Hansard -- Monday, May 27, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 8, No. 4 (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

Private Members' Statements		3563
	Housing R. Stewart Hon. K. Falcon The Filipino community P. Wong V. Anderson Grow ops R. Nijjar Hon. R. Coleman Limited liability partnerships B. Kerr R. Sultan

Second Reading of Bills		3572
	Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act (Bill M203) (continued) I. Chong Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail J. Kwan The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act (Bill M204) B. Bennett P. Bell

R. Stewart: I believe that the government should examine very closely its role in the delivery of housing in this province. Housing is a vital product, but too often government policy hampers the delivery of housing. Such barriers include excessive regulation, taxation, land supply issues and approvals at all levels.

At the same time, past governments in B.C. have often seen their role as primarily to help supply what many would call affordable housing or non-market subsidized housing. This focus on subsidized housing has tended to ignore the growing plight of families in trying to afford market housing. In fact, while the provincial government did little to attack the issue of the affordability of market housing, many government policies actually added greatly to the cost of such housing.

I believe that government has a role in assisting British Columbians with very low incomes or other challenges to find housing, whether this be through a housing subsidy, an income supplement or by some other means.

The delivery of market housing should also be examined. Market housing in many communities in B.C. is less affordable than in most other places in Canada. High housing costs result in a great many social challenges, including homelessness, families that are underhoused, unsafe housing stock and the risks associated with it, degradation of our communities and crime.

As well, as urban families move farther from their workplace to find housing that is affordable to them, transportation costs increase both for their families and for society. In contrast, when families enjoy a wide range of affordable housing options, they will usually be able to find housing that is safe and secure and that meets their needs near where they work. This reduces the public cost of transit and transportation, the cost of public safety and a host of other social costs.

I'm a past president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., and in that role I worked closely with government in trying to ensure that housing affordability was considered in government policy. Usually that meant recognizing the enormous cost of regulation and taxation on the price of housing. Almost every ministry of government has a profound regulatory effect on the housing industry, and the cost of this regulation, along with the taxation levied by all levels of government on housing development, serves to have an enormous effect on housing costs in B.C.

But let's be clear: nobody is saying that we don't need any regulation of housing — or of any other industry, for that matter. In fact, I've been involved for years in the regulatory side of the housing industry. I've even worked as a public policy consultant for the last government. In that role I actually wrote regulations and developed some of the regulatory framework that exists today in the housing industry in this province. I believe that regulation is important. We need to protect our population and our society — no question. But I also believe we must balance regulation with its costs, in housing, as in every other facet of our society. Regulation, then, must be both effective and cost-effective, and it must not needlessly stand in the way of a freely functioning market.

I'd like to cite an example. Until very recently both the National Building Code and the B.C. Building Code required that every dwelling unit have a bathtub. A shower wouldn't do. It had to be a bathtub. I thought that was wrong, and I couldn't understand why. A building code, after all, is for the health and safety of a building's users. There was no compelling case that a shower was less safe than a bathtub. In fact, the opposite was probably true. I remember the arguments at both the national and provincial levels as I tried to get the building code committees on which I sat to change the requirement for a bathtub to a requirement for bathing facilities — a tub or a shower. That's not to say that I expected consumers would start demanding — or that builders would start building, for that matter — homes without bathtubs, but I felt it wasn't up to government to dictate such things to consumers. It was up to the market.

One day I heard a story about a couple here on the Island. Both were paraplegic, confined to wheelchairs, and they were trying to build a new home to meet their special needs. The home was to have a large, wheel-in shower specifically designed for someone in a wheelchair. The building department had refused to issue a building permit since the plan showed that the home wouldn't have a conventional bathtub as required by the B.C. Building Code. The owners and their architect argued that there wasn't room for a bathtub, particularly since it would never be used. After much haggling the architect submitted a revision to the plans. The revision showed an 18-by-30-inch rectangle in the corner of the laundry room, marked bathtub. The building department questioned it, since a typical bathtub is 60 inches, not 18 inches. The architect responded that this was in fact a conventional bathtub, but since it would never be used in this household, he had decided to stand it on one end so it wouldn't be in the way. He got his building permit.

A couple of years later, we succeeded in changing this requirement. It is now permitted to have a dwelling unit with just a shower, if the owners want one. I suspect the change benefited primarily the development of secondary suites and other affordable housing options.

There are many other examples in every facet of life, I suspect, where government regulation stands in the way for no good public policy reason, but I don't believe there are many industries as heavily regulated as the housing industry. Of course, the cost of govern-

ment lies not only in regulation but also in taxation and the cost of delays. I believe we should be looking very closely at all of the government-imposed costs on housing including taxation, regulation, approvals, delays, infrastructure requirements and many others to make sure that we are allowing good-quality housing to be delivered to British Columbians as cost-effectively as possible.

A. Hamilton: With us today are 39 grade 11 students from Esquimalt Community School, my alma mater, and their teachers, Ms. Ersoy and Mr. Dodds. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: I want to thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for giving the House the opportunity to hear some really clear, commonsense ideas about the dangers of overregulation and overtaxation in the housing industry.

I believe it was an organization that the member used to be president of, the Canadian Home Builders Association, that did a study one time that demonstrated that 20 percent of the cost of an average home in this province is actually made up of taxes and the costs of regulatory requirements imposed on the housing industry. For my community of Surrey, for example, where the average home price is in the $200,000 range and rising, that would mean that $40,000 of that cost is driven by government.

We find ourselves in this rather unique situation over and over again where government creates a problem as a result of policies and decisions it makes on a regulatory and tax basis and then tries to find solutions to the very problems that it's partially responsible for creating. I very much appreciate the member bringing that to our attention.

As we look for solutions to creating real affordable housing for British Columbians, we have to be honest enough to recognize the fact that we as a government are often a problem. We are a new government, of course, and we are trying to address many of those problems that have been put into place by previous governments. It's one of the reasons why we made a commitment to reduce the regulatory burden in British Columbia by one-third in the first three years of being elected as a government. The reason we did that was very simple. The one area that British Columbia, sadly, led this country in over the last decade was in the growth of regulations.

We know that just the cost of complying with the regulatory regime in British Columbia is in excess of $5 billion annually. That is a huge imposition that we put on individual British Columbians and on the small business community in British Columbia. That's why it's important…. I think the member talked about the construction industry. The construction industry is a major employer and a major generator of jobs in British Columbia. The member correctly pointed out that they've contributed significantly to the gross domestic product of this province, averaging over 7 percent over the last decade.

It's also important to point out that 90 percent of the businesses in the construction industry are small businesses, representing an employee base of somewhere in the range of 20 employees or less. Those small business folks are the ones that run up into this wall of regulation and excessive taxation that makes it so difficult for them to do the job they could do in delivering housing more affordably for British Columbians. We hear this all the time. That's why I'm actually really pleased to be working with many of my colleagues in trying to address government's role in instituting a lot of these costs. I'm certainly trying to do my bit as the Minister of State for Deregulation in trying to identify the regulatory barriers and burdens that we as a government have put into place.

As someone once said, it's time for us to roll back the red tape and roll out the red carpet in British Columbia. That's exactly what we're trying to do as government. I know that the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is really taking a strong leadership role in this area. He's examining all the regulations and a lot of the regulatory barriers that are blocking construction of new and affordable housing.

I know that as part of the process of trying to streamline and create a more competitive housing industry, the minister is looking to move the inspection certification services to an independent safety agency and is working to streamline provincial safety codes and standards by the end of 2004-05. The goal there is to make sure that regulations focus on the results that we want to achieve, not on a prescriptive, process-driven approach that was favoured by previous governments. At the same time, I know the minister is going to ensure that we protect the important principles of public health, safety and the environment as we go through this.

We also know that the minister announced recently that we've funded almost 700 new units of non-profit housing right across B.C. that target some of our most vulnerable citizens: the frail elderly, seniors and those at risk of being homeless. This is in addition to over 2,000 new units that are under construction as we speak today.

The goal as we work towards addressing the challenges that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville raised is very clear. We as a government have to work to make sure we do our part to eliminate the regulatory barriers, to deal with the taxation issues that are imposing unnecessary costs and unnecessary regulatory burden on the housing industry and to make sure, as we

go about developing affordable housing, that we partner with the non-profit sector, with local cities and local governments, and that we as provincial and federal governments work together to deliver exactly what we want to get out of this, and that is affordable housing.

I want to thank the member for bringing those important issues to the attention of this House.

R. Stewart: I thank the minister, who clearly has a lot of experience, as well, in dealing with regulations that, quite frankly, just stand in the way of what we're trying to do.

There is one thing I would like to clarify, though. The analysis on housing costs by the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, as I understand it…. Of course, the impacts of taxation and regulation would differ from community to community. There were some communities where simply the taxation impact of government was 20 percent of the cost of the housing. That was completely ignoring the regulatory impact, which is very significant in a great many communities across the province.

I think the moment of truth in the housing industry is when a contractor, developer or owner is trying to remember whether there is a rule prohibiting what he is trying to do or else a rule saying that he has to do it. I know of instances where that was in fact the challenge, where a developer had gone to the building department hoping to be able to achieve some particular thing with a development in order to improve its affordability in the market, almost begging the department to permit it and running into some real challenges in achieving that, then discovering a couple of weeks later that in fact he's required to do that and going back to the municipality, pulling out the regulations and saying, "Well, it says here I have to do what it is that I want to do," and the municipality therefore letting him do what he is required to do. The complexity of the regulations, in many cases, is as much a problem.

I also see some challenges in other aspects of housing policy. One of them is rent controls, because as we go forward…. Every time we have a public policy discussion about rent control, we see people disinvesting in the housing industry, disinvesting from rental housing. We see landlords, developers and owners of buildings deciding to defer investment in important rental housing because we as a government have decided we want to overregulate or impose some restriction. That's not to say that there isn't a role for government, but there is also a role for government to understand the impact that it can have on the decisions that are made in the private marketplace.

The minister also referred to some of the important partnerships that have to take place. I think therein lies our future: looking to the partnerships that we can achieve with the development industry, with government and with non-profit societies, in some cases, in order to improve the delivery of market housing but also to improve the delivery of what we typically consider to be non–market housing. Both of them require that government stand up, recognize the impact that government has on costs in an important marketplace such as housing and, in some cases, get out of the way.

P. Wong: I'm pleased today to pay tribute to an important group in my riding of Vancouver-Kensington and also in British Columbia and Canada: the Filipino community.

As I have said before in this House, my riding is a vibrant place. Many different cultural groups have bonded together in a community that is characterized by hard work, integrity and a strong sense of civic pride and neighbourly spirit. The timing of this tribute could not have been more perfect, as Filipino immigrants living in Canada prepare for the celebration of Philippine National Day on June 12.

As the third-largest ethnic group among immigrants in British Columbia, the Filipino community has had a positive impact not only in my riding but also throughout British Columbia and across Canada. In the workforce they are acknowledged to be highly skilled, well educated and very hard-working. Moreover, Filipinos also readily share the values and attitudes we Canadians hold so dear: unity and harmony in diversity, a passion for freedom and democracy and a caring and compassionate view of society.

The contributions of Filipinos to different sectors of the provincial economy should be given proper recognition. In the labour force they are most visible in health care, finance and administration, sales and service and, more recently, the information and communication technology sectors. Yet, for all of their success, the Filipino community in Vancouver faces its own challenges. Many Filipino immigrants have university degrees, but most of them are earning less than other immigrants in the lower mainland and significantly less than other non-immigrants. Many who are well educated are working in fields that pay low wages and offer little job security with few or no benefits.

One of the causes of this is the difficulty in granting education equivalency to professionals educated in the Philippines. Until we find a way of recognizing the skill and expertise of Filipino immigrants, they will continue to be hired in positions that are beneath their educational qualifications. Another challenge along these lines is the barrier to entry of Filipino workers in the health care sector, where qualified Filipino nurses, who are readily integrated into the workforce in the United States, can help ease the shortage of health care workers in the province.

There are about 85,000 Filipino immigrants living in B.C., and in 1998 the Philippines was the third-largest source of family-class immigrants to Canada. Yet despite the large and increasing number, Filipino immigrants remain underrepresented in the political institu-

tion of this province. Their voice and interests as Canadians are not always given the attention and response they deserve.

Within the Filipino community different subgroups have their own distinct challenges. For example, Filipino youth have need for access to education facilities that are available to Canadian citizens so that they can prepare adequately to become responsible and productive citizens, making a maximum contribution to our society. Additionally, the youth need access to facilities for various sociocultural activities. Seniors need information and recreation centres where they can socialize with their peers. Single parents need access to day care facilities and services, both public and private day cares. They need the government to look out for them and ensure that regulations for labour, teaching, training, education, social security, taxation and more are responsive to the needs of this group. Professionals require opportunities to utilize their education and skills and to rise in their professions based on their work performance, training and contributions to overall company performance. Finally, professionals require access to information and services related to professional development and lifelong learning.

To summarize, there are five main challenges facing Filipino immigrants to Canada and for our Filipino community here in British Columbia: first, securing certification and licensing from appropriate Canadian authorities based on educational and professional experience in the Philippines; second, appropriate orientation training programs for integration into Canadian society; third, proper housing and education; fourth, acceptance in the community and access to community services; and, finally, adjustments in language, culture, climate and general way of life in Canada.

Without a doubt, the Filipino community is a positive force and a vibrant voice within our society as a whole and within our specific communities. While Filipino immigrants have done well adapting to new lives in Canada, we would be wise to consider looking at other ways in which we all can help to facilitate an even smoother integration for them and to assist them in finding opportunities that match their expertise. I applaud the efforts of our Filipino friends, families, colleagues and neighbours, and I wish them ever greater success in the future.

V. Anderson: I'm pleased to rise, along with the member for Vancouver-Kensington, to commend the Filipino members of our communities for their participation in community life. I'm fortunate at the moment to have the centre for Filipino activities for the lower mainland in my community.

The Filipino Community Support Services society began in 1996, when a group of persons, parents and their grandchildren came together in Surrey to discuss how they might share with each other their needs and opportunities. By 1998 they had changed their name to the Filipino-Canadian Support Services Society, and they had opened an office on Fraser Street at 57th. Their office there has grown and maintained a service that has reached out to the larger community.

They have over 100 volunteers regularly involved in many programs — in youth programs, seniors programs, computer programs, volunteer placement programs, skill development and training programs, settlement and referral agencies. The stories that they are able to tell of individual help they have given to newly arrived immigrants are very important, because they deal with them on a personal basis. Their concerns not only for their own community but for the lessons they have learned in serving those who are Filipino immigrants are lessons that can be shared with the community at large.

They moved and again changed their name — for the third time, in fact — to reflect the growing activities and outreach of their society. They are now called, under the Society Act, the Multicultural Helping House Society.

Recognizing the need for a facility to be a core and a centre for their activities where people may come together, they undertook first to renovate the present office which they have on Fraser Street. But they soon discovered that the renovation would not provide the opportunity for the kinds of services they needed, so they undertook to raise the funds, in cooperation with the city of Vancouver, the provincial government, the federal government, with private business and community interests and their own very extensive volunteer efforts to raise funds to provide a new site and a new office and service facility.

In February of 2002 — fewer than six years after they first decided that they must come together to form a society to serve the community at large — they were able to purchase a lot at 4802 Fraser Street which, unfortunately, from my point of view, moves them from the Vancouver-Langara constituency to the Vancouver-Kensington constituency. Actually, they are just one block east now of my riding and one block south, so they're still close enough to be very central for all of the Filipino community and others of immigrant background who are living in all of our communities in the Vancouver area.

Part of their change in name indicated their breadth and outreach of service, for they have discovered that they needed to serve and wanted to serve not only the Filipino community but all the members of the larger community where they're located. They have become the Multicultural Helping House Society.

In their new facility they will have food opportunities. They will have educational opportunities. When they're finally committed on the third floor, they will have the opportunity of short-term respite housing for new immigrants as they come into Canada and need to discover a place to live and adapt until they can become settled as a family member.

In the process of serving the community they have had come to them people of all cultural backgrounds,

so of their 100 or so volunteers at this point, they come from many backgrounds and many communities. I congratulate them in the effective service they are providing to the community at large.

P. Wong: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his valuable contributions to this discussion. We have heard in this House today about some of the challenges facing the Filipino community not only in B.C. but also across Canada. However, I would like to use my remaining time today to tell this House about some of the initiatives that the Filipino community has undertaken itself to address some of the problems facing new immigrants to Canada.

Several years ago an intergenerational group of Filipino immigrants sat around a kitchen table discussing challenges facing Filipino immigrants to Canada, including culture shock, unfamiliarity with the new homeland and the lack of a resource centre to help them. The Filipino-Canadian Support Services Society was born out of this meeting, now called the Multicultural Helping House Society, MHHS.

The group has helped to familiarize new immigrants with British Columbian society. Today the MHHS is a registered non-profit, volunteer-based organization dedicated to helping immigrants of all cultural backgrounds build a successful future in Canada. The society assists newcomers to get settled, find employment and integrate well into Canadian society. The MHHS aims to particularly help immigrants with low and modest incomes and those with special needs.

Specifically, the MHHS helps with English-as-a-second-language training, information referral and advocacy, crisis intervention and basic counselling, non-profit temporary respite and emergency housing, parenting awareness programs, youth and seniors activities, computer skills training, volunteer placement, medical consultation assistance, and food and clothing assistance.

There are two resource centres located in the lower mainland established by the Filipino community. One, in Surrey, plans to have its building opened next month. The other one, MHHS, is located in my riding, Vancouver-Kensington, at 4802 Fraser Street. Both locations are committed to helping immigrants, families, youth, children, seniors, women and men of all cultures integrate successfully in Canada by providing social, educational, cultural and economic support services.

Funding for the MHHS is generously provided by the government of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver as well as important private sector partners, donors and friends. In my earlier comments today I noted a number of different valuable contributions which the Filipino community makes to our society. These contributions are further enhanced by the fact that they recognize a need within our communities for an immigrant resource centre, and they acted quickly to establish one.

I'm so very proud of the Filipino community's commitment to society and to humanity, and I urge the government to look at additional ways in which we may help provide positive and ongoing opportunities for Filipino immigrants to integrate and advance within our society.

R. Nijjar: Marijuana grow operations are a major silent issue eroding community safety and health in communities right across British Columbia. It is estimated that there are approximately 20,000 marijuana grow operations in the lower mainland, with 7,000 to 10,000 in the immediate Vancouver area.

In my area of Vancouver-Kingsway, community members continually cite marijuana grow operations as the greatest factor leading to the sense of a lack of community safety. Why are there so many marijuana grow operations? Because it is very, very profitable. It is profitable because our B.C. bud, our B.C. marijuana, is not necessarily sold as marijuana in the streets. It's sold as cocaine that's traded for in the United States and brought back.

The profit works something like this. One house has an average of about 240 plants. A harvest is only three months, so you have a rotation of 240 plants four times a year. It works out to 240 pounds of high-grade B.C. bud — and that's one home. Twenty plants can produce enough bud to buy a pound of cocaine in California, selling for double the value of marijuana in the streets of Vancouver.

You can see that after one year of operation of one home, you're looking at millions of dollars of profit — easily. The effects of the marijuana growth operations? Residents live in fear of home invasions, fear of fire or explosions from high power usage and other criminal activity associated with crime, such as dealings, drive-by shootings, breaking and entering and, too often in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, breaking and entering into the wrong homes, into innocent homes, and drive-by shootings at the wrong homes.

Families are being hired to manage the homes for grow-op operations, families — a mother and father with young children — whose sole income and sole purpose it often is for them being in Canada. These children are being exposed to carbon monoxide poisoning. There are serious lung infections from extensive mould, chemicals and fertilizers. I've been in these homes. I've seen toddlers and babies just a few months old with respiratory problems. There's medication found for infants in the medicine cabinets, and there are face masks found for adults. That's the extent to which there's such a health risk, especially to the young people of British Columbia.

The houses are gutted and destroyed, houses of innocent landlords renting their homes to what seems like a very nice family. Homeowners are left with tens of thousands of dollars' worth of damages. Often enough, the homes have to be completely gutted and rebuilt from the foundation up. In most cases, insurance will not cover the cost of repair, so it's not un-

B.C. Hydro estimates it loses tens of millions of dollars a year from grow operators taking power. With tens of millions of dollars of our hydro being siphoned off, this is money that taxpayers have to cover. It is estimated that between $5,000 and $10,000 worth of power is lost at every bypass. If you look at the fact that there are about 7,000 to 10,000 marijuana grow operations in just the Vancouver area alone, you can see how many tens of millions of dollars are lost to B.C. Hydro in power.

As marijuana is transferred to cocaine from the border, it comes back up and is sold in our streets. We estimate that the cost for initial police, fire and ambulance and emergency hospital care for overdoses is about $5,000 for one response. The average stay in the hospital for somebody with an overdose is three days, and considering that the cost in acute care is about $1,000 or $1,200, I think, you see how the money adds up in our health care costs.

What can be done about this? I believe we can put in roadblocks and make it more difficult for operators to do their business. It's one of those things that, yes, you can't completely eliminate, but we have a responsibility to make it as difficult as we possibly can, to minimize the amount of grow operations that are out there. Right now B.C. is seen as a haven to grow marijuana.

I have met with the Growbusters unit of the Vancouver police department, with representatives from the Vancouver fire department and rescue services, the Vancouver police department drug unit, office of the fire commissioner, inspectors from the city of Vancouver, the legal department reps from the city of Vancouver, reps from the electricians' association of B.C. and the Renfrew-Collingwood drug and alcohol team. After having met with them, I believe there are several things that we can do as citizens and as legislators.

There are several angles that we can take. For example, court decisions could be more in line with the revenue generated. When a grow operation nets over a million dollars in revenue, to give them a $10,000 or $15,000 fine is absolutely nothing. It's considered just a cost of doing business. Right now court decisions are seen as just an inconvenient roadblock to marijuana grow operators.

The Minister of Children and Family Development should at least require parents to take educational programs on the harm they are doing to their children if they're not requiring the children to be taken from the homes when the grow operations are found. B.C. Hydro allows the high usage of power to continue so long as the bills are being paid. Investigation often occurs only when the bills aren't being paid.

I believe that the best angle we can take is to regulate the hydroponic equipment that is used. I've done much research into this. The only possible group of people who have a legitimate use of hydroponic equipment is farmers. There's no reason for someone living in the city to even buy hydroponic equipment. Even for those who have a small greenhouse in the back yard, the use of hydroponic equipment would make the cost of vegetables so high as to make the use senseless.

Farmers are already required to register to purchase certain fertilizers. I am looking into the feasibility of having hydroponic equipment dealt with in the same manner. I have met with several ministers and am hoping this will lead to a private member's bill in the fall sitting. There's plenty of work to be done on this initiative. I am confident that hydroponic equipment could and should be regulated. If this is possible, this will greatly assist in creating yet another roadblock to criminals.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for his comments. You know, the fact of the matter is that as I was listening to his comments, I thought to myself: isn't it sad when in a jurisdiction like ours, we hear that from an illegal activity, illegal people in our community are looking at their fines or their damages or their sentences as just being the cost of doing business? That tells me that something's wrong. I am very concerned about this particular issue relative to how it goes into organized crime. It filters into money-laundering. We have a number of murders in the province of British Columbia that are directly related to grow operations and the drug trade. It robs the community of money, it robs the community of resources, and it robs the community of its standards.

My big concern relative to this issue is how we've had an increase in this particular jurisdiction over other jurisdictions, both in Canada and the U.S., in grow ops. British Columbia right now seems to be the place to grow dope. The reasons for that can be any multitude of things. I look at the statistics, which I want to relate to the House so that we can sort of have an understanding of that. In the greater Vancouver area since 1997, we've had a 356 percent increase in reported grow ops to our police. In the lower mainland, the southwest, overall we've had a 309 percent increase. On Vancouver Island it's 108 percent; Thompson-Okanagan, 146 percent. In the Cariboo we've jumped to 375 percent. In the Kootenays it's 150 percent, and so on.

That tells me that somebody likes doing business in this province. We're giving them the wrong environment, because they think they should be doing business here. Let's make no bones about the fact that when we look at a group of bikers that get on their motorbikes at Christmas flying the colours of the Hell's Angels because they're going to do a toy run, that's organized crime in this province. Those people are involved in organized crime, and they're running the deal. They're tied into areas of the Asian community, which then, also, are taking money offshore, laundering it and bringing it back into this province from the sale of dope in this province.

I don't accept that. I think it's time that we as a community start to take the attitude that zero tolerance

is where we have to go relative to how we will treat this particular problem. I have a concern when I look at cross-jurisdictional areas as to how we compare with regard to sentencing, dealing with our court system or whatever the case may be. You know, we like to compare how our regulatory structure is. We like to compare how our tax structure is. How about we compare once in a while how our judicial or our justice system is and not make any criticisms? The justice system in any community is always based on how a community responds or has community standards relative to how, in Canada anyway, the community lets us know how we can do better or not.

I must do a comparison relative to people and sentencing in two jurisdictions. Let's look at British Columbia and Washington State. In British Columbia 82 percent of people that have grow ops in our jurisdiction get no prison term. So 82 percent of the people that are growing dope to be distributed and trafficked or traded for cocaine within organized crime do not get prison terms on their first offence. In the United States, in Washington State, 48 percent get five years or more. They're sending a totally different message relative to their acceptance of this particular activity in their economy, and that is: they're not happy about it. We don't deal with it the same way, and we have to learn to deal with it differently.

I believe that in the future we're going to have to look at laws that are going to allow us, in a much more fluid manner, to seize assets of people that want to have illegal activity in our jurisdiction so that we can send the message that we're not open for business in this kind of activity.

We have issues in and around residential tenancy, the theft of power, policing. All of these costs are relative to an expansion of an industry in B.C., which is growing marijuana. I don't think it's acceptable. I think that as a community we have to come together and work on initiatives to send the message that we want to get tougher on drugs. When we do that, that will be the first step forward to us actually going after the problem.

People have to know that the fines will be punitive, that the cost of doing business is going to cost you. If you're going to do business, expect that there's not just a fine, but it's assets or other things that you may have tied into another corporation. Whatever the case, you should be proving to us that the cash you have was gotten legally.

These are all challenges. As I go through a recent report that was done with regard to marijuana grow operations in British Columbia — this was an empirical study, a survey that was done from 1997 to 2000 — I am left with a number of concerns which I'm going to be addressing both through my ministry to the Chief Judge, relative to providing this report and information to them, and through working with our police agencies to see how we can improve.

I think it's very important that we look at this not as something that we should just let slide by but as something that we should be concentrating on very, very much in the future.

R. Nijjar: I'm very pleased that our Solicitor General understands the degree to which these marijuana grow operations affect our communities and exactly how they're tied into the high-end criminal activity that takes place across our borders.

Awareness is the major issue here. When we speak about marijuana grow operations in our communities, everyone knows that they exist, but very few people understand the exchange for cocaine, the dollars made and the criminal activity involved and just how dangerous it is. Often people think: "Oh, it's marijuana. Hey, this is B.C. What's the big deal? It's just marijuana." It's not; it's cocaine. That's what it's transferred for.

My proposed private member's bill is, I want to make clear, just one possible avenue that could be taken to combat marijuana grow operations. The Solicitor General raised the issue of more severe sentences and sentences being in line with the degree of the activity. I agree wholeheartedly. I know, after speaking with the police forces in the lower mainland and throughout British Columbia, that they feel exactly the same way.

There are many things that we need to do collectively as a society and as a government to work toward having our resources protected better — like B.C. Hydro and private property — and also having sentences that are in line with the degree of the activity. Like I said earlier, when we look at several millions of dollars made from a few operations and sentences just worth a few thousand dollars, it is seen as an inconvenient cost of doing business. I want to stress again what the minister had said: about 82 percent of criminals growing marijuana get no sentence in British Columbia, while 48 percent in the state of Washington receive five years or more.

While there are many ways to deter this activity, clearly, if marijuana grow operators themselves are saying that this is a great place to come because we're so lenient, then that's an issue we have to look at. The numbers speak for themselves. I look forward to working with the Solicitor General, the police departments and the public on making them aware and making our legal departments aware of the issue and the type of sentences that would better be in line with the services we need.

R. Hawes: Today in the gallery we have a Rotary group study exchange. The Rotary Club of Abbotsford is their sponsor. We have Edith Lheureux from Antibes in southeast France — she's a city councillor there; Nathalie Lust from Toulon, France; Cedric Tremouille from Cannes, France; and Fred Maurice from Nice,

France. Fred is a journalist. He's the Vaughn Palmer of Nice; I think he's sent here to write some stories about our government. They are hosted by Ron and Elaine Howardson from Abbotsford. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. Kerr: My topic today is not top-of-mind for most citizens. In fact, it probably isn't even on their radar screen, but it's an important topic and one which addresses our goal of revitalizing the economy. It's one of my personal goals, which I set on being elected as an MLA.

The issue is limited liability partnerships, or LLPs as they are called. LLPs are needed for engineers, architects, lawyers, accountants and any other professional group that would prefer to operate as a partnership. The limited liability partnership was originally conceived in the United States in 1991. What the LLP did was shield innocent partners from vicarious personal liability for malpractice liabilities of the firm. In other words, an individual partner of the LLP would not be liable for claims against the firm arising from negligence or other forms of malpractice unless the partner was personally involved in the negligence or malpractice.

By 1997, 48 states had enacted LLP legislation. It's my understanding now that every jurisdiction in the United States allows LLPs. What about Canada? Well, let me tell you that partnership legislation has been amended to allow for LLPs in Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec. The Manitoba government just recently introduced LLP legislation, while New Brunswick has introduced a discussion paper on LLPs and is about to have public consultation on the issue.

In other words, B.C. is now one of the last jurisdictions in North America that has not amended its partnership legislation to allow LLPs to operate. That's right. Thanks to the past business-stifling policies, B.C. has been left chasing Atlantic Canada for the right to be the last jurisdiction in North America to allow partnerships to operate as LLPs.

Why have all these jurisdictions brought in LLPs? Well, it's very simple. When partnership law was first drafted in the United Kingdom in the 1800s, a typical partnership may have been two or three people operating in one jurisdiction. Today partnerships are global in nature and may include thousands of partners. In today's modern business world it simply isn't fair to make a partner in, say, Prince George have all their personal assets taken away because of a negligent act by a partner in Ontario — a partner who quite possibly they have never met and for a situation they had no involvement in, authority for or knowledge of.

The policy support for LLPs is incredibly strong. For example, in 1998, LLPs were recommended for all the provinces by the federal standing committee on banking, trade and commerce. In a report on liability the Senate committee urged the provincial and territorial governments to take the necessary steps to provide for the creation of limited liability partnerships. Then in 1999, at its annual conference in Winnipeg, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada recommended that every province amend its partnership law to allow for LLPs. The Uniform Law Conference even drafted uniform legislation that could be easily adopted by the provinces.

That's right, Mr. Speaker. All we have to do is go to the Uniform Law Conference website. The legislation is drafted, ready for us to adopt. In fact, last year the NDP government of Saskatchewan essentially took the bill from the Uniform Law Conference and passed it into law.

It's also worth pointing out that the United Kingdom, which is a source of our traditional partnership law, has amended its partnership legislation to allow for LLPs.

LLPs have been passed without opposition by Conservative governments and NDP governments and endorsed by Liberal governments.

What LLPs essentially do is provide partnerships with the same limited liability protection afforded to incorporated companies. As a result, limited liability would not protect the assets of the firm in the case of wrongdoing, nor would LLPs protect any negligent partners in the company.

In a submission to the government by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, on LLPs, they told us that B.C. is losing jobs and tax revenue because national firms often avoid B.C. when transferring national work to provincial offices. The reason is that other provinces — including our closest neighbour, Alberta — have LLPs, and B.C. does not.

While our government has done a great deal to improve the business climate in B.C., we have not yet addressed this important policy concern for professionals. We want the business services sector to thrive and create jobs in this province, and addressing partnership law would be another way that we could make improvements to the B.C. business climate.

As you aware, Mr. Speaker, our government in its first year in office has made tremendous strides to make B.C. a better place to invest and do business. Our government has lowered business and personal tax levels and reduced regulations and red tape. We are earning a reputation as a province as a good place to invest and do business. Our job has not been easy, and we've been working incredibly hard to repair the damage caused by the previous administration.

You see, policies such as LLPs, which should have been addressed years ago, have not yet made our priority list for legislation. But LLPs need to be addressed. It's bad for B.C.'s reputation to be out of sync with the rest of North America on LLPs. We clearly need to harmonize our partnership law with the rest of the provinces and the United States. I've also been told that professionals will often not come to B.C. to be partners because we do not have LLPs. In an age of

shortages of skilled labour, B.C. cannot afford to have any more reasons for professionals not to come here.

I urge my fellow colleagues to think about the importance of LLPs for the professionals. It will help the B.C. economy. It costs no money to the taxpayer. It takes little staff time, since the legislation's already been drafted for us.

I urge my colleagues to support amendments to the Partnership Act to allow LLPs to operate in B.C. Let's not be the last place on the continent to allow LLPs. The previous government may not have cared if B.C. was different from the rest of the world as a place to do business, but I truly do not want B.C. to be known as the worst place in North America to operate a business partnership, and I don't believe any of my colleagues do either.

R. Sultan: I am pleased to respond to the comments of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca on the topic of limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. Since that member holds the honoured title of fellow in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, he is personally well placed to comment on the fairness aspects of our existing B.C. legislative void in this matter. As a practising business person he's also well positioned to comment on the competitiveness, or lack of it, when it comes to business law.

Fairness and competitiveness — those are the key issues. We British Columbians live in a corner of paradise. The first European visitors to our shores marvelled at the unique lifestyles and the greatly differentiated cultures that had arisen among our first nations. Inlet by inlet, up and down the coast, remoteness had something to do with it.

Things haven't changed all that much since contact. We still like to do things our way in these parts. We take pride in being unique. Many outsiders prefer to call us quirky. Thus, in matters of LLPs, the rest of the continent bustles off in one direction, while we prefer to kick back, admire the view and, from our little island, cherish our uniqueness.

What's wrong with that? A lot, as a matter of fact. Mr. Clinton's political guru posted a slogan on the wall during Bill's first presidential campaign. It said: "It's the economy, stupid." On the economic front, British Columbia hasn't been setting the world on fire in recent times. Our instinct to cling to what many others view as out of step or even quirky, epitomized by our periodic embrace of a virulent brand of socialism, has reduced this once-proud economic leader to the status of a have-not province. I don't like that one bit, nor do the patients lined up waiting for care at our hospitals, nor do persons having to get by with less generous legal aid, nor do civil servants who find themselves downsized. And the list goes on. When our B.C. economy slows down, so do a lot of other nice things we've taken for granted.

From that perspective, consider LLP. Our lack of harmony with the rest of the continent is not admired in an increasingly mobile, multinational and profit-maximizing commercial world. The CEO of a national accounting firm in Vancouver commented to me recently: "Uniqueness. Well, I guess that's a good thing in the tourist business." Then, when I got back to my office this morning, I found a letter on my desk — if I can find it here — from Mr. Richard Rees, who's the chief executive officer of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. Richard said, in part: "Well, we understand the benefits of innovation. We felt that harmonization was a greater priority at this point. Over the past decade B.C. had earned a reputation of being different from the rest of the country as a place to do business. Harmonizing our basic regulatory framework with the rest of Canada and North America, we believe, should be a priority of the government."

The message is clear. Virtually all other jurisdictions in North America have gone the LLP route, and that's good enough for me. As it is, I'm told law firms and accounting firms are even today tending to relocate into Calgary for reasons of liability protection. Enough said.

B. Kerr: I'd like to thank my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano for his insightful comments. Indeed, in many partnership laws, it's a small but important step to revitalizing the B.C. economy. Allowing limited liability partnerships is just another way we can make B.C.'s regulatory framework similar to our competitors. Professionals in our province would benefit from LLPs, and we should not underestimate the economic impact of this sector. According to figures included in a submission by the Canadian Bar Association, there are approximately 10,000 lawyers in B.C., and they employed over 19,000 British Columbians in 1999. In addition, there are over 16,000 designated accountants in B.C. practising as chartered accountants, certified general accountants and certified management accountants. In 1999 accountants employed over 21,000 people in the province.

It's also important to note that many professionals play an important role in the B.C. economy as business advisers. Professionals are often on the front line of investment decisions as advisers to businesses considering expanding or locating to British Columbia. We don't want investment advice being made from offices in Calgary or Toronto because B.C.'s regulatory framework is considered a disadvantage to professionals. We want professionals to be upbeat about the regulatory framework right here in British Columbia.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, professionals are a significant employer and influence B.C.'s economy, and LLPs are an important way for these groups to continue to be a major contributor to the province. LLPs are simply the norm in partnership law in North America, and B.C.'s Partnership Act is simply outdated. Modernizing the Partnership Act will harmonize B.C. law with other jurisdictions, it will enhance B.C.'s competitive position and will therefore attract

G. Trumper: In the House today, having a tour of the buildings, is group of students from Ahousat with their teacher, Ms. Sigurdson, and two others, Coralee Bell and Daisy George. These five grade 5 students have a 45-minute ride on the boat to get to Tofino and then down to Victoria. So they've come a long way for this particular trip.

Also with them are 20 grade 3s from Glenlyon-Norfolk school in Oak Bay. For the past year they've been having correspondence backward and forward between the two schools. Today is the first opportunity for them to meet with each other, and they will be spending most of the day together.

PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT
REMUNERATION ALLOWANCES
AND PERQUISITES ACT
(continued)

I. Chong: When we adjourned debate on this bill about two weeks ago, I had just an opportunity to begin my comments on it. Since that time I've had an opportunity to check back on some history on this particular legislation.

In the year 2000 another private member — the previous member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, Mr. Kasper — introduced a private member bill. At that time it was intituled Senior Civil Servant Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act. The acronym was the SCRAP Act. Interestingly enough, as I went through and looked at this bill, it contained pretty much verbatim what is in this new bill introduced by the opposition member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — her bill M203.

Very few minor changes have been made in it, and it caused me to wonder why this bill has come about at this time, when two years ago it was introduced by one of their colleagues. First reading was June 13, 2000. At that time our House Leader rose and said, "Knowing how difficult it is to get a private member's bill through this House, if we have unanimous leave, I'd be prepared to move it through all three stages today" — a very gracious offer on our part when we were in opposition, I might add. The then government, the now opposition, didn't take us up on that, so you have to wonder why.

Why was a bill at that time not supported — a private member's bill not allowed to go through three stages — and is now considered so important as to be brought forward? What's changed? Well, as I alluded in my comments two weeks ago, what's changed is that we do have a new government, and we do have a new way of governing in this province. We have a more open and transparent process. We have merit legislation that was brought in last year to ensure that people are hired based on their merit, so that we can restore a non-partisan, professional public service. That's exactly what we're attempting to do.

Things are different now, and the opposition doesn't realize it. They're still trying to imagine that things are exactly the same — that the status quo is the same — but that is not the case. We have had a core services review process that has allowed every ministry to look deep down into what their ministry is supposed to be providing to this province, to our British Columbian citizens. That core services review is an ongoing review process so that we will always deliver the best services we can — particularly to our patients and our students, because health care and education are our number one and two priorities for this government.

In addition, the core services review is going to go through Crown corporations. We have seen a significant increase in the number of Crown corporations, boards and agencies having been developed over a number of years, as ministries kept chunking off parts of their responsibilities onto another board or commission or another Crown corporation. We're going through that process again now to make sure that those independent Crown corporations, agencies or boards that are relevant to British Columbians today will provide the best service to British Columbians.

Again, we have a select standing committee. One of our members chairs that — the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. He is anxious to get started on that work, and I'm also a member of that committee. I'm anxious, as well, so that we will be able to have our CEOs and board directors come forward to report to that committee, so we can ask them about their service plans, performance measurements and targets and hold their feet to the fire. Ministers now have ministerial accountability as well. I can assure you that their staff will be working very diligently to ensure that their targets are met.

As I look through the bill that was introduced by the opposition, which was similar to the bill that was introduced two years ago and wasn't at that time endorsed by the then government, the now opposition, I do have to question its motivation. All I can suggest is that it's frivolous on their part today. That's one of the reasons I won't be supporting it.

I do know the auditor general has also come out with a report recently for the year 2002-2003, Building a

Strong Work Environment in British Columbia's Public Service: A Key to Delivering Quality Service. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee I know that I, along with my colleagues and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, as Chair of that committee, will have to take a look at this report and the recommendations offered here and see how we can improve delivery of quality service here to British Columbians. I think that's the approach we should take.

This bill is no longer relevant in today's environment. We have a new government with a new way of providing services to people of British Columbia, and I think this bill does not deserve the time of day we've already given it.

Hon. G. Collins: I want to take a few moments to speak to Bill M203 as well, Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act. As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said, this is almost identical — not completely but almost identical — to an act that was introduced by former MLA Rick Kasper when he was on the government side of the House. The government of the day, as with every private member's bill, did not give it the opportunity for any debate whatsoever. We've had some debate on this bill.

I must say I am intrigued. It has been a couple of years since I read the bill and saw the former member's bill, but I am intrigued, in going through it again, with the concept of a citizens panel, because that's something that our party put forward prior to the '96 election for the setting of remuneration for MLAs. The now Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, felt strongly, as did members of our caucus, that the setting of salaries for elected officials was something that should involve the public, because we as elected representatives are the link between the public, the voters, the taxpayers and the government and governance and the legislative process. For us to be setting our own salaries and our own pensions and our own benefits without the input of the general public was something we didn't feel was appropriate.

After the '96 election we did have an agreement with the then government to do just that. We did have a citizens panel to review MLAs' salaries and pensions, etc. I think it was quite successful. They toured the province and met with people. They went to 12 communities, I think it was. I don't recall exactly. It was some time ago. They got input from individuals, groups, associations, former MLAs. I think even some current MLAs at that time gave them their input. As well, I believe we heard from labour and business, etc. It was an interesting process. It didn't attract quite as much attention as I thought it would, and I would categorize the submissions as somewhat light, but it was intriguing. We came in with that report. That report was brought to the House, and LAMC endorsed it with just two minor tweaks to it. In fact, I think it's been a good way. It's helped to restore some sense that members are able to set their own salaries, such as they have to — there's no other way to do it — but use the advice of a citizens panel. I thought the report was very balanced and very reasonable.

I'm intrigued by the suggestion in the act that that method be used for senior people in the public sector. However, as my colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head mentioned, time has overtaken this to a certain extent. As well, there was some discussion upon transition of the new government. With the relieving of some people from the public service, there's been discussions about severances and pay, etc. In light of that, the Premier had asked myself, as Minister of Finance and also responsible for the Public Sector Employers Council, as well as the Minister of Labour to look at what is done, how they're set. Are we in line? Are we out of line? Is there some way we should do things differently? That review is ongoing, and I expect we'll have something in the not too distant future. That review is ongoing, and government is trying to address the very issues that I think spawned this legislation, this draft bill, at the time it came forward back in the year 2000 and then again this year.

With that context around this, I don't believe it is timely at this point to go ahead with this bill. We will complete that review and report out. Once that's done, I expect that if it's not satisfactory, then certainly the House could choose to do something else if it wanted, including support this private member's legislation.

But given that that's the timing, given where we are and given the process that's underway, I'd like to move an amendment to this private member's bill, that the motion for second reading of Bill M203 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting "six months hence."

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that an interesting motion? Certainly, it's one that is available for all sorts of legislation the government says it's working on that may adversely affect future government actions. Let's just take a moment and pause and see whether the legislation is appropriate now.

Let's take a moment, pause, let government complete its work, and then six months hence bring back the legislation — a very interesting motion, certainly one that has been tried in other areas where legislation is being rammed through, affecting people with disabilities, people on income assistance, where the minister has no answers for what the effect will be on people as a result of the legislation and has said: "No, we're going to ram this legislation through. We're not going to take a moment to pause and see what the effect is of that type of legislation."

The government's position is: "Yeah, let's ram through legislation that affects in a harmful way the most vulnerable in society, people with disabilities, single moms on welfare, people affected by draconian changes to employment standards. We're going to

ram that through, but this legislation that deals with people earning $100,000 or more a year…. Well, our government's working on how to manage compensation for those individuals, so just give us some time." That's what the Minister of Finance has said.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head stands up and says: "Well, this was a bill that was brought in two years ago by the then government MLA who was a New Democrat, and if the now opposition wanted the bill passed, why didn't they do it then?" Well, we had legislation in place as a government. We had solid legislation in place that this government decides to completely ignore.

I don't think this government has even read that legislation, so they go ahead willy-nilly hiring people earning $100,000 or more. They hired the president of the B.C. Liberal Party. The same day that his face was on the website for the B.C. Liberal Party, you could go…. I think you only needed to do two clicks on the B.C. Liberal Party website, and there you saw Andrew Wilkinson, president of the B.C. Liberal Party, the same day that he was hired at — who knows what he was hired at? — probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars to be a deputy minister for this government.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head stands up and says: "We hire on the basis of merit." Get serious. Then she tries to defend the merit commissioner as some kind of independent body, like they promised during the election — that there would a merit commissioner, an independent officer. Well, let's see how that promise turned out. Maybe the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head forgot how that Liberal new-era promise turned out. Does the member recall that it turns out they didn't put an independent merit commissioner in place? They put a bureaucrat, a deputy minister reporting directly to cabinet, in place.

Hmm. Let's see how that's independent. Maybe it isn't, Mr. Speaker. The hiring continues — Irene Chanin hired, deputy minister for the public affairs bureau, reporting directly to the Premier. How's her life been going? Well, because the government didn't want to fire her and have to pay her severance, they sent her home. Here we are having seniors kicked out of their nursing homes, and Ms. Chanin is sitting at home on the public payroll because the government didn't want to fire her and have the embarrassment of having to pay her severance.

They signed an air-tight contract with Ms. Chanin that the Premier admitted to during his estimates, an air-tight contract with Ms. Chanin that they can't break because they were just so busy hiring people they wanted to hire, regardless of merit. They have a merit commissioner in place that reports directly to cabinet and has no independence, and there are no rules that this government wants to abide by about how to hire or fire people.

Here is what's in place. Here's the law of the land right now, brought in by the previous government, about terminating employees. These are employees that are exempt. What an exempt employee means is an employee who is unable to join a union, is not part of a bargaining unit. Exempt employees are normally people who make decisions of a confidential nature or have themselves the power to hire or fire. That's what a deputy minister is.

Here's what's in place right now. There's a limitation on notice period and severance — the law of the land, right as we speak, that even this Liberal government has to live by. Well, hmm, let's see. Yeah, they have to live by the law of the land until they bring in legislation to break that law of the land.

So how has this government dealt with the law of the land? In the case of Irene Chanin — who, clearly, the government has no confidence in…. They reassigned Ms. Chanin, but they reassigned her to a made-up job. They created a job at B.C. Buildings Corporation. They created a job that didn't exist before Ms. Chanin failed in her job in the Premier's office. They made up a salary for this job, too, of $150,000.

While seniors are being booted out of their homes, while mental health programs are being cut in ridings around this province, this government made up a job, put Ms. Chanin in place and is paying her $150,000. That's not what the legislation says. The legislation doesn't say to make up a job and assign the person to it.

On the other hand, Grant Roberge, who was the CEO of the health authority in central Vancouver Island, said: "Oh no. The job that I was offered was so radically different that I couldn't possibly accept it, so the health authority gave me hundreds of thousands of dollars of severance pay." Then I guess the government

of this day tried to blame it on the fact that his contract was signed under the NDP. Wrong.

What this government refused to do was to apply the law of the land to the contract that Mr. Roberge had. He was virtually offered his same job, but now that this government had created a larger health authority, there was a superboss in Victoria of this government's making. Mr. Roberge said, "Oh no, my job had changed so radically that it was constructive dismissal," even though it was the same job — exactly the same job. This government allowed that to go through, breaking the law of the land. That's what this government did.

Now, maybe the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head wasn't up to speed on (1) the law of the land that exists and has existed for several years and (2) what's changed since her government came into power. What else has changed? Why do we need this in place? What else has been changed by this government?

I'll tell you what's happened. In our education system — where dozens of schools are closing, thousands of teachers are being laid off, class sizes are growing, special education students are being denied support — here's what's happening: this government chose to remove the cap on administration spending. There's been a cap on administration spending for years, put in by the previous government.

Do you know why that cap on administration was put in place? Because in the early nineties, hundreds of senior officials in school boards across the province were making exorbitant salaries without scrutiny. People were saying: "In these tough economic times, shouldn't all the money that we can possibly make go into the classroom?" The government of the day said, "Yes, we will legislate a cap on what every school board can spend on administration," which paid for those senior official salaries. It worked. The issue disappeared because school boards knew that they had a cap on what they could spend for administration costs.

In order to give flexibility to the school boards as they were cutting their budgets to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars across the province, this government removed that cap on administration. Gee, that's really helpful to education, isn't it?

What do boards turn around and do? School boards turn around and increase the salaries of their highest paid at the same time that they're forcing more and more little kids in kindergarten and grade 1 into larger classes. At the same time that they're denying extra assistance for special needs, at the same time they're shutting down libraries, at the same time they're closing schools, this government decided to say to school boards: "Don't worry. You can spend as much on administration as you want."

That's why this legislation is needed. Perhaps with this legislation in place, senior bureaucrats around the province would at least be held accountable to the law of the land that's in place, and maybe the panel that's being recommended here — a non-partisan, publicly based panel — would actually have to live up to the law of the land.

Let's see what else has changed. A couple of citizens — well, it was more than a couple; lots of citizens — sent in to the opposition a couple of notices that appeared in the Summerland area, the Okanagan News. OK News is what we call it for short. There were two very interesting sections.

One was a notice — nobody's name was attached to the notice — where it says…. The notice was in the paper on May 15. It said: "Effective May 17" — 48 hours away — "Summerland Hospital will be closed. If you've got an emergency or you need help at all, go to Penticton or call 911." The acute care hospital in Summerland is gone. But then, if you flip a couple more pages, there are classified ads for employment, job postings for bureaucrat after bureaucrat after bureaucrat — administrators, systems analysts — for the interior health authority. That would be the same body that just closed the Summerland Hospital. So patients lose; bureaucrats win.

My gosh, I wonder what the salaries of those bureaucrats are going to be. Who's going to be hired? Maybe the local Liberal Party president will be hired, like the B.C. Liberal Party president was hired for the deputy minister job. Where will the merit commissioner be then? Did the merit commissioner say: "Gee, government, do you think it's a bit unusual that you're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to your B.C. Liberal Party president?" Where will the merit commissioner be when the interior health authority is hiring these people, at the same time that patients are being literally thrown out into the street? That's what's changed. That's what's changed since then.

I think it's interesting that today — and it's only an aside, Mr. Speaker, a very gentle aside — a dozen or so Liberal MLAs are paying severance to the police complaint commissioner. Hmm — based on what? Is he being fired? Is he resigning? That's interesting. I can hardly wait to hear how the Liberal backbenchers decided to spend over $100,000 of taxpayer money. I can hardly wait to hear their justification for not bringing it to the Legislature as they spend over $100,000 of taxpayer money.

But the Minister of Finance has a plan. The Minister of Finance says that we need to hoist this legislation because he's working on the file. What file, exactly, does he have to work on? Hundreds of conservation officers, water protection officers and endangered species officers are being fired. Hundreds of social workers are being fired. Thousands of teachers are being fired. Hundreds of nurses are being fired. What is it, exactly, that the Minister of Finance is working on about determining the future compensation of the highest paid in the public service? What is it about these regulations, which have been in place for years, that doesn't make sense to the Minister of Finance? Is he looking for more opportunity to hire his friends and pay them big bucks without scrutiny?

What is the Minister of Finance to do while he's working on this project? And by the way, he's been working on this for months. Maybe he could just live with the law of the land, as I read into the record, and try to work a little harder on the economy, try to get us out of the number ten spot that we're going to be in for the next three or four years, according to every single financial and economic forecast that is coming out. We're going to be number ten for the next new era, for sure. Maybe he could spend more time on that and just allow this bill to come through, have a public review committee review the compensation and live by the law of the land that is in place.

It is very interesting that the Minister of Finance decides to hoist this bill, which affects people who make over $100,000 a year. That's a great tool that the Minister of Finance puts in place. He's worried that we may not fully understand the effects on this group of people until a review is completed. You know what? I actually think my colleague and I might think that's a legitimate principle to be governed by. When you don't fully understand, as a government, the effects that the changed law may have on the very people it is meant to govern, take a pause. Take a pause of six months. Be thoughtful about it.

I opened my comments by saying the Minister of Human Resources doesn't have a clue what the effects are going to be on people affected by Bills 26 and 27, people on income assistance, people with disabilities. In fact, he stands up every day and says: "Don't worry. We're going to deal with regulations. Regulations are going to be in sometime in the summer. But don't worry. We'll work out all of the problems in regulations."

You know what? Maybe today the Minister of Human Resources could take guidance from the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance says: "Until you know exactly what the effect of the legislation will be, don't bring it in. Complete all your work." I think that's basically what the Minister of Finance was saying: "Complete all your work before you bring in legislation that will have a lasting effect."

I hope the Minister of Human Resources is listening to this, because it's the right thing to do. It's absolutely the right thing to do. I take it from this that the government has had a change of heart on the passage of legislation. I take it from this, with the Minister of Finance standing up and saying: "Make no change to legislation. Don't bring in legislation until all of the work is complete."

With the Minister of Human Resources on record saying his work will not be complete until July — the end of June, beginning of July was the last time we heard this — I will be seeking, with my colleague, agreement of the opposition to support the hoist motion.

Let the Minister of Finance complete his review. It won't take long in that case, because most of the work is there for him. He just has to read the law of the land, then figure out how his government has broken the law of the land and how much taxpayer money has been wasted by that, by their actions. Let him do that.

Then the Minister of Human Resources will have to abide by the same principle. He will have to stand up and say, "We agree to the hoist motion on Bills 26 and 27" — the bills that gut income assistance for people with disabilities, for young people leaving their parents' homes, for single moms on welfare. He will have to abide by exactly the same principle because he has not completed his work either. Hundreds of thousands of people's lives are affected by the work that he's doing — hundreds of thousands of people's lives who must rely on $6,000 per year in income. Ten thousand dollars per year is one-tenth of the amount of money that the people we're talking about in this legislation will have to rely on.

A principle is a principle. If this government's going to bring in a hoist motion on this legislation because of not knowing the effects on a category of people earning $100,000 per year, the same principle applies to those who earn $6,000 per year.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to the amendment. The notion is around a hoist motion on a bill that the former member of the opposition and now government supported when this was first tabled by an independent member of the House. That principle ought to follow today: that is, to support the intent of the bill, to put forward a private citizens panel with a broad range of representation to evaluate the compensation for civil servants and Crown corporation appointments, those in the civil service who make $100,000 or more.

The government, when they were in opposition, chastised former Premier Dan Miller's decision to give an increase to deputy ministers. I agree on that point, because I don't think that should have been done. I think what government should have done, irrespective of party stripes, was ensure that there is a proper process and a fair process that is followed. That is the intent of the bill. The now government supported that intention. There is no reason why the government should not support that intention today.

The Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance, moved an amendment. He stated that we need some more time to evaluate the effects of this piece of legislation. He's asked for a delay — for a decision, for a vote — on this bill until after the fall. He wanted some time to look at that. Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. For a prudent government to make a decision, they should take the time to evaluate the effects of the bills. This government — even then, two years ago when they were in opposition — thought the effects of this bill would have been positive. Now that they're in government, they're pausing for a moment and saying: "Gee, I'm not so sure anymore. We want to look at this more thoroughly." Fair enough. It's fair enough if they want to do that.

It does raise the question of why this government now, today, would want to push through a series of legislation that's now before this House that would

have detrimental impacts for many British Columbians, in fact, to the point where many questions have been raised, especially around Bills 26 and 27. These are the bills around income assistance for people with disabilities who are looking for government to provide support to them. Those two fundamental pieces of legislation…. When questions were asked of the Minister of Human Resources, he was not able to provide answers to many of the questions on the issue around disability for people who are faced with permanent disabilities, around who would qualify and who would not qualify. Would the definition change under Bill 27? The minister was not able to provide answers to that.

When I came into the House and brought forward a list provided to me by the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities of a variety of illnesses that people now suffer and that had classified them to be eligible for permanent disability…. When that list was read — some of the illnesses were read off to the minister, asking the minister whether or not these individuals with these particular illnesses would continue to be able to receive income assistance — the minister was not able to answer that question.

You have to ask the question: why would the government now want to push through these pieces of legislation impacting people's lives severely? For people who make less than $10,000 a year…. Potentially, with the passage of the legislation, Bills 26 and 27 would reduce their support from government immensely. It may even cut them off for eligibility.

Why would the government want to push through this piece of legislation? If the theory that they now want to apply to this bill for deputy ministers to receive raises and higher compensation applies, why wouldn't you apply the same theory and principle to the most vulnerable British Columbians, the poorest of the poor, people with disabilities, people on income assistance, single moms and their children? Why wouldn't the government want to make that application as well?

I would actually ask the government to consider that. This is the last week that the Legislature will be sitting in the spring session. It's the last week. There are still at least, off the top of my head, five substantive pieces of legislation that need thorough debate and thorough consideration in terms of their impacts on British Columbians — on their health, on their safety and for the future of British Columbia. These are Bills 26 and 27. As I mentioned, they are the bills dealing with income assistance for individuals and families and for people who have disabilities.

There is the Environmental Assessment Act that is now before the House, which this government is trying to ram through. That impacts every single British Columbian in the area around health and safety as it relates to the environment. Why doesn't the government stand down those bills until the fall, as the Minister of Finance has suggested? We want to know and understand better what the ramifications of these bills are on the British Columbia landscape.

Three other bills — the labour bills that are now before us…. The WCB piece of legislation that's before us. The employment standards changes that will have significant ramifications for many British Columbians and also the Labour Relations Code. We, too, need to pause and take moments to look at the changes that government is proposing, what its impacts are on all of those fronts in the labour front, both economically and also from the workers' point of view. We need to evaluate that and understand that thoroughly before action is taken.

The government needs to apply the same principle that they now want to apply with this bill, the bill to put forward a citizens panel to evaluate increases for civil servants who make $100,000 or more. If the government has the integrity and the belief that fairness should apply in all cases, that government action should only be taken if we understand fully what those decisions and actions are and the ramifications of those decisions and actions, then the government needs to apply that principle for the people who are the most vulnerable British Columbians — people who are on income assistance, people who have disabilities, the children who would be impacted with the changes under Bills 26 and 27, the older citizens who are not pensionable but close to it, where their support would also be reduced as a result of Bills 26 and 27. We need to make sure that opportunity is afforded to those individuals so that they understand fully what the ramifications are so the government can provide the answers to British Columbians on these issues and so the minister himself could give it thought and have the answers readily available before action is taken, before the bills are passed.

There's an opportunity to do that. This is the last week in which we'll be sitting in the spring session of the Legislature. The government can apply the principle that they now say is necessary for this bill that we're debating before us around a citizens panel for compensation for civil servants who make $100,000 or more. The government can apply this same principle for the remaining bills that are substantive, which are now before the House, and wait until the fall so that (a) the public will have an opportunity to look at these bills and understand the ramifications, (b) the government can come forward with the regulations that are attached to these bills so that they know what the ramifications are, and (c) we can have a proper debate in this House, so the government would not have to bring forward closure to shut down debate when there are only two opposition members in the House who are primarily raising questions, so the government would not have to shut down debate and silence the voices that need to be brought to this House and the different points of view that need to be brought to this House for debate under a democratic system.

That, in my view, is democracy, and that's what the government should do with respect to the rest of the bills, following their own advice on the hoist motion as

Deputy Speaker: Division has been called. Division will be postponed until 5 p.m. today.
Second reading of Bill M204.

B. Bennett: It's an honour to stand up and tell the House a little bit about this private member's bill.

As you said, Mr. Speaker, the name of the bill is The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act. The preamble of that act goes as follows:

The act itself is very simple; it's one sentence. It states: "A person has the right to hunt and fish in accordance with the law." This is a private member's bill that means a lot to me personally. I've hunted all my life. I'm proud of the fact that I am a hunter and an angler. There are a lot of stereotypes about people who go out into the woods and hunt. I also happen to enjoy Puccini and fine wine when I can afford it, so those stereotypes are not always very reliable.

I don't have much time today, and what I wanted to say is that I'm doing this private member's bill, putting it forward in this House, on behalf of the people in British Columbia who hunt and fish and who work for the benefit of conservation in this province. When actions are needed in the field to enhance wildlife habitat or to keep starving and freezing ungulates alive in tough winters, it's the hunters and fisher-people who come forward to help.

The Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, stated: "Hunting is about more than just hunting. Hunting is about sharing knowledge, experiences, memories. It's about passing on our traditions. But most of all, hunting is about learning to understand and to respect and to love the natural world."

There is clearly opposition to hunting, and that opposition is next to impossible to support by the facts. No hunter wants to hunt an endangered or threatened species. The opposition to hunting is based on two beliefs: first, that hunting threatens the survival of a wildlife species and secondly, that hunting is morally wrong. I say the second belief, that hunting is morally wrong, is a matter for each person to decide.

With all due respect to those who don't share my belief in hunting, I believe that much of the anti-hunting sentiment and the misunderstanding of what hunters do in the field and why they hunt is based on the misplaced environmental doctrine that modern industrial mankind, as distinct from indigenous cultures, is not part of nature and does not have the right to exploit or manipulate wild plants and animals.

I think, also, it's important to make the point, while I have the opportunity here today, to make the distinction between preservation and conservation. The distinction between those two philosophical concepts really helps us understand why people in British Columbia and, in fact, around the world still hunt and fish.

Preservationism is based on the belief that humans do not belong in nature and that if something bad befalls a human, like an attack by a wild animal, it's the human's fault. Conservation, on the other hand, is based on humankind being part of nature, that far more plants and animals are reproduced each year than can survive, and that these excess plants and animals are resources to be harvested.

I would go further in terms of explaining some of the philosophical background as to why people hunt and why hunting is often not understood in our modern world where most people live in urban areas. I talk about pantheism or nature worship. That's the spiritual basis for preservationists' viewpoints. Pantheists don't believe that humans should have management control over nature. They believe that humans are the spoilers of the natural order. I say that no species of wildlife has been threatened or endangered because of hunting since before World War I, when President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Laurier got together and introduced rational hunting laws. In fact, if anything, the hunters and the anglers in the province do more for conservation of fish and wildlife than any other group of individuals in the province.

Since I brought this private member's bill forward, I've had a number of e-mails and letters and telephone calls from people all over Canada, as a matter of fact. I've had e-mails from probably every region of British Columbia, and I've had letters from as far away as Miramichi, New Brunswick. I'd like to take a second, if I could, and just read a couple of those letters I received in support of this private member's bill.

Here's one from Brent Smith, conservation officer, Vernon, B.C. It says: "Mr. Bennett, keep up the good work. I'm glad to see this brought up in the Legislature. Best of luck. " Here's one from Les Husband, who is the vice-president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. "I and the B.C. Wildlife Federation very much appreciate the initiative you've put forward regarding our hunting and angling heritage. If at any time you need support or information, please don't hesitate to contact us." Here's one from Jason Hayes, research analyst, the Fraser Institute. "Thank you, and please keep up the good work."

I have dozens and dozens of e-mails and letters from people across B.C. and even across the country: Kerry Mann, vice president, North Peace Rod and Gun Club; Dave Parsons, president of the Nanaimo Fish and Game Club; the Uphill family from Fernie. The B.C. Trappers Association based in Prince George writes: "Mr. Bennett, on behalf of the B.C. Trappers Association please accept my very sincere congratulations on your support of hunting in B.C. and your recognition of the importance and legitimacy of wildlife use as an effective wildlife management and conservation tool."

Here's one from a gentleman by the name of Ron Champagne. He's from Maple Ridge. "This is coming from someone who doesn't think much of politicians, but I would like to thank you for your efforts in declaring hunting and fishing as our heritage. It takes guts." I won't read the rest of it. "Some politicians like you may change my attitude."

I'm almost out of time, so let me say, on that note, that I'm grateful to have a few minutes to talk about this important topic. It's important to a lot of people in rural British Columbia. I believe it's a symbolic topic, and I believe this private member's bill should go forward in some form, whether it's a private member's bill or a government bill or an amendment to, perhaps, the British Columbia Wildlife Act. I look forward to pursuing this private member's bill at the next sitting.

P. Bell: I, too, would actually like to speak in favour of the bill. I think the member has identified something that's clearly critical to our rural communities. But given the time, I would move adjournment of debate.