Hansard -- Monday, October 21, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 9, No. 2 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tributes		3889
	Death of public servants in Kamloops Hon. J. Murray J. MacPhail

Introductions by Members		3889

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3890
	Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64) Hon. G. Plant Community Services Interim Authorities Act (Bill 65) Hon. G. Hogg Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 66) Hon. G. Bruce Transportation Investment Act (Bill 67) Hon. J. Reid

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		3892
	Business award recipients in Burnaby H. Bloy Support for 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympic bid B. Bennett Monument for 1944 airplane crash in Port Hardy R. Visser

Oral Questions		3893
	Health care costs for pensioners and seniors J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Hon. G. Collins J. Kwan Kyoto accord J. Nuraney Hon. J. Murray B. Lekstrom

Motions without Notice		3895
	Second Reading of Bill 62 Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Second Reading of Bills		3900
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill 62) J. MacPhail J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House		3914
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill 62) J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid W. Cobb D. Chutter P. Bell J. Kwan S. Orr Hon. M. Coell V. Anderson T. Christensen

Hon. J. Murray: I rise to pay tribute to the victims of the terrible tragedy in Kamloops last week and to offer my deepest sympathies and condolences to the wives, families, friends and colleagues of those who were killed. I know I speak for every member of this House when I say that our thoughts and our prayers are with the families and our employees and that we wish you strength at this very difficult time.

What happened last week was sudden, terrible and tragic. These dedicated public servants were well loved and well respected. Once again, let me express my deepest sympathies to the families involved. This government will make every effort to ensure that support services are in place for the families of the victims and for our employees.

J. MacPhail: I rise today to join with the minister in expressing the opposition's sadness with respect to the terrible incident that occurred last week in Kamloops. My colleague and I share in the grief and the horror felt by all British Columbians, and our hearts, too, go out to the families, friends and co-workers of those who lost their lives last week.

I don't think there are any words that any of us can say that will ease the heartache or diminish the awful sense of loss felt by those who knew David Mardon, James McCracken and Richard Anderson. There's nothing we can say to make sense of the senseless and to erase the memory of that awful tragedy. All we can do is join together and express our sincere condolences.

As elected representatives we can commit to learning all we can from what happened last week in Kamloops. To that end, I offer the government the full support of the opposition. We can work together; in fact, we must work together to find out what happened and what we can do in our capacity as legislators to ensure that this tragedy is never repeated.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would ask that everyone join me on behalf of this Legislative Assembly and stand in a moment of silence on behalf of the families of those affected by this terrible tragedy.

Hon. G. Hogg: It's my privilege to introduce a number of guests to the House today who are here to watch the introduction of a piece of legislation. They are chairs of regional planning committees and aboriginal transition committees who have been working on behalf of the people of this province for a number of months.

They are Ann Geddes, who is co-chair of the Vancouver Island regional planning committee and chair of the Community Social Planning Council of Victoria; Debra Foxcroft, co-chair of Vancouver Island regional planning committee and a member of the Tseshaht first nation; Marion McAdam, co-chair of Vancouver costal regional planning committee and president of the board of Vancouver YWCA; Scott Clark, co-chair of the Vancouver coastal aboriginal transition committee and president of the United Native Nations; Laura McDiarmid, who is co-chair of the Vancouver coastal transition committee and social development director of the Musqueam Indian band; Ken Drury, who is co-chair of the Vancouver coastal aboriginal transition committee and director with the Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia; James Latham, chair of the Fraser regional planning committee and member of the regional child and youth committee for ten years; Maureen Chapman, chair of the Fraser aboriginal transitional committee and hereditary chief of the Skawahlook first nation; Mary Ashley, who is co-chair of the provincial child and family development steering committee; Wayne McRann, chair of the interior regional planning committee and founder and president of Wamaco Distributors; Debbie Abbott, chair of the technical committee for the interior aboriginal transition committee; and Chief Stewart Phillip, who is interim leadership spokesman for the interior aboriginal transition committee and president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They have many of their support committee members with them.

I'd also like to introduce from the community living sector Ellen Tarhsis, who is a member of the Community Living Transition Steering Committee and executive director of the Victoria Association for Community Living; Lynn and Oscar Rolko, who are parents, and Lynn is a member of the Community Living Transition Steering Committee; Isobel Behan, who is member of the board of directors of the Victoria Association for Community Living; Ken Bradford and Charlene Barney, representatives of the Garth Homer Self-Advocate Council; Elizabeth Anthony and Bill and Mary Hustler, parents, and Bill is a director of the Victoria Association for Community Living; Roberta Scott, a member of the Community Living Transition Steering Committee and president of the Community Residential Service Providers of B.C. With Roberta is a delegation of family-model home providers.

Also present is Judy Carter-Smith, who is a former executive director of the B.C. Association for Community Living and a former adviser to our ministry. I would ask the House to please join me in expressing our appreciation to these British Columbians for their commitment to working with the people of this province to ensure that we're able to provide better services to the most vulnerable people in our province.

Hon. M. de Jong: Special guests today in the gallery are visiting us from Germany. Karsten Voigt is the coordinator for German–North American cooperation. I have learned of Mr. Voigt's storied history, before taking this post, as a longtime member of the German Bundestag. He also served as president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. He's going to be speaking at the University of Victoria tomorrow, I believe. He is joined by Klaus Kroeger, the consul general of Germany in Vancouver. I hope all members will make both of them welcome.

W. McMahon: It's a pleasure today to introduce Neil Miller. Neil was a resident of Invermere, British Columbia, for a few years and now lives in Victoria. I end up seeing him at the airport most Sunday evenings. Would the House please make him welcome.

P. Wong: I am pleased to rise today to introduce several groups coming from my riding. First, Marianne Cheng, president of the Student Society of China in Canada; second, Sabrina Louie from the Pui Ying Alumni Association; third, a group of respectable seniors and volunteers: Dorothy Chau, Rosalline Luk, Yuet Ying Lam, Moo Ching Cho, Chiu Ping Lo, Kwai Ying Tse, Daisy, James and Shirley Yee. I am pleased also to introduce my cousins, the family of Wongs. They are Andrew Wong, Elaine Wong, Fung Sheung Wong, Shuk Chun Wong and Yee Shun Wong. There are close to 900 Wongs on the voters list in my riding.

Finally, in the gallery there's also the family of Chans. That is also my mother's maiden name. There are over 450 Chans on the voters list in my riding. They are Ginny, Katherine, Linda, Kitty, Peter, King Chiu, Kwok Ying — all of the Chans. May the House please give them the warmest welcome.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002.

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

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002. These amendments to the B.C. Human Rights Code flow from government's core services review, the review of our human rights system conducted over the past year under the leadership of the administrative justice project, and the many thoughtful comments made in response to Bill 53, the exposure bill which was introduced this past May. These amendments will allow government to put in place a new institutional framework for human rights which operates at arm's length from government and which, unlike the current system, will protect human rights in a way that is fair, efficient, effective and affordable both for the parties involved and for taxpayers.

The bill proposes streamlining the current complex system of three different agencies and three different commissioners into one agency, the Human Rights Tribunal. Under the new model, complainants will have direct access to the tribunal. Lengthy and ineffective investigations will be eliminated. The tribunal will be given enhanced powers to handle all aspects of complaints filed under the code and will emphasize mediation and settlement rather than adjudication as the preferred means of resolving complaints.

Other related functions will be delivered in more effective ways. For example, the power to conduct consultations and research need not be at arm's length from government and instead can and will be carried out by the ministry responsible for human rights. In addition, the duty to develop an education program concerning human rights will be transferred to the minister.

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

Bill 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Hogg presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Services Interim Authorities Act.

Hon. G. Hogg: The Community Services Interim Authorities Act ushers in a period of real participation and influence by communities in the delivery of services to vulnerable individuals, families and communities. Individuals, families and communities will soon be empowered to take over the design and delivery of services to children, families and adults with developmental disabilities. At the same time, I want to underline the responsibility of the province to set standards to fund, to monitor and to maintain accountability for the overall system of human services in British Columbia.

In introducing this bill, I must recognize the hundreds of people whose efforts have made it possible. Those who have served on the Community Living Transition Steering Committee have earned national

and international recognition for this innovative approach to delivering high-quality services to vulnerable people. I am grateful to the community leaders, staff, parents and family members across this province for their ongoing contribution to this process. We have benefited from hundreds of written submissions and thousands of hours of meetings and deliberations that are transforming social service delivery in this province.

This bill also moves us closer to our goal of improving outcomes for aboriginal children and families. This bill reflects the agreements we have made with aboriginal groups. These agreements have, I believe, established an unprecedented level of cooperation and shared responsibility.

The bill empowers the ministry to create a number of interim governance authorities, including community living services, aboriginal services, and child and family development authorities. These interim authorities will work out the details of the permanent authorities which will succeed them. The bill sets out the roles of interim authorities, the kinds of resources available to them and their responsibilities in this process. It also foreshadows the creation of five regional aboriginal authorities, one provincial community living authority and five regional child and family development authorities.

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

Bill 65 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G. Bruce: Today I rise to introduce the Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 2002. Earlier this year we gave public sector employers the tools they needed to balance their fiscal responsibilities with the need to restructure their workforce. This legislation builds upon those gains by opening the door to the application of fiscal responsibility to the management of public sector executive compensation.

The legislation empowers the Minister of Finance to direct public sector employers to develop, for his approval, compensation plans for exempt employees. All contracts must then comply with approved compensation plans. With this legislation we will have balanced, realistic and enforceable limits upon public sector executive severance payments. The limit upon severance payments has been reduced from 24 months to 18 months. There are new restrictions on executive vacation and sick leaves that will ensure that those benefits are managed in an appropriate manner.

This bill will deliver greater openness and accountability to public sector compensation. By the end of the fiscal year, all public sector employers will be required to make copies of senior executive contracts available for public inspection during normal business hours.

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

Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Reid presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transportation Investment Act.

Hon. J. Reid: Since introducing the Transportation Investment Act during the spring 2002 sitting of the House, I have spent considerable time consulting with local governments, communities, chambers of commerce, potential private sector investors and the general public in 19 different communities throughout the province. As a result of those consultations and from recommendations received from people who have sent e-mails or written submissions in response to our posting of the act, we have made some changes. Although the fundamental objectives of the act remain unchanged, changes have been made to clarify language and reflect the input received during the consultation process.

The Transportation Investment Act is enabling legislation that will permit the province to explore and develop public-private partnership opportunities. Specifically, the act allows the government to reach agreements with private investors who may build, operate and maintain highways. Any highway built by the private sector would be required to meet provincial highway standards for safety, design, construction and maintenance.

In order for British Columbia to continue meeting our transportation needs, we need to make substantial additional investments in our highway infrastructure now. However, we must also look for the most cost-effective, efficient way to develop that infrastructure. This will ensure that the available transportation dollars fund as wide a range of projects as possible. This act is an essential step in moving forward to realize the

potential of private sector investment as a means of helping to accomplish our goals for revitalizing our province's aging infrastructure while, at the same time, protecting the public interest.

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

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

H. Bloy: It gives me great pleasure to announce the winners of the Burnaby Business Excellence Awards held on October 17, 2002, at the Burnaby Hilton hotel. The Burnaby Business Excellence Awards recognize and honour business excellence and community spirit in the city of Burnaby, and the winners are….

The community spirit award went to Metrotown Centre and Mr. Ted Williams. The community service award went to Lougheed town centre and Ms. Fay Hickey, centre manager, and Ms. Bonney Rempel, marketing director. The business innovation award went to Xantrex Technology, Mr. Mossadiq Umedaly. The entrepreneurial spirit award went to the manufacturers of the Red Square Russian food products, Mr. Mark Tsemak. The newsmaker of the year award went to Response Biomedical Corp., Mr. Bill Radvak. The businessperson of the year award went to Hugh Dobbie of Dowco Consultants. The business of the year award for small business went to Donn Dean Collision, Mr. Andrew Stewart. The business of the year award went to Creo Inc., Mr. Dave Brown.

Burnaby means business. We are proud of our business community in Burnaby. Our business success speaks to the quality of our community. Congratulations to all the nominees and all the winners of the Burnaby Business Excellence Award, 2002, and a special thanks to Mr. Norm Blain, executive director of the Burnaby Board of Trade for a great gala evening.

B. Bennett: There are those in my rural riding of East Kootenay who support B.C.'s Olympic bid, and there are those who do not. Today I'd like to say a few words about why those of us who live in rural B.C. should consider supporting a B.C. Olympic Games. An Olympic Games in B.C. is an investment in the future of our province, the whole province. Revenue to pay for rural public services will be generated by an investment in the Olympic Games.

Pre-Olympics, those rural B.C. communities that seize the day can create opportunities for training. The state of Idaho accommodated over 200 athletes prior to the Salt Lake City games for training. I know there are world-class ski hills out there in rural B.C., and I know that there are world-class ice arenas out there in rural B.C.

Another perspective: through the 2010 LegaciesNow program the rural regions of B.C. can add value to their communities, and we can all further the efforts and aspirations of amateur athletes across this province.

Then there are business opportunities that come from any large economic project. We've all heard about the rural B.C. businesses that benefited from the Salt Lake City games. Imagine how B.C. businesses and their employees will benefit from a project the size of a Winter Olympics right here in British Columbia. What about the impact on tourism that previous Winter Olympic Games had in Alberta and in Norway? With two billion people around the world tuning into the Winter Olympic Games, the B.C. tourism industry will have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to showcase the unparalleled natural beauty and amenities of Super, Natural B.C.

Think how much of our great B.C. wine the world could taste during an Olympic Games. I can see a marketing approach that tantalizes the world with snapshots of everything B.C. has to offer from every nook and cranny of this diverse province. First, we will win the 2010 Olympic Games, and then we will do what this province did in 1986. We will show to the world all that British Columbia has to offer.

R. Visser: On April 19, 1944, an RAF Dakota 576 — a military version of the venerable DC3 — took off from the Pat Bay airport in Sidney on a simple navigation exercise. The young British aircrew, pilot officers Tom Wordlow, James Talbot and their wireless air gunner Sgt. T.R. Moss, were barely out of their twenties. A few hours later, in thick Port Hardy weather and low on fuel, the plane tragically crashed into the densely wooded hillside just above the shoreline as they were making a second final approach. Only Sergeant Moss survived.

Largely forgotten now for five decades, hemlock, cedar and salal have all sprouted from the wet, moss-covered ground and grow amongst the tangled wreckage of the plane. Its paint has faded, but the familiar crest of the RAF remains defiantly visible. The trees sheared off by the wings and fuselage, marking its last few seconds of flight, have sent new tops skyward, and the botanical world around it has adopted it wholly — that is, until two months ago, when Lou Lepine, a former RCAF fighter pilot, led a thoughtful and proud group of retired military people living in Port Hardy, all members of the 101 Squadron of the 88 Wing of the

Air Force Association of Canada, to erect a monument to those flyers who perished.

On that beautiful and crisp North Island day, the Lieutenant-Governor unveiled a stainless steel cairn to the sound of the bagpipes playing Amazing Grace. On that day 30 of us were asked to stop and remember people we had never known and to pay tribute to a time that is becoming more distant and remote. Remembrance is a powerful thing and a powerful emotion on its own, but the sound of the bugler's last post and reveille and the piper's lament that rang through the forest brought it all into clear focus for us. To end that moment of silence, as we stood amongst the fuselage of that plane, George Kearey of the Port Hardy legion read the poem High Flight in a very clear and steady voice.

Messrs. Lepine, Gage, Hellberg, Cook, Kearey, Pollock and all the others: you've done a worthy thing. You should be very proud of yourselves. You brought the idea of remembrance to life for a bunch of us. Thanks.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Finance clearly suggested that because seniors use the health care system more than younger British Columbians, they should be asked to contribute more than others pay for it. This brings new meaning to "outrageous." However, if that is the new Liberal dictate, the Liberals are abandoning the fundamental principle that health care access should be based on need.

Seniors built the medicare system. They paid into it with their whole lives. Now, when they need it most, they should not be asked to bear any extra burden to pay for it. Does the Minister of Health Services agree with the Minister of Finance that B.C.'s seniors should pay more than others for health care?

Hon. C. Hansen: We've made it very clear that we support the five principles of the Canada Health Act. We support universal access to medically necessary procedures. For all of those services that are covered under the Canada Health Act, we would have universal access regardless as to whether it's a senior or a non-senior in British Columbia. Those are the principles that we will move forward as we renew and re-energize and build a sustainable health care system for all British Columbians into the future.

J. MacPhail: Well, after being ten days away, we have two contradictory points of view: one from the Minister of Finance, who clearly said that seniors should pay more, and the Minister of Health Services, who doesn't know what's going on.

A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Health said he had no idea whether or not the effect of income-testing for Pharmacare and increases in MSP premiums wiped out his government's tax cut for average British Columbians. Today we learn that as a result of MSP premium increases and Pharmacare income-testing, government retirees are losing pension benefits. Can the Minister of Health Services now tell us whether or not these changes effectively wipe out any tax cut that middle- and low-income seniors received from the government?

Hon. G. Collins: The reality is that health care across Canada is growing at exponential rates. There's no question of that. The reality is that there are four million people in British Columbia who have to pay for the health care system. Government has not just lived up to its commitment to make sure that we preserved and protected the money that went into health care; we added over $1 billion to the health care budget.

The health care system is not free. It costs every British Columbian over $10 billion this year and next year and the year after that in order to pay for that system. We lived up to our commitment to maintain the funding for health care.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, we lived up to the commitment to fund health care, to maintain the funding for health care. The system continues to be funded. We've added more money to the health care system, but the reality is that those costs are growing exponentially. Government is doing everything possible to make sure that the system is there in the future when people need it.

J. MacPhail: It's a bit embarrassing when the Minister of Finance gets up to answer for the Minister of Health Services, knowing full well that this morning the Minister of Finance said seniors should pay more. I actually don't blame the Minister of Health Services for not getting up to defend his colleague. Since taking power, seniors have been under assault by this Liberal government. Today's news is just one item in a long list of broken promises and outright betrayals.

The government's increased MSP premiums are having a ripple effect through the public and private sectors. It's forcing huge cutbacks in education, in health care, in pension benefits and in the daily budgets of tens of thousands of seniors, many on fixed income.

Will the Minister of Health Services now agree, after surveying all the damage that was done through this MSP increase, to claw it back so that seniors in B.C.

Hon. G. Collins: The facts that the member opposite fails to mention are this: over 230,000 low-income British Columbians now pay lower MSP premiums than they did previously. With income testing, low-income British Columbians will continue to pay less for Pharmacare as well.

Hon. G. Collins: …is not only have we lived up to our commitment to make sure that we protected the funding for health care, we added over a billion dollars to the health care system in this province.

J. Kwan: How soon we forget. The Minister of Finance can't even remember what he said this morning, let alone what all the Liberal MLAs promised during the election: health care when you need it, where you need it. [Applause.]

It's time for the government to deliver that promise. You know, they clapped to that promise. The fact of the reality is they have not delivered that promise. MSP premiums have gone up. Pharmacare income testing will affect pensioners. But you know what? They don't just impact seniors; they impact pensioners as well. They affect businesses, large and small, in British Columbia, forcing them to pay higher premiums for their employees.

Can the Minister of Health tell the House if he knows whether or not private insurers like Blue Cross are going to jack up premiums, raise deductibles and force employers to contribute even more to the health care plans?

Hon. C. Hansen: Let me revisit, for a minute, some of the good news that's happening in health care in British Columbia, which affects every single senior in this province. We have actually gone through a major redesign of health care that means that residents in the East Kootenays can now…

We've got residents in the Kootenay-Boundary area who can now get access to three new specialists at the Trail hospital, which they would have had to go outside of that region to get before. We've got new doctors that are being recruited into communities throughout the province so that seniors can get access to the care they need.

Throughout the changes we are doing, we are making sure that those who are of lower income are protected, whether it's access to physiotherapy or podiatry or chiropractic care or whether it's access to heart surgery at St. Paul's Hospital. That is the principle this government stands on, and we're proud of it.

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

J. Kwan: It is a wonder that the Minister of Health can get up and actually spout out what he just did, because the fact of the matter is that they increased MSP premiums. They increased costs for seniors, and now pensioners are going to be impacted. You know what the Minister of Finance says? "Oh, they should pay more because they're older. They cost more. They should pay more to the system."

You would think the government would have thought through the changes to MSP and Pharmacare a little bit better, a little bit more carefully. In ten weeks the Minister of Health Planning is going to bring forward income testing for Pharmacare. Given that MSP increases alone are causing huge disruptions for tens of thousands of people, will the minister agree to hold off on income testing until a more thorough review, a consultation — including the public, not just the government, not just the Minister of Finance — could be carried through?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think there was a question in there. We did do a very extensive consultation with the public through the first time in almost ten years that the Standing Committee on Health in this Legislature was actually charged with…

Hon. C. Hansen: …going out and consulting with British Columbians. I think part of the….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. I would ask the two members to listen to the answer, please. The Minister of Health Services has the floor.

Hon. C. Hansen: The two members of the New Democratic Party in this House should be ashamed of the

fact that for nine years, the Standing Committee on Health in this Legislature never set foot out of this building to meet with British Columbians and do those consultations.

J. Nuraney: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. While the Kyoto accord has dominated the headlines for months now, British Columbians still have no idea of how Kyoto's targets will be met. Adding to the confusion, a federal-provincial meeting on the issues scheduled for today was unexpectedly cancelled late last week.

Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection explain why this meeting has been postponed?

Hon. J. Murray: The meeting was postponed by the federal government. We understand the rationale was that their plan was not ready, and they intended to do further consultations. I must say we found it very disappointing. We've been looking forward to seeing the federal government's intentions with respect to ratification for a while now, and we're looking forward to seeing that plan.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has a supplementary question.

J. Nuraney: While British Columbians are concerned about climate change, they're also concerned about the impact this agreement will have on the economy. Critics of Kyoto have reported that if this accord is implemented, it could cost Canada up to 450,000 jobs.

Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what she is doing to ensure that British Columbia's economic interests are taken into account?

Hon. J. Murray: My ministry and other ministries in our government are fully engaged with the federal government and are working closely with the other provinces on this issue, identifying areas of commonality and common concern. We have been working with industry to identify their projected impacts of the ratification on their sectors. We will be communicating with the federal government at the joint ministers' meeting that is now scheduled for next week.

B. Lekstrom: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection as well. After many years of decline, the B.C. economy is finally showing signs of economic recovery. In my constituency of Peace River South the oil and gas sector is aiding in that recovery. However, many of my constituents fear and have concerns regarding the Kyoto protocol and fear that it will hurt the growth in the oil and gas sector.

Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what she is doing to ensure that this sector is not unfairly targeted by the Kyoto protocol?

Hon. J. Murray: We don't have a lot of information about the federal government plan.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has the floor. The minister has the floor. Please proceed.

Hon. J. Murray: The federal government's plan is not clear yet. We understand the concerns of the oil and gas sector, and we are determined in British Columbia that we have an environmentally progressive response but also an economically pragmatic response. We're also very clear that a strong economy is a critical factor in having a healthy environment.

B. Lekstrom: Alberta has already come out strongly against the Kyoto protocol. Recently other provinces, such as Quebec, have also begun to voice their displeasure with this agreement. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what concerns the B.C. government has with the Kyoto protocol?

Hon. J. Murray: We have been in ongoing discussion with the federal government about British Columbia's concerns. We will be meeting with the other provinces and the federal government next week.

I can say that we're becoming more concerned about the burden on British Columbia. From the latest figures, it appears that British Columbia may be shouldering a relatively much greater burden than other provinces, and we're very concerned about that. We will be outlining the issues that we expect the federal government to respond to as this issue moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, that's to accommodate the wish of the Leader of the Opposition to speak to this in second reading.

J. MacPhail: I'd like a moment to examine the motion before we decide whether to grant leave or not. Can we have an adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: We will give the Leader of the Opposition some time to peruse the motion. We will resume in a few moments.

Mr. Speaker: Please do. We will just take a few moments. The House will recess for five minutes.

Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is leave that the proceedings related to second reading and the order for committal of Bill 62, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002, be declared null and void, and that the bill forthwith be restored to the order paper for second reading under the order, public bills and orders. Upon completion of second reading, the bill may, on a government motion, without notice or leave, be committed to the Committee of the Whole forthwith.

J. MacPhail: For the record, this is a motion that recommits legislation so that second reading debate can occur. I'll give you my version, Mr. Speaker, of what happened that wasn't where…. We, the opposition, were not able to debate second reading when the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — I think it's Bill 62 — was debated at second reading on October 10, 2002.

There is no question that the opposition is small. We are two of 76 MLAs who are allowed to debate on a regular basis legislation that comes through this chamber. There are also circumstances upon which both sides of the Legislature agree on how that debate will proceed. For whatever reason, on October 10 — without assigning blame to anyone — the opposition was not able to address second reading of Bill 62. There has been all sorts of speculation in the media, in the corridors, about how that debate did not proceed. The fact of the matter is that the second reading debate consisted of the Minister of Finance getting up and reading again the first reading notes into the record and no one else debating it.

I, the person who was going to speak to it, stood at the rotating doors of the chamber ready to speak, but the House adjourned. The House adjourned for 11 days. Now the government is recommitting the legislation so that second reading debate can occur.

So far, so good. However, as is becoming increasingly clear in the practice of debate in this Legislature, the government wants more. And when the government wants more, it means that there will be less thoughtful debate. It means that the rules will be set aside. The traditional rules, the orders that govern British parliamentary democracy, will be set aside once more. How so? Because the government, in — I'm sure they will allege — claiming to give leeway to the opposition, have recommitted the bill for second reading but have then added that the bill may, on a government motion without notice or leave, be committed to the Committee of the Whole forthwith.

Here's what we have. Here's the dilemma my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I face. If this motion passes, we are back exactly where we were on October 10, when virtually no debate took place at second reading — none. This is debate on matters where passenger rail service will be ended under B.C. Rail; where there will be substantial changes to freedom-of-information legislation; where there will be substantial changes to people who are on disability assistance, people who must rely on social assistance in this province. There will be controversial legislation introduced around arterial highways.

What do we have, Mr. Speaker? We have the government wanting their cake and the ability to eat it too. They want to get all the credit in the world, although the public wants this — to have a debate at second reading. I heard that loud and clear last week. Then they want to be able to ram the legislation through as well.

Well, it is my submission that the public actually does care about the legislation this government is passing with undue haste, that all of this legislation is extremely important and needs to be thoroughly debated first, at second reading. The public, the citizens of British Columbia, can appreciate and contemplate that debate and then can think about it and have opportunity for input. Then, as the rules of parliamentary democracy say, there will be a period of time in between that debate and then the more detailed debate at committee stage. But no, not this government. They want to pretend to be democratic but, at the same time, have their way that there will be no thoughtful debate in which the public can actually engage.

Does the public engage, Mr. Speaker? Yes. One of the great aspects of the televising of this Legislature, which has been in effect for more than 20 years now, is that people actually can, in real time, observe debate and respond in real time through electronic transmission via phone, fax or e-mail, and they do so sometimes in an overwhelming volume.

Here we have a situation where that won't occur. I'm not quite sure why the government seems to feel the necessity to ram this all through today. It's not like they're busy. It's not like there's a huge amount of overtime being put in, in thoughtful debate here by the Lib-

eral MLAs. Seventy-odd Liberal MLAs will say absolutely nothing on any piece of legislation even though it affects their constituency.

One of the aspects of last week was that some of us got to travel the province as well as go back to our own constituencies. Some of us got to travel the province hearing input from British Columbians. I was amongst a group of MLAs that did that. What happened was British Columbians raised concerns about these very issues, and now I expect it will be up to my colleague and me to raise those concerns. Fair enough, but then it should also be up to my colleague and me to take those concerns, have them reflected in the public and then debate legislation in detail.

I've also read speculation that the government will be introducing amendments to Bill 62. Maybe not, but maybe. There's no notice of amendments. Nobody's had time to reflect if indeed there may be amendments, so we could face not only this situation but second reading, committee stage and amendments to legislation all within the context of a few hours.

Now, I may be surprised. Maybe the government won't ram through committee stage today, or maybe they won't introduce amendments without notice and without public purview. We have a situation where that might be the intent and the actions of the Government House Leader, but if it isn't, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation here where no debate occurred at second reading, and the opposition is being given a chance to have that debate but has to pay a very substantial price. They have to give up their right to discuss with the public the intent of this legislation as it was debated and passed at second reading before committee stage occurs.

It is extremely important for another reason. There are very few voices that speak up in this Legislature, and yet there is not an overwhelming amount of work being done. In the first week of our sitting in the fall, we sat for around ten hours over four days. We often were finished by mid-afternoon when there was still work to be done. In fact, the day the government en masse passed second reading on this very bill, Bill 62, it was about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I don't know what the rush was to shut down the Legislature, because there were three hours of work time left.

I think the situation can be remedied by amending the motion. I have an amendment to the motion, if I may. Before I give it to you, Mr. Speaker — I only have one copy — I'll read it out, if I may. It's an amendment to the Government House Leader's motion. It reads thus:

I would be happy to take a few moments and have the Government House Leader examine it.

Hon. G. Collins: Let me just take a moment to perhaps give an alternative version of what the member has interpreted. I've been here 11 years — I think the same length of time as the member opposite has been. She did her duty as Government House Leader, as I'm doing mine now, so she would not be unfamiliar with what has been the long practice in this House — and most Houses, for that matter — that for miscellaneous statutes bills there is generally virtually no debate in second reading of the legislation. Certainly, if the member goes back and tries to recall or looks through Hansard, she will find that in virtually every case — probably not every, but in virtually every case — the debate in second reading has been brief.

It is generally understood, however, with a miscellaneous statutes bill that in committee stage the debate will be somewhat more wide-ranging. That has certainly been the practice in this House. Various successive Chairs have permitted somewhat broader debate in committee stage around those individual sections of the bill.

As the Speaker is aware, normally in legislation there is a debate on principles in second reading. Then the following day there is a debate in committee stage, where debate happens section by section. The debate is somewhat more back and forth. It allows members to speak a number of times to that section, and there's actually a bit more dialogue and discussion back and forth. In practice with miscellaneous statutes bills, the second reading debates have been very brief, and then committee stage is where that sort of second reading, as well as the more detailed technical debate, takes place at the same time. That's the way it has worked.

Not last Thursday but the Thursday before, this issue was up for debate. It was on the order paper. People knew it was up for second reading debate. Normally, I might add, issues around House business are generally resolved by a member from the opposition and a member from the government discussing those matters outside the floor time here. But given that the member has raised these issues, I think perhaps they need to be addressed, although that has not been the practice in this House.

On the Thursday the member refers to, this issue was up for debate in second reading. As we do all the time since the election, we have tried to consult the opposition with regard to what matters they would like to speak to and which they would not, because, as the member stated, they are a small opposition. If she has a complaint about that, she should take it up with the voters. We have gone out of our way, and we continue to go out of our way, to consult the two members opposite about the issues that they want to allocate their energies and their time to and accommodate our

schedule — the government's — and accommodate the schedule of the two members opposite.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, if the member wishes to speak to this, I'm sure she can do that when she closes debate on the amendment. We can have this little cat fight back and forth across the House, but I'm not sure it's terribly productive.

We have always gone out of our way to accommodate the members opposite. We have done that with regard to scheduling. We have done that with regard to the order of estimates. We've done that with regard to numerous recesses and adjournments of the House to allow the members opposite to go down to their office and get their documents and whatever they need. All one has to do is look back through Hansard since the election to notice the number of times the House has had to recess in order to accommodate the members opposite.

On no occasion have we gone out of our way to obstruct the members opposite from having their opportunity to speak. The Thursday in question was no exception to that. The members….

Hon. G. Collins: If the members don't want to speak to second reading, then they can vote against the amendment. That's up to them. They can do what they like, but….

Hon. G. Collins: The members opposite on the Thursday in question apparently told somebody on our side of the House that they wanted to speak to this. I know they also told somebody in my office that the member wanted to speak to this issue. That individual was not, and my staff was not, in the House at the time. He advised that member's staff that the member opposite should contact me, because I'd be handling the bill. I would be the one dealing with it in the House. I did not receive that contact.

The member opposite says she spoke to somebody on our side of the House. That may have happened. I did not hear about that. The member was not in the House. I was unaware she wanted to speak to it, so the debate went, and the debate finished. There was no one eligible in the House to speak, so the vote happened.

If the member had wanted to, she could have talked to me as she was advised. It didn't happen. For whatever reason, there was a communication breakdown, and so….

Hon. G. Collins: For whatever reason, there was a breakdown in communication. As I said, in every other House that I've been involved in for 11 years, these issues around scheduling normally happen between staff and between members. They don't happen on the floor of the House. The member opposite has chosen to do that today, so I'm responding.

If there is an issue about whether or not a member can speak, then as I told her at the time, we'd be glad to accommodate that. That's what we're trying to do here today. The bill has been on the order paper now for 12 days. If the member opposite has a concern that somehow the public is uninformed about this, then I don't know what more government can do. I don't know how many bills, when she was Government House Leader, were left on the order paper at the end of June for 12 days.

In fact, it was a little bit difficult to take, having the member stand up in the House and pontificate about ramming legislation through. I sat on that side of the House many times when she was Government House Leader and watched them ram legislation through. They'd introduce it one day, second reading, third reading — not just one bill but dozens of bills in the last two weeks of a session. Dozens — 20 or more…. I sat here and watched it happen.

This piece of legislation has been on the order paper for 12 days. It's not like we just introduced it today and are putting it through the House today. It's been on the order paper for 12 days. The member had the opportunity to travel the province last week, she said. I'm assuming she took input on this. She said, in fact, in her comments that she had feedback from the public on this issue. Now is the opportunity to bring it to the floor.

We are trying to accommodate the member opposite, as we have done on every single occasion when the request has been made by the members opposite to have the debate. It broke down that Thursday for whatever reason. The communication didn't happen. We're trying to solve that problem. I made that commitment to her at the time.

The member, unlike as done in past years…. Discussions haven't happened behind closed doors between Government House Leaders, as was done year after year. The member chose to have those discussions in the corridor and through the media. That's her prerogative, but it does change the way the House has tended to work for a long, long time. If that's the way she wants to operate House business, I'm more than happy to do that, but that's not the way we've done it in the past.

Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard to hear the member opposite talk about the rules of the House being set aside. They're not being set aside. Second reading happened on a Thursday 11 days ago. The bill has been on the order paper for 12 days. If the member wishes to speak to second reading, we're trying to accommodate that through a special provision. The House doesn't have to do that. The obligation is always upon mem-

bers, if they wish to speak in this House, to be in this House and to stand up and take their place. That is the longstanding tradition of this parliament and every other one.

We have gone out of our way repeatedly to accommodate the members with special privileges, special accommodations, special recesses, special planning, special scheduling. We are more than happy to continue to do that, but there has to be some onus on the members themselves if they wish to speak on legislation. We'll try and accommodate that. It is a little hard, though, to hear the member opposite talk about ramming legislation through, given the hundreds of bills she put through the House during her tenure as Government House Leader in one day, two days or three days with no consultation. Many of them were much larger.

This government has gone out of its way to provide opportunities for the public. The whole reason there's a fall sitting is so that legislation can be on the order paper in the spring, so that it's not rammed through the way the NDP used to do it, the way she used to do it when she was Government House Leader, but is taken out amongst the public to get feedback. That's why you see the reintroduction by ministers of pieces of legislation that were introduced in the spring. The public has had months to look at that legislation, and we had great feedback from our constituents.

We had feedback from the public, and now you're seeing legislation come into the House in an amended form in response to that consultation. The NDP government never did that once. In nine and a half years of government, they never did that. The whole point of a fall legislative session is to provide that accommodation for consultation, and in fact, that's what is happening. The fall session does not have a throne speech. It is not a whole new session. It is an additional sitting to clean up the business from the spring session. The goal is to try and improve the quality of legislation, to deal with legislation that needs that consultation and to be reintroduced in the House.

Hon. G. Collins: That's what we're doing. If the member doesn't like the motion, then she should vote against it. She has the opportunity to speak to second reading, because the members of the House want to grant her that accommodation and the special privilege she would have over and above what any other member in this House has. We're certainly doing that for the member opposite. If she doesn't like it, she can vote against the motion. There is no travesty of justice here.

Hon. G. Collins: There is no travesty of democracy either. The legislation has been on the order paper for 12 days. If people have comments, if the member has comments, that would be great. I don't think she's going to inform herself any more by her second reading speech. So she'll have more…heard from herself in anticipation of the committee stage. There is lots of opportunity here. The public has had 12 days — 12 days for the member opposite to speak to it. The standing orders require three days. This bill has had 12. It has had four times the normal consultation period for legislation.

I can't wait to hear the speech by the member opposite. I'm sure it is going to be scintillating, valuable and instructive as well, and I look forward to hearing it. I don't know why she couldn't do that mostly in committee stage, which is the way it has been done for decades by everybody else who has sat in this House, but I'm willing to hear her need to do that.

As well, depending on how much she has to say about the bill, then the bill may pass quickly or may take longer. I can perhaps give the member a bit of insight into what you do in opposition if you don't want a bill to pass. It's that you actually debate it for a long period of time. If the member doesn't want it to be passed today in committee stage, that's up to her. She's the opposition. All she has to do….

J. MacPhail: Oh, so you are going to committee stage, are you? You are going to committee stage.

Hon. G. Collins: If the member opposite wants to have this debate go longer, then she can do that. There are processes in the parliamentary system to do that, so it's fine for her to do that. She asked if the government is introducing amendments to the legislation. I don't know if the Attorney General has any amendments to the legislation or not. It is not uncommon for governments to introduce amendments to legislation and then pass that.

Indeed, I recall on innumerable occasions where the previous government ministers would introduce amendments without notice on the order paper. Those amendments would be debated sometimes at length. Sometimes there would be very little debate. Then there was a vote, and that's how the system works.

If somehow the member opposite feels there's some travesty in democracy, all I would do is encourage her to go back and question her own conscience, look at all the terrible travesties of justice that happened when she was in government, because this government has gone out of its way to accommodate the members of the opposition.

If she really wants to speak to the bill, she should get up and speak to the bill when the bill comes forward.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we are voting on the amendment to the motion as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, which reads:

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, it would appear that everyone who can be here is here. Shall we waive the five-minute time limit?

J. MacPhail: First of all, I want to go over a little bit of history of miscellaneous statutes amendment acts in this province. We just had the Government House Leader say that there's a tradition around miscellaneous statutes amendment acts debates. In a very arrogant way, the Government House Leader said, "Well, this is how we always do it, so what's the opposition's problem? The debate occurs at committee stage."

Well, what the Government House Leader forgot to explain is that miscellaneous statutes amendments are generally of consequence minimal enough that they don't require a thorough examination of the principles of the legislation. Second reading debate examines the principles of legislation, and committee debate examines the technicalities, the implications, the consequences of those principles in a very technical way.

What the Government House Leader forgot to explain to all of you Liberal MLAs is that there are massive principles at stake here in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — massive principles.

It's unprecedented, as a matter of fact, that this government uses the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act to ram through substantive changes that reverse longstanding principles. But I fear that not only will this Liberal government caucus sit silent as the principles are inalterably effected on their own constituents; they're going to allow amendments that have substantive change to be rammed through today — once again without any notice, without one iota of notice.

The Government House Leader gets up in his usual hectoring way to somehow say: "What's the problem? What's the problem with our government shutting down the Legislature at 3 p.m., scurrying off home and not permitting second reading debate? What's the problem with a two-person opposition not being here?" Well, in fact, we were here. We were standing at the door ready to debate, not having any belief that this government would shut down a Legislature at ten to three in the afternoon when there were important principles to debate. That's exactly what happened.

Now the Government House Leader gets up, and he blames his staff. He blames other staff. He somehow rewrites the rules — that it's always done between two politicians. He blames the Whips. He blames pretty much everybody else, and that was after I stood up and said: "Let's not assign blame. Let's talk about the principles of democracy."

Well, here's what's happening to the principles of democracy. Not one government MLA got up to address these amendments, these substantive amendments, and who will be worse off? Their constituents. It will be their constituents who will be adversely affected by this legislation.

We must debate the principles. We have to debate the principles at second reading, and then we have to have public input on those principles, and then we debate at committee stage. But not this government. This government sits silent as the rights of their constituents are eroded day after day. These Liberal backbenchers sit silent, or they seek permission to speak. And if the Government House Leader says, "No, I don't want you to speak," they don't speak.

That's what they do. They go away and they say: "Okay, I won't speak. I won't speak to the legislation. My constituents want me to speak to the legislation, but the Government House Leader says I can't." Let me see where the democracy is in that.

So far, we have a government that works at a pathetic pace, expends huge amounts of tax dollars to run this chamber, to run this Legislature as the crucible of debate in democracy, shuts it down after an hour in the morning, shuts it down after half an hour in the morning, and somehow it's the opposition's fault.

Let's go back to the spring, where day after day after day the opposition stood up to debate, and this government….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I must remind you that we're to speak to second reading of this particular bill. We've given you a lot of latitude as far as where you speak to, but let's keep our comments to the bill.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering why…. Thank you very much for your advice, Mr. Speaker. If indeed there is some other debate that needs to occur by other members of this Legislature, I'd be happy to accede the floor to them, but we have a principle here of substantive change, and that's the importance of it. There's no question that my colleague and I will debate the principles of Bill 62, and we do that day after day. Yes, there are two of us, but the real issue here is not about the opposition at all. We're doing very well with our limited resources in defending the interests of British Columbia on issues like the elimination of B.C. passenger rail service and on the eradication of protection of access to information by this government.

The real issue here are the 76 silent Liberal MLAs who say absolutely nothing. When the House Leader gets up to talk about the content of Bill 62, the House Leader addresses the issue of Bill 62 and says it's always debated at committee stage. Well, the difference here is that never before have we seen a miscellaneous statutes amendment act with such substantive change, and the Liberal MLAs sit here in silence. What the public is demanding in terms of democratic debate is for their own MLAs to get up and say something.

The MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant gets up and defends the interests of all British Columbia, but particularly her constituents, and so do I. Where are the members for, let's say, the city of Burnaby? Where are the members who are responsible for the community of Squamish? Where are the members who are responsible for people on social assistance in this province? I think we all have community members who are responsible for social assistance.

Where are the members who are allowing their government to ram through unprecedented exemptions from freedom of information? I bet you anything, we'll see an amendment to freedom of information. They got it wrong the first time. They're going to ram through an amendment to see whether they can get it right a second time and still protect their secret little backroom negotiations. I bet you anything we'll see that.

So here we are. Even though the Government House Leader, in his usual hectoring fashion, stands up and says, "Oh, the problem with this is the opposition," the public knows the problem is with the Liberal MLAs refusing to defend the interests of their communities. In fact, we often have Liberal MLAs standing up and saying: "You know, my community doesn't agree with this or is worried about it. Could you please tell us

what message we can take back from the government to explain how they're wrong?" That's what they do. They don't say: "Here's the problem in my constituency. Fix it." They say: "Please just give me some help on what message I can take back to my community, so they'll stop beating up on me."

Let's take one example in this legislation. Let's talk about this government in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act — elimination of B.C. Rail passenger service. Is this just a technical amendment? My gosh, the community of Lillooet doesn't think it's a technical amendment. The people in Fort St. John are worried about the future of B.C. Rail service and whether this is just the canary in the cave. The people in the Cariboo are very worried about the elimination of B.C. Rail passenger service and what it's leading to. They don't see it as a technical amendment. The people in Lytton are worried. Then they hear about all sorts of plans for the rail bed for B.C. Rail — the paving over of the rail bed. They say: "Is there something more than just the elimination of B.C. Rail passenger service?"

Here are the principles that are at stake in this legislation. There has been a requirement dating back to 1912. How many years is that —90 years? British Columbia was actually a baby of a province. Back to 1912 there was a requirement that B.C. Rail and its predecessor, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, provide passenger rail service. But eliminating it is just a technicality — just an absolute technicality.

J. MacPhail: The Government House Leader says they didn't have airplanes in 1912. Gosh, I'm going to call up Lytton. Maybe my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant could go and call those people who called us from Lytton and said, "Gee, we don't even have bus service," and find out whether they have airplane service. Will you, please? Maybe we can eliminate the debate now. Maybe the principle I'm on is wrong. If you have time, go check and see whether that airplane service to Lytton is working as the Government House Leader intimates. Maybe the member who's responsible, who represents the community of Lytton, could get up and straighten the Government House Leader out. That would be useful debate on a principle.

In the 1996 election the Liberals knew full well the importance of B.C. Rail. It was a cash cow. They wanted to privatize it, and what happened there? The public was outraged. They were harmed in the election by their view to privatize B.C. Rail. They were harmed in election results.

In the next election in 2001, the Liberal MLAs and candidates all got up in the Cariboo, in Lytton, in Prince George and said: "We're not going to privatize B.C. Rail." I guess, as always, you have to really, really question these Liberal MLAs on what they really meant to say. A promise not to privatize B.C. Rail doesn't actually mean they're going to keep B.C. Rail. Here we have the bill today eliminating passenger service.

A promise not to privatize B.C. Rail doesn't mean they're not going to privatize a little section of B.C. Rail, because that's what they're doing as well. A promise not to privatize B.C. Rail doesn't mean that they won't make a commitment to pave the rail bed of B.C. Rail to Whistler, because that's what they're planning on doing as well. Or maybe they've changed that too, because they know what a silly idea that is. When they actually consulted with the public, and the public went, "Huh? You're going to pave the rail bed of B.C. Rail to Whistler?" they went: "Oh, okay. Maybe we won't."

You really have to listen carefully to what these Liberals commit themselves to. Then what do they do when they're reversing and reneging on their promises? They hide that reneging in a miscellaneous bill. Maybe no one will notice. In fact, none of the Liberal MLAs noticed, or if they did, they were told to be quiet and not discuss it, or they support the government's elimination of B.C. Rail passenger service.

Here are just some of the people that maybe this government cares about — maybe just some of the people. Mayor Kinsley in Prince George has demanded that the B.C. Rail service continue. Mayor Wallace of Quesnel has demanded the service continue.

The tourism association. Now, who is in charge of tourism? I'm sure we have a minister responsible for tourism. Maybe he'd be interested to know that tourism associations from North Vancouver to Prince George have noticed and that chambers of commerce along the rail corridor have noticed, along with the mayors and councils. They all object and protest the elimination of B.C. Rail passenger service.

Mayor Barnett of 100 Mile House has demanded the service continue. Mayor Taylor of Lillooet has demanded the service continue. Mayor Lonsdale of Squamish has demanded the service continue. Pat Corbett, who operates the Hills Health Ranch in 108 Mile House has demanded the service continue. In fact, 11 percent of his guests, customers, arrive by B.C. Rail — but not any longer. Poor Mr. Corbett. I'm sure the government will say: "Well, it's up to you to figure out how to regrow that 11 percent of lost clientele." In fact, there's a prediction that he may have to lay off staff if he already hasn't at the Hills Ranch because of this cut in B.C. Rail service.

But these aren't principles. These are just technicalities, according to the Liberal government. Who needs to debate these? We need to debate them, and we will because these very same people are contacting us and saying: "How can we get our concerns raised? Our own MLA won't do it." My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I are here to raise these concerns.

The interior and the north are suffering. There is no question that they are suffering. There are two economies going on in this province. The economy of the interior and the north is hurting like we've never seen it hurt before — not by my words, but by the words of

the people who live there and the mayors and the school trustees. The economy's hurting, and this cancellation of rail service is just one more example of how little this government cares about the people who live there.

Let me quote Pat Corbett. I must say that this is all in the public domain. I don't want this government to take out any harm on someone like Pat Corbett. This is in the public domain that I gleaned his comments. He's one of the owners of the Hills Ranch. Here's how he put it: "We are experiencing school closures. We are experiencing the shutdown of emergency and on-call medical services. We are experiencing the closure of courthouses. You add to that the removal of transportation, and you are attacking the very heart of what makes a community survive."

Mr. Corbett's business isn't in my riding, and it's not in the riding of my colleague, but it is up to us to stand up and quote those words to this government because the MLA in whose riding he lives didn't stand up to make that point. Maybe they did, as the Whip likes to say, behind closed doors. They discuss all these issues, and that's good enough, but we don't have access to that debate.

Here's what Mayor Barnett said: "We are at the bare minimum with our services in our community. We are a vibrant community, and we're moving forward, but we cannot accomplish what we can without a transportation mode." The Premier doesn't care. The Minister of Transportation doesn't care. What do the Premier and the Minister of Transportation care about? They care about selling B.C. Rail. Let's see, I guess that would be what you call your flip-flop, would it? Maybe they're saying: "Forget the 2001 election. Go back to the promise we made in 1996 to sell B.C. Rail." This government gets to skip steps of democracy. Maybe they would just like to skip election promises too.

So, according to the Minister of Transportation, she has confidence that this is a line that is very important for tourism, but she chooses to sell it off rather than develop what has been part of our history for 90 years, and this government, in an amendment hidden in a miscellaneous statutes bill, ends it.

Paul Vallee, vice-president of Tourism Vancouver, says that the closure of B.C. Rail passenger service will leave a hole in the local tourism market. He said: "Those services are particularly attractive to Europeans who are used to rail travel. A lot of European tour companies use them as part of their itineraries."

Well, to be fair, the MLA for Cariboo South did care once, but now he's given up. Quoting the MLA for Cariboo South, "It appears we have run out of time," he says about saving B.C. Rail passenger service.

So, too, have the MLAs for Prince George North and Prince George–Omineca. They've run out of time as well. They must have been heartened to read the editorial in the Prince George Citizen a few weeks back that noted: "The prevailing attitude in and around the city is that the Cariboo Prospector and Northwind are too valuable to see disappear. It's difficult to imagine that" — sorry; they name them — "the MLA for Prince George–Omineca and the MLA for Prince George North or any other Liberal MLA supporting this would have said had the NDP attempted it."

The government's northern caucus met with these mayors that I'm quoting from on September 6. The mayors had some hope that the group of Liberal backbenchers they met with would be able to help. They were wrong; nothing happened. They've got no one to back them — no one.

Gee, that's a strong independent voice from the back bench for you. That's the reason why we have to alter the rules of democracy in this chamber. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the record of the opposition. We do our job expertly and well, given our resources. It's the Liberal backbenchers that don't do their job, and that's what this government fails to acknowledge at every turn. The people who should be up speaking on these principles sit around us and sit across from us, and they sit in silence.

Gerry Offet of the Prince George Development Corp. says the government has not given B.C. Rail enough time to market the tourism potential of passenger rail to his city. According to Offet: "This is a class of tourists — Americans, real money-spending tourists — you only attract if you've got a world-class facility. What the province proposes to do is take that world-class facility away from us."

Or how about councillor Bruce Strachan? Here's what Mr. Strachan said: "I don't think they did the best marketing, and I think they've been shortsighted and far too early in their decision. They should advertise it more, give it another year." Sorry, Mr. Strachan, you tried, and today what this debate is about is an obituary.

Bit by bit, B.C. Rail is going on the auction block. First, we have B.C. Rail passenger service, then we have the spur in the north going to Fort Nelson being privatized. We have the rail bed being paved over by this government, the Budd cars are going to be sold next week, the workers have their layoff notice, and the government continues to try to find a buyer for the run to Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek — the spur line.

The high-handedness and insensitivity of the corporation goes on and on and on, but they have free rein. The B.C. Rail corporation has free rein, because this government is reneging on its promise to protect B.C. Rail, and they're selling it off piece by piece.

It's interesting. In downtown Vancouver I ran into a constituent of the member who's responsible for the town of Lytton. This poor person was in for a doctor's appointment, and she was in an absolute panic because the only transportation she has to get to her doctor's appointment is the B.C. Rail passenger service. It turns out that the Lytton hospital doesn't operate as frequently as it did about a year or so ago — doctors are leaving — so she has to come to Vancouver for her health care, and the only way she has to do that is by B.C. Rail passenger service.

I'm sure that sensitive, downtown-Vancouver MLA the Government House Leader would say: "Well, maybe there's air service." No, there's no air service, and do you know what else there isn't? Bus service. There's no bus service either. Oh, but I guess that doesn't matter. Close the hospital and then take away the transportation for seniors to get to other hospital services. That's this government's health care policy, and that's this government's rural policy as well.

You know, millions are being made available for the road to Whistler — millions are being made available — but the poor woman who lives in Lytton, beyond Whistler, can't even get to Vancouver to her doctor's appointment because this government shut down B.C. Rail passenger service. What hypocrisy. What shortsightedness.

There's a principle. There's a principle that needs to be discussed. Yet who's getting up to discuss it? Nobody.

Here's what the Premier said in estimates, March 7, 2002. I was asking the Premier about what his plans were for B.C. Rail, because I wondered. People were asking for assurances that he not get out of the business of passenger rail service along the B.C. Rail line. Here's what he said:

Well, is that what this government did? Did they ensure that the woman from Lytton can get to her doctor's appointment? Did they ensure there wouldn't be layoffs in the tourism facilities along the B.C. Rail line? Did they ensure that Prince George would still have passenger service? No, they just shut it down. There is no train carrying passengers anymore along B.C. Rail line. Yet the Premier, in March of this year, intimated: "Don't worry, you folks. Even if we do shut down B.C. Rail passenger service, someone else will take it over." Wrong again. Wrong again.

Let's look at another principle in this bill: the amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Let's remember the promise of a new era in openness and transparency in government.

Well, let's see what the new era is. It really is an era of concealment and evasion. In fact, this government, even when it tries to explain itself and tries to convince people that they're not in an era of concealment and evasion, gets it wrong. Section 9 of this bill, Bill 62, will allow cabinet to decide what the public can and cannot see when it comes to the deliberation of government committees — not cabinet committees, all other government committees. That's what the piece of legislation says. Why are they doing this? They're doing it because the freedom-of-information commissioner slapped the Premier's office back in July for trying to hide documents produced by a committee of backbenchers.

Let's just review the history of those government caucus committees. You may recall that when the government amended legislation affecting the laws of the Legislative Assembly, they said: "We're going to have government caucus committees, and we're going to take the money to pay for them out of the Legislative Assembly budget." Actually, in all the debate recently around this freedom of information, people have overlooked the fact that these government caucus committee Chairs are paid with money out of vote 1 of the Legislative Assembly, this great Legislative Assembly that sits — because Liberal MLAs are silent — for a couple of hours a day.

First of all, we had the creation of government caucus committees where the Chair is paid out of money that is supposed to serve all legislators — tens of thousands of dollars. When we raised issues about that, the government said: "Oh, come on. We're the most open and accountable government. These committees are going to be going out travelling to have public input. What better way to use legislators' money?" My colleague and I said: "Well, you know, that money is supposed to be used for all legislators." "Can we sit on the committee?" I asked. In fact, they said: "No, you can't sit on the committee."

Here we have a government caucus committee chaired and paid for out of vote 1. What is vote 1? The ordinary public doesn't know it, but it's the vote that's supposed to run a Legislature and that's supposed to be independent of government — independent of executive council and independent of government. Again, that principle has been eroded and buried by this government.

Let's follow the money. We were told there's a reason to pay these government caucus Chairs out of legislative money. They're going to travel the province, be open and accountable, and that's great news. Oh. Let's see. How many months later? Sixteen months later here we are. Not only are they paid out of the legislative budget, where the opposition doesn't get to sit on it or have any access to that money, but now those committee are having the door slammed shut on access to information about what the committee is doing.

Open and accountable. Oh my gosh — new Liberalspeak, new era. That's what we like. Take the money from the Legislature, and then tell the public: "Not only are we not going to be open and accountable, but we're going to deny you any information about anything we're doing." That's what this freedom-of-information legislation does. Even if this government introduces an amendment to say that this exemption from freedom of information applies only to government caucus committees, they've reneged on another promise still.

What electoral reform, what parliamentary reform, has lived up to the promises made by this government? Not one. I predict the Minister of Management Services will stand up and claim great credit. He'll say: "Oh no,

it's government caucus committees we're trying to exempt from FOI." Then I'll have the words of the great Government House Leader saying: "No, no. This is a procedure setting up these committees to make them more open and more accountable. That's why we have to take money out of the Legislative Assembly."

Then I remember the Government House Leader saying: "That's the way they do it in Alberta." Wrong. That's not the way they do it in Alberta, the great guru of this government. They pay for it themselves, and they're not exempt from freedom-of-information legislation. I can just wait to see the amendment that'll be introduced.

Here we have a situation. Let me just read what the government, the Minister of Management Services, tried to do when the light of day was shone on this principle being eroded with freedom of information. The government said — I love this: "We're just clarifying a decision already made by the freedom-of-information commissioner." I heard the words: "We're just clarifying in legislation."

I don't know. Silly me, I went back and got the decision and tried to see what it was they were clarifying. Actually, what they were trying to do was reverse a decision by the freedom-of-information commissioner. That's what they were doing.

In fact, here's what the Premier's office said that was not accepted by the freedom-of-information committee: that they were implementing a committee system similar to that used in Alberta. I'm quoting from the decision. This is a cabinet operations senior official making the submission:

I'm quoting from certain parts of the decision. It's quite a lengthy decision and makes for very good reading. Later on:

This is the applicant who was trying to get information about these government caucus committees and couldn't get them. That's the applicant making that submission. He also submitted that the public body must prove that there is a clear nexus between the consultation, monitoring and review activities and the substance of cabinet deliberations before it can be said that the government caucus committee is operating as a committee of the executive council.

Actually, I'm going to walk through this, because this is important, and I'll tell you why. Unless someone challenges this government every step of the way, they would be there saying what they're doing now is just a clarification of this decision instead of admitting that it's a reversal of the decision. I'm hoping, actually, that the minister has read the decision.

The FOI commissioner says: "As I have noted in a number of previous decisions, the policy and procedures manual merely states government's policy on the interpretation and administration of the act, and it is not binding on me."

Here's a decision that was made under the Ontario FOIPPA legislation. It talks about the substance of deliberations of the executive council or its committee and whether the structure of the committee allows for exemption under cabinet confidentiality. That decision by Ontario assistant commissioner Irwin Glasberg said that he rejected the applicability of the cabinet confidentiality exception on the ground that the committee in question was not a committee of the executive council.

He said that in his decision, the group must be composed of ministers where some tradition of collective ministerial responsibility and cabinet prerogative can be invoked to justify the application of this exemption. He said that on the other hand, there are some committees — such as the one they were examining, which was a caucus committee — that are staff committees which report directly to cabinet but are not made up of ministers. On this basis, he found that the agenda in question does not fall within the parameters

of section 12(1) of the act — i.e., it wasn't a cabinet committee and didn't deserve cabinet confidentiality.

In fact, he goes on to say that an advisory committee of non-members of cabinet is not protected by the Crown privilege relating to cabinet confidentiality. Later on, at paragraph 95, the FOI commissioner says that cabinet bears its collective responsibilities and is fundamentally not an amalgam of persons who do and do not hold cabinet membership. You're either in cabinet, or you're not.

Here's the nub of the whole decision. It's technical, but it's relevant. It's technical about democracy and how our system of parliamentary decision-making works. At paragraph 97:

He was describing the government caucus committee. It's an advisory committee and has one cabinet member on it.

What does this government do? How do they clarify that? Really, the decision of the freedom-of-information commissioner was to say that government caucus committees are not cabinet committees. They're advisory committees that have a cabinet member on them, and that doesn't qualify them as a cabinet committee. Therefore, they're not exempt from the FOI laws — pure and simple.

The clarification that the government does is to amend freedom-of-information legislation to exempt committees — just committees. That could be anything. That could mean that if a cabinet member walks through a room and a meeting of a committee is going on, that committee is exempt from FOI. That's what the legislation means. But even if this government amends the legislation to say government caucus committees are exempt from the freedom-of-information legislation, it still flies in the face of the intent of freedom of information. Darrell Evans, the premier advocate for freedom of information and access to information, said it's the worst thing that's happened since the inception of this legislation.

I can hardly wait to see the amendment, because the amendment won't be based on any principle of freedom of information. It will be just covering the tracks to get to the intent this government wants to do, which is to shut down information on government caucus committees that were supposed to be the most open and transparent parliamentary reform we've seen, according to the Premier and the Government House Leader. They take our money from the Legislative Assembly to run these committees. They set up these committees, and then they say: "Oh, we're not letting you have any access to information around those committees."

Even though the workload of this government seems to be sporadic, they couldn't even get the miscellaneous statutes amendment right. They made it so broad and so badly written that it effectively gives the government the ability to hide everything it wants, simply by labelling some MLA committees a committee of cabinet.

Do you know what I could see, Mr. Speaker? It's so funny. When we were having this debate about the Legislature ten days or so ago in the public…. We were having a debate about what the heck goes on here. Nobody's speaking up about anything from the government benches. Some person from the government side…. I think it was the government Whip. I could stand to be corrected. I'm sure he'll run in here if it wasn't him, but it was a government caucus MLA official. He said: "Oh, we debate these issues vigorously in caucus." Yeah, and then what?

You could actually interpret this. It's a caucus committee meeting. There are cabinet members there. Even though they debate it vigorously, if the public went to the next step and said: "Well, what do you do at caucus…?" "Oh, we can't tell you. It's exempt from FOI."

J. MacPhail: The Government House Leader says they already are. Exactly. That's the point. Yet the government Whip offers that up as an alternative transparent and accountable process. The only thing the government Whip had to offer up for transparency and accountability was their own caucus meetings. The Government House Leader rightly points out they're secret. They're behind closed doors. Nobody can find out what's going on about it. Again, a state of confusion reigns on what the government meant by openness and transparency. A state of confusion reigns. Well, it actually isn't surprising. It's shocking, but it isn't surprising.

I submit that when it comes to public scrutiny of the government deliberations, vague statements, broad-brush strokes are not only wrong, but they're completely irresponsible. Just like the Lobbyist Regis-

tration Act, which hasn't seen the light of day, the act is not to be used to hide from public scrutiny the activities of government and its members but to open up those activities to public scrutiny. That's what was promised. I guess this government thinks it's okay to make a promise and then do absolutely nothing about it.

The lobbyist act? We have no idea. Government meets every day with pharmaceutical lobbyists, construction contractors. Every day they meet with lobbyists looking for business, and we were told by this government we'd know about that. Lots of governments actually don't meet with lobbyists, but this government does it every day, and I'm still looking for the registry. We were promised it in August of last year. We were promised it in March. We were promised it just ten days ago.

J. MacPhail: No, actually, we weren't. No, no, there was dead silence ten days ago. Just like the lobbyist act that never was, we have a government that believes they don't have to deliver on transparency and accountability. The Freedom of Information Act is there to actually facilitate the timely and appropriate release of government information, something that the amendment to this act is completely contrary to.

Here's what others have said about this particular amendment under Bill 62, this amendment to the FOI Act: It "could potentially prevent British Columbians from accessing a wide variety of government documents that were previously available for public scrutiny and deliberation."

"The Liberals announced in March that the budget of the office of the information and privacy commissioner will be cut by 35 percent over the next three years… And now it seems like they have landed the final knockout punch to the Freedom of Information Act by giving themselves the power to designate what information they deem unsuitable for public consumption." That would be the Vancouver Sun editorial, October 11, 2002.

Darrell Evans, whom I referred to earlier, the executive director of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, says this amendment gives the government far too much direction. He says: "It's the worst thing to happen to the FOI Act in a decade."

Let's take a look at how we arrived at this amendment. I've already discussed the ruling of the freedom-of-information-and-privacy commissioner on July 26, the ruling that said the Premier's office incorrectly withheld certain information and documents produced with regard to the WCB smoking regulations. The commissioner said the use of section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to sever some of the information and briefing notes was incorrectly applied and ordered that the information be released. But instead of simply accepting this ruling, the government has moved to expand the use of section 12 of the act so as to hide from public scrutiny the deliberations and recommendations of the government caucus committee.

Let's be clear. Even though the minister tried to intimate this in a letter to the editor, the government is not doing this because the commissioner suggested they do this. They are doing it because they don't like the commissioner's ruling. They're escaping scrutiny by broadening the law in order to hide behind it. As the Minister for Management Services suggested in a letter to the editor on October 16, they're not doing it, as he said, to reinforce the act or the act's original intent. They're not doing it because the act says the deliberations of cabinet and its committees must be withheld under the act, and they're not doing it simply to confirm that government caucus committees are committees of cabinet.

They're doing it to hide. That's exactly what they're doing. When this bill was introduced, the commissioner said this of the addition to section 12: "Its use has to be very sparing. The amendment's language is not, as I believe it could be, specific to government caucus committees and committees such as the agenda and priorities committee. Any temptation to apply it to committees that would not generally be acknowledged as cabinet committees must be resisted."

As the commissioner rightly points out in response to the Minister of Management Services' letter to the editor of October 16…. I'm sorry. Yes, October 16. The commissioner in a letter dated October 16 says this: "I therefore do not agree with you that the proposed amendment 'simply confirms' that the government caucus committees are cabinet committees. The proposed amendment does not name government caucus committees or otherwise apply only to them. It could be used to cover a much broader variety of committees." This takes us to the very essence of the commissioner's original ruling and the impact of this amendment.

According to cabinet operations, this is the mandate of government caucus committees. Let me read it. I'm quoting: "The mandate of each of the five government caucus committees is, within the subject area assigned to each, (1) to review and make recommendations to cabinet on policy, legislation and programs; (2) to monitor existing programs and services through reviews of ministries' service plans; and (3) to receive public delegations." Again, according to cabinet operations, all members on these committees take the same oath as cabinet ministers to keep cabinet confidences, and that was all revealed in the freedom-of-information decision.

Of course, as was pointed out in the Vancouver Sun this past Saturday, October 19, the effect of all of this is to make all members of the government caucus members of cabinet. Could that be a muzzle? Is that why MLAs don't get up in this Legislature and defend their constituents' interests? Is it because the only reason they exist now is to do the government's bidding, that they have the responsibility — and I use the word euphemistically — to cabinet and not to their constitu-

ents, even though God knows we have enough paid cabinet members? Is that why we're introducing this amendment? By the way, an amendment to this amendment that specifically says "government caucus committees" still — still, Mr. Speaker — reverses an election promise of openness and accountability.

Contrary to that promise and the assertion of the government Whip that these committees will provide for the most open and transparent government anywhere, the fact is that they have produced the most closed government anywhere by imposing the condition of cabinet confidentiality on the whole caucus. In fact, when you actually ask for government caucus reports, you can't get them. The northern caucus on oil and gas — whether to lift the moratorium or not…. Nobody can get that. I asked the Premier for it in March. He said I could have it. Then later on he says: "Oops, no, you can't have it." The government caucus committee that reviewed smoking, which reversed the smoking regulations of the WCB — you can't get that.

There's a committee struck on leaky condos. God knows where that report is — missed two deadlines there. Can't get that information. No one now can get that information, because it's cabinet confidentiality.

There is a larger question here as well. Can cabinet, simply by forming a committee, impose the non-disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act? The answer to that from the commissioner's decision, as I've already read, says no, you can't. You can't just declare a caucus committee a cabinet committee and therefore be exempt from FOI. You can't. Yet that's what this government's doing, and that's the central issue.

Government cannot hide its deliberations simply by calling any committee it establishes a committee of cabinet. This is what the commissioner found offensive. The government's assertion that the government caucus committees are committees of cabinet, not because they exercise the prerogatives of executive power but simply because of their membership, is wrong. It's wrong in the spirit and intent of the Freedom of Information Act.

We know from our constitutional and legislative history that they are not legitimate cabinet committees, and no government fiat is a substitute for the accountability that has hundreds of years of history, constitutionally and from a parliamentary point of view, behind it.

Including government caucus committees in section 12 is certainly not simply reaffirming the intent of the act or the ruling of the commissioner. Even, as I've said, when we see this amendment to the amendment, it still fails to acknowledge what is happening to parliamentary democracy here in British Columbia. It's becoming more closed, more elitist, and its deliberations are increasingly hidden from public scrutiny. It may give the cabinet wannabes a sense that they're contributing, but, in fact, they are being muzzled by this amendment.

I will pause as I switch to another topic under the principles of this debate to allow an introduction.

Hon. G. Cheema: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Virender Kataria, who is a former Member of Parliament from India. He is visiting our province. It's my understanding he is visiting Canada for the third time, but this is his first visit to our province. I had the good fortune to meet with him in 1997. I met with him last night as well, and we welcome him to our province. Would the House please make him welcome.

I'd like to move on to the principles of another section under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002. It's section 10 of Bill 62, which amends the Highway Act so as to allow private companies to build and maintain arterial highways.

As with so much in this bill, the government is using what are normally inconsequential amendments ? housekeeping amendments. They're using that forum to actually bring in huge changes to the way the government operates and, indeed, the way the public expects it to operate. What a surprise.

In the spring the government introduced Bill 57, the Transportation Investment Act, to allow it to toll major highways in British Columbia. I think we actually had that bill withdrawn and a new piece of legislation tabled today that, of course, I expect we'll debate tomorrow. Maybe we'll debate all three stages tomorrow. Who knows?

Here we have a piece of legislation under this "housekeeping" section that actually needs to be read in context with the piece of legislation that was introduced only today, and yet we're going to pass it. We're going to pass this section. Everybody on the government side says: "That's just simply fine. What's your problem?" "Do your job," says the government to the opposition. "Do your job. We'll keep introducing changes that are interlinked to legislation, but stop complaining, opposition, that we're ramming it through."

We have an amendment to the Highway Act that can only be read in context of a piece of legislation that was merely introduced today, and yet we're going to pass it. The government seems to think that's just fine because, gosh, this bill's been on the order paper — the housekeeping amendments, according to them — for 12 days. "What's your problem? It doesn't matter that we introduced legislation today that will directly affect

Well, let's just look at what this Highway Act change that we're going to ram through today will be. Bill 57, the Transportation Investment Act, allowed the government to toll major highways in British Columbia. Now, I don't recall that being part of the New Era document, or NED as we like to refer to it — dead NED because the New Era document is basically meaningless these days except for the pictures of the MLAs in it. They're all still the same.

Dead NED breaks promise after promise or has promises broken day after day. Here's one right here. Well, actually, NED was silent. The New Era document was silent on tolls, so I guess the minister can actually get up and say, "Well, we didn't say we weren't going to toll major highways," and she'd be absolutely correct. Nowhere did they say — the way they did when they said tax cuts will pay for themselves: "We're not going to toll highways." So cut them some slack. Silent NED, we'll call it.

So we have a piece of legislation, Bill 57, that allows the government to toll major highways in British Columbia. It went out to public consultation. We know that consultation has not been going well on several fronts. As a result of that consultation, today the minister withdrew Bill 57 and tabled a brand-new bill. Now, we haven't debated that bill. In fact, I'll bet you the majority of us sitting here haven't even had a chance to read it yet. But we're going to pass this amendment that affects that new legislation.

In fact, Bill 57, the failed piece of legislation, was blasted by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They blasted the government on its ill-conceived plan to sell off public assets to the private sector and pass the bill for maintenance of those public assets on to local communities. The Union of B.C. Municipalities went crazy. But now, with this amendment, it's not only new highways and bridges that could face tolls and downloading; major arterial routes are about to see the same fate.

Gosh, you've really got to keep track. You've got to have a flow chart, because the government could say: "Well, we listened to the consultation around our Bill 57, the Transportation Investment Act, so we're withdrawing it, and we're going to do things differently, the way we pay for our roads and highways." Meantime, they're ramming through this legislative amendment to the Highway Act that downloads responsibility for arterial highways onto municipalities.

While the municipalities are over here worrying about what the new, new changes are on what they're going to have downloaded, the government's ramming through this amendment that downloads responsibility for arterial highways. I don't think the minister spoke at second reading, and I don't think any government MLA spoke at second reading to talk about the principle of downloading and saying how this was good — sending that message to their constituents how downloading was good — but I know there was no consultation with municipalities on this matter — none.

The government has distracted the public with all sorts of debate around how we are going to pay for our public assets, how we are going to build highways. We have the Premier at the UBCM committing $330 million to the upgrade of the Sea to Sky Highway and saying the federal government's going to share in that to the tune of $330 million. It turns out the federal government's share of the whole infrastructure program for B.C. over six years is $61 million. Oops. More on that later. More on the bad math of the Premier on how much money they're getting from the federal government to share in the costs of the Sea to Sky Highway.

We have all that debate raging, and in the meantime the Minister of Transportation is ramming through an amendment that says arterial highways will be the responsibility of municipalities.

What's another distraction? Well, I hope it's turned out to be a distraction, because the public has been so outraged at it. The other distraction was the talk of selling off the Coquihalla Highway. Well, my colleague and I knew what the reaction would be to that, because the public told us quite clearly it wasn't on, and we listened to them. We listened to them, unlike this government. When we explored the idea of getting a private contractor for the Coquihalla Highway, we actually consulted with the public. We did surveys of the public, and our MLAs went out and met with the communities and came back to caucus and said, "It ain't on," so we said: "Fine. It stays as a public asset."

Not this government. Some lobbyist comes forward to this government, RBC Dominion Securities Inc., toting along some people who are going to try to make the same argument, and this government says, "Oh, good. All right. Yeah, let's do it, man. Let's privatize the Coquihalla," and not one MLA…. Well, that's not true. The Speaker of the Legislature spoke up or talked to his constituents about this and has concerns, because they directly affect his constituents.

So we've got the public off worrying about the Sea to Sky Highway, knowing full well that it's going to be a huge drain on any money available for transportation upgrades or rehab in this province. We've got the public in a panic about this government selling off the Coquihalla. While all of that's going on, the government's slipping through this amendment to the Highway Act to rid itself of any responsibility for major commuter and connecting routes throughout this province, because that's what an arterial highway is. It's a highway that touches on our communities, urban and rural, runs through our urban areas, runs through communities. They're in virtually every community in British Columbia, designated arterial highways, and this government is now downloading responsibility for those highways onto the communities which they run through.

This government defines it as a housekeeping amendment. The Government House Leader says: "There's no principle here. That's why we won't debate

Now, why are they doing this? Why is the government doing this? They promised they wouldn't download onto the municipalities. That's been a broken promise — over and over again. I was privileged to hear from mayors throughout the north who explained in detail the downloading that's already gone on in their communities, which is affecting their budgets. The government thought: "We've broken the promise once; let's break it again and again."

Is there some rational plan going on here, or is it just that they have failed so miserably in their plans to deliver public services within what the taxpayer has asked them to do that they now have to offload ever more costs onto municipalities, which will have to then offload the costs onto the local taxpayer? The answer to that question is yes. That's exactly what's happening here.

Is there any rational plan to see whether a public-private partnership can even work in these circumstances, or will the municipality have to increase their staff to maintain these arterial highways, or will they have to increase taxes? No, government doesn't maintain any public discussion around public-private partnerships. It says: "Gosh, we've got to get out of this business quick because we haven't got any money. Our tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, it turns out, so now we have to find a way to get somebody else to pay for our arterial highways."

There are lots of people who have given the government free advice on not maintaining highways in the public context, in moving it to public-private partnerships. The B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association says it ain't on. The Consulting Engineers of B.C. say it ain't on. Jock Finlayson and the B.C. Business Council say public-private partnerships can't work in this province.

They don't care what the mayors have to say about this. The government prefers to ignore the analysis of Standard and Poor's, who have noted that in the vast majority of cases private contracting of highways does not work.

What's the government doing in this amendment? They're saying to municipalities: "You figure out how to manage these arterial highways. Over to you now. We're not going to give you any solutions. We're not going to help you there. It's your responsibility to figure out how to maintain these, to allow private companies to build and maintain arterial highways."

It's very interesting. The government may fail at public-private partnerships around building and maintaining arterial highways. What the mayors say is: "These arterial highways are part of our community. You can't just eliminate a road from our transportation system inside our community. If the Liberal government fails, we have to pick up the slack." What does the government say? "Over to you."

There we have an examination of principles affecting three major aspects of people's lives in this province: downloading of costs onto municipalities through turning over arterial highways to private companies or getting out of the business of maintaining them; making this government the most secretive and closed in ten years, according to the experts, by denying access to freedom of information; and shutting down a rail passenger service that's 90 years in existence.

I think these are pretty important principles. Perhaps they could have taken up a few hours of debate by the Liberal MLAs on October 10. There was lots of time for the Liberal MLAs to get up and discuss these matters, but not one of them did. Not one of them got up to discuss a single principle that affects their constituents as a result of ramming this legislation through. Shame on them.

J. Kwan: My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has touched on many of the pieces within the so-called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that do not affect the principle or the intent of the legislation. She has identified three major pieces that are contrary to what the government would like you to believe.

The reality is that what the government has done is hide under Bill 62 substantive changes that fundamentally change the principle of the original act. I can't help but comment that earlier today, the Government House Leader got up and said: "You know what? We're giving you a second chance to debate on this issue. Normally, the practice of discussing and debating the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act is such that debate only really takes place during third reading, committee stage, not during second reading."

You know, Mr. Speaker, I just went back and looked at Hansard because I can't help but do that. Every once in a while you hear little noises around the Legislature. The little voices pop up as though there might be something significant that's being contributed in the debate, and you want to pay attention to what's being said because it happens so rarely from the government side, from the government back bench. Really, the only people who rise up in this House and engage in debate are my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and myself, generally speaking. The government MLAs are completely silent.

I went back to look at Hansard to see whether or not there were times when the backbench MLAs actually rose up in this House and made little noises about anything at all. You know what? I actually found an example, one example, in the sitting that started two weeks ago. You know what it was about, Mr. Speaker? A real bill that ought to be under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act but was debated for some two hours by a variety of MLAs. You know what that bill was, Mr. Speaker? It was the bill to talk about the changes that have already happened to the health authorities.

Well, that was a very important bill because that bill really basically just talked about the changes that had already taken place. That is, the government had imposed changes to the 52 health authorities by making them into five. There were, within the act, minor

changes that needed to be amended in terms of the names of the health authorities, how many there were, where they were and those kinds of things. Backbench MLAs got up and debated this for two hours. That was really important. Then on this bill — when we want to talk about what is important, what is substantive, what principles are being changed right here under this so-called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act — we don't hear anything from the government side, and, boom, two Thursdays ago at ten minutes to three, I believe, the House adjourned when my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings stepped out of the House for one moment. Boom — the debate adjourned.

The Government House Leader said: "Don't worry. These are not substantive." Well, let's just take a look at another section within the bill in terms of its substantiveness. Maybe it's not substantive according to the government MLAs, the cabinet ministers, the House Leader and even the minister who has sponsored some of these bills. This government says they really care very much about the most vulnerable, the most marginalized — the people who get hurt because of cuts in government services, cuts in government programs. They really care about them, the government says, and therefore they would not bring in such changes.

You know what I found in this bill, Mr. Speaker? Lo and behold, substantive changes calling for retroactive action to prevent the most vulnerable people in British Columbia from getting access to income assistance. It doesn't matter if you're a person who is under Bill 26, the Employment and Assistance Act, or if you're a person who falls under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. It does not matter because what the government has done under this so-called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is bring forward amendments to retroactively preclude people who are in need of government help from qualifying.

Then the government goes around bragging about what a great job they've been doing by reducing the welfare rolls. They think they've been doing a fantastic job. They say: "Look, we've tightened eligibility. Look, the numbers have gone down. Not that many people are in need of income assistance anymore." Then they go around bragging about it.

You know what really is happening out in the real community where I suspect that the MLAs, when they go home, don't actually go out and talk to anyone. They just lock the doors in the offices, because God forbid anybody should want to tell them what the realities are and what they're faced with. You know, government MLAs and cabinet ministers are shaking their heads.

My office is inundated with calls from people who are in need of assistance. Yes, some of them are from my own constituency, but many of them are not. I'll give some examples of people who got cut off income assistance, so the minister can get up and brag: "Look at all these people who are not in need of welfare anymore. Look at what a great job we're doing to reform it. Look at this miscellaneous statutes amendment act. We're now saying that you no longer qualify not only for today or tomorrow but retroactively — retroactively."

Effectively, the changes being proposed under Bills 26 and 27, the Employment and Assistance Act and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, are for the government to say to the public that if 60 days prior to your application you lost your job or you quit work or a family member in your family unit somehow violated an aspect of eligibility, you and your entire family unit will no longer qualify for welfare.

They're not looking at the here and now for today or at what's going to happen to you tomorrow. They're now looking back in time 60 days to see what you did or what your family unit might have done and then deeming you ineligible, even though you might be sleeping on the street right now, even though you may have children and you have no food to put on the table. Actually, you wouldn't have a table, because you'd be sleeping on the street. Even then, from the government's side, they don't really care. The eligibility under this miscellaneous statutes amendment act is now going to say that you no longer qualify. This is from a government that claims they care about people. The most marginalized people, the people who are the most vulnerable, who want to ensure that they will get the assistance they need…. The reality is quite the opposite — quite the opposite.

J. Kwan: The Minister of State for Mental Health says that it's not true. I challenge him to come to my riding, to get out to his own community and talk to the people who have been cut off income assistance. Just in the House, the first week we were back, I raised the question of a single mom who was pregnant with her second child. She was ordered by her doctor to have bed rest because of complications with her pregnancy. You know what? She went to welfare and asked for a child care subsidy for her first child so that she could have the bed rest, so that she would not put her life and her unborn baby's life in jeopardy. You know what welfare said? "No. You're not qualified because the guidelines say not." This woman, not from my riding, phoned my office. I was shocked. I have to admit that a little part of me connected with the woman, because I'm expecting as well. God forbid if I should be ordered to have bed rest, and I'm not able to get that, and therefore am putting my own life and perhaps the life of my unborn child in jeopardy. What would I do? What would my options be?

God forbid if I were in that woman's situation, I thought. If I was a single mom, I thought to myself, and I already had a child and couldn't get care for the child, I might actually lose that child because of child apprehension issues. What would I do: risk my life or lose my child? I don't know.

Those are the questions that are now out there for people. For the minister of state to say: "Hey, you know

what? This is not reality. It doesn't happen…." Get out to the real world, because it does happen, and it's happening every day. This piece of legislation under the so-called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act makes it even harder for people to qualify. It doesn't matter if you're starving and living on the streets. It doesn't matter if you have children, if you're a single mom or if you're running away from a violent situation. You know why? Now, under the Attorney General's ministry, there's another new rule. They're now looking at no longer prosecuting people who engage in domestic violence. Now it's up to the Crown prosecutors whether or not they prosecute. It's not mandatory. The police boards are very concerned about that. Women work so very hard to get recognition that domestic violence is indeed a crime. It is indeed a crime and should be prosecuted to its fullest extent. That is the reality people are faced with.

What would happen if you were working in the workforce, and you were being harassed by your employer? It could be sexual harassment. It could be discrimination on a variety of fronts. It could be racial discrimination, gender, age, sexual orientation — whatever the case may be. You could no longer tolerate that harassment. You could no longer tolerate that discrimination, and you leave your job. You know what this piece of legislation now says? You will no longer qualify for income assistance. That is what this legislation says. That is the minor amendment that the government would like you to believe.

You cannot just look at this piece of legislation in isolation. You must look at the entire context of what's changed under the Liberal regime, the dictatorship of this government.

If you look at WCB changes, if you think that you've been injured at work and you want to go and seek some compensation and you are unable to do that, and the employer says, "You've got to come back to work anyway, and if you don't, I'm going to fire you," and you're not able to go back to work and you get fired and are in need of income assistance, what will happen? You'll get cut off. You know what? If you go to WCB, there are no more staff available at WCB to provide assistance to you to investigate your case. You're now supposed to investigate it on your own.

What about employment standards, changes around employment standards? If you're faced with discrimination and you go to employment standards to say, "You know what? My employer is violating my rights as an employee" — that is, if you can actually find an office of the employment standards branch that is still open and actually has staff available to investigate your case — now, under the new rule, dictatorship of the Liberal government, they'll just simply say: "Go and talk to the employer yourself. Here's a self-help kit. Fix the problem yourself." Then, if you're not able to fix the problem and you've lost your job and you need income assistance, you know what? Under this new act, under this miscellaneous minor clarification piece that the government's brought forward, you will no longer be eligible for income assistance. That is the reality that people face.

The Minister of Human Resources was saying, I recall, when we were debating these matters last session both in estimates and in legislation, when Bills 26 and 27 were tabled…. I asked a question: what about a person who is faced with multiple challenges? I know of many people who are in that situation today. Some of them may be dealing with a mental illness. Some of them may have a mental illness issue to deal with as well as a substance misuse issue combined or a variety of those kinds of things.

The government has said to them, under Bills 26 and 27: "You've got to go out and look for work. If you don't, we'll cut you off, because that's a violation of eligibility." Then, particularly those who may have a hard time sustaining their employment because of the variety of challenges they face…. Some of it could be health-related; some of it could be related to childhood traumas that cause problems down the road.

I know the Minister of State for Mental Health cares deeply, because he's the minister presiding over seeing living rooms, outreach workers, counsellors for people with mental illness shut down in various communities. I know he pretends that he cares deeply about these community groups. All the while he says he's protecting mental health, yet through all the communities funding is being withdrawn and services are being cut. More and more people who need these services are no longer able to access them.

Then if you are on income assistance, the government is now forcing you to go out there to look for work. If you happen to find work and you lose your job…. It may be for cause. You might even get fired from the work that you find, because you missed work because something in your illness perhaps took over or your health caused you not to get to work. Maybe your employer will say, "Hey, you know what? That's not justifiable. I just simply cannot have that," and you lose your job. You know what? Under this piece of legislation it says that if you lose your work for cause, you will no longer be eligible for income assistance.

Yet when we were debating Bills 26 and 27 with the Minister of Human Resources and during estimates, I asked the minister precisely that question.

How will these individuals and family units be protected? The government is forcing them to go out and look for work. Some of them may well find work, and some of them may well lose their jobs. What will the government do? Well, the answer is clear: they'll be cut off welfare. That's what the government will do.

You know, I was in my riding at an open house for a neighbourhood house, and there was a woman that I had met before. She came up to me. She was petrified, because she had just received 23 pages of forms she is supposed to fill out or have someone fill out for her, so that she can continue to receive disability benefits under Bill 27. I'm not a doctor or an expert in any way, shape or form, but it was clear to me in talking with this woman for about 15 or 20 minutes that she was

dealing with some health challenges, some mental health issues amongst other things.

I tried to impress upon her what she must do: get her doctor to help her fill out the forms and get her doctor to understand what the rules have now changed to be for her to qualify to continue to receive income assistance under Bill 27. The woman, as I spoke with her, just broke down in tears. She could not grasp what I was trying to tell her. She had a really tough time, and she was petrified that she was going to get cut off. She was worried that even if she did find work but wasn't able to keep the job, what would happen then? We now know what will happen. The government will cut her off. That's what will happen.

I had another constituent just during this week, when we were back in our home ridings…. A woman came into my office, very distraught. She had been in my office about three or four weeks ago. At that time she had not received the litany of pages of forms that she's supposed to fill out to continue to receive income assistance, but she was very worried about it. We tried to give her comfort and said to her: "When you do receive these forms, do come back. We will try and assist you as best we can so that you won't be penalized under these draconian rules the Liberals have brought in."

The woman told us a little bit about her history. She told us that she has depression and has attempted to commit suicide on a number of occasions before. As she progressed in telling us her story, she began to get emotional, and I was frightened, actually. I was frightened for this person. As I said, we tried to reassure her. We told her: "Please do come back. We will try to provide the best assistance that we can." She left the office distraught but, hopefully, comforted. She didn't come back for about three weeks.

Then this last week she came back. I was out of the office at the time. My staff was there. She asked my staff if they noticed anything different about her. My staff couldn't say. She said: "I just came out of the hospital. I tried to commit suicide again, but I've survived. I've come back. I now have my 23 forms before me. Would you help me?"

I'm not making this up. It happened. This is what is happening right now as a result of these changes.

Now a further imposition is being brought forward. If you lose your job 60 days before you apply, the government now says, you're no longer eligible for income assistance. Effectively, what is supposed to be a minor amendment, name changes and the like, is now bringing forward retroactive legislation to disqualify people from receiving assistance — assistance that for many, I predict, is the only resource for them to survive and to support their families or themselves.

I don't know how the MLAs on the government bench in this House could sit silently and accept this. Where is the humanity that I thought and that I hoped existed in people? I looked long and hard for that, and I get criticized for it. People just say: "God, you see everything out of rose-coloured glasses. The reality is different."

Do you know what? The reality I was brought to in this country when my family left Hong Kong to come here…. One of the chief reasons why they chose to come here is because Canada is unique. It does care for its people, its citizens and the people who live in our own community. We do have humanity in our hearts, and we want to share what we have amongst ourselves with everybody else.

You know, I have the Minister of Management Services beaming a look at me, as though it's: "How dare you say such things in this House? How dare you accuse us of such inhumane actions?" He shakes his head as I speak. The reality is that the government members and this cabinet are bringing forward these inhumane actions, these changes in legislation, causing harm that one can only shudder to imagine.

One could only think…. Just last week a person came in and told our office that she'd made an attempt on her life because she was so stressed and found it so unbearable in terms of what her future might hold for her. That's the reality of it. What will happen now, when you have a piece of legislation that says retroactively, if you get fired or lose your job or quit even under unbearable circumstances, you're not qualified for income assistance?

What will happen to these people? Should we just turn a blind eye? Should we just shut our eyes, turn our backs to these individuals and say: "Hey, who cares? You're not important. You don't pay taxes. You're not our number one priority. What difference does it make if you starve on the streets? What difference does it make if you have health problems? Health services are being cut as well, so you can't get access to health care services." It doesn't matter to the Liberal government, perhaps, because this group of individuals are not their priority.

When we look at Bill 62, it isn't just those who are supposedly able-bodied under Bill 26 and are supposed to look for work who would have to deal with such an amendment to the act. It's also people with disabilities.

I just got some correspondence, a piece of e-mail, from someone. The e-mail advises that there are two individuals who have gone through the reapplication process for disability designation and were turned down.

One person is rather senior in age but not yet pensionable — a senior disabled in a multitude of ways. This person is blind and has been for many years. This person is suffering from a range of health issues including HIV and AIDS and some days can barely get up, let alone look for and secure work. Well, the person has been told he's no longer eligible for disability benefits 2.

Now, I haven't had a chance to talk to this individual. I have to wonder: is it because he was unable to look for work? If he was unable to look for work, would this person then be cut off ultimately? There is a

time limit which applies, as well, for individuals under Bill 26. That time limit is two out of five years you can qualify for welfare. More than that, you'll be cut off.

I wonder: aside from losing the designation of being on disability, now that this person is thrown back onto the regular income assistance program and in spite of the person's health challenges, would the person be cut off? The person, of course, will be expected to look for work. If the person is unable to fulfil that requirement, that person will be cut off income assistance. If the person does secure work and loses his employment, the person will be cut off income assistance — as simple as that. No options are available.

I want to turn for a moment to people who may be employed out there and who may be faced with problems at the workplace. What will happen to them if they find themselves unable to go to work every day because it is perhaps unbearable for these individuals to go to work because of rampant discrimination in the workplace? Sometimes the circumstances around discrimination are not so obvious, because it's never clear cut. It's always very difficult to identify discrimination or harassment. But what if that was happening?

Before you quit, and before today, there would have been an option for some of these workers because they may be able to go to the Human Rights Commission and file a complaint. Well, no longer. The Human Rights Commission has now been cancelled — eliminated by this government. You may want to go to legal aid and ask for some assistance to fight against your employer for discrimination and harassment in the workplace. You will no longer be able to do that either, because legal aid has been cut. Administrative law within legal aid is no longer available, even if it impacts your livelihood.

I wonder what will happen to this fellow, who is actually not a constituent of mine. He had a longstanding case of fighting the system. He had an accident some years ago, hurt himself, suffered brain injuries and is on income assistance now. But he's working so hard to get back to work, for he wants to. He really wants to. Actually, after many years of fighting the system, he now has a judicial review coming up. He has a court case actually this week. He had a legal aid representative and then lost it. The representative is no longer available. The person may well lose his opportunity for a livelihood to get him off income assistance for good.

If he loses the case and is unable to secure employment, does that mean that he had actually turned down employment? Does he risk getting cut off income assistance? These are just some examples of what is really going on. This supposedly minor amendment under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act really goes to the heart of what this government is doing — cutting the knees from under the people who are most vulnerable and saying to them, "Not only just for today or tomorrow, but also we will now look retroactively back 60 days in an attempt to cut you off income assistance," so that the government, the minister, can go out and say: "We reduced the numbers on welfare rolls.'" Shame.

Hon. G. Plant: I have followed the debate with interest. It's apparent that there are strongly held views about a number of the matters that are contained within Bill 62, so I look forward to a careful and close consideration of those issues in the course of committee stage debate. With that, I would close second reading debate.

Hon. G. Plant: Pursuant to the motion passed earlier today, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill 62, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 62; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I would appreciate advice if people around me are rising as well — it's hard for me to look around, and you always do that — just so I'm not dominating.

Please, could the minister explain the amendment as she sees it because of this. The section note, the explanatory note, is permissive, not mandatory, about the obligation of the government to provide passenger service. Perhaps the minister could explain what is the intent.

Hon. J. Reid: This allows B.C. Rail to maintain a passenger service with the railbus in a community that is rail-dependent. It does allow for that to take place.

Hon. J. Reid: With the rail system that we have right now, between communities, there is a 35-mile corridor between D'Arcy and Lillooet. Those people living in that area are rail-dependent. There isn't a highway for them to use, so we're going to be continuing service to those people. We've found a cost-effective way of doing that. This is being administered by the Seton Lake Indian band in partnership with B.C. Rail. Presently the band accounts for 95 percent of the ridership on that 35-mile corridor. The service that's being provided is a different kind of vehicle. It's called a railbus.

J. MacPhail: What I was asking about was the intent of section 1. The minister has outlined for me what sounds like a contract to provide bus service to certain constituents who are completely rail-dependent now. My original question was: what is the intent according to this legislation? Is the minister now saying that this legislation is interpreted as guaranteeing railbus service between D'Arcy and Lillooet?

Hon. J. Reid: The intent is to allow the government to decide what passenger services. What I'm saying is that there is a vehicle that will run on the rail tracks, different than the Budd cars, which will provide service to the communities along that stretch, that 35-mile corridor.

J. MacPhail: Okay. That's one issue. I was surprised that the minister raised it when I asked about the intent of the legislation, because what I was referring to was whether the legislation allows the government to make a decision about passenger rail service in the future or whether that decision has been made and is irrefutable. Does the legislation end passenger rail service by B.C. Rail, or is there an opportunity to have B.C. Rail passenger service?

Hon. J. Reid: This takes away that statutory obligation. B.C. Rail is able to make the decisions around passenger rail service going forward. Since the service plan was released last spring, it's been clear that the plan was to discontinue the main part of the passenger tourism rail services. That's been disseminated into the communities since last spring. I've met with different people from communities, many different MLAs and many different individuals to explain why that's taking place. This takes away the statutory obligation of the province to run all passenger services. We are making a decision with regard to the one where people are rail-dependent.

J. MacPhail: The legislation tabled by the government refers to an agreement made on February 10, 1912, between several parties, one of which is the Crown, to provide rail passenger service — or service. Does the minister know whether there has been a period of time when passenger service has not been provided, since 1912?

J. MacPhail: Not to my knowledge, either, in 90 years of rail passenger service. This Liberal government is ending the obligation of government to provide passenger rail service. What guarantee do the citizens between D'Arcy and Lillooet have that railbus service will continue?

Hon. J. Reid: There is a contractual agreement that until there is an alternative transportation route, such as a highway, this service will be maintained.

J. MacPhail: How would anybody know about this contractual agreement? Can the minister table it for us, please?

Hon. J. Reid: B.C. Rail is a commercial Crown. B.C. Rail doesn't release its commercial contracts. This is a commercial contract between B.C. Rail and the Seton Lake band.

J. MacPhail: A new level of secrecy. We have one mode of transportation that the people between D'Arcy and Lillooet have. It's B.C. Rail — no other mode of transportation.

The reason why commercial contracts have to be withheld from public scrutiny is fear of competition. This government, this minister, is hiding behind the fact that it's a commercial rail service. For what reason? There is no competition. There is nothing to fear by releasing the contract. Nobody else is providing the service. Why won't you table the contract?

Hon. J. Reid: I'm somewhat confused by the question. The dealings with the Seton Lake band have been satisfactory. There's been a contract that has been satisfactorily negotiated. There's been participation by the band and by the community — excellent participation in a partnership to provide ongoing service.

I have not heard one word of complaint from the communities being served — in fact, just the opposite. They're very pleased with the service that's going to continue to be provided, their participation in that service and the management of that service, so I'm not quite sure what the question is or what the problem is that the member is raising.

J. MacPhail: It's a bit hard for people to take the word of this government that everybody's happy and everything's fine. But if the minister is saying so, what's the problem with tabling the contract?

Hon. J. Reid: With B.C. Rail in the past, certainly, the contracts that have been negotiated have been seen as confidential. With this particular contract, I'm not sure if there is a confidentiality clause that's in there as with other contracts. Again, the details of the contract are well known. If the member could express what the concern is over this contract, perhaps we could clarify it.

J. MacPhail: I just want a copy of the contract. Apparently everything is fine — no issues. Everybody's happy. It is the substitution for B.C. passenger rail service. I just wanted to know how much people are being charged, for instance. How much are people being charged to have passenger rail service? Is there a subsidy?

Hon. J. Reid: There is an ongoing subsidy related to this particular route. It's approximately $200,000 a year. The people who are travelling that route are paying the equivalent of a bus fare, and that's approximately $3.50 return.

J. MacPhail: What's the guarantee of time for the subsidy, and does it require any level of passenger use?

Hon. J. Reid: It doesn't require any level of passenger use. This is a service in providing transportation service, because this community is dependent on the rail service. We believe that it is important. If there is a change — if there is a road put in, if there's some other change — then obviously there would have to be renegotiation, but while this community is dependent, then there is a subsidy being provided to make sure that these people do have access to the services they need at a level that they have been paying.

J. MacPhail: What's the length of the contract? I'm just curious as to why we can't actually see the contract. If everything's hunky-dory — there's no competition; there's no commercial downside to tabling the contract — I'm just wondering why we can't see it. It's public dollars. The subsidy is coming out of B.C. Rail. I'll have other questions about the release of the core review of B.C. Rail, but what's the secrecy here?

Hon. J. Reid: The contract has an indefinite term. Again, this is the way B.C. Rail has negotiated contracts. This is a standard approach. This is a unique situation, and the question has not arisen because a request has not come in. I would have to look at the confidentiality around this contract. I certainly couldn't violate any agreements with the Seton Lake band here today. This is, again, the standard contract process that has been used by B.C. Rail in the past.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm unaware what the minister means by standard and unique. It's kind of like an oxymoron: a standard unique contract. However, it seems a bit ridiculous to not table a contract that nobody has any problem with. Frankly, the minister did receive a request; I just made one. I just made one in a forum that is the legitimate way of asking for information. The request is there. I will be following up on it.

Here's the concern. The community between D'Arcy and Lillooet, who are not all band members, will now be subject to a secret contract provision of services. Tell me. Let me ask this: does the minister have to introduce legislation to end that service?

J. MacPhail: So this is the appropriate time to debate the contract, and this is the appropriate time to ask for the information about the contract, because this government can end that contract on its own without it ever coming back to this chamber — hence the questions, hence the request for the information.

Here's why I'm curious as to the information. It will take a moment for me to lay this out. I've looked at the three-year service plan tabled February 2002. The service plan says that the province also needs to review the future of mandated, unprofitable passenger services operated by B.C. Rail. The operating losses are a significant contributing factor to the company's reduced cash flow. The service plan also then goes on to talk about freight rail and how there are threats facing B.C. Rail as a result of a decline in freight rail.

The service plan is very clear that there are two aspects to B.C. Rail. One is the unprofitable passenger train services. Actually, here it says: "B.C. Rail is burdened with the costly obligation to operate unprofitable passenger train services without receiving any subsidy from the province." Then it goes on to say that the second problem is a decline in freight revenues and the burden this places on B.C. Rail.

What I'm trying to find out from this minister is how they came to the decision to end passenger rail but to have some sort of contract with the community that is completely rail-dependent. And what process, if any, is going on now to perform the same examination around freight rail?

Hon. J. Reid: I think the process that has been used is a logical one, and this is a historical problem the government has taken on. I would like to make reference to letters that were written by the last government with regard to the passenger rail service. This was a letter sent to David Zirnhelt from Paul Ramsey.

To quote from the letter that talks about the issues facing passenger services: "There are two distinct but related issues that are forcing us to re-evaluate the service versus the simple fact that this service loses several million dollars each year. The Budd cars are very expensive to operate and, during much of the season, carry very light loads. During the period when the railway's freight operations are under severe economic pressure, B.C. Rail as a commercial Crown corporation must look at every aspect of this business, including passenger services, to seek out cost savings."

The letter concludes: "It is our hope to find an option that will both meet the needs of the marketplace and not require government subsidies." The situation, as the member I'm sure is aware, has been going on for a long time. The passenger service over the last 40 years, I believe, is now operating at half the number of passengers when you consider the increase in B.C.'s population. This is a service that loses approximately $10 million a year. As well, as the letter from the former government stated, this is a service where the cars that operate the passenger service require refurbishment or replacement at a cost of approximately $30 million.

The government just doesn't have that money available. B.C. Rail doesn't have that money available to invest in services that are losing money. As the letter from the previous government also stated, there is a desire to find alternative ways of being able to provide in the marketplace. I have received a lot of comments from tourism operators who complained about B.C. Rail and about them not being the best operators of tourism services. Certainly, I think that has proven to be the case.

There is an opportunity here to see the private sector come in and run tourism services, which I believe will provide a better service than what B.C. Rail has done in the past. We are taking a logical step of working through what B.C. Rail is through the core review process of being able to say what the main mandate of B.C. Rail is. The main mandate, we believe, is that the freight rail service — again referring to the letter from the previous government, and the previous government came to the same conclusion as well — is the core service of the railway.

In looking at the losses of the passenger service, the very large investment that's required in order to sustain it and the alternative of being able to see the private sector come in and operate tourism services, I believe it's a logical, reasonable, economic decision to allow that to happen — to concentrate on the freight rail side and look for private sector operations for the tourism rail side.

J. MacPhail: Isn't it a wonderful day when this minister thinks that it's very appropriate to release communication between two cabinet members — cabinet communication — and yet just a few moments later her own government's going to be slamming the door shut on any communication that involves any cabinet minister doing any business whatsoever? She uses it as some sort of defence for her own actions.

The difference between the previous government and communications between cabinet members is that direction is given to investigate. Then there's a discussion about whether that investigation has proven worthy of delivering what is promised to constituents and whether the government will proceed with the decision. That's the difference between the previous government and this government. All the work was done in the discussion that the minister has decided to read from.

I'm wondering whether the minister would actually agree to get up and read about her own communications with the Minister of Finance, or even the core review documents, about releasing those publicly. The answer to that, of course, is no. She won't release anything on that matter. She won't even release a contract that's not even in dispute — nothing.

The previous government did that investigation, and passenger service continued. Yes, cost efficiencies were required. That's what good governments do. In fact, this government, when in opposition, said: "We're going to keep B.C. Rail." I didn't hear them say: "We're going to keep B.C. Rail, except for passenger service." I didn't hear them say, "We're going to keep B.C. Rail, except for the spur between Dawson Creek and" — I think — "Fort Nelson." No qualifications — none. Absolutely none.

The minister has to be held accountable for her own actions. It is completely reprehensible that she would refer back to a cabinet discussion that ended up supporting B.C. Rail passenger service and B.C. Rail freight service as some sort of justification for her own secret, closed activities that exclude input from the community. That's exactly what she's doing. Somehow she says that it's logical. It makes sense. Everybody knows B.C. Rail passenger service sucks. This government, when they were in opposition, didn't know that. They were told over and over again by their candidates running along that rail line: "You'd better not make the mistake again of saying you're going to privatize B.C. Rail." That's what was said.

The candidates didn't say: "We want you to be very careful. Distinguish between defending B.C. Rail and B.C. Rail passenger services." They said to the now Premier: "Don't make the mistake again of saying you're going to privatize B.C. Rail." Now, all of a sudden, it's logical. Everybody should know that B.C. Rail sucks. I'm paraphrasing. It's a logical economic decision.

Wrong. It's a decision that this government came to in secret and won't explain. When can we have the core review results on B.C. Rail? When can we have the documents? When will the minister stand up and release the correspondence between her and the Finance minister about the future of B.C. Rail passenger ser-

vice? She was more than happy to stand up and release cabinet documents of the previous government. When can we expect the documents of the communication between her and the Finance minister about the future of B.C. Rail?

Hon. G. Plant: No doubt members are breathless with anticipation for the answer to that question, but in the meantime I move that the committee recess for half an hour until 6:30 p.m.

The Chair: I call committee on Bill 62, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002. Before the break a question was asked of the minister.

Hon. J. Reid: I'd like to reply. A number of comments were made by the member. I'd like to reply to the questions about the letter I read into the record. That was written to an MLA who was not in cabinet. The contents of that letter were identical to what was used to reply to the public on the same issue.

I would like to respond to the questions about the decision-making process that has taken place with B.C. Rail.. As I stated, there was a historical situation with B.C. Rail, with the passenger service equipment. The previous government knew of the decrepit condition that the passenger equipment was in. Those Budd cars were purchased, I believe, in 1956 or thereabouts. Under the previous government they had reached the extent of their useful life. The previous government did not choose to invest the $30 million into refurbishing or replacing them, so we inherited that situation.

We had to examine, as we came into government, the financial examination of B.C. Rail. Upon understanding the investment that was required and the necessity of making cost-effective decisions for the taxpayers, realizing the previous government did not see fit to make this investment, looking at the core value of the rail and the freight side of it, we had to make a decision. I believe that the decisions made by the previous government left us with very few choices here.

We have made a decision. We have communicated that with the communities, with different community groups, with different mayors and councils and with different persons from private business. I have been out in the communities discussing that and the decision and the rationale, receiving their input, their concerns and their suggestions. The other question that was asked was for a date for the final reporting out of the core review, and I do not have a date for the final report for core review.

J. MacPhail: Isn't it interesting? I've noticed this amongst the Liberals that when they first got elected, they started out that it was a decade of decline. It was a decade of disaster and how the previous government was responsible for everything. Then this government tried to move into positive mode. They said, "Oh well, we got elected. We've got a majority of 77. Maybe we should actually try to do something," and nobody believed them on their positive initiatives. The tax cuts were failing; tax increases were going on. Courthouses were being closed; schools were being closed. They went: "Oh my God, our positive initiatives aren't washing. Let's go back to blaming the previous government for everything."

In fact, the mandate is: a decade of decline, have to clean up the government's previous mess. It's the message box, and no matter whether you're talking about what went on in towns around the province or whether you're talking about welfare recipients being thrown out on the street or B.C. Rail, the mantra box is there: blame the previous government.

The problem here, though, is the government that's in office now knew all of this information and still promised that they wouldn't touch B.C. Rail. So whose fault is that, to encourage expectations all along the B.C. Rail line of MLA after MLA and to say: "Don't worry"? You had all of that information. The government had all of that information, and her government still said: "We won't privatize B.C. Rail." In fact, you know what? In this particular circumstance, we don't even know whether they're going to privatize B.C. Rail, because the minister's actually closing down the service. As always, close down the service and then find out whether anybody's willing to start it up again.

In the meantime businesses are closed, people are laid off, and people can't get their transportation. So it ain't gonna wash — the mantra of this minister, the government MLAs to try to hold someone accountable other than themselves. So why is it that the minister shut the service down without finding where there is maybe an alternative service provider?

Hon. J. Reid: The logic of decision-making, I thought, was exceedingly clear. We have a history, and we cannot disregard the history. When a government takes office, they have to deal with what is there. As much as we would like to wipe the slate clean in looking at the financial situation of B.C. Rail and the finances of the passenger service, it is important that we do concentrate on the freight service. We believe it's integral to the communities, and we are working on being able to focus the resources on the freight service.

As we move forward with these decisions — and the question, I believe, is what we are looking at in other decisions and other providers for this — we have seen, and I think it's also very apparent, that tourism services are better provided by the private sector than has been able to be done by government.

We have been looking at engaging the private sector into operating services. We have been working with the private sector, and we continue to work with the private sector. There are three companies that we're

having discussions with about providing services along these sections of British Columbia.

I am confident that there is a significant interest there. We will do everything we can to work with these companies and pursue it so that there can be successful passenger or tourism services provided by the private sector.

J. MacPhail: Very interesting. What did the minister find out when she assumed office that she didn't already know about B.C. Rail? Perhaps she could tell us. What information did she receive when she assumed office and when her government was making the promise to protect B.C. Rail? What new information did she receive? It's all on the public record and was on the public record.

Hon. J. Reid: I'll give an example of the extent of knowledge. Certainly, in opposition you do cover off a broad range of knowledge. I did not know that the Budd cars required an investment of at least $30 million. I'm not saying it isn't a matter of public record. How we are then going to move forward and deal with that are issues that we are not afraid to deal with. We do believe that we have to make tough decisions here. We have to be able to move ahead.

I find it amazing that this member would suggest that an investment of $30 million into Budd cars is something that she would recommend, when she was able to make that decision as a member of the previous government and didn't make that decision. So I'm not sure in her mind what has changed between that time and this time. It's still apparent that these cars are at the end of their service, and the $30 million does not exist to be able to replace or refurbish them.

J. MacPhail: The minister has no new information since she took over government. All of that was debated in estimates. Questions were asked and answers were given, and this government still went ahead and said that we're going to protect B.C. Rail passenger service. It will be interesting to see how the MLAs whose communities are being harmed by the cut in B.C. Rail passenger service are going to stand up and defend the decision of government.

I just heard of another secret process going on. As always, this government cuts services, destroys the benefit to the community and then says: "Oh, but we're looking for someone to take over the service." Is there a request for proposals in place? Is there a tendering process out? If there is, perhaps the minister could point us to it. That would be very helpful.

Second, why is it that the services cut off, businesses destroyed, communities harmed, and then the minister decides to go out to a tendering process to replace the service?

Hon. J. Reid: What we started with the private sector are the inquiries to find out who would be interested in running the service. We were receiving from them issues of concern to them in being able to run that service. We haven't been able to resolve some of those issues, though we've been actively working on those. One of those issues is finding a way to work with the union in a manner that will help us move forward with these proposals. So we haven't gotten to that stage yet. We've put numerous requests in to the union for that discussion. To this time we have not been able to make significant progress. We continue with that work, we continue the discussion, and we do believe that there will be a resolution.

W. Cobb: I guess in regards to B.C. Rail, as well, I would like to talk. I've deliberated long and hard over this issue. As a matter of fact, before I was in this position, I did whatever I could as the mayor of my community to try and save B.C. Rail.

But before I get into that, I want to talk about some of the statements that were made here today, because they mentioned me and my riding. I particularly want to say that I did not have ten days' holiday, that I was working in my riding. Since this bill was introduced ten days ago, I have had 14 e-mails in regard to trying to save the passenger service. When they realized there was still a window for them to contact me and further discuss it, I did receive 14 e-mails on this matter.

I did make the statement that it appears we're out of time, and it also appears that we're out of money. We have no more money. Part of the reason is that in 1996 the previous government took $10 million from B.C. Rail. In 1997 they took $4 million. In 1998 they took $40 million. That's a total of $54 million.

W. Cobb: And they sold some…. Well, that's where some of this money came from. Now, I don't know how they balanced their budgets or, in fact, where they spent this money, but this certainly could have gone a long way to saving the passenger service. Also, there was another….

We also heard earlier tonight about the lady from Lytton who was in Vancouver getting hospital care. I sympathize with the lady, but just for correction, B.C. Rail does not go to Lytton, so I don't know where that story came from.

There is going to be some economic impact in my community. For the tourism industry in my….

W. Cobb: For the tourism industry in my area, and particularly the name mentioned…. He's probably one of the largest entrepreneurs who will be affected by the closure of the passenger line. I wasn't here to listen to the debate in the past, but after I look at all the details and the information that's given me and realize that the passenger service has lost money for 90 years, how long are we going to flog a dead horse? In making this decision, I have to do what's best for the province, and I will not jeopardize all of B.C. Rail for the passenger service. That's the stand I have to take.

I've asked my questions. How much should we subsidize the service if we should subsidize it at all? If we are going to subsidize it, who should pay for that subsidy? Do we increase the industrial rates and jeopardize losing that service? I'm sorry, no. For the forest industry and the ranching industry….

W. Cobb: If we are going to make further cuts, or if we are going to subsidize it and we don't have the money, what else are we going to cut? Highways? We have no money in highways. When you look at the highways in my riding, there is no money there. We have to maintain that service. Are we going to take it out of health care? No, I'm sorry; I'm not prepared to take it out of health care.

W. Cobb: Well, if you'd budgeted like the NDP budgeted, maybe adding a billion dollars to the budget is a decrease.

W. Cobb: Oh sure, by taking $40 million from B.C. Rail. That balanced the budget. I'm not prepared to take it from education, and I'm not prepared to take it from social services.

W. Cobb: In my mind, we must find a way to ensure that we have a rail line to the north, and I will do what I can and what I must to ensure that we pursue all avenues to provide that passenger service. I had a number of meetings in the community. They came down from as far as Prince Rupert to 108….

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I'll ask you please to allow the member to speak.

W. Cobb: When I met with our communities trying to save B.C. Rail, one of the statements that were made there…. It's only a rumour, I suppose, but it was indicated to me that the B.C. Rail staff did not support any changes. I have to ask you, Madam Minister: have you done anything with the union or with B.C. Rail to try and save this passenger service?

Hon. J. Reid: I appreciate the comments. I know how hard the member has worked to discuss the information and to make sure people were well aware of this information, going back to last spring. It is a difficult situation, making transitions. It can be very frustrating for people who are having to look at those transitions. We certainly have the reality of the situation that almost half of the passenger trips travelled are to and from Whistler. We need to be real about what that service really is.

As we have looked at ways of being able to ensure continuity of service — because one of the concerns that was expressed from your community was whether there's any possibility of working with the private sector and trying to get that continuity of service — we have worked very hard to explore our options. We have expressed to the unions that their cooperation would go a long way in being able to move this issue forward. We've made several different overtures in that regard to try to find some resolution, and we continue to work on that.

Again, I do believe there are opportunities to find that resolution, and we will continue to work. I absolutely believe these are some tremendous routes for tourism services and that there are great opportunities that can be realized, and realized to a far greater advantage in the future than we've seen in the past. Unfortunately, there is a transition period that we do have to endure.

D. Chutter: I just want to comment on Bill 62 as it relates to B.C. Rail passenger service. The Cariboo Prospector has lost over $4 million in each of the last three years. It has had a cumulative loss over the past five years of $21.66 million and has incurred an operating loss in every year since 1964. I am disappointed that the Cariboo Prospector is not viable, but that is the reality. In addition, the railcars must be rebuilt or replaced, for operational and safety reasons, at a cost of at least $30 million.

B.C. Rail does not have the money for this, nor does this government. I do not support passing on debt to our kids that will deprive them of opportunities in their future so that we can have what we want today.

I committed to the people of Yale-Lillooet to support a government that would be fiscally responsible, would live within the tax dollars and would provide sustainable public services. To support continued Cariboo Prospector service would contradict my commitment. The people of Yale-Lillooet provided clear majority direction for our government to make the tough decisions to balance the budget.

It should be noted that B.C. Rail is ensuring that service exists for the rail-dependent communities between D'Arcy and Lillooet. By not requiring B.C. Rail to provide passenger service and thereby stopping the operation of the money-losing Cariboo Prospector, an opportunity will exist for a third-party passenger train operator to provide a service over B.C. Rail lines. The B.C. Rail lines are not disappearing. We must remember that.

The old way is ineffective in growing tourism. Passenger use is unsustainable and doomed. It is this new opportunity that I encourage communities along the line to get enthused about. This new opportunity for private sector involvement in the operation of a quality, progressive service to enhance tourism and service offerings to the many communities along the line is, to me, positive news.

For the reasons of repeated significant operating losses, the need for significant capital infusion to operate — money that we don't have — and for these opportunities for revitalized passenger service as provided by this bill, I therefore support Bill 62 as it relates to B.C. Rail passenger service.

P. Bell: It's been a bit noisy in here this evening, but I'll do my best to try to be heard.

I rise today definitely with mixed emotions revolving around section 1 of Bill 62. I spent a lot of time thinking about it over the last few weeks. There's been much conflict that I've had to resolve within.

On one hand, there are the opportunities that passenger and tourism rail provides in the community that I represent. There are significant dollars spent in Prince George by passengers of B.C. Rail's Prospector and the Whistler Northwind. Each year there are about 12,000 tourists that arrive in Prince George on these trains. In discussions that I've had with the local hotel operators, they have very real concerns that their occupancy rates will be impacted significantly by the elimination of this service.

Rural B.C. has had a tough time over the past ten years or so. We're starting to get things turned around slowly, but it's still a big challenge. The removal of this link could impact many of the small rural communities along the track.

I've travelled this route, and I can attest to the scenery. As you travel north, passengers are treated to a great variety of terrain. Initially the route from North Vancouver up Howe Sound presents the traveller with spectacular ocean vistas. Moving up the line, the rugged coastal mountains take over to the picturesque community of Whistler. On up the line you break into the spectacular Chilcotin plateau. The train continues through the Cariboo ranchlands and finishes up in my community, the heart of British Columbia, Prince George.

Many ask: will this be lost? Will the train leave the station for the last time? Will the fond memories many of us have of rail travel be just that — memories? There is an unfortunate side to this experience, a side that has led to less than excellent service. Mandating in legislation a requirement for passenger service removes the motivation to provide the best possible customer service and competitive pricing. This has created an inefficient, outdated service that turns customers away.

One of the first constituency files I opened upon being elected to this House demonstrates, I believe, what I'm referring to here. The representative from the organization of bed-and-breakfast operators in Prince George approached us about BCR. The issue was that more often than not, when they accepted reservations from people arriving on BCR, the train would be late. We're not just talking about ten or 15 minutes. Many times they would be several hours late. It got so bad that they quit accepting reservations from people travelling on B.C. Rail. Now, when an entrepreneur turns away business, you know you've got a problem.

There are other examples of inefficiencies. A recent survey of pricing indicates that for a single adult travelling from Prince George to Vancouver on two weeks' notice, I could buy a bus ticket for $66, an airplane ticket for $88 or a train ticket for $247. More importantly, neither the bus nor the plane ticket was subsidized, as the B.C. Rail ticket was. For a train ticket to be almost four times as much as a bus, and three times as much as a plane, seems unreasonable to me. This represents only the passenger and not the tourist train component.

In my heart I believe that we should have — in fact, must have — a tourism rail service in Prince George. This type of rail service is provided in other jurisdictions by the private sector. In fact, Rocky Mountain Railtours has been successful, growing their business significantly. I was just looking at a document here that indicates that Rocky Mountain Railtours, over a period of 12 years, has increased their departures in a tourism-related rail from Vancouver to Banff from a total of 40 in the first year to a total of 148, over tripling their total business in a period of 11 or 12 years.

Rocky Mountain Railtours just welcomed their 500,000th passenger two weeks ago. In just 12 years of operation as a privately owned and operated rail service in British Columbia, this company has become successful. I believe that the Rocky Mountain Railtours example is the best case for eliminating the mandate — I want to make this very clear — for passenger rail service within B.C. Rail, which is exactly what we're doing

here. If we mandate passenger rail service, we'll create an unmanageable service that costs the taxpayers of B.C. a subsidy of $5 million annually. That's $5 million that we would be sending on schools or we would be spending on health care.

I strongly encourage the Minister of Transportation to pursue private operators to take on this service. There's an opportunity to create a win-win for everyone involved in the process. Rocky Mountain Railtours did it with Via Rail in the early nineties, and they or another operator can do it again.

But there's urgency to this. I'm sure the minister is working hard to find a private operator who will be accountable to the customer, and that's critical. Ultimately the customer, and not the government, must decide the fate of passenger rail.

Hon. J. Reid: I want to respond to the question of urgency around this. Certainly we do believe that we want businesses here in British Columbia. We want viable businesses. We want to see that business investment and development. I will continue to work with the private sector and with the unions involved in every way to see a service go in there just as soon as we possibly can, and work to address any of the hurdles that are being expressed.

J. MacPhail: When did the minister make the decision to close down B.C. Rail passenger service?

J. MacPhail: The service plan raised questions about both freight service and passenger service. The minister took that and made a decision to close down B.C. Rail passenger services. Is she going to follow the intent of the service plan on rail service as well?

Hon. J. Reid: The service plan was very clear that the core service of B.C. Rail was the freight service side. That's what we're concentrating on. That's what we're concentrating our efforts on.

J. MacPhail: Will the minister be following the direction of the service plan and shutting down freight service on B.C. Rail?

Hon. J. Reid: I'm confused by the question. The service plan says that the freight service is the core service that B.C. Rail operates. That's what we are concentrating on.

J. MacPhail: Will the minister be closing down freight rail service, which the service plan indicates as being as unprofitable as the B.C. Rail passenger service?

Hon. J. Reid: The service plan identifies the freight service as being the core service of B.C. Rail, and the whole plan is to be able to have a sustainable, viable service to the people of this province with regard to B.C. Rail. We're having to take the steps necessary to work in a cost-effective, cost-efficient manner to concentrate on the core services.

J. MacPhail: I'll follow this thread, because the minister is deliberately not answering the question. The local Liberal MLAs got up to defend the minister's decision to end B.C. Rail passenger service on the basis that it's unprofitable. No new information there — none. That's on the public record. The minister's own critics, when they were in opposition, had all of that information. They made the decision to go ahead and promise the electorate, all in these members' constituencies, that they would maintain B.C. Rail service. The same service plan that says that the B.C. Rail passenger rail service is unprofitable also makes it quite clear that aspects of freight rail service are unprofitable, and they list the spurs that are unprofitable.

The minister is keeping the core services review secret. Sixteen months into her government, it's still secret, and God knows we can't get access to it, because it's protected. I'm wondering: do the same principles espoused by these backbench Liberal MLAs — that it's cost-ineffective, that it's unprofitable — which have just been listed by the member for Yale-Lillooet, by the member for Cariboo South and by the member for Prince George North, apply to the freight rail lines for B.C. Rail?

Hon. J. Reid: We, again, in the service plan have laid out what is necessary to be able to sustain the freight rail side. I'm mystified as to the question and how it applies to the legislation that we're debating here.

J. MacPhail: Let me help the minister. The only words we've had from her own colleagues have been an articulation of the justification of the minister's actions to shut down B.C. Rail passenger service. The logic they've used is to reiterate how unprofitable the B.C. Rail passenger service is.

The minister just said to me now, when I asked the question about when she made the decision to shut down B.C. Rail passenger service…. She referred to the service plan and said that was the time at which she made the decision.

I've combined those two factors: backbench Liberal MLAs getting up to say, "Well, we knew it had to be done because it's unprofitable," and the minister saying it was the service plan indicating how unprofitable it was upon which she made the decision to shut down B.C. Rail passenger service. It ain't that complicated.

Given those two factors — the Liberal MLAs going against the interests of their own community and the minister saying it's the service plan that supports these Liberal backbenchers going against their own community to justify the shutdown on the basis of lack of profitability, which also lists several freight rail lines that are unprofitable…. Is the minister relying on that same

service plan to determine the future of freight rail in British Columbia? I'm just going from the information you gave me.

Hon. J. Reid: The service plan talks about the current state of B.C. Rail. It's under pressures for many different reasons. The passenger service required to sustain it is a $30-million investment. We are faced with having to make a decision.

If the member had been paying attention to the news over the last number of months with regards to these Budd cars, she would have seen the ongoing problems with them and their mechanical state. There is no way to be able to sustain these Budd cars. It is a decision that had to be made because there is a mechanical end point, which we have come to. We have made that decision. We have expressed in the service plan the necessity of focusing the core service on the freight side of B.C. Rail. If there are any other questions pertaining to this particular legislation, I'd be glad to take them.

J. MacPhail: I asked the minister how she made the decision to end B.C. passenger rail service. She said it was the service plan. Will the minister be relying on the service plan to determine the future of freight rail with B.C. Rail? That's pretty clear — the question.

Hon. J. Reid: The service plan outlines that the core service of B.C. Rail is the freight service. That's why we're having to look at how the dollars are spent, find efficiencies and make cost-effective decisions, and that is exactly what is being done.

J. MacPhail: Let me put it another way. Will the minister not be relying on the service plan to determine the future of B.C. Rail?

Hon. J. Reid: The service plan outlines a problem with the passenger service. Again, that's historical. We have come to the end of a mechanical life for these. A decision had to be made. That decision has been made in full consultation with the communities and others affected.

The service plan talks about the freight service being the core. There are concerns about the freight service because of efficiencies. We are looking to find those efficiencies, and we are proceeding with that work.

J. MacPhail: Was there something else besides the service plan that the minister relied on to make the decision to shut down passenger service? Let me just try to expand on it. I asked how the minister made her decision. She said: "When the service plan came out." The service plan also addresses freight rail. The question is not about…. We know what this government has done in changing, flip-flopping on B.C. passenger rail service. The minister can't give us her core services review on B.C. Rail. She's keeping that secret. The service plan upon which she relied — apparently solely, because I asked her the question directly — to cut B.C. passenger rail service also has some pretty strong information about freight rail that's similar to the B.C. passenger rail service information. Maybe I can make it this simple. What weight, if any, will the minister be giving that same service plan information on freight rail, as she did to B.C. passenger service rail?

Hon. J. Reid: Mr. Chair, I believe the member has confused her own question. She asked me when the decision was made. I provided the answer that when the service plan was accepted, that would have been the technical decision-making point. She didn't ask me how the decision was made.

The how of the decision is the facts of the financial status of the passenger service and the definition that the core value of B.C. Rail is in its freight service. The facts are that the passenger service loses almost $10 million a year. It requires an infusion of over $30 million to keep going. B.C. Rail does not have that $30 million. The government is not willing to put $30 million into new passenger vehicles. The facts are that this is a service that could be better provided by the private sector. All those facts combine to say that this is an appropriate move to make and to focus the energies of B.C. Rail on its core value, which is its freight service.

J. MacPhail: Given all that information, what in that range of information applies to freight rail?

Hon. J. Reid: Mr. Chair, I have a concern. The member would like a broad policy discussion about rail in general. I'm here to respond to this legislation that's in front of us with regard to the passenger service and to find the appropriate balance between answering the question with regard to the passenger service and this piece of legislation and entering into that broader discussion the member seems to want to have.

I'll reiterate. Excuse the process of boredom, but I am trying to respond appropriately in the venue that we are in for the people who might be watching and who might see the repetition of the answers. That's to be able to explain to the people that we are responding to this legislation that's in front of us with regard to passenger rail and that I am providing the context for people listening to this discussion.

Again, there is the desire to communicate the status of the passenger service not being financially sustainable, not being viable in the long term, and of having to come to a decision-making point. Because money was not invested over the years, the equipment was left to deteriorate to the point that a significant investment was required. A decision had to be made with regard to this. It's to the tune of a $30 million investment plus a loss of approximately $10 million a year. That was a decision that had to be made and has been made, while we look at a transition to private sector delivery of this service because we believe in that tourism service for British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, how dare that minister suggest that somehow this discussion is creating boredom? Let me again tell the minister what she is withholding from the public deliberately — deliberately.

This government hasn't received one iota of new information about the financial viability of B.C. Rail since assuming office — not one new piece of information. All of that information was available and discussed and debated prior to the election. There's not one new piece of information. The $30 million on Budd cars, the subsidies — everything was debated.

The minister and her government, in the election, said, "We're not going to privatize B.C. Rail," having all that information available to them. The minute they get into office, they give away gigantic wads of money to the rich in this province and have no money left to protect any communities — none.

Their own back bench gets up and says, "Well, there was no money for B.C. Rail, so it made sense to shut B.C. Rail down," when, indeed, all of that information was available when they as a caucus sat and said: "Let's give away the tax breaks to the rich." We have a government that deliberately made a decision to give away almost $2 billion in tax breaks, knowing full well what it meant to invest in B.C. Rail and having made a promise to protect B.C. Rail.

The minister has said that the reason for not continuing B.C. passenger service for B.C. Rail is because of lack of financial viability and no money to upgrade the Budd cars. It's completely a fact of her government's own making.

What I am trying to find out and the minister refuses to answer is: what else is the minister going to make a decision on about the future of B.C. Rail, and when?

She won't release the core services review. She's keeping that document secret. She stands up and says: "I don't know why we're discussing freight rail." Well, freight rail is as important as the B.C. passenger service is to many communities. The minister has no new financial information on freight rail that she didn't have before the election. The question is: is she going to flip-flop on B.C. Rail freight service the same way that she is on B.C. Rail passenger services? That's the thrust of my question. It isn't boring; it's absolutely relevant. This minister refuses to answer the questions.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister this question. In the so-called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002, there is a section 1(b)(2). I'd like to ask the minister: what is the purpose of the words "the common law" in the first sentence of that paragraph?

Hon. J. Reid: "The common law" refers to the precedent that has been set by cases in court and Crown corporations. The obligations of Crown corporations have evolved to what is expressly said in legislation but also what can be interpreted by the courts through common-law cases.

J. Kwan: I know what common law is. I asked the minister what the purpose of it is in the first sentence here in this paragraph. Is it the intent of the government to exempt common-law case applications?

J. Kwan: Now we've got it, actually. The answer is right there. What the government wants to do is exempt common-law applications to the statute. Does that mean that when someone wants to take a challenge to court with government — in this instance, around B.C. Rail — they would not be able to apply common law — in other words, precedent that has been set in the court system — to their case? That's the intent of the government, isn't it?

Hon. J. Reid: This is the wording that is required to relieve B.C. Rail of its statutory obligations as can be interpreted in court.

J. Kwan: This is unprecedented indeed. What the government has done is bring forward legislation that says you cannot apply common law when you sue us. That's what the government is saying in this instance. The government has taken away in other circumstances, in other legislation to tell people that they could not sue them even when the government breaks contracts, even when the government violates its own commitment. But you cannot sue us.

Not only have they done that; they've taken away the resources for the community to access justice. They've taken away that opportunity now, in this instance. They are saying to people: "Guess what. If you should choose to sue us, you cannot apply common law to our own piece of legislation." My God. Then, of course, in the same piece of legislation, we have changes that say not only that, you can't FOI any information either. We're just going to have a cabinet minister walk down the hall and say: "Hey, you know what? That's confidential. That's privileged information, so you can't have access to the information."

Is there no level, no limit, at which this government will mark itself? A new low is what I would call it. The minister laughs, because she thought talking about cutting B.C. Rail services was kind of funny, and is now putting in a piece of legislation that says: "Guess what. You can't use common law to sue us." She thinks that's kind of funny too.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to make with respect to section 1(b)(2) by deleting the words "the common law."

J. Kwan: I think the application of common law should apply. It should be open for anybody if they wish to apply it to challenge the government. It is unbelievable to think that government would think it's legitimate to bring this forward under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act to preclude the opportunity for the application of common law in this case.

J. MacPhail: Speaking to the amendment, the minister may think it's nonsensical and is just going to let it pass with a vote, but I think that says more about the minister's lack of responsibility than anyone else's. There's nothing nonsensical about this, even though the minister has said it's nonsensical. Here's what the government is doing, just for the record and for the members whose ridings will be affected by this service elimination.

Not only has the government armed itself with a prohibition statutorily for anyone challenging their decision, not only have they armed themselves with legislation that wipes out 90 years of passenger service, they've also denied anybody access to the courts on some basis of common law where ordinary citizens can go into the courts and rely on something other than the heavy hand of legislation of the government. It's not required. It's unusual. It's heavy-handed, and it's over the top. It ain't nonsensical.

S. Orr: My question is to the minister. On this section, I think the best way for me to ask this question is to put it forward more as a scenario. I think that's a much easier way to ask the question. My scenario is this. If I am a working mother or father and I am fired from a job, and during that time…. I was fired because my boss was being pretty awful to me. So now I have no job, and if I'm going to put a sexual harassment claim forward, that's going to take me some time. I now cannot claim for 60 days. I want you to explain to me what the difference is from what we put through before to this amendment and how this is going to impact what possibly could be a scenario in my constituency. If you could help me understand exactly what you're doing here.

Hon. M. Coell: I think there are a number of ways I'd like to try to answer this. The intent of the section. The amendment is intended to deter people from quitting or refusing suitable employment without just cause or from being fired with cause and then applying for assistance.

S. Orr: I think — well, I don't think; I know — what I'm trying to ask is…. The most vulnerable person. What you have in here I understand. Even if the person was applying for employment insurance, I realize that those rules apply. I'm just looking for that scenario of the most vulnerable person who gets caught in a situation where they possibly have a family and they have to…. They're fired or they quit because the person they're working for is impossible to work for. They're now out on the street looking for a job, and they don't now fit into this section with this 60 days. Then on top of that there would be the

waiting period, so I'm seeing this person being without any kind of assistance for nearly three months. If you could just help me get through that piece.

Hon. M. Coell: Thank you for that clarification. Maybe I can explain what was there before and what's there now in policy. In B.C. Benefits policy, which is the same then as it is now, just cause includes but is not restricted to — I'll give you some examples — having a physical or mental health condition which precludes maintaining employment, sexual or other harassment, discrimination, dangerous working conditions, following a spouse to new employment, leaving an abusive or violent domestic situation, having to care for a child or other immediate family member who has a mental or physical condition which requires the person to care for them, and reasonable assurance of another job. That would be quitting a job to go to another job that doesn't pan out. That's the same policy we're using today.

S. Orr: I think you've answered me fairly clearly that the person I'm referring to, the vulnerable person, would be okay within that 60-day period.

Hon. M. Coell: Just to elaborate, the applicant — and the recipient — was ineligible for 30 days under B.C. Benefits, and then it's 60 days under the new regulations.

V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister could help with some definitions or explanation, as he's done previously: "…failed to accept suitable employment." How do we arrive at what is suitable employment for a particular person in a particular circumstance? Who decides what is suitable? What meaning does that have, and where is that meaning to be found?

Hon. M. Coell: The term "suitable employment" is defined as available employment which the person is able to perform, which pays at least minimum wage and which will maximize the person's independence for assistance. That's not new policy. It's policy we're using, and it's policy that was there two, three, four years ago.

V. Anderson: Now, does that require a certain number of hours a week? In some cases a full week's work is 20 hours a week. In others it's 30 hours a week, and in others it's 40 hours a week. Is there a certain number of hours a week that is required? Does a person have to have been employed for a number of weeks prior to this time? Is it six months that they must be employed, or a year or a month? What are the kinds of requirements in which this would kick in?

Hon. M. Coell: The actual number of hours doesn't matter, whether it is part-time work or full-time work. It's just whether the individual did not accept the job offer.

V. Anderson: Earlier the minister commented — and I may not get it exactly right — that the employment indicated "that which would make them independent or in the process of independence." I wasn't sure which way, because that would affect…. If it's in the process of independent, that's one thing. If it's in the process of independence so that they have enough to live on independently, then that's something else. I'm trying to get some clarity on the definition of how this decision is made, who makes the decision and on what terms.

Hon. M. Coell: I think I understand the member. If someone was to take a job that didn't take them out of income assistance, we would actually top them up to that income assistance level.

V. Anderson: That's helpful. If they are turned down, is there an appeal, and to whom do they make that appeal?

Hon. M. Coell: The initial appeal would be to the case worker and then to the tribunal after that.

V. Anderson: If a person voluntarily leaves employment…. There are many reasons that a person leaves employment. Not many of them, for many people, are in order that they will get $500 a month when they are earning more than that in employment. And if they are employed very long, they will be earning far more than $500 a month. Trying to understand why it would….

If a person comes and says, "I'm uncomfortable. I'm not going anyplace. I'm having trouble getting along with my boss," are those reasons good enough for them to be out trying to make a transfer in their life? If they have a plan and they've attempted to work in a particular place, and their own psyche doesn't enable them to do that, who undertakes to deal with the emotional trauma that that person…? I'm thinking specifically of a person who comes regularly to my office who has tried a number of times in jobs and is able to stay for a while, but suddenly it blows up on him either from them or him, and he's out looking again. It isn't that he isn't trying, but he's been there. How does that kind of person come in, and is there a threat against them that forces them to stay in a situation that is not healthy for them?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try to answer this. The example that the member gives, I think, is of someone who would be quitting employment with just cause. I think that under the policy now of having a physical or mental health condition that precludes maintaining employment, that would probably fit.

The other question, I think, is that if someone applies and is found ineligible, they can appeal to the tribunal. You don't have to be accepted to appeal. If you're denied benefits, you can appeal to the tribunal.

V. Anderson: If one appeals to the tribunal, would they still receive benefits during the period of time of

V. Anderson: Did the minister say ineligible or eligible? I just want to clarify. Was it ineligible or eligible?

V. Anderson: Can you explain, through the Chair to the minister, why the change was made from 30 days to 60 days?

Hon. M. Coell: We want to encourage people to stay in employment and to deter them from coming onto income assistance.

T. Christensen: I've just got a couple of questions, and my colleagues have, I think, covered most of the things I wanted to bring up. I think it's important to recognize with this legislation in particular that anytime we're dealing with employment and assistance legislation, it seems to become very politically charged. There's a number of our constituents for whom this legislation is very important, and the subject matter of it is very important. It's critical to them that the record show clearly what the intent of the legislation is. I'm wondering initially if the minister can clarify, given that this section 3 revises section 13 that was passed in the spring, what specific change is occurring to what was debated quite thoroughly back in May.

Hon. M. Coell: We inadvertently created ambiguity as to whether the section applied to an applicant, because the present tense was used. The amendment uses past tense and specifies that the period is for 60 days prior to application.

T. Christensen: Could the minister clarify, then, whether the revised section applies to a person or a family unit that's currently receiving income assistance?

T. Christensen: Some of the concern is with respect to what constitutes just cause. The minister has addressed that in some of the previous questions. With respect to just cause for dismissal, is that an issue that would ultimately be determined by the employment standards branch, or is that something the Ministry of Human Resources would otherwise determine?

Hon. M. Coell: I think you would be safe to say that we would expect that the individual would have lodged a complaint or be involved in some process under the Employment Standards Act and also to look case by case.

T. Christensen: To clarify, if a person had been dismissed from their employment, but they had not seen fit to lodge a complaint with the employment standards branch and initiate that process, there is still a chance, on a case-by-case basis, that they may not suffer the discontinuance of their assistance.

Hon. M. Coell: Yeah, that's correct, and that's unchanged from the B.C. Benefits legislation.

T. Christensen: Certainly, with just cause for dismissal we've got the employment standards branch that provides a bit of an adjudicative function. This whole concept of just cause for voluntarily leaving employment seems to be a little bit different. Again, I think it was commented on previously, but perhaps the minister could clarify that it is the ministry itself or the person's caseworker that's going to determine whether or not the reason they give for leaving employment actually constitutes just cause.

T. Christensen: One area of particular concern that's been raised to me is with respect to single parents and their need to care for their children. Often one of the major difficulties a single parent encounters in terms of seeking employment and then maintaining that employment is juggling their child care obligations. If, for example, a person was consistently late for work because they had child care fall through and their employer chose to dismiss them for that, is that a situation where they then might also face a removal of their income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: If child care is an issue, the worker would look at it on a case-by-case basis. As the policy states, having to care for a child or an immediate family member who has a mental or physical condition which requires the person to care for them would also be taken into consideration.

T. Christensen: Sorry, just a clarification on that policy in terms of caring for a child or another person. If the child was just a young, able-bodied child not suffering from a mental or physical condition that required extra attention from the parent, but it was simply a case that the parent couldn't find adequate child care or the child care they had for some reason fell through, and that led to their dismissal from employment…. In that circumstance the policy envisions that person still being able to continue on income assistance as long as they were trying to find replacement employment.

Hon. M. Coell: The short answer to that is an individual would not be penalized if they could not find adequate child care.

V. Anderson: It's my understanding that if a person comes to seek welfare, they're required to spend three weeks looking for employment before they're considered for welfare and support. What is different between that person who comes and spends three weeks and then receives welfare and this person who comes and is not able to receive welfare for 60 days? What's the distinction between these two people?

Hon. M. Coell: The difference would be that the one person has quit employment without just cause or has been fired from employment with cause. That would be the difference between the two people.

V. Anderson: In many cases, then, if a person comes, you're putting them in a very difficult position. If they got fired or voluntarily left, in their own mind they would say, in most cases, it was for just cause. They would have three weeks to wait, presumably, like anyone else. The ministry would then have to go and say: "Well, you say it's just cause." Is the ministry then going to go to their former employer and ask them for a statement of why they were fired? What's the process here?

Many times I know people who have left work — fired because it was just cause on the part of the employer, but it certainly wasn't just cause on the part of many of the other people who knew that particular person. They had a reason and a right to do it perhaps.

This person has to, in a sense, give evidence against himself. Is that what we're saying?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the difference I would try and draw for the member is that under B.C. Benefits, you would have a 30-day wait. If you had quit your job without just cause or had been fired from employment, under this change it moves to 60 days.

J. Kwan: I want to canvass just a little bit more, first on the issue around just cause. From what's transpired so far, it's not clear to me what constitutes just cause. I'd like the minister to clearly define what just cause is in this instance.

Hon. M. Coell: It's a case of changing tense and a change from 30 days to 60 days.

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, that is not my question at all. I asked the minister if he could define clearly for this House what just cause is. Anyway, I want to save that because I don't want to confuse the issue. I want an answer on that question: what is just cause? Could the minister define it for this House?

Hon. M. Coell: Just cause in the new legislation is the same policy that was in BC Benefits. Just cause includes but is not restricted to having a physical or mental health condition which precludes maintaining employment; sexual or other harassment; discrimination; dangerous working conditions; following a spouse to new employment; leaving an abusive or violent domestic situation; having to care for a child or an immediate family member who has a mental or physical condition which requires a person to care for them; or reasonable assurance of another job. That just cause has not changed in the last four years. It was in policy under the previous legislation, and it is in policy under this legislation.

J. Kwan: I know the minister would like to refer back as though somehow there is no change between now and the previous BC Benefits. You know what? The minister is wrong, and the minister knows that he's wrong because this legislation is also calling for, when you combine the two together, retroactivity.

The minister says: "Well, it's just a tense issue." Well, pardon me. A tense issue means 60 days of difference to whether or not someone can access income assistance. It's not as simple as just a tense issue. It's not me just standing here and whether or not I'm using the right tense or the wrong tense. It's the reality of what happens when someone goes to an income assistance office to apply, and then for the government to say: "I'm sorry. You're not eligible because the policy says you're not eligible. The 60 days prior before an applicant in the family unit applies for income assistance restricts you from qualifying."

When you put that into context with the issue around just cause, it puts new meaning to this entire thing. It brings brand-new meaning in terms of people's capacity to get access to income assistance.

I want to just go back and canvass for one minute, because the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill had asked…. Victoria-Hillside. My apologies. I always get the two far ends confused. Victoria-Hillside asked a question around harassment. Let me give the government this scenario because I know in this list the government is fond of saying that if you're faced with sexual harassment or discrimination, then you will be exempted, and it will fall under just cause.

Having been an advocate before I crossed to the dark side and became a politician, there were many cases where people were being harassed and discriminated against in the workplace. Yet — you know what? — there's almost never enough evidence to prove it. It's very difficult to prove. When people actually apply discrimination or harassment in the workplace, if you're unable to prove it when the Human Rights Commission existed…. Does that mean then, in that instance, just cause does not apply for this person to apply for income assistance because this person had quit the job 30 days just before?

Hon. M. Coell: There's been no change in policy other than a move from 30 days to 60 days. The same policy, the same ability for a caseworker to deal individually with an applicant is there and was there.

J. Kwan: You know, Mr. Chair, the minister is deliberately not answering the question, and he knows it. I don't know why he does that. I don't know why he

just doesn't come clean and tell the House and British Columbians what this piece of legislation really means.

Here we have before this House the phrase "or within 60 days before an applicant" for the government to add on, and it would change the eligibility for someone who has either been fired or has left employment or is unwilling to take on employment for reasons. The reasons, according to this act, are that it has to be for just cause. I have just laid out a scenario where a person was being discriminated against in the workplace and quit her job within the 60-day parameter and went to apply for welfare. Because the person quit because she could not bear to be harassed on a day-by-day basis going to work, and shows up at the office…. Would the person then be disqualified to be eligible for income assistance within that 60 days? That's what this act says.

How will the person show that they quit and had just cause, especially in the circumstances where the Human Rights Commission doesn't exist? How are they going to show that? How are they going to prove that? What if they're not able to prove it, as I said earlier? Proving these cases is not easy. It's not easy to show discrimination anywhere, including in the workplace.

Hon. M. Coell: Well, just to repeat it for the member, the just cause policy has not changed from the present act and regulations and policy from B.C. Benefits, other than to go from 30 days to 60 days.

J. Kwan: The government has brought in changes to say to people: "Sixty days prior to your application for income assistance, if you just got fired, if you just quit your job without just cause, you're not eligible for income assistance." That is the change this minister brought in, and that is what we're debating today.

The minister refuses to acknowledge a scenario where a person quit a job just 60 days before they went to the office to apply for income assistance because that person was being harassed at the workplace, was being discriminated against in the workplace and was unable to bring such a case to the Human Rights Commission because it doesn't exist — and even if it did exist, it was unable to prove the case because the employer is so clever at not allowing the employer to be caught with evidence of discrimination. Basically, it's just the person's word against the employer. Is that enough for the person to be recognized as having just cause within the 60-day parameter that this government, this minister, has just brought in and we're now debating — not from some previous government but what this minister has now brought in, which we're now debating at this moment?

Hon. M. Coell: The just cause does include sexual or other harassment. That policy has been there for a number of years and has not changed. It has had and will now have the ability for a caseworker to work with someone on an individual, case-by-case basis.

J. Kwan: The minister would like to say that nothing's changed, but I'd like to give the minister another example just to illustrate this point. It's not on the issue around just cause. It's not around the 60-day parameter this government has now introduced. It's on a scenario I mentioned earlier. A single mom comes to my office. She has a child already and is pregnant with her second. Because of health reasons, she is unable to work or, for that matter, care for her child. She's ordered to have bedrest by her doctor. Otherwise her baby's life and hers may be in jeopardy. She went to welfare and applied for a child care subsidy under the act that supposedly has not yet changed, but the family was unable to get a child care subsidy, was turned away from the welfare office.

The person phoned our office and asked for help. I raised this question in question period. I ask the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development, and we worked on that case. Eventually the woman actually got child care subsidies, but the policy within government said she was not qualified. The government likes to say these things. Does this mean that for every case scenario that we have to raise in this House, you say, "Oh no, when there's a question period question and when that comes up, that person of course qualifies"? It's just sort of like all the vague answers that the MLAs, whom I actually anticipate and expect have genuine concerns but just get pat answers from the minister as though somehow, "Don't worry; everything is fine," when in reality we know it isn't fine….

Not everybody is going to have the capacity to raise such a question with a particular MLA or have the question asked in this House or have a decision overturned. The question goes right to the heart of the policy and his application of it and what this amendment is talking about. It puts forward another parameter of ineligibility of another 60 days for someone to not be able to get government assistance. When you add that to the three-week waiting period, that's almost three months, when the minister is saying: "Don't worry; be happy, but you're not eligible for income assistance."

The government says: "We will take into consideration discrimination or sexual harassment." If you're unable to prove that case, will you then take the applicant's word for it that the person was faced with harassment and therefore had to leave the workplace?

Hon. M. Coell: As I mentioned before, the caseworker working with an applicant would work on a case-by-case basis. Just cause does include sexual or other harassment. Again, this particular amendment adjusts the tense to past tense and moves from 30 days to 60 days.

V. Anderson: There are two instances I'd wonder about. If the person felt that they had to leave their job for whatever reason but were anxious to work…. The ministry now has in operation a very effective system for helping people to get back to work and find jobs that are available through the ministry system that

In this period of time, prior to the completion of the 60 days, is it possible for that person to take advantage and use the Human Resources system to find another job placement? Having left one job, could they go within that next week and say: "I would like to use your services, and could you help me to find a job?" Would they be eligible to do this as part of using the resources you have available in the system that would make it possible for them to probably get a job much more quickly than they would otherwise?

Hon. M. Coell: The purpose of the programs that we have is to assist people in leaving income assistance. In the case that you describe, through the Chair, that person would not be eligible for the programs offered by the ministry.

V. Anderson: I think that's unfortunate, but nevertheless, that's the reality.

The other one I wanted to ask is about the just cause. If a person comes and is able to bring some witnesses with them that would verify the reason why they left their job without having to go through a human rights tribunal or some other way to affirm that…. Is it possible that they bring witnesses so it's not just their say-so, but it would be the truth or the well-being or the credibility of the witnesses they bring that then would be in question?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes. That's how it's been treated in the past. That's how it would be treated in the future.

J. Kwan: Let me use another example. The Liberal government has introduced what the community commonly now calls the "six bucks sucks" campaign. In a scenario where a person is dismissed from their employment because they have just reached the threshold of a higher wage which the employer is unwilling to pay to the employee and the employer finds some reason to dismiss the employee, is that just cause?

Hon. M. Coell: We would expect that they would be involved in some sort of process, and we would look at some documentation that they may have.

Hon. M. Coell: The example would be lodging a complaint under the Employment Standards Act.

J. Kwan: The trouble is that when you launch a complaint with the Employment Standards Act, you're just given a self-help kit. There is no advocacy there; there is no support there. The minister can say all he wants that you can go and file a complaint here, file a complaint there. The reality is that there's no more legal aid to assist anybody. A lot of these agencies are stripped down to the bare bones. In some cases, they don't even exist — if you wanted to file a case with the Human Rights Commission. With the Employment Standards Act, don't worry; you can file a complaint, but you know what? When you file a complaint, people just say: "Go away. Go and help yourself. Go and fight that fight with your own employer." How is that going to help the person?

Or is the minister willing to take the person's word to say, "Hey, you know what? I got fired at my job because I reached the threshold of a higher wage, and the employer was unwilling to pay that and found some reason to fire me. Therefore, I ought to be eligible for income assistance"? Will the minister stand up and be brave, actually, and put on the record to say to British Columbians: "No, under those circumstances, you would not have access to the last resort available to you"?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I've answered the question, but there is nothing changed in policy. If that's the case and if someone had been laid off previously, you would be looking for some sort of documentation or some sort of process with labour standards.

J. Kwan: No, Mr. Chair. The minister doesn't get to act as though the "six bucks sucks" campaign was already in place. It wasn't. It was the Liberals, this cabinet minister, who participated in bringing that forward. A person is not given the layoff notice. A person is fired from the job, to which this piece of legislation says, within the 60-day period, if you have been dismissed from employment for just cause…. The employer will find some reason to say that was just cause, but in reality, there's another aspect to it. The reality is there is no recourse for people to go to.

I spoke with people who had been dismissed from their employment because of that, and they went to employment standards, and there was nobody there to assist them. If they need assistance now and they come to this minister for assistance, with this new application, within the 60-day period, the minister is going to say, "You're not eligible" — end of sentence. That is what people are faced with. But if the minister is prepared to say, "No. If a person comes forward and gives us that information, the person would be eligible for income assistance. The 60-day clause would not apply, and that just cause — when you reach the threshold for higher income, and you've been dismissed from your employer for some reason…. That would not disqualify you from eligibility for income assistance…." Why doesn't the minister just get up and say yes, if in fact his intent is to make sure that those who need income assistance can get it?

J. Kwan: You know, this minister wants to hide. He doesn't want to tell British Columbians what the decisions really mean. We saw that when we debated Bill

26. We saw that when we debated Bills 26 and 27, for that matter, and he doesn't want to take responsibility for throwing people on the street. Yet he is bringing forward legislation to throw people on the streets. You know what? You can't keep hiding. You cannot, because it will catch up with you.

J. Kwan: It already is. I know that. I know you feel it. There's a conscience in there somewhere, you know. It's not good enough for the government, for this minister, to hide in this House and say, "Here's the policy; here's how it applies," because on the ground, the application of the policy differs when it is being applied.

We saw it in the case with a person who needed child care, and we will see it in this case with a person who would not qualify for income assistance because of this retroactive legislation that the government is now bringing forward. The government keeps on wanting to say and the minister keeps on wanting to say that this is the same as before. It is not the same as before. This is retroactive legislation for 60 days to say to people: "You are not qualified for income assistance unless we deem your reasons to be acceptable." The restrictions that apply to those reasons are severely limited.

When the government and the minister say, "We'll take it on a case-by-case basis," the minister knows very well that with advocacy support gone in the community, with legal aid support gone in the community, people would not be able to bring their case forward, in a lot of instances, effectively because they're severely disadvantaged already, as it were. The minister knows that — having been a social worker, so he says — and ought to know that and know the difference in how it applies to people.

In total, with the change of this piece of legislation, it's almost three months that the minister is putting someone out on the street, saying they're not eligible. What if, in the scenario — let me give this to the minister — within the 60-day period that person was fired from a job? In the person's point of view, they were fired unjustly, but in the mind of the employer, perhaps in the mind of the ministry, that person has been fired with just cause. But you know what? The person has no other resources, has been evicted from his or her home and is sleeping on the street. Can the minister tell me what assistance is available, then, to that individual?

Hon. M. Coell: It's no different than the previous B.C. Benefits legislation.

J. Kwan: The minister knows very well that simply is not true. In your own legislation you're bringing forward retroactive legislation for 60 days to say to someone: "You're not eligible." I want to know from the minister: what if that individual is a family or, let's say, is a single parent with children? They've been fired from a job, and the government deems it to be with just cause that this person with children has been fired. This person shows up at the office, and it happens to be, with the change in the legislation that says it is, within the 60 days which the government has now brought forward in legislation. What happens to that family? Will the government just throw them out on the street and say: "Sorry, can't help you. Not eligible. It says in legislation 60 days"?

Hon. M. Coell: They are not ineligible. They do have a rate reduction, but they would be eligible.

J. Kwan: The minister said that they would be eligible, but they would have a rate reduction. What is the rate reduction? Where is it written to say that they're eligible? I don't see it in any of the legislation.

S. Orr: My question is to the minister. Really, I need clarification. I'll explain why. I wasn't here prior to 2001. I just need to be sure of something. I think I am, but for my constituents' sake and for the sake of having it on the record, I just want to walk through this.

The legislation prior to the legislation introduced in the spring of this year, the legislation from the previous administration as I understand it, is still the same, as it clarifies the minister's authority to impose sanctions on an applicant the same as before. The difference is that it's 60 days as opposed to 30 days. We're dealing with a differential of 30 days. That's question one. Is that right? Is it the same as before, only now it's 60 days as opposed to 30 days?

Then the second part of my question is to…. I need to confirm. I've heard the debate, and I think I'm reading this right, going back to my most vulnerable person. I heard you say during the debate that it could be done on a case-by-case basis. As I say, I have a person who…. You've heard the story. I don't have to repeat it. I want to confirm that.

Then I have one other question. If my constituent quits a job for sexual harassment and, on a case-by-case basis, goes back to the worker, and the worker says, "We are going to put you back on employment and assistance," and that person with the family goes back on to employment and assistance, once they're back on employment and assistance, will they again be eligible for training programs?

Hon. M. Coell: The first question: the policy for cause is the same as it was for B.C. Benefits. The time frame has changed from 30 days of ineligibility to 60 days, and the consequences are different. They're in the regulations that are on the Web. With someone coming back on income assistance, they would be eligible for all the training programs.

J. Kwan: I was asking the minister if a single parent with children lost a job and within that 60-day period went to apply for welfare…. The minister advised that

the family unit would be eligible to receive a reduced rate. Could the minister please advise what the reduced rate is, and is that only applicable if you have children? For a single person in the same case scenario, that person would not be eligible, so that person should just perhaps set up a tent in front of the Woodwards Building.

Hon. M. Coell: I can give the member two examples. Under B.C. Benefits, previously families with children were eligible for repayable hardship. Okay. Now families with children will receive income assistance, and it will be reduced by $100 for 60 days. They won't have to pay it back.

J. Kwan: It actually says in this amendment…. Let me just read the entire thing onto the record:

For those reasons, a person is cut off. A person could actually be on hardship, and the government is now saying we'll cut you off within that 60-day period.

For the government to keep on saying, "Nothing has changed. Don't worry. Everything is the same…." It simply isn't true. I didn't agree with everything under the BC Benefits Act, but I know for a fact that when a person was homeless, left without food or without shelter, they got assistance from government — I know that — with or without children. For the government to pretend that this is the same as before or better — "Don't worry; everything is kosher" — simply isn't true. The minister, quite frankly, is misleading this House.

It's outrageous. The government sits and has no answer for the people whose lives are going to be impacted, where the government's going to say: "I'm sorry, you're not qualified, and we're not going to provide any assistance to you." That is this minister's new way of saying we're going to provide for the most vulnerable people in our community.

Let me ask the minister this question. What about individuals who are faced with substance misuse challenges? They may well lose employment because of their addiction, and it's a health issue. They may well not get the designation of disability under the new act, Bill 27. What about those individuals? Would the government recognize that they have a health issue, physical or mental, and therefore would be eligible for income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: I think if the member were to look at regulation No. 29(4), there is a whole range of people who section 13 does not apply to: those people with an alcohol or drug problem, a mental health condition or a temporary medical condition that would interfere with their ability to search for or accept or continue in employment.

J. Kwan: So the minister is saying that if you have a drug or alcohol addiction challenge, you would not be required to look for work, and if you got offered employment, you are not required to take employment, and if you had employment and got fired from the job, you would still qualify for income assistance. Is that what the minister is saying? I just need a yes or no.

J. Kwan: The member for Okanagan-Vernon, I think it was, asked a question earlier about children — situations of single moms who have children and because of a breakdown in child care support because the government has cancelled universal child care initiatives, the parent may well be arriving at work late consistently.

The minister has said that if the parent is required to take care of a child who has physical and mental disabilities, then that person would not be penalized. But what about the case where there are no mental or physical health disabilities? It's simply a fact of life that sometimes because of child care issues, you cannot get to work on time. As a result of that, you got fired. Would the person then not be penalized at all with a reduced rate and still be eligible for full income assistance support?

Hon. M. Coell: No one would be cut off if there is a problem finding safe, reliable child care or if that difficulty arises.

J. Kwan: The minister says no one will be cut off. Does he mean to say there is no reduced rate as well? What is the onus of proof to show you can't find reliable child care? How do you prove that?

Hon. M. Coell: There would be no cut in rate, and it would depend, again, on working case by case with the case worker and the applicant.

J. Kwan: When the minister says they have to work with a caseworker, what does a person have to bring to the caseworker? That's what I'm getting at. You know what? Having worked as an advocate before I got into this position, I'll tell you there are a lot of people who cannot get through the requirements of what their worker tells them. That's the reality. It's request after request around documentation, "This is not good enough; then that's not good enough," and so on and so forth. The person is mired in red tape and in problems.

Actually, with the disability act now, there are 29 pages of red tape. But for the business community, you'll have all of that cut. But that's another story for another day. I want to know what a person needs to

bring to prove to the worker that they don't in fact have reliable, safe, secure, affordable child care.

Hon. M. Coell: There is no change in policy from B.C. Benefits to this act. The change is from 30 to 60 days in this piece of legislation before you.

J. Kwan: The minister either doesn't get it, refuses to get it or pretends not to get it in this House so that he doesn't have to be forthcoming with information and answers to the opposition. It's not just for the opposition but for British Columbians whose lives may well be at stake because of the changes. The minister likes to hide under some veil to say that this is how it always was, when the minister knows very well this wasn't how it always was.

The minister knows and the member for Cariboo North ought to know that when people need income assistance, generally speaking, they don't want to be there. They're forced to be there because of circumstances perhaps beyond their control. Many people actually want to work, but for whatever reason, they don't have a job, or they might have been fired from the job. The minister says that for 60 days, if you're fired from a job or you refuse to accept employment or you quit your work, you're not qualified for welfare.

If you're a single person without children who's homeless and without food, there is no assistance for you. That's just how it is. Somehow the minister says that's okay. Well, it isn't. It ought not to be okay.

The minister should bring forward changes to make it so that the people can get the assistance they need, not bring in further restrictions and further penalties to say that you're not qualified, such as he has in this case. He's bringing in the further qualification that says that if within 60 days, you've been fired, quit your work or do not accept employment for whatever your reasons, you're not qualified for income assistance. That's what this minister is doing, and he's doing it all by himself without the help of the opposition.

J. Kwan: Section 4 applies the same principles as section 3 — that is, by imposing a 60-day requirement for an applicant.

J. Kwan: No, section 4. Section 4 is the 60 days, but the difference, of course, is that this applies to the Employment Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, so it applies to Bill 27. The former one applied to Bill 26, which is the Employment and Assistance Act.

The trouble with this application — and we debated part of this when the legislation was before us, although in a rushed manner, I would argue, because the government brought in closure…. But the 60-day application now applies, also, for persons with disabilities.

In the same case scenario, if you are designated as an individual with a disability, isn't that enough to allow for a person to not look for employment?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not sure the member is at the right section. This basically corrects an ambiguity around the authority for a monthly reporting form.

J. Kwan: My apologies. It is section 5. I had put a big cross on the No. 5 on my own bill just to mark it so I'd know I wanted to debate this one and also vote against it. Therefore, it covered up the number that I should be reading, so my apologies. You're right. Section 4 could be passed, and I don't have any questions on that. It's section 5 which I want to debate.

J. Kwan: The question that I asked under the section 4 discussion applies now to section 5.

Hon. M. Coell: I wonder if the member could repeat that question for me. I was confused as to what section she was on during the question.

J. Kwan: Actually, noting the time, I think I'll ask that question of the minister tomorrow.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.


	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 66

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Hagen	Murray	Collins
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter


	YEAS — 66

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Hagen	Murray	Collins
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 47

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Nettleton	Wilson
Masi	Murray	Plant
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Chong	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	Hayer	Christensen
Wong	Bloy	Cobb
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sahota		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 57

Coell	Hogg	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	Barisoff
Nettleton	Wilson	Lee
Murray	Plant	Clark
Bond	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Chutter	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Kerr	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 50

Coell	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Nettleton	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Murray
Plant	Bond	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Jarvis	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota		Kerr

	NAYS — 3

Anderson	MacPhail	Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY