regards to fines, points and suspensions. Also, the ability to remove the vehicle, in conjunction with a good education program that we're putting together — and it's continued, because frankly BCAA and ICBC and other organizations have had an ongoing education program that we just want to enhance — will hopefully reduce this. If it does reduce it and we save some lives, then that's what we should have done.

I've seen it from all aspects on this, and my heart goes out to any family that has to go through this. My heart also goes out to any law enforcement officer that has to be on the side of the road and deal with this carnage, because we always forget the police officer is a victim who actually has to deal with these difficult things on the side of the road and deal with the families and all the rest of it.

My heart goes out to their friends who thought they were going to graduate from high school together, friends who talked about their goals and ambitions, who talked of being a lawyer, doctor, teacher or tradesman, who said that they wanted to live in another area of the province or of Canada or to travel, because those opportunities have been snuffed out by the driving of somebody, either themselves or another person, who didn't have the respect to realize the outcome of their behaviour.

As a minister, I can't control behaviour, and as a government, neither can we. But we can certainly focus the mind on behaviour by doing the right things. I believe this particular amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act is actually something that will give us one more tool to move in that direction. I'm proud, as a minister, to have the opportunity to deliver this speech in the House today about second reading of this bill, but I'm also saddened by the fact that it's necessary to do, because that means we've got more work to do, more education. While we're doing that, we have to continue to make sure that our law enforcement community and our communities as a whole have the tools to work together to try in some small way, and sometimes a large way, to prevent death and injury on our highways. This is a responsible piece of legislation, one that goes to the entire issue about public safety.

This is about public safety, and I believe this is one more tool that will assist us in ensuring that we are working toward safe streets and safe highways in our province.

G. Trumper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in support of this amendment. For 18 years I was the

coroner in the region that I live in, and on an unfortunately regular basis I was involved when a youth was killed in a motor vehicle accident. There is a stretch of road in my region where, when you regularly drive by, you know they've been racing there over the weekend. Probably in the summer it gets worse. Like the minister has said, there is nothing worse than having to go with a police officer to a parent's house in the middle of the night. They know exactly why you're there when they open the door at 4 o'clock in the morning: to tell them that their child has died.

Racing is not just in the lower mainland; it's all over the province. If this amendment to the act enables us to instil in young people the dangers, which sometimes they don't realize at their stage of life — that if not they, the driver, are killed, they will kill a passenger in their vehicle…. If this amendment goes some way to preventing another young death on our highways, we will have achieved that.

One of the toughest things you have to deal with, with young people is when you see them at the age of 16, 17 or 18 when they have killed themselves in a racing or motor vehicle accident. Unfortunately, in many cases it's not the driver so much as the passengers. It's a tragedy to the family; it's a tragedy to their friends; it's a tragedy to the community.

I did have the really sad occasion some time ago to deal with the fact that we had three young people in our community who were killed one night due to racing. It's something that I would never, ever wish anyone else to have to deal with. The community takes a great deal of time to recover from these occurrences. It takes the school which those students were present in a long time to recover from that, and for their families it never goes away.

The minister has worked very hard on this amendment. I know it has been challenging to find an answer as to how we can deal with this very, very sad issue. It's an issue that one wishes one didn't have to deal with, but it's a fact of life, unfortunately. If we save one life by this amendment, then we really have achieved something.

B. Penner: It's my honour to stand here today and indicate my support for Bill 52. I believe the new vehicle impoundment legislation will help put a dent in the serious problem of street racing.

As the previous speaker just mentioned, road racers not only put their own lives at risk but also risk the lives of their passengers and other innocent users of the road, including pedestrians. By giving police the authority to impound cars that are involved in road racing, they will be able to limit the ability of the offender to keep driving.

For young drivers it means they will have some serious explaining to do when their parents ask where the family car is, and I think that's really one of the major points of this legislation. Of course, not everybody has a parent at home who has lent them a vehicle, but many young drivers do rely on the family vehicle for transportation. I believe this legislation, as word gets around through the high schools, will pose at least some additional form of deterrent on young people who might want to take risks in terms of reckless racing.

I salute this initiative. I think it is one more measure of giving parents an extra tool to introduce accountability for their youngsters in terms of using the family vehicle.

The Solicitor General, I think, put it well when he said, to paraphrase him, that we'll never eliminate youthful bravado, and we can't remove every hazard in a very dangerous world for young people. However, I do think there are further concrete steps that we can take to protect young people from a high-risk activity like street racing, where even the slightest mistake can result in instantaneous death and carnage.

B.C.'s graduated licensing program has already helped reduce the accident and death rate among new drivers, but I believe more needs to be done. This legislation is a good start in that direction. It's time to give police a new tool to save lives, and this legislation will certainly do that. I've had an opportunity in the last number of weeks to speak to police officers and Crown prosecutors in the Fraser Valley who are looking forward to this new tool in their toolkits to fight the scourge of street racing.

In Chilliwack we also had a recent tragedy this spring, where a young person involved in very high-speed motor vehicle use was killed. That just had a big ripple effect throughout the community for other families who knew the person and other kids in the high school who were friends with the deceased. It was very tragic.

I'm pleased that the Solicitor General has responded so quickly to this issue in British Columbia — in time, in fact, to bring legislation for this session. I hope that all members of this House will ensure that this bill receives speedy passage.

J. MacPhail: My wish is also to have speedy passage of this legislation. Let me put to the Solicitor General for his consideration in the coming week in preparation for debate…. There is no question that the words of the Solicitor General reflect the concerns of every single parent in this province, particularly those parents who are responsible for their children who are new drivers and even maturing drivers.

I also appreciate the Solicitor General's comments that this is not just about new drivers and not just about young drivers, because it's very important that we acknowledge that there are many new young drivers entering the roads who have been trained very responsibly. That's a huge credit to the graduated licensing program.

This is the issue I will be exploring with the Solicitor General as we move passage of this: to ensure that this bill is written in such a way that it cannot bring

even further grief to people harmed by racing and be ruled unconstitutional. I will be seeking assurances.

It's not that in any way I expect it to be ruled unconstitutional, but history has shown in this province and indeed in North America that there are constitutional challenges brought to legislation that punks disagree with. Motorcycle helmets and seatbelts are good examples of that, so I will just be seeking assurances that this piece of legislation will stand any test that is put before it.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate on Bill 52, Solicitor General.

Hon. R. Coleman: As we worked through this legislation, the challenge the Leader of the Opposition just laid out was one of the challenges we faced. Initially, when this discussion was taking place, I think a lot of people would have liked to see us go a lot further in the ability to take the vehicle for 30 days on the first time and 60 days on the second.

It wasn't intended that we would move forward in a way that would put it up to a…. We sought the advice of legal counsel as we drafted the legislation — hence the 48 hours and the ability to get the vehicle back — so this wouldn't be an unfair penalty because of the activity that would take place on our roads. I would never be able to answer, even in committee stage, whether this bill could be challenged in a court. I would guess that any piece of legislation, if somebody wishes to bring a challenge, could be brought before the courts on a constitutional basis. That's up to the courts to decide.

As the member has said, I know that I took this into account as I went through the drafting of this bill and the discussions relative to it — that we would minimize that risk relative to a challenge. Every step you take is not without its challenges — rather to go through a process to try to minimize the risk and get to where you can actually try and have something that will work than not try at all. Frankly, I believe strongly in the interpretation relative to things we've had like seatbelts and other issues in and around traffic safety. That sufficiency, that the community standards will prevail to the point where if it's not deemed to be unfair that something like this might reduce the risk of injury or death of an individual or group of individuals, is worth trying.

The member mentioned the graduated licence program, which, frankly, has worked. The graduated licence program has reduced the number of fatalities and injuries in the younger class of drivers in our province over the few years it's been in place. ICBC is presently doing a review of that graduated licence program, both at my behest and under their own initiative, because it's time and because it's been in place long enough for us to take a look at it. If you put that together with the suspensions, the fines and the temporary impoundment, we may have provided a group of tools, along with community education and support, that will reduce the risk and maybe reduce even further loss of life.

At the same time, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that there are a lot of good drivers, and there are. There are a lot of good young drivers in this province. Obviously, if the graduated licence system has reduced some of the numbers, we're bringing through a group of drivers that have had to learn a different level of responsibility than, say, when we were 16 years of age and got a driver's licence in this province by simply passing a driver's test. That's good, in addition to reviewing that program to see if there are things that need to be done to enhance it, like restricting the number of passengers that may be allowed in a vehicle of a person of a certain age, a certain experience. If that is something where ICBC, in their review, come to the conclusion that would be supportable to reduce even more the accidents or the loss of life, it's absolutely supportable by myself as a minister and, I'm sure, by my colleagues.

We are stepping forward to try and do something. I believe it's the right thing to do, so I am proud that we are taking this opportunity to do so. I believe the communities, the parents and the people in British Columbia support this minimal impoundment of a motor vehicle to remove a risk from the highways of the province. If you saw the calls or the e-mails to any MLA's office that I've talked to in the last couple of days or even if you follow the media and the comments of people that were asked on the street, this is widely supported by the people who actually want us to act. I believe that in itself is a measurement that will be the measurement, perhaps, if somebody wants to discuss this particular piece of legislation in the future.

In the meantime, I think we make this move in the full thought that there are some challenges and there are some risks, but they're minimal. We've checked that out, and I think we've done our due diligence. I believe it's the right thing to do, because I don't want anybody, or as few people as possible, going through what I've seen families go through in the last number of years or my lifetime.

I'm proud that this piece of legislation is before the House, and I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting.

Hon. R. Coleman: You'd think after being here six years, I would remember the sequence, but sometimes you don't.

I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 52, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, before I speak about the bill before us, I would like to take a moment to recognize the contributions to this bill from the late Dennis Carson. Dennis provided many years of dedicated service to the province as a commercial lawyer in the Ministry of Attorney General. As the Attorney General previously advised the House, Dennis passed away unexpectedly on February 17, 2002, at the early age of 48. His superb legal skills, down-to-earth approach and considerable wit and humour made it a privilege to work with him. I know Dennis is missed by the staff in the ministry and across the government. Dennis was a valuable member of the team that prepared this bill, the Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002. I would also like to acknowledge the briefings and background Dennis provided me personally on this matter and on this bill.

The Employee Investment Amendment Act is an important step in bringing a stronger, more competitive economy that attracts and retains investment in British Columbia. The bill enables competition and promotes fairness for all participants in the venture capital industry in the area of labour-sponsored funds.

Putting it simply, we believe that competition and opportunity are the cornerstones of building a competitive and dynamic economy here in British Columbia. I am pleased to note that the present labour-sponsored venture capital corporation, known as the Working Opportunity Fund, is also supportive of the introduction of competition in this area. On Tuesday, May 14, Mr. David Levi, the president of the Working Opportunity Fund, said in an interview that appeared on television: "We're quite happy that there will be competition, because in our business, while we are competitors, we also work together on deals, and we think that more competitors will be a great thing for British Columbia. We've said that to the government."

British Columbians believe in competition, and they believe it is a good thing. Fundamentally, competition is about providing customer choice and focusing businesses on putting the customer first. What could possibly be wrong with putting customers first?

In addition to allowing competition in the labour funds market, the provisions of this legislation will provide for an independent arm's-length evaluation methodology to be established for investment assets of a registered labour-sponsored fund. It will also enable the establishment of a pacing schedule for investment by the registered labour-sponsored fund and establish that no corporation or person is entitled compensation because of the amendments made to the Employee Investment Act by this bill.

In preparing this bill, our government took great care in ensuring that changes being contemplated would not adversely affect the existing investors in the fund. Our government retained independent accounting advice to analyze various scenarios with respect to the introduction of competition in the labour-sponsored venture capital field. We asked two fundamental questions. First, would the changes being contemplated result in any liquidity issues for the fund? Second, would the changes being contemplated impact on the net asset value of the shares? Analysis shows that there would be no adverse effect.

The existing tax credit cap of $12 million will remain in place for now, and the bill enables the reallocation of those tax credits amongst all labour-sponsored funds. The bill also helps create a level playing field and opens up new opportunities for businesses seeking financing and for investors in labour-sponsored funds.

Venture capital investors want choices, and British Columbians want choices. We need to provide these choices and these opportunities if we are going to make British Columbia a North American leader in attracting investment and fostering innovation. The changes introduced with this bill bring British Columbia into line with most other jurisdictions in Canada, where competition in the labour-sponsored fund market is already established.

I'm glad to see that our existing labour-sponsored fund is also looking forward to competition and is committed to competition. We made a commitment to rebuild the economy's competitiveness here in British Columbia, and this legislation will assist us in fulfilling that commitment. Increased competition in the labour funds market will provide alternative sources of financing for small businesses seeking startup capital and mid-level companies seeking expansion financing while enjoying the same benefits.

Investors will benefit from increased protection. The results, in time, will be increased investment, enhanced competitiveness and a stronger, more dynamic British Columbia economy that attracts businesses from around the world and creates new opportunities right here in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: We're discussing here the Employee Investment Amendment Act, Bill 28. I want to go over a bit of the history over the course of the last 12 years, I guess it would be, on the issue of labour-sponsored venture capital funds here in British Columbia. It's one that I was personally involved in before I was elected as a politician, along with another now-government member of a different government. I want to recount some of that history.

I also want to perhaps put a perspective on why we're here expanding venture capital in this province and whether indeed expanding labour-sponsored venture capital funds in this province will achieve what the business community has asked for. This will be a

discussion, really, around whether this legislation meets the test demanded by the business community.

There has been quite a bit of discussion recently, perhaps coincidentally, amongst the business community, or perhaps the government actually was in discussions with the business community about expanding venture capital in this province. As recently as last week, there was an article in the Vancouver Sun that talked about the fact that high-tech may be the hottest growth industry in Canada but that according to top industry players, British Columbia is lagging behind because of the shortage of venture capital.

Fair enough. I completely agree with the importance of venture capital in any economy but particularly in an economy that's attempting to move from the traditional base of being a resource-based economy to one that's entering into what some call the new economy. I happen to think that defining technology-based or tourism-based or film-based economic activity as the new economy is a bit disparaging to what then could be classified as the old economy.

The traditional economy of resource-based industry is extremely important to this province, but every opportunity should always be seized to diversify. That's why venture capital has been so important as a tool for diversification. Over and over again, startup firms will say the established financial institutions of Canada simply won't take the risk on new startup businesses, and that's a shame. It's a tragedy that financial institutions that have benefited greatly by their charters in this country will not invest in startup business.

So where does a startup business turn to grow and get that boost? Venture capital is one great source, but venture capital is risky. That's why it's called venture. Many governments have learned that in order for ordinary people to invest in a venture that has higher risk, they want some sort of protection, at least minimally, against that risk. Therefore, governments across the country have said they will assist the ordinary investor in hedging against that risk.

That has come through tax credits, and often those tax credits have been associated with venture capital funds that also guarantee some sort of job creation or productivity investment with the use of that venture capital combined with the tax credit. The Canadian initiative started in Quebec with a labour-sponsored venture capital fund that….

I'm having a senior's moment right now and can't remember what the heck it's called. I worked with it for years. I'm sure that senior's moment will pass. None of my colleagues can help me. I feel terrible.

The Quebec-based labour-sponsored venture capital fund has been in existence for almost 15 years.

Deputy Speaker: Member, do you need a moment to take a gingko biloba or something?

J. MacPhail: No. I'm sure that somebody will come to my rescue very shortly in this history.

Then the initiative moved across the country from Ontario to Manitoba and then eventually to British Columbia in 1991. I will go through that history in just a moment.

Carrying on with what the business community has said about what they need in the way of greater venture capital…. It has been on a couple of fronts. One was that they agreed that there has to be an expansion of labour-sponsored venture capital in this province. This legislation does that in allowing competition beyond what was a monopoly held by the Working Opportunity Fund. I'll go over that history in a moment.

The other requirement that business said was absolutely necessary was that the Liberal government remove the cap on the amount of money that can be raised annually by such labour funds. It's a bit of a technicality, but the reason there's a cap on how much money can be raised under labour-sponsored funds….

I was right. It was the Solidarity fund. Thank you, whoever helped me there. Not only is it nice to have a senior's moment but then to know that you still exist after that senior's moment….

J. MacPhail: Thank you very much, those of you out there. There are too many people of the same age in this chamber right at this moment.

The issue around why the cap on the fund is key is because governments put caps on labour-sponsored venture capital funds, because there is a tax credit associated with that. If one raises $80 million in venture capital, the government of the day gives a corresponding $12 million in tax credits, I think it is now.

You could imagine that to raise the fund to $100 million, to allow that amount to be raised, on a 15 percent tax credit…. That means that the government would be giving $15 million in what is called the tax expenditure, meaning that the credit for that goes to the investor. The government loses the opportunity to collect that money in taxes, so it's called a tax expenditure.

Any good Finance minister will say: "Hey, you'd better be very careful about raising the cap on any venture capital fund, because there's a corresponding loss in revenue to the province." That's the Finance minister's job. But the person who is wanting to stimulate the economy and fill the gap that has been left by the banks in this country not investing in startup businesses would argue the opposite point of view, saying, "Look, if you're going to expand competition, you also have to expand the amount of money that investors are allowed to invest," because that is the second half of what is needed to stimulate the new economy.

In fact, business people, in the article in the Vancouver Sun on May 11, made that point. They made an-

other point, though, as well — that there is an even greater need for expanding startup funding, because there were cuts in funding for technology businesses in this province when the Liberal government axed the Science Council of B.C.'s Technology B.C. fund. I will be talking about that in a moment.

That's where we are in the history of labour-sponsored venture capital funds in this province and that — I expect the government will argue — gave rise to this piece of legislation to expand that investment.

I also want to go over the history a bit. I take great pride in this history around labour-sponsored funds. This whole initiative started back in 1990. The current Minister of Sustainable Resource Management had the vision — I believe he was the Minister of Advanced Education at the time; my apologies — and had responsibility for expanding the technology business and growth in British Columbia. The current Minister of Sustainable Resource Management looked at successes such as the Quebec Solidarity Fund and the growth of labour-sponsored venture capital in Ontario and approached the labour movement. He and his deputy minister of the day approached the labour movement through the B.C. Federation of Labour, of which I was the economist on staff at the time, and said that we should start up, take advantage of a labour-sponsored venture capital fund.

A great deal of negotiation went on throughout 1990 and 1991 about the establishment of such a fund. I would say virtually all of the details of establishing a labour-sponsored venture capital fund working with the B.C. Federation of Labour were completed just prior to the election. The contract wasn't signed until after the 1991 election, but credit is given to the Social Credit government of the day for having the idea. The Premier of the day fully acknowledged at the time the fund, now called Working Opportunity Fund, was announced that the idea was the idea of the previous Social Credit government. It was legislation that said the fund would be sponsored through the labour movement as recognized by the B.C. Federation of Labour.

The contract was signed in December of 1991, and the initial fund was allowed to raise $15 million — $15 million. That was because the Finance minister of the day said: "Hey, wait a second. This is venture capital, and we're giving a tax credit for that venture capital. Yes, we want to assure investors that this is the right thing to do, but we also want to minimize the risk to the taxpayer, so we're going to initially cap the fund at $15 million."

The next year, because of the success of the initial year of the fund, the cap on the allowable investment amount was raised to $20 million. Then it was suggested, at the same time they raised the cap to $20 million, that they raise it the next year to $30 million through to the year 2001. But there was a huge growth in investment in high-tech through this venture capital fund. It was at a time, in the mid-1990s, where there were trouble signs in the forest industry, so the government of the day wanted to increase investment in high technology. It increased the amount that the fund was allowed to raise to $40 million.

Then in 1998 the high-tech industry said, "We need even more venture capital funds, so we want to increase that ceiling of investment even more for the Working Opportunity Fund," which had a monopoly at the time. That investment cap was then raised to $60 million in 1999. Again, there was huge growth in British Columbia in the high-tech sector and the new economy. Much of that was because of the success of the Working Opportunity Fund.

In the year 2001 the high-tech sector needed even an greater venture capital fund so the Working Opportunity Fund investment ceiling was raised to $80 million, which then gave rise — at times when the government of the day was trying to balance its budget and did balance its budget — to a tax expenditure of $12 million. It meant the provincial government was willing to forgo $12 million in collecting taxes as long as the success of the labour-sponsored venture capital fund was continuing and was investing in the high-tech new economy sector. There are other avenues for investment as well: tourism being one, film being another.

By the year 2001 because of the success of this one fund, the government is allowing the fund to raise $80 million every year. However, this legislation will say that now more labour-sponsored — or I guess it's employee-sponsored; I'll have to explore that at committee stage about exactly who will be sponsoring these funds — venture capital funds will have the opportunity to open up in British Columbia. That's great news. That's wonderful news if, indeed, those funds continue along at the same success rate as the Working Opportunity Fund that has, I think, 55,000 shareholders now.

Yet the weakness of this legislation is that the opportunity for greater overall investment is not there, because there's no corresponding tax credit increase by this Liberal government. That's a little bit disappointing to the business community, maybe substantially disappointing. I note today that Harry Jaako, the chairman of the Vancouver-based Discovery Capital Corporation, who earlier on was one of the people certainly advocating that there should be greater investment and greater tax expenditure on these funds, is expressing disappointment. I will address that in a moment.

We carry on. I think it's important that I put on record here, much to my chagrin, that as an MLA I was not permitted to invest in the Working Opportunity Fund, so there can be no accusation of conflict of interest. I wanted to invest in that fund like crazy, but we were advised through the conflict-of-interest commissioner at the time that we weren't permitted to because we weren't employees. To this day I have never benefited from the success of the Working Opportunity Fund, much to my chagrin.

Some of the questions that I will be exploring very carefully at committee stage is how this legislation actually delivers on the commitment to expand invest-

ment in the high-technology sector. The government's already down a notch in investment. In January the Liberal government cancelled the high-tech sector investment fund that was…. Let me see. What was it called? The Science Council of B.C. through Technology B.C. had a fund called the technology B.C. fund. That was cancelled, cut in January of this year by the Liberal government.

Here's what that fund did. It was a very successful fund started in 1983. I'll read from this article about what that fund did and the fact that it now no longer exists.

Mr. Speaker, I may go over the time limit and, therefore, will be the designated speaker on this piece of legislation.

I'll read from an article of March 5, 2002, in Business in Vancouver magazine:

Anyway, I could go on at length to read this article, but the point is that the combination of the B.C. technology grants with the venture capital funds was a very successful model in stimulating high-tech growth. What we have here that is simply not addressed by the government is: how do they expect to continue to stimulate high-tech growth with the combined cancellation of the Technology B.C. program and no increase on the investment cap for employee-sponsored venture capital funds? It is a weakness that I will be exploring in detail with the minister responsible for this legislation.

Are these labour-sponsored venture capital funds successful in the country? You bet. Are some more successful than others? You bet. What about the one that exists in British Columbia now, the Working Opportunity Fund? I hope it sets the model for the new funds that are going to come in. It will be wonderful news having new funds available, but there's a really high standard that's been set in British Columbia. I look forward to seeing those new venture capital funds set that high standard.

Those of us who used our hard-earned money in the 1990s to invest in the stock market may say: "Yikes. How in the 1990s could anyone have done well, coming out in the year 2000-01, given the volatility of the equities market, the mutual funds market, the stock market?"

Well, indeed, the labour-sponsored fund in British Columbia beat the market at every turn. Working Opportunity Fund has delivered…. I'm just quoting from an article in the Vancouver Sun dated February 6, 2002, written by Michael Kane, a business reporter for the Vancouver Sun. Here's what he says:

As an aside, I am still bitter about the fact that I am not allowed to invest in this fund, because I have to tell you that my returns were nowhere near that.

J. MacPhail: Exactly. I am an economist, and look where it got me — not able to invest in the Working Opportunity Fund.

Also, the fund itself has had an element of responsibility to the province beyond just investor return. The Working Opportunity Fund has created 6,600 jobs since its inception. This, again, is reported by the reporter in the Vancouver Sun. It has a total of direct and indirect and induced employment.

The fund projects that its net fiscal benefit — that means what it's returning to the coffers of the treasury of British Columbia — through increased tax revenue will be $154.9 million to the British Columbia treasury and $205.7 million to the federal treasury by 2004.

However, there is an acknowledgment, both by the fund and the government, that Working Opportunity Fund's impressive track record…. It still is a venture capital investment fund, and venture capital investment is inherently risky. Therefore, the fund can only be sold by licensed investment dealers. I will be seeking assurance that that continues as we increase competition amongst labour-sponsored investment funds — that only licensed investment dealers will be able to sell the expanded competition funds.

Just as the article points out: "…venture capital funds typically lose money or barely break even on 70 percent of investments but make a killing on the other 30 percent when the companies they have funded are ready to go public." Just as a note, the Working Opportunity Fund, since inception in December of '91 to December 31 of 2001 — its ten-year record — recorded $267.2 million in gains and $27.4 million in losses. That's a 90 percent success record on its investment versus a 10 percent loss, compared to the average in other jurisdictions of a 70 percent loss on investments and a 30 percent gain. That's a pretty high bar that we have to meet.

Again, here I read that the other venture capital corporations, looking forward to the lifting on the introduction of investment, also said that it's very important.

Let me just quote from Harry Jaako, the CEO of Discovery Capital Corp. This is an interesting article; it's from the Vancouver Sun on February 26, 2002. Mr. Jaako has an impeccable reputation, and the article is quite interesting. I'm describing his reputation:

The article then goes on to point out that last year Ontario poured more than $2 billion into venture capital investment, while Quebec forked out a little bit less than half of that: $956 million. Between them, they accounted for 62 percent of the venture capital investment in the country, while B.C. accounted for 10 percent.

Mr. Jaako makes two very salient points: end the monopoly and remove the cap on the level at which one can invest in tax-credited venture capital corporations. What does Mr. Jaako say as a result of this legislation being introduced? I'll read from the Globe and Mail of today. There's an article by Wendy Stueck. I'll read halfway through it. The first part is the government's point of view, so I'll look forward to the government reading that first half of the article.

For those who are anxious in the chamber, I will be finishing my remarks by noon — I promise — but I think this is a very, very interesting topic for the future of the economy of British Columbia.

Those are the comments from before Mr. Jaako saw the legislation and then after the legislation. There we are. We have the government perhaps saying to the business community that the glass is half full and perhaps others saying: "Yikes, it's half empty."

The combination of the cancellation, the axing, of the Technology B.C. fund and the failure to lift the cap on the tax credits will probably undermine a little bit, I would predict, the effect of this legislation.

I want to make one last point on this legislation. This point has been lost in the public discussion on other actions of this government. This legislation follows the trend of several other pieces of legislation rammed through this chamber by this government — with a slight twist. It's a very troubling twist.

Other pieces of legislation passed through by this overwhelming Liberal majority government have broken contracts, have reneged through their heavy hand of legislation to break legal contracts. The legal contracts applied to collective agreements, though, and many in this government, including the Premier…. I heard the Premier reported as recently as yesterday saying: "Yes, I had to break the promise, a promise

where I said I would never break a contract. I had to break that promise, because it was in the interests of putting patients and students first. Therefore, I had to renege on my promise and use the heavy hand of legislation to break a contract." But all of those contracts that were broken applied in a collective agreement context.

J. MacPhail: I think maybe the comments of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway won't be helpful to his own government, so he might want to rethink them in what I'm about to say.

Many people in the province said, "Oh well, the legal breaking of that contract doesn't affect me because it's not my collective agreement," although many, many others were deeply troubled. What this legislation does is that for the very first time, this government is using its same power to break a commercial contract. As usual, I'm constantly surprised by the business community, which has said nothing. It has said absolutely nothing.

I can understand that with the ever-increasing polarization in this province, the business community may not take a position on the legislative hammer of breaking a collective agreement contract, but their silence on this is deafening — absolutely deafening. Here's what we have in the legislation. We have…. I'll just take a moment to find it. Here's what we have. Oh, sorry. I'll just pause for a moment while I find the legislation.

Here's what the legislation says, and maybe the member for Vancouver-Kingsway would like to listen to this. It talks about no compensation. Section 9: "No compensation is payable to a corporation or any other person (a) because of or arising out of anything in this Act or the amendments made by this Act to the Employee Investment Act, (b) because of arising out of anything in the regulation made under section 30(1) of the Employee Investment Act."

Then it goes on further to say how you can't sue the government for anything, keeping in mind that there are 55,000 shareholders affected by this legislation. Then, in case they didn't get the compensation right, here's what the government is doing to a commercial contract: "No action lies, and an action or any other proceeding must not be brought or maintained, against the government, the administrator or any other person for compensation or any other remedy arising as a direct or indirect consequence of (a) the amendments made by this Act to the Employee Investment Act, (b) anything in a regulation…."

There we have the heavy hand of this government breaking a commercial contract, and what does the business community do? Absolutely nothing. I'm surprised, because I always thought that the principle of honouring one's contractual obligation is seen by many in the business community as a key premise for doing business.

The government has been criticized in other quarters for ripping up contracts, but not by the business community. Here we have the business community being directly affected now by the heavy hand of this legislation, and it's silent.

Frankly, just stepping outside the borders of British Columbia, where one lives every day with the polarization in this province, perhaps hoping that the business community will actually take up its responsibility and being disappointed…. But outside of the province, perhaps the legal ripping up, for the first time, of a commercial contract could be portrayed as anti-investor and make a mockery of the government's initiatives of sending a message that B.C. is open for business and an attractive place to invest.

I also suggest that it may actually discourage private sector firms from participating in public-private partnerships. That seems to be a huge goal and an initiative of this government. Why would anyone want to enter into any contract with this government when we see that if it's not what the government likes, they can just legislate that contract out of existence?

This legislation, particularly sections 9 and 10, effectively declares that there's political open season on the commercial contracts and, I would put, on private-public partnership contracts as well. The precedent is being set by this legislation, and I am sure that any contracts that go over periods of decades will be looked at. Any commercial operation that is looking at entering into a contract that would go over decades would be severely hesitant now to enter into something when a precedent such as this has been set — that the government of the day will use its legislative hammer to rip up a commercial contract and then say: "Don't you dare take any action under any circumstances. Don't you 55,000 shareholders ask for one cent of compensation, and don't you dare think that you can take any legal action against us, because we've passed legislation to deny you that right."

I guess the question will arise. With all the intentions of this government to expand investment in this province through greater employee investment venture capital funds, does this do it? Indeed, there's another message equally as important, but so far unrecognized, to a private sector firm saying: "Why would any private sector firm enter into a long-term contract with the government when this is how commercial contracts are handled in British Columbia?"

Mr. Speaker, I will make it very clear that at committee stage the opposition will be taking a very strong stand in this very first time where there's a legislated hammer to rip up legal commercial contracts in this province.

Hon. G. Plant: Pursuant to section 10 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, I rise to advise the House that I believe I have a conflict of interest in relation to

Bill 28, as I am, in fact, the unitholder in a working opportunity fund and, accordingly, will be withdrawing from the proceedings in the House without voting or participating in any consideration of Bill 28.

Closing second reading debate, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

Hon. R. Thorpe: This bill is about providing competition for labour-sponsored venture capital. This bill is about providing and adding a provision for enhanced investor protection. This bill also promotes fairness for all participants in the labour-sponsored venture capital sector.

I noted with interest some of the comments on why we weren't lifting the cap. Some members and, I'm sure, the public will recall that the member for Vancouver-Hastings was the Minister of Finance in the former administration and did not lift and have an unlimited cap for venture capital funds in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Did not lift the cap for unlimited growth for venture capital funds….

Our government is very, very proud of the actions that we've taken this past year, since being elected one year ago today, to make the economy in British Columbia much more vibrant and full of excitement and promise for the future. We've cut personal income taxes by 25 percent, we've reduced business taxes across the board, we've increased the tax threshold for small business by 50 percent, and we're cutting red tape by one-third. We're very, very excited about the future of the economy of British Columbia, and I know my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and myself are excited about the possibilities that our economy is going to give us and the options and opportunities. We're going to have to review these opportunities as we go forward.

I'm pleased to have the privilege to introduce this bill, which protects and enhances investor protection and provides competition and fairness. I'm pleased to now move second reading.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28, Employee Investment 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.