Hansard -- Monday, October 20, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 2 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		7345

Tributes		7345
	Doreen Lawson
	P. Sahota

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7345
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73)
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 77)
	Hon. R. Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7346
	Canadian merchant navy
	V. Roddick
	Women in Canadian politics
	I. Chong
	Pitt Meadows Airport
	K. Stewart

Oral Questions		7347
	Income assistance regulations and loss of benefits
	J. Kwan
	Hon. M. Coell
	J. MacPhail
	Access to timber in North Thompson Valley
	K. Krueger
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Income assistance regulations and loss of benefits
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. M. Coell
	Export of cattle to U.S.
	D. Chutter
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Impact of physical activity on learning
	R. Nijjar
	Hon. C. Clark
	Integration of mental health and addiction services
	E. Brenzinger
	Hon. G. Cheema
	Fees for seniors' residential care
	V. Anderson
	Hon. K. Whittred

Ministerial Statements		7350
	Flooding in Squamish-Whistler-Pemberton area
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. Kwan

Second Reading of Bills		7351
	Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48) (continued)
	B. Belsey
	K. Stewart
	M. Hunter
	R. Visser
	V. Roddick
	J. Kwan
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Committee of the Whole House		7357
	Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 35)
	Hon. S. Bond
	J. Kwan
	D. Jarvis
	D. Hayer

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7365
	Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 35)

Committee of the Whole House		7365
	Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act (Bill 70)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7365
	Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act (Bill 70)

Committee of the Whole House		7365
	Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act (Bill 65)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Plant
	J. MacPhail

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7382
	Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act (Bill 65)

Committee of the Whole House		7382
	Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Plant

Reporting of Bills		7387
	Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68)

Third Reading of Bills		7387
	Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68)

Second Reading of Bills		7387
	Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 55)
	Hon. J. Murray
	J. MacPhail
	Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59)
	Hon. G. Collins
	J. MacPhail
	Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 60)
	Hon. G. Collins
	J. MacPhail

M. Hunter: It's my pleasure and privilege today to introduce five children who are being home-schooled. It's nice to know that the Legislative Assembly is on the curriculum of home schools. These children are with their mother, Delphine Charmley from Nanaimo. They are Jason, Brandon, Nikolas, Brenda and Jackie, and I'd like to ask the House to give them the usual warm welcome.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery is somebody who's become no stranger to this place. It's my pleasure to introduce Terry Colburn, whose native name is Iskaital. Terry has also recently become a hereditary chief of the Navajo nation. Joining Terry is his friend Yvonne Sproule, and both have become well known in Victoria as peer mental health advocates. I'd like to again ask the House to please make them welcome.

P. Sahota: I rise to mourn the passing of an incredible and dedicated Canadian and British Columbian. Doreen Lawson, a longtime Burnaby city councillor, died in Burnaby Hospital last Saturday night, suffering from a heart attack at the age of 75.

Doreen Lawson was the first female president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and made many contributions to the city of Burnaby in her lifetime. In 1997 she was presented with the Vancouver Natural History Society's Frank Sanford Award, and in 2002 she received a Queen's Golden Jubilee medal for her contributions to her community. Ms. Lawson was also executive director of the B.C. Liberals in the mid-eighties.

On behalf of my colleagues from Burnaby, I would ask the House to extend condolences to Doreen Lawson's family.

V. Roddick: In Victoria today, after a successful Saturday evening in Tsawwassen with the Delta Police Pipe Band, is the United States Army Field Band and Soldiers Chorus, the musical ambassadors of the United States army. With good humour, the musical director of our 15th Field Artillery Regiment Band asked them to use their musical expertise to sing a resounding conclusion to the softwood lumber dispute. Would the House please give them a highly charged welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today with four interested, committed and involved people from the community of Surrey–White Rock. I would ask the House to please welcome Joe McIvor, Elaine Liau and Ian and Gail McKenzie.

Hon. G. Collins: I just want to take the opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition, who I understand became engaged on the weekend.

I've been told there are three things that can happen in your life, which are really life-changing moments. One is having a child, the other is getting married, and the third is getting elected. I'm pleased to know that the member opposite has now done all three.

I do want to extend congratulations to her and wish her the best. Also, perhaps the House could send our condolences on to Pierre Pettigrew, who I know will be very disappointed. [Laughter.]

H. Long: In the House today we have a former member of this House and his daughter. The member in the House was a former Minister of Agriculture at the time in the '86 era when some of us other members were sitting here — the Minister of Labour and yourself, Mr. Speaker. So I would like to welcome to this House Larry Chalmers and his daughter, Jennifer.

Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce this bill today. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the Assessment Act, the Assessment Authority Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the University Endowment Land Act and the Water Act.

This bill is consistent with the government's new-era commitments and deregulation initiative. The bill also underscores government's goals of operating more efficiently, supporting the economy and responsibly managing the province's natural resources.

I will touch briefly on each of the acts being amended by the Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. A housekeeping

amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission Act will allow the chief executive officer to require an application to the Agricultural Land Commission when the commission receives notice of an intention to deposit or remove fill from agricultural land. The amendment clarifies the CEO's authority and responsibility to require proponents to submit an application for proposals to remove or deposit fill which may have a significant impact on the land and may warrant local government review through the application process.

Housekeeping and deregulation amendments to the Assessment Act and the Assessment Authority Act will eliminate duplication and outdated regulatory requirements. The Assessment Act is also amended to allow assessors to adjust the assessment roll where the property owner agrees to the change, eliminating the need for numerous uncontentious matters to go before the property assessment review panels.

The Land Act is amended to provide the authority to refuse to accept applications for dispositions of Crown land where the application is incomplete or the land is reserved or withdrawn from disposition. The amendments to the Land Act will also remove unnecessary and outdated restrictions regarding the date on which a disposition of Crown land takes effect.

A number of housekeeping amendments are being made to the Land Title Act to reflect changes in government organization. In addition, the schedule to the Land Title Act is being amended to increase specified land title fees to pay for e-filing, which is effective April 1, '04, as part of the governmentwide review of fees and licences.

Finally, changes are being made to the Water Act to authorize the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations regarding activities in or about a stream in order to support the ministry's move towards more results-based regulation.

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

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 77. This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act and the new Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, which are not yet in force.

The legislation initially allowed a three-year carry-forward of rent increases. These amendments will limit rent increases to once a year without any carry-forward. The actual rent increase percentage will be established by regulation. Additional amendments will ensure a clear understanding of rights and obligations for both landlords and tenants, will reduce disputes and will lead to fewer arbitration hearings. Clarification of the policy intent will also lead to consistent decision-making.

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

Bill 77 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.

V. Roddick: It gives us all great pleasure to be able to recognize and celebrate the many contributions and achievements of Canadians. In times of need we rise to the occasion, as we did this summer during the forest fires and as did the unsung heroes of the merchant navy. The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest battle of the Second World War. There was no arena more crucial than to maintain open sea lanes.

Canadians have only now officially acknowledged the importance of our merchant service. Our Premier, on behalf of the province, delivered a cheque for $1 million towards the Juno Beach Centre, which opened in June of this year, to honour our country's contribution to World War II — including the fourth arm of our fighting services, the merchant navy.

Few people realize the toll wreaked on shipping in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By early fall of 1942, U-boats had sunk 21 ships. Then on October 14 the ferry Caribou was sunk, carrying mothers and children, Canadian and American military, plus crew. The very next vessel to cross that gulf had on board RCN Second Lt. James Flood Clark, his wife Kathryn and his rambunctious two-year-old daughter Valerie, who stands here today proudly representing Delta South.

Approximately 12,000 merchant seamen were engaged by war's end — some too young to be soldiers, 15 to 16 years or younger, and others too old for the armed services, over 40. While statistics provide an awesome account of ships and tonnage lost, the true cost of the war at sea was a human one. There were no safe havens for merchant seamen. These men, and actually a few women, were remarkable, astonishing and magnificent.

I. Chong: I rise today to acknowledge October as having been proclaimed Women's History Month, and this year's national theme: "What do you mean, women

couldn't vote?" In so doing, I would like to recognize a few of the many women who have been at the forefront of innovation and government.

I would like to start with Canada's first woman elected to a provincial Legislature and first cabinet minister without portfolio, Mary Ellen Smith. Her husband was a member of the provincial Legislature when he died in 1917. After his death, Mrs. Smith won a seat in the by-election in 1918, becoming the first woman in the British Empire to succeed her husband's seat. In 1921 she then became Canada's first cabinet minister without portfolio.

Nancy Hodges was another influential woman in B.C. legislative history. As a columnist for the then Victoria Times, she was always interested in politics and was elected MLA for Victoria in 1941. In 1949 she became the first woman elected Speaker of the B.C. Legislature and also the first in the Commonwealth. Later, in 1953, she again made history by being the first B.C. MLA appointed to the Canadian Senate.

Activist Rosemary Brown was the first black woman elected to a Canadian Legislature in 1972, and she represented her constituents extremely well with vision and determination. In honour of her service, Rosemary Brown received the Order of B.C. in 1995 and the Order of Canada in 1996.

There are so many women who have achieved firsts from arts to health to science and to business, all of this being possible after winning the right to be included in the definitions as persons and then the right to vote, although for some women of colour, their right to vote came decades later. During my lifetime I have also observed many firsts in the political world: the first woman Premier here in British Columbia and the first woman Prime Minister in Canada. As well, on May 28, 1996, I along with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant became the first persons of Asian descent to be elected to the B.C. Legislature.

I hope all members of this House and British Columbians everywhere find time to celebrate Women's History Month this October and every October, not only because we should but because we can.

K. Stewart: I'd like to take a moment to highlight one of the true economic jewels of our region, the Pitt Meadows Airport. During Small Business Week it is especially important to look at the facilities that support our local entrepreneurs. This airport does its fair share. With three active runways, it is always one of the busiest airports in the province in terms of takeoffs and landings. It has a full seaplane access available on the Fraser River and a designated deep-sea port. It offers air ambulance, charter flights, helicopter service, flying and parachute lessons, and sightseeing tours. You know, in less than 20 seconds I've already covered a few million dollars of annual economic activity in our region, mostly by small business.

There's more. The airport has lofty goals. It aims to be a real player in servicing the region's commercial air passenger market. Later this fall a 5,000-square-foot terminal will open, which accommodates numerous other activities including restaurants, pilot shops and other services. The airport also begins work on a new ramp for floatplanes, and an upgrade to riverside docks was just completed, along with new tie-downs for 19 more aircraft.

With a land base in excess of 700 acres, they have big plans for growth. Down the road, Pitt Meadows Airport would like to welcome commuter traffic from such places as Kamloops, Victoria and Kelowna, because — let's face it — the more traffic, the more people we'll see taking advantage of our local businesses and services.

Further down the road to the Olympics, the airport can help position the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows region as the perfect alternative to the hustle and bustle of Vancouver when the world comes to our door in 2010.

J. Kwan: Since this House last sat, statistics have come out showing that unemployment is above 9 percent in this province. More than 200,000 people are now unemployed. Those are public numbers — numbers that this government cannot be proud of.

This government also cannot be proud of the number of people who are going to be kicked off of income assistance. That's why the Minister of Human Resources is hiding the number. Let me give him another chance. Can he tell this House how many people will lose income assistance over the next fiscal year?

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows that there are over two million people working in this province. She also knows that that's the first time in the history of British Columbia that we've had that many people working. She also knows that this ministry has put tens of thousands of people back to work in the last two years.

She also knows that this ministry has 10,000 jobs available for people on income assistance. She also, I think, wants to return to the days where one in ten British Columbians was on welfare and six in ten single parents were on welfare — to those lofty days of the NDP. What this government wants to do is help people to succeed and to work in this province.

J. Kwan: This minister knows how many people are going to be kicked off of income assistance come the next fiscal year. According to the minister's own budget numbers, we calculated that approximately 27,000 people will lose income assistance.

Now we have the evidence to confirm our worst fears. According to confidential internal figures compiled for the minister on October 9 — less than two weeks ago — 28,000 people will be kicked off of income assistance in the first fiscal year. It's not hard to see that the 10,000 jobs that this minister claims to have do not equal the 28,000 people who will lose income assistance.

The minister doesn't like to confirm numbers. Will he stand in this House and deny the numbers in his own government document?

Hon. M. Coell: The province of British Columbia is moving ahead with job creation.

Hon. M. Coell: The members of the NDP would love to return to the days where socialism on demand for welfare was always there.

Hon. M. Coell: The members cannot stand to see people succeed in this province.

Hon. M. Coell: This member cannot stand to see people succeed in this province. The people on income assistance are succeeding in this province. The people who are able to work in this province are going to find employment, and they're going to find success, and they're going to find prosperity in this province, because they have a government that's concentrating on finding employment for people, not welfare.

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

J. Kwan: There is no point for this minister to try and play games with numbers. We have them. The minister knows exactly how many people will lose benefits, and it's more than the number of jobs he says are available. Will the minister stop playing games and come clean and admit what everyone knows and what people are warning this minister? Thanks to his government's policies, thousands of British Columbians will lose support, and many of those will end up on the streets.

Hon. M. Coell: Since this government was elected, over 100,000 new jobs have been created. There are 10,000 jobs…

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. We will continue when we have order in the House. The minister has the floor.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't know what the two members of the opposition don't understand about success, about people finding employment, about people leaving income assistance and earning two to three times what they were on income assistance. The days of the NDP, where it was a better job to be on welfare, are over. The days of prosperity for people on income assistance are here, because we're actually looking for jobs and helping people find a better, more prosperous way of life in this province.

J. MacPhail: I suspect this minister is going to spin himself right out of responsibility, right out of the cabinet. Perhaps this minister should have gone to New York or Washington or wherever it is that ministers or Premiers go to duck hard questions. The facts on the economy are clear: over 9 percent unemployment, the highest in almost a decade; over 200,000 people without work; the worst-performing economy in the country.

Two weeks ago we came forward right into this chamber with a confidential briefing note on this issue. That minister dismissed the information as out of date. As he was doing that, these numbers were being prepared for this minister at the same time that we were asking questions in the House.

This is dated October 9, 2003. It's simply not credible that this minister didn't have those numbers when he was standing up saying he didn't know, in this Legislature. Why did the minister hide these numbers from the House? More importantly, why did he hide them from the public? Why did he refuse to tell British Columbians the truth?

Hon. M. Coell: The truth is that people on income assistance are finding employment with this government. They're finding employment….

Hon. M. Coell: Under the NDP, income assistance was viewed as a life entitlement. What we view for people on income assistance — opportunities — is entitlement for a job, and that's why we have programs that create and support people on income assistance to find employment. That's what we'll continue to do — to see people on income assistance actually have success in British Columbia, unlike a lifetime of welfare offered by the NDP.

K. Krueger: The people of Barriere and Louis Creek are still reeling from the announcement by Tolko Industries that they will not be rebuilding the mill at the Louis Creek site. The Minister of Forests and I have been working for some time to help the people of Vavenby-Clearwater, who suffered a similar loss of a major employer approximately one year ago. I wonder if the Minister of Forests can update my constituents on the prospect of community forests, additional woodlots and additional allotments to the North Thompson Indian band in order that my constituents can have better access to fibre in their efforts to diversify the economy of the North Thompson Valley.

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, that lies at the heart of what the forestry revitalization plan is all about. The tragic events that have befallen the North Thompson Valley add to the urgency in getting on with the full implementation of that program. It's about creating those new opportunities for community forests for woodlot owners, and I'm pleased to advise the member that I met with some of the woodlot owners from the Barriere–Louis Creek area this weekend.

We're going to ensure we're doing all we can to support them, and I'm happy to say to the member that in the days ahead, I'm looking forward to making a significant announcement as it relates to involvement of first nations in the area in the beginnings of the cleanup of the fire-damaged wood.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, this government loves to duck responsibility. Health care cuts? Blame the health authorities. School closures? Blame the school boards. Worst economy in the country? Blame world markets and escape the Legislature.

Now the Minister of Human Resources refused to admit what his own briefing documents say. When this new rule kicks in, his own documents say that 28,000 people will lose income assistance over the next fiscal year — his own documents. Again to the minister: we have the numbers. Why is he so ashamed to admit that they're true?

Hon. M. Coell: Well, I'll give the member a couple of numbers: 100,000 jobs created in this province. Tens of thousands of people from income assistance found employment with a government that looks for people on income assistance to succeed in this province.

The people on income assistance for the first time actually have a government that's helping them find prosperity, helping them get off income assistance and create better lives for themselves. The members of the NDP dream of the lofty days of $2 billion budgets, six in ten single parents on income assistance, one in ten members of the public on income assistance. This government has been helping people find employment and will continue to do so.

D. Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. As the members of this House are aware, the ranching industry was hard-hit this summer after a BSE-infected cow was discovered in Alberta. Cattle ranchers are facing difficult times with the partial border closure to Canadian beef that continues to be in place. Can the minister tell ranchers what steps he is taking to get the U.S.–Canada border reopened and to help ranchers get their cattle to market?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to acknowledge that there are media reports that the U.S. is getting ready to open the border for live cattle under 30 months. We have not been able to get any confirmation of that, and neither has the federal government. I want to reassure the cattle industry in British Columbia that we remain completely focused on trying to get the border opened, and that's a high priority.

The Premier has been very active on this file, starting with the Premiers' conference in Kelowna. He's had meetings with the U.S. Ambassador, Paul Cellucci. He has been in the western Governors' meeting in the United States with BSE on the agenda as a high priority, and he intends to raise it in the next couple of days in Washington, D.C. So we remain very focused on getting the border opened, and hopefully the media reports are correct.

R. Nijjar: The Minister of Education is working hard to increase physical activity in our schools and cites examples of high cases of obesity with our youth. However, does the minister have evidence that physical activity is positively correlated with positive academic outcomes?

Hon. C. Clark: In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that links physical activity and improved cognitive function for kids, and it makes sense too. If kids are moving and their blood is moving, it's making their brains work better. There is absolutely no question that that's true.

So what we're doing in British Columbia, for the first time, is saying that rather than just recommending the amount of time that kids should spend being active in schools, we are going to start requiring it so that we can make sure every child in every school, in every classroom, is physically active for a certain amount of time every week so that we know they will learn better when they're in their schools.

We need more incentive programs. We should be linking physical activity to things like the Olympics.

We have an incredible opportunity in 2010 to showcase the physical prowess of our population, to inspire kids to move and inspire kids to do better and reach further. That's what we should be doing in all our schools. We're starting now, we're going to be working for the future, and by 2010 we will have…

E. Brenzinger: My question today is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Surrey has been wrestling with a number of drug issues. As a community, we are working hard to ensure that neighbourhoods remain safe and that the medical needs of people with addictions are being met.

This year, during estimates, the minister spoke of merging mental health and addiction services. Will the Minister of State for Mental Health tell the House what progress is being made to unite treatment of addictions and mental health services?

Hon. G. Cheema: Prior to restructuring, 70 percent of the clients in B.C.'s addiction system were also patients of the mental health system. In 2002, for the first time in B.C., we brought addiction services directly into the health care delivery system and also began to integrate these two services with the mental health services to better meet the needs of the clients who were frequently excluded from both systems.

I can give a few examples of the service improvements in the Fraser health authority. The Fraser health authority's plan will result in more detoxification services and youth services. Through the new mental health funding, the Fraser health authority has created a dual diagnosis position in each of the mental health centres in the Fraser health authority. There has been a significant amount of cross-training between the addictions staff and the mental health staff, and a collaborative model has been developed between the Surrey primary care clinic and the mental health centres. We will continue to make improvements in mental health in this province.

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. Fee adjustments have been made to residential care for seniors, and while the client is obviously the prime concern, families in Vancouver-Langara want to know that they will be able to grow old together. The couple must face distance and financial challenge. While one goes into a care facility, the other must live on the remaining income, having paid for much of this care. Can the minister explain what has been done to ensure the base income of the person remaining at home?

Hon. K. Whittred: The member does indeed raise a very good question, and that is why the ministry has taken great care to ensure that the well spouse who remains at home will have sufficient income to live comfortably. The co-pay is actually calculated twice. It is calculated, first of all, using it as a marriage deduction. Secondly, it is calculated as though the person was single, and the best to the client of those two sums is the one that determines the co-pay. If that still is a hardship to the couple, then there is an appeal process. So there is, I think, really good care taken to ensure that the person has good income to live comfortably.

Hon. R. Coleman: As requested by the Premier, I attended the communities of Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton yesterday and over the weekend to look at the damage and devastation and to talk to the communities with regard to the emergency protection act and how it applied to their communities. On behalf of the Premier, I'd first of all like to offer my condolences and his, and the condolences of this House, to the families who have lost loved ones in this disaster and prayers for those missing loved ones that they be found safe.

I had the opportunity to tour the area yesterday and stopped and briefly spoke in Pemberton, where I met with the mayor and emergency program officials. I spoke to the mayor of Whistler, and I had the opportunity to meet with law enforcement, fire and all our emergency program people and a number of volunteers on the ground. Once again, as we saw last summer, we saw people coming together in a tragedy. The volunteer effort is incredible. The number of hours being logged by people, from volunteer fire departments through to emergency personnel, is staggering. We are sending more people into the area to help this community as they deal with this incredible issue. We want to assure the people that the province will be there, as it was in any other disaster. It would be there for food and water and for accommodations.

In addition to that, something else was pretty remarkable to watch yesterday. We have some pretty good people working for us in this province, particularly in our department of transportation and highways, who were on the ground yesterday actually putting in material at the one portion of washed-out road — so they could open the road to Whistler yesterday afternoon — and already moving bridging material up to Rutherford Creek, south of Pemberton,

to start to rebuild that bridge. Hopefully, they'll have it open in 26 to 48 hours. That in itself, when you've seen the disaster and the water that's moving, is an incredible feat.

In addition, disaster financial assistance will be provided by the province and the federal government and will be made available to the people who are affected by this disaster. In a natural disaster such as a flood, for which people and businesses cannot readily obtain private insurance, the program provides some compensation. Each case is considered individually, and I encourage people to contact their local government office or a provincial emergency program office, or go to the Internet to www.pep.bc.ca to obtain an application form and file their claim.

Once again we as a province are sent challenges because of the type of weather and structure and terrain that we experience as a province. We are up to the task to deal with these incidents as members of our communities come together in a program that works. Again, on behalf of the Premier and the government, I want to thank everyone for their assistance, dedication and commitment to the communities they live in and to those people around the province who are with these people today.

J. Kwan: The opposition would like to begin by saying that we want to send our condolences to the families of the people who have lost lives — the two people who died as a result of this tragedy — and the two people still missing. Our hearts go out to the families. We hope the two that are missing will be found safe very soon.

The Sea-to-Sky corridor is faced with tremendous challenges. Even as we speak, as the rain continues, families are still under threat. I know that the emergency teams are working very hard trying to pull together all the efforts to deal with the situation. The personal losses experienced by the families, by the people in and around that community, can only be felt by the people who have experienced it, not unlike the people in the Kelowna region who have recently faced the fires. We now have another region which is faced with the floods. The damages, the aftermath, are yet to begin for this region, for people to come to grasp the losses they have experienced, the shock and of course the disbelief.

There is much work to be done as we speak in this Legislature. I am glad to hear that disaster relief will be in place for the families or individuals faced with these losses. I hope that process will be short for the families as they're dealing with these difficult challenges, and I hope that as we in the Legislature work on different items, we will continue in all of our best efforts to put forward prevention strategies as well to ensure that such tragedies can be minimized as much as possible.

B. Belsey: It's an honour and a privilege to be able to speak to the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act. This is a very important bill for many parts of communities on the north coast. This bill ensures that potential aquaculture sites, finfish and shellfish, are covered in the same way we look at land-based farm sites.

I have some fine examples of aquaculture that go on in my riding. There's a community called the Kitasoo, or Klemtu. It has been involved with aquaculture for a number of years now and has been able to put many citizens of its community to work. The goal was to have one person working in aquaculture in every household. They have been able to achieve that goal. They have created jobs throughout their community. When you go to that community today, you can see the benefits of aquaculture and understand why it's important that in a bill such as this we affirm exactly the rights to carry on fish farming, whether it's shellfish or finfish.

The right to farm is a system that has worked very well for the province, local government and the farming industry. These amendments will not affect those communities that accept the spirit and the objectives of the right-to-farm system. The amendments will encourage local governments to plan for farming. They will support government in the agriculture and aquaculture sectors. They clarify the legislation to ensure that industry's development is not constrained by the unnecessary and unreasonable regulations at the local government level.

There have been a lot of people in the province that have spoken out against aquaculture, some of them very notable people. But you know, at one time they supported it. I have a section out of Hansard, when, at the time, the minister for the environment, the Hon. Rafe Mair, spoke out in support of aquaculture. I'd just like to share that with you. His words were: "I think that this is one of the most exciting things that's come on stream, not just shellfish but the whole question of aquaculture. I think we're going to find a difference in the people's taste now that the Third World has decided that they are tired of being starved to death by the rest of the world. I think we're going to find that there's going to be a great future for all the aquaculture schemes that are coming on stream, including shellfish that they've been talking about. The only disagreement I would have with you is that I think the prospects are greater than you say."

It has been studied to death. People like David Suzuki have single-handedly done more to destroy the

economy of British Columbia than anybody else with his position on aquaculture. The B.C. environmental assessment office salmon aquaculture review, SAR, was a panel of 12 scientists. They concluded that salmon aquaculture as practised today in B.C. at the current level of production presents low probability of risk of adverse effects to the province's environment.

The National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, came out in their report and confirmed that salmon aquaculture presents a low overall risk to the environment. For instance, NOAA asserts that the potential for farm salmon to spread disease to wild salmon represents a low risk and that the potential for escaped Atlantic farmed salmon to colonize or compete with wild Pacific salmon represents a very low risk.

I applaud the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for bringing, under the umbrella of farming, the concerns that many have to ensure that farm sites for finfish aquaculture and shellfish aquaculture do have protection, that this industry can develop, and that greater jobs and better opportunities exist for people in the coastal communities I represent.

K. Stewart: I, too, rise to support the right to farm. It's interesting that 100 years ago in Canada, when we had a population of just over five million people, 40 percent of those people lived on farms. That's approximately two million people 100 years ago. Today we have 32 million people in Canada, and of that number, less than 3 percent actually live on farms. That's one million people today that are providing food to a population of 32 million, as compared to two million 100 years ago.

I think that says a lot about the state of farming in Canada. It's become highly industrialized. In many cases on the prairies you'll see that where there used to be many a farm, there are just a few very large farms. In British Columbia we have a situation where we have the boundaries of traditional farms now very tight to that of suburbs and cities. Much of the land that was farms 100, 50, 20 or even 15 or ten years ago is now cities, towns, suburbs, factories and institutions. All this land was once farmed.

We have to look at what the benefits are of agriculture. The local farms support the start of a food supply chain that has employment in many areas: food processing, delivery and even retail. The green spaces that are provided by our farms add to the lifestyle of many people who live in the suburbs. Conservation areas. Many farms provide areas of their land base for conservation. I know on our farm we provide 90 acres of conservation space. There are many traditional lands that were not used for farming that have, in the past, been considered marginal. These lands are now being used in my area for things such as blueberries and cranberry farming.

When we look at the world situation in the production of food and farming, we look at Europe, where a cow in Switzerland will be directly subsidized up to 2,000 euro dollars per year. Now, if that cow happens to live for ten years, that's 20,000 euro dollars of direct subsidies for one cow. No wonder they can put those fancy bells on them in Switzerland. We have to look at why they put on such a large subsidy. It's because they know the importance of protecting your food supply. They know how important it is that they have the food available in their towns, in their communities, in their cantons to ensure that they have an active supply of food.

High-quality agricultural services and production are important to any civilization. They offset natural disasters, droughts, floods and other calamities that may befall us. The right to farm ensures that those farms continue. It ensures that there will be proper planning between the communities that are growing and the farms that are providing them with food.

I just wanted to take a moment to say to the House how important I think the right to farm is. I fully support the minister in this bill.

M. Hunter: It's a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill 48, the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act.

Before I address the substance of the bill before us, I'm going to fly off on the same tangent that the Leader of the Opposition did on the last business day in this House, when she went on a tirade about various aspects of aquaculture. It's nothing short of laughable that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest, as she did on that day, that our Broughton Archipelago action plan is a failure. I wonder who she consulted when she arrived at this remarkable conclusion, because while she was eloquent that day, her eloquence on this matter is matched only by her substantial ignorance of the facts. Judging by her intervention in this debate, she is spectacularly misinformed. Even someone with the most elementary grasp of salmon would know that pink salmon have a two-year cycle. Fish protected by our plan in the spring of 2003 in the out-migration will not return until 2004.

What does she have to say about the spectacular abundance of pink salmon returning to the Fraser River this year, many of which travelled through the areas where sea lice are alleged to be problematic? Anyone with an elementary grasp of salmon science knows that pinks are famous for varying abundance — large buildups followed by stock crashes. We can expect more of the same, because that's what history has taught us.

The Leader of the Opposition ignores science that doesn't accord with her own view. Oh yes, she can cite chapter and verse from her NDP buddy Jim Fulton and his friends at the Suzuki Foundation. Why, she can even read from a columnist in my own local paper who trots out her views. But she chooses not to cite the information from DFO's recent work, which imparts new information about the occurrence of sea lice and its potential impacts. She fails to cite the knowledge that

fishermen could tell her if she took the trouble and time to ask them. Fishermen would tell her that sea lice are an inevitable and constant fact of life in coastal British Columbia. Fish populations survive and prosper despite them.

The Leader of the Opposition said in this debate: "Municipal governments know best." I assume that notion did not lie behind the 1995 Right to Farm Act passed by the disastrous government of which she was such a prominent member. But now the minister needs to clarify the 1995 act. Suddenly the Leader of the Opposition insists that city hall knows best. Now, let me say that I think our city and town halls across the province are populated by dedicated people who seek election, who are trying to do their best for their communities — no question about that. What they do not necessarily have and what we do not ask them to have is a vision of what is good for the provincial rather than the local interest. That is the job of people who sit in this chamber.

The Leader of the Opposition, in her intervention, appears not to understand the concept of provincial interest. But then why am I surprised when for ten years she helped put the interest groups who supported her ahead of the public provincial interest? Was it not the NDP that introduced the agricultural land reserve 30 years ago? What was that if not the kind of intrusion into the jurisdiction of local governments which the Leader of the Opposition would now place as such a high priority? You know, it's too bad she's wrong in that, because Bill 48 is not intended to reduce the authority of local governments in land use planning. It doesn't change this government's commitment to ensure local input on aquaculture siting. In fact, we've committed to the Union of B.C. Municipalities that together we will develop a protocol to ensure input at the local level.

The Leader of the Opposition in her remarks the other day criticized me for saying my community in Nanaimo is doing fine. She used the background of a writer who writes for the Nanaimo Daily News, who claimed the sky was falling, and here I am, day after day, saying how great my community is. Well, so it is — and no thanks to her government, I might add.

I have never, ever denied the social problems that Nanaimo faces, and my colleagues on this side of the House will surely attest to that. But I do share the view of thousands of Nanaimo residents who think they live in one of the province's most desirable places, and nothing the Leader of the Opposition says or does will change their opinions. In fact, just last week the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. issued a report which documented that there are 6,600 new jobs on Vancouver Island in 2003. The unemployment rate in Nanaimo is down from 12.7 percent in 2001 to 8.6 percent in 2002. That is attesting to the right track that this government is on. I will never, as long as I'm a member in this House, say anything other than the fact that my community has its problems. But it's a great place to live, and we are starting to move forward and leading this province in economic redevelopment. I'm proud of that.

This boring and repetitive tirade from the Leader of the Opposition, her continuing accusations of malfeasance against members of the executive council, her conspiracy theories — and I think the one the other day was about No. 9 — are not only tiresome, but they're increasingly irrelevant to the majority of people in this province who simply want to get on with their lives and their businesses.

What she needs to know is that when I accept a campaign contribution, I don't move into the pocket of the contributor, as she would have people believe. Let her say the same about her relationship with the unions that have contributed to her cause over the years.

I want to move on to the substance of this very important bill. The right-to-farm principle is not new, but it is extremely important, as other members have said. The system has worked well for this province since the Right to Farm Act was introduced in 1995. It has done local government and farmers quite well for a number of years.

The right-to-farm legislation exists not only to protect agriculture but also for the benefit of those who live adjacent to farming areas, including aquaculture areas. The existing legislation ensures that farmers follow acceptable practices and provides avenues for dispute resolution. This bill clarifies the existing law by allowing the government to designate Crown lands suitable for aquaculture as a farming area.

I think we need to be clear in our understanding of this bill. The existing law has always applied to aquaculture. The last government made that decision. All this bill does is clarify how the law applies to aquaculture. The amendments, as I said earlier, have been discussed with the UBCM. We are working on a protocol for how this system will work. The government has assured the UBCM that we will work together to that end. These amendments will not affect communities that accept the basic principle of the right-to-farm system. They will support and allow growth of the aquaculture and agriculture industries under current regulatory systems.

Members know that I support the development of the aquaculture industry. I think investors in that industry need a clear policy environment and consistency of treatment by governments. I also know there are agencies that are opposed to aquaculture. Islands Trust, for example, has registered its opposition to this bill. I'm afraid I must differ with their interpretation of the impact that this bill will have.

In my opinion, the right to farm and the production of food under provincial law and regulation are a matter of provincial interest. This bill clarifies that interest at no cost to local government. In fact, the amendments to the Right to Farm Act introduced by this bill encourage local governments to plan for the development of the agriculture and aquaculture industries. The focus in the future is going to be on the identification of Crown lands that are technically and socially suitable for aquaculture. The right-to-farm system will focus on planning for farming at the local level, followed and

supported by actions consistent with plans. It does not focus or require designation of Crown land as farming areas. Designation will take place only if necessary or helpful to support the objectives of the right-to-farm system.

The right-to-farm system and changes proposed under this bill do not extend the system to apply to aquaculture. The system has always applied to aquaculture. It does not apply to all bylaws; it applies only to zoning bylaws and farm bylaws that apply in farming areas. Most importantly, perhaps, it does not invalidate existing bylaws.

I am pleased to offer my support to this bill, and I look forward to the vote and continuing debate.

R. Visser: I, too, want to take a moment and speak in favour of Bill 48 and the right-to-farm legislation and its slight adjustments to include some practical concepts around aquaculture. I've gone over Hansard — the debate so far. I've read the legislation. I've been through some of the correspondence and some of the rhetoric that exists out in the public domain over the last few months, and I offer these comments.

In 1995 the government of the day decided it was time to insert a provincial interest around the production of food through farming. The opposition of the day supported that, and I think that is an appropriate action. I think it's equally appropriate today that we have this discussion around aquaculture, because what was good for the province and the provincial interest in 1995 is certainly good for the province and the provincial interest today.

Aquaculture, despite the Leader of the Opposition's tirade, isn't about big corporate interests. It's not about all of those things they deride and call evil; it's about people. Aquaculture is about jobs. It's about people that stand out there and cultivate oysters on a raft in a cove — frankly, more often than not, in the middle of nowhere. They stand there on a day like today, where it's going to rain as much as 100 millimetres. It's a lot of rain in a day to be out there working.

I think it's okay that we address some of these issues, that we focus on those folks who are out there earning that first dollar. I talked about it earlier — that first dollar, the first dollar that allows us to generate wealth in this province. It allows us to pay for services in this province. It gives us some of the opportunities that many, many other countries in this world just do not have — to provide for our citizens. So we need a little understanding and protection around that first dollar, that job and this economy.

What the opposition misses and the critics miss all the time is that all of these decisions about the right to farm, aquaculture…. They need to recognize the context in which they are made. We do land use planning. We have people employed in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management like Joe Truscott, like John Bones. They go out there and do marine planning. Those guys do great work. They consult with communities; they consult with first nations; they consult with industry groups. They travel up and down the coast of this province in small, economically identifiable or geographically identifiable or even culturally identifiable areas and seek input on what goes where and how it might happen. In the case of North Island straits — through Port Hardy, the Broughton and others around that area, and in places like Quatsino — much of that work's been done. It's been done on the North Island straits.

We know where we can put farm sites. We know where aquaculture has potential. We know it now, ahead of time, before development occurs. What's critical about that is that we've had community buy-in, and we've had the discussion about what can go where, when it can go there and how it can go there. It's not good enough to say: "Well, that's the end of it." It's important to provide some certainty to those folks that make those investments out in those places. It's a challenging business; there is no doubt. It's challenging to fight the rhetoric; it's challenging to fight the elements. It's challenging to fight the markets, to find the markets and to develop the products to move your industry forward.

Those folks are up to that challenge, and it's in the provincial interest that we provide them with the security and the certainty they need to make those investments. It's in the provincial interest that we provide relief valves for local governments and those citizens — farmers and upland or adjacent owners — to have avenues for arbitration, mediation and discussion so that we can have balance on the landscape.

We've done planning in Nootka. We're now in the process of planning the Johnstone Strait, and we've done the Cortes Island plan. It's good work. It's long overdue. It makes sense to start with what we call the top or the coarse filter and let it work down.

It makes sense to provide certainty, because at the end of this provincial interest that we're all talking about, there are folks. There are biologists. There are plant workers. There are feed suppliers. There are forklift operators. There are truck drivers. There are ship captains. There are shipbuilders. There are suppliers. There are all of these folks that have jobs, all of these folks that contribute to the province, to all of our well-being. It's up to the provincial government to get it right. It's up to the provincial government to protect their interests. It's up to the provincial government to help them navigate those waters that seem to be so contentious sometimes.

I'm proud of this legislation. I'm proud of that minister for putting it forward, and I support it completely.

V. Roddick: I, too, rise today in support of Bill 48. This bill does not affect communities that accept the spirit and objectives of the right-to-farm system. It is designed to broaden the right-to-farm legislation so that all bylaws of a local council affecting agriculture and aquaculture are covered, not just zoning bylaw decisions. It ensures that potential aquaculture sites are covered in the same way as the existing licence sites, which have been included in the right-to-farm legislation since

1995 under the previous NDP government and also supported by the then–B.C. Liberal opposition.

Only two local governments, of which Delta is one, have been placed under the legislation by cabinet direction. We have committed to UBCM that together we will develop a protocol to ensure input at the local level. Delta South is a perfect example of rural/urban conflict, having 22,000 acres of intensive farming under cultivation and a relatively new urban population of approximately 55,000 people in the two main centres of Ladner and Tsawwassen.

At stake here is the modernization of our agricultural sector. Our B.C. greenhouse industry, with its farm-gate sales of over $220 million last year, made it one of the leading engines in horticulture and in agriculture. Delta is seen as one of the best places in North America for greenhouse production, a renewable resource which generates $160 million annually into Delta — both north and south.

A new, green, independent power group with the GVRD dump and Canagro greenhouse — which, I might add, grows the most superlative cucumbers, peppers and tomatoes…. Its by-product is now going to produce enough electricity for 5,000 homes via our publicly owned B.C. Hydro. The greenhouse industry is helping to build our province as well as offering the world high-quality vegetables.

Vegetables under glass or soil-based have to be transported to market. All our local Delta farmers are now facing difficulty moving their equipment and their produce on our local roads — roads built, I might add, by the farmers in the first place — with chicanes being put in place to preclude access by large, modern equipment and "no truck" signs suddenly appearing on main farm access routes.

Bill 48, Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, is necessary to ensure that our growing agricultural industry for both local and export markets may thrive sustainably for the benefit of all. These amendments encourage local governments to actively plan for agriculture and to ensure that local government regulation of farming operation is consistent with provincial interests.

We still have to eat to live. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this bill.

J. Kwan: Two weeks ago my colleague the Leader of the Opposition gave an unplanned speech about Bill 52 after listening to the insulting remarks of the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. Now I find myself having to do the same thing.

Earlier this afternoon the member for North Coast, in a desperate attempt to give credibility to his government's disastrous handling of the fish farm file, tried to rip apart the credentials and values of one of B.C.'s most renowned citizens. The member for North Coast said that no single person has done more to harm the economy of British Columbia than David Suzuki.

This member should be absolutely ashamed of his statement. Mr. Suzuki has been working for decades to improve British Columbia and all that live here. The member for North Coast should think a little more carefully before he whips off insults like that to one of B.C.'s most decorated citizens.

For his awareness, I would like to read the biography from The Sacred Balance website:

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. Could we please return to the principle of Bill 48.

Mr. Speaker: I understand, but let us return to the principle of the bill, please.

J. Kwan: I am just about done here in terms of putting on the record Dr. Suzuki's credentials. As it relates to Bill 48, it's about this individual, who has done tremendous work in advocating for the environment, in protecting our environment in every single form. The validity in relating this individual's credentials to Bill 48 is the validity of an external scientist and the work that they've done relative to the protection of the environment — mainly, the fish farm protection item that we're talking about, relating to Bill 48.

He had moved to Leamington and later to London, Ontario, where David spent many hours exploring the nature of Point Pelee and the swamps around London.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I think we've heard plenty on that. Let us get back to the principle of Bill 48, please.

J. Kwan: On the principle of Bill 48, I would hope that the member for North Coast will apologize for his remarks at his earliest convenience. After all, he's lashing out in a desperate attempt to discredit this government's critics. Before he complains about these hard-working British Columbians, he should take a look at his own government's credibility.

This government has no credibility on this file. From secret meetings with CEOs, spilling insider information, interfering in investigations and ignoring the threat of sea lice, this government has no right — no right whatsoever — to make such a remark about the reputation of a citizen who has a longstanding record on his stance on environmental issues and his knowledge base on environmental issues, just because that individual does not share this government's view.

Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading of Bill 48, and the minister closes debate.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am pleased to close second reading debate on Bill 48. Just a couple of comments, first of all, with respect to the relationship of this bill to the Community Charter. The Community Charter does seek to maximize decision-making at the local level but always within the framework of a provincial interest.

The policy of the Community Charter does establish a number of areas where the province establishes the framework — areas such as health care, education, forests, agriculture, aquaculture, oil and gas, and mining. Those are examples of sectors where the province seeks to establish the provincial interest, and the Community Charter respects that. The Community Charter contemplates the respectful working relationship with local government, where — as I said — we maximize decision-making at the local level but always within a provincial framework.

A comment about consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We have in the past year, starting last fall, had a very active consultative process with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It involved representatives from my ministry, from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and from the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The process included the selection of a chair that was acceptable to everyone. It included a five-person committee and a comprehensive process, including a written report.

The original proposal that we had of extending the agricultural land reserve to include new aquaculture sites was abandoned through that process. We have committed to continuing to meet formally with the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We had a formal meeting with them after the committee process, and we have committed to work with them to work out the implementation of this bill.

The member opposite quoted from a letter from the Comox-Strathcona regional district. I did have a meeting with the directors of the regional district to assure them that the comments I had made originally were not in any reference to their regional district. It was referring to another municipality — namely Delta — and the experience we've had there of the municipality deliberately taking decisions that the province felt were unreasonable towards agriculture. I might add that in the previous government, the minister then had the same view of Delta's actions.

There were also comments about the planning role of local government, and certainly this amendment to the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act in no way undermines local government planning authority. The province will continue to support local planning and planning at the local level, including full public participation. Our government, through the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, has been involved in comprehensive regional land use planning processes, and these have continued through our government as well as the previous government.

Any decisions by cabinet in designating areas for potential new aquaculture will be based on their biological suitability for aquaculture. Then the more detailed level of planning and zoning decisions and that sort of thing, which normally take place at the local level, will continue to take place at the local level. The ultimate test is simply that local government treats aquaculture and agriculture in a fair and reasonable manner, as contemplated in the provincial guidelines. So with that, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 48.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 48, Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to take the opportunity to introduce to the House the staff with me today as we look at committee stage debate on Bill 35. I have, on my left, Jim Soles, assistant deputy minister for post-secondary education; and on my right, Tony Loughran, the manager of legislation.

J. Kwan: Section 2 of this legislation is being amended, we understand, to simplify the obligations of the minister. The legislation would no longer contain obligations to coordinate continuing education programs or to require institutions to submit annual budgets. Instead of establishing post-secondary policies in consultation with institutions, the minister, as we understand, will be at the table with the newly created board.

Could the minister please advise the House what the specifics are of the mandate of the new board?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps we need to have the question clarified slightly, because this particular section deals with relationships with boards that govern institutions — in particular, working directly with institutions and presidents. So unless I misunderstood the question, I'd be happy to have the member opposite clarify that for me.

J. Kwan: I'm looking at the old act, and under section 2, "Powers and duties of minister," it reads:

The new act we're now dealing with amends this by substituting the following: "(a) establish, in consultation with institutions, policy or directives for post-secondary education and training in British Columbia." I take that to mean the duties and powers that were formerly described in the legislation are now being repealed and substituted with this one sentence in sub (a). I would take it that the board that would be established would then take on many of the responsibilities that the minister was to perform. I'm just wondering whether or not that is the case.

What role would the board be playing, and what is the mandate of the board if the minister is no longer going to be doing this work? Or will the minister continue to do this work? Maybe I'm just misreading this altogether, and even though the language that was in the legislation is being repealed, the minister will carry on doing those duties.

Hon. S. Bond: There will be no new board created. In essence, what we're doing is bringing into more currency the legislation in which boards currently do these things in this way. The boards we're talking about are actual governing boards of institutions, and we're simply saying that they should continue to do the things

that they do. We're bringing this legislation in line with current practice. There is no creation of a new structure of any sort. We're simply streamlining and clarifying roles of existing boards that govern institutions.

J. Kwan: Am I right in reading the legislation, under section 2 — the items (a) to (e) that I read out earlier — that the minister will no longer be performing those duties? Or is it implicit that the minister will be performing those duties, but it states that somewhere else in the legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, practice would be that the minister isn't doing them now and hasn't for a number of years. Let me give you an example. In existing legislation if you take sub-subsection 2(1)(d), it's: "coordinate continuing education programs." The Minister of Advanced Education does not do that, so what we're doing with the amendment is simply bringing this legislation — the bill — into line with current practice.

J. Kwan: Does the minister review the annual budget proposals from the institutions? That's being taken out now too.

Hon. S. Bond: The system doesn't work that way and hasn't for a number of years. There aren't proposals presented to the minister. In fact, our institutions work together with the ministry, with an educational plan. A budget is created based on that, and it's dealt with by block funding. So in fact, we don't do that any longer.

Hon. S. Bond: We can certainly get the exact details around that. My staff is suggesting it's been at least a decade since that has not been done in that particular manner. We're simply trying to bring legislation into line with practice.

J. Kwan: Section 3 is amended so that the minister will be allowed to require that an institution grant an applied master's degree. Could the minister please advise: what is an applied master's degree?

Hon. S. Bond: An applied degree, either at the master's level or even an applied baccalaureate, is a degree that focuses very specifically on a work component, a work approach — a career-based degree. We're currently working on the definitions as we bring the Degree Authorization Act into practice. In fact, it is not a typical arts and science degree. It is very much focused on career, a work-type focus.

J. Kwan: The criteria that the minister will be considering for this applied degree which the minister is working on right now…. Would that be made public once this is known? How would the process take place whereby a person is granted an applied degree? Does a person apply to be granted an applied degree to the minister, or does the minister just wake up one day, and she has an idea or someone gives her an idea that so-and-so should receive an applied degree? How would that process work?

Hon. S. Bond: The process for receiving a degree, whether it be applied or in essence a more traditional academic degree, would be similar. An institution would make a proposal to have the right to grant a degree. What's different is not the process. What's different is the content and the focus of the degree.

In terms of the criteria, yes, they will be made public. In fact, the proposals will be made public, as the system will have proposals made on line actually. There will be an opportunity for people to look at new degree-granting proposals from various institutions as they post them and go through that process of approval through the Degree Authorization Act.

J. Kwan: I hate to say this. It's been a repeated pattern now that the Solicitor General has distracted me for part of the answer. I missed the part about how a person goes about receiving the degree. Sorry, I was….

Hon. S. Bond: Just to repeat that…. I can probably do a better job of it the second time around too.

In essence, they'll receive a degree the same way they receive a traditional academic degree or any other type of degree. What's different is the content and focus of the degree. It will be work- or career-related. An institution will come through the degree authorization process and say: "We would like to offer an applied master's degree." The criteria will be made public, as will the proposal. Once it's approved, students will sign up and receive a degree.

J. Kwan: Section 4. I would assume, then, that the applied bachelor's degree, as well as the applied master's degree — well, we already dealt with the master's degree — would be the same process as the master's degree that the minister outlined.

D. Jarvis: I would just like to ask the minister if it was possible under this section. Would they be able to give degree-granting status to, say, Capilano College in my riding?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, Capilano already has the first applied degree in terms of this new process. This

would allow them to continue that process to add additional applied degrees — absolutely.

J. Kwan: That's just prompted a question. I would assume that this process is open for any institution, though. It's not specific to any one, but it's open to any institution that might want to go through the process.

Hon. S. Bond: That's absolutely correct. Obviously, the rationale and logic behind a process like this is to increase opportunity and choice for students at colleges and institutes. The ability for colleges to grant applied degrees is quite historic, actually, and something that we're very proud of, and it absolutely applies to all institutions.

J. Kwan: Section 6 amends section 31 of the act itself, which would mean that institutions will no longer be able to plan or incur deficits. Previously, this was allowable with the liability approval of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Advanced Education. The money for expenditures and emergency funding provided previously is being repealed. Likewise, the position of a bursar, a financial adviser to the board, is also being eliminated. This, of course, is of concern to the opposition, considering this minister and this government's record on underfunding institutions while demanding more seats — which puts, of course, the burden onto their students.

Here are just some of the stats to put on the record from the Advanced Education service plan. Funding to institutions will be cut by $90 million by '05-06. The funding decrease does not address higher student numbers and increasing participation rates. The funding levels will not even compensate for inflation. Increases in funding for student financial aid are occurring in tandem with unprecedented tuition increases. The allocated funds will not be able to keep pace with the growth in student numbers, much less the increase in costs.

All the colleges, university colleges and institutes, except for Malaspina, will receive less in '06 than in '02-03. At the same time they will be required to fund over 3,400 new spaces. As a result, funding per student will be reduced throughout the province. The provincewide colleges are looking at a situation where less than a third of their spaces will be funded by government, and by '05 per-student funding will hit a 30-year low.

Earlier this year the Okanagan University College received some extra funding after the minister announced $12 million of savings had been found in the ministry. At the same time she announced the extra funding, she demanded more seats. The funding was not even enough to cover the imposed increases. The Okanagan University College ended up losing $122 per student, and again the burden has been transferred to the students. As a result, OUC students are facing a 38 percent tuition increase on top of last year's 65 percent increase.

The question I have for the minister is: why is the government eliminating this provision, in terms of incurring a deficit? What's the rationale behind that?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we actually believe that institutions, even in challenging times, should manage budgets well. We think that starts at government, and it should be obvious to institutions that they should work to manage budgets within the budget they have.

J. Kwan: It's funny, coming from a government who actually incurred the highest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia — this Liberal government. Of course, what she calls challenging times is off-loading more demands onto the universities, onto the colleges, without actually funding them. As I had pointed out earlier, that simply translates to the students on the ground, and that's what we're seeing right now.

Even the notion of money for expenditures for emergency funding, which was previously supplied or provided for, is now being repealed, and I find that shocking, actually. In the case around emergencies and so on, why would the minister even eliminate that provision in the case around emergencies? Obviously, emergencies arise when people don't anticipate such things occurring. What's the recourse, then, for these institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: I guess I'm just surprised that one would suggest that a statement that says an institution must not plan for or incur a deficit does not make good, sound financial practice for the province of British Columbia. In fact, that's how institutions should manage their budgets. Obviously, it says that if a deficit should occur at any time during that year, the board must come to the minister quickly and say: "Here's what we think we need to be able to do to manage that deficit, should that occur." So from my perspective, that's very acceptable and appropriate accountability for the use of public dollars in this province.

J. Kwan: The issue that I take with the minister on the notion around my concerns is that it's not only the concept that the minister is saying — that they should not plan for or incur deficits. It's taken out of the legislation whereas, before, emergency funding would be provided in legislation. That's now being taken out; that's being repealed. So that's a stark difference. It's one thing to say: "Hey, you know what? You should try not to do a deficit."

By the by, this government has condemned deficits ever since it was in opposition. You know what? Once they came into government, this Liberal government incurred the highest deficit ever in the history of B.C. The members behind me are saying, "Get off it," but you know what? Those are the facts. You don't like them? That's the reality.

J. Kwan: Excuse me? The member for Cariboo South is saying that it's a lie. It is not a lie. It is absolutely true that this Liberal government incurred the largest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia. That is a fact. I challenge any member in this House to dispute that. All they have to do is look at the budget books.

The question to the minister is emergency funding. Why is she repealing that provision?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I just want to, first of all, clarify exactly what we're discussing here. Certainly, in section 6 it says that 31(1) is repealed and the following is substituted. If I go back to the original bill, there is a section that talks about if an emergency exists. "Despite subsection (1), if the minister considers that an emergency exists, the minister may authorize an institution to make an expenditure…." If that's the section the member opposite is talking about, we're only repealing section 1, which says that you cannot plan for a deficit. In essence, looking at certainly what I see in our bill in the amendments, only subsection (1) is repealed — not subsection (3), which talks about the emergency funding you're concerned about.

J. Kwan: Section 7 repeals sections 32 and 39 of the old act. If you go to section 32 of the act, it reads: "To cover a liability or expenditure approved under section 31 (1), the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may (a) increase a grant for operating expenses, or (b) direct the institution to include provision for the liability or expenditure in its budget for the next fiscal year."

Then 39 goes on to say: "(1) Each board must appoint a bursar to exercise powers and perform duties assigned to the bursar by the board. (2) The bursar must advise the board on all financial matters of the institution. (3) Unless the board, by resolution, directs that the bursar be excluded from its meeting, the bursar or the bursar's designate must attend all meetings of the board."

The question to the minister is…. This section of the act explicitly takes out the notion of emergency funding, yet previously the minister said the notion of emergency funding still exists. If that's the case, then why would this section be repealed, especially as it relates to the emergency funding component?

Hon. S. Bond: Leaving 31(3) in allows us to make sure that in the case of an emergency, that potential still exists for the minister to deal with that. In fact, by leaving 31(3) in, we do have the ability to deal with the emergency provisions.

J. Kwan: Is the minister then saying that in repealing section 7, which is sections 32 and 39, there are no ramifications whatsoever for institutions to get emergency funding from the minister?

Hon. S. Bond: What the amendments mean is that an institution has to provide for us a deficit management plan, which has not been required previous to this. Certainly, subsection 31(3) allows for the provision of emergency circumstances. It must be in the context of a deficit management plan.

J. Kwan: The minister says that previously institutions were not required to provide for a deficit management plan, but previously, where the institution incurs a deficit, that deficit must be approved by the minister. Therefore, work must be done by the institution. For the minister to suggest that is not required, I actually don't think is true. In my reading of the old act, it actually states that for a deficit to be incurred, the Minister of Finance — which used to be called Finance and Corporate Relations — as well as the Minister of Advanced Education must approve it. Therefore some planning must be done, I would assume, with the institution.

Hon. S. Bond: In previous practice, institutions had to demonstrate they had a debt and they had a deficit. What this does is strengthen our ability to actually deal with deficit circumstances. They now have to have a deficit management plan.

J. Kwan: So the question to the minister about triggering the need for emergency funding from the minister…. With this amendment, is the minister saying that there is no change whatsoever for institutions should the need for emergency funding be required, since the same process is in place as the legislation before it was amended?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, if an institution is going to incur a deficit for any reason, they must come to the ministry quickly.

Hon. S. Bond: It is two different cases, and that's what I'm going to talk about.

So if they're going to incur a deficit for any reason, they come to us in the context of a deficit management plan in terms of how they're going to manage that. Then, in the case of extraordinary circumstances, there exists the potential for the minister to deal with emergency circumstances because of 31(3).

J. Kwan: So that means no changes at all, in terms of the process and the availability of emergency funding for institutions. I just need a simple answer — yes or no.

Hon. S. Bond: There is a change in the sense that in order to deal with deficits of any nature, they need to come to the ministry with a deficit management plan.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps saying that if there's an emergency that triggers additional funding — which then would mean, if you follow that logic, that the institution would end up running a deficit — it is only when those emergencies surface that that would have to have the approval of the minister, etc. For the minister to deal with this issue, the institution must come forward with a deficit management plan, but there's no provision within which the minister actually touches on emergency funding.

When I talk about emergency funding, I don't mean to say the institution would be allowed to run a deficit. I mean to say: will the minister provide assistance, additional funding, to address the situation? That, to me, is what emergency funding is — not emergency funding that says; "Okay, you have an emergency; too bad, so sad." We're not going to help you, but this year we'll allow to you run a deficit, which will only mean for the institution, at the end of the day, that they'll have to cut programs or off-load those costs onto their students.

Hon. S. Bond: Provision exists for the minister to deal with emergency circumstances. Having said that, the first and most important thing an institution would be asked to do would be to look within its own fiscal framework, come to the ministry and be prepared to deal with it through a deficit management plan. But the possibility still exists for the minister to deal with emergency circumstances because of 31(3).

J. Kwan: What would the minister deem to be emergency situations that would actually allow for an institution to get additional funding from the minister?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the word "emergency" denotes the fact that it can't be something that exists or is as a result of the day-to-day management of an institution, so it would have to be unexpected and significant. From our perspective, the first place that institutions would need to look is within their own fiscal envelopes, but obviously the word "emergency" denotes a certain set of circumstances that would not be considered within the day-to-day management or operation of an institution.

J. Kwan: In the situation that's actually happening right now where, as an example, the government — this minister — is underfunding institutions but at the same time is demanding more seats from the institution, that puts more of a burden onto the students. In that instance, the minister — I would assume — by demanding more seats, would deem that not to be an emergency in terms of pressures on the institution. When the minister says "emergency," what would she qualify as an emergency? Can the minister give me a concrete example of what would be deemed to be an emergency?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, emergencies would be dealt with on an individual and case-by-case basis. We're talking about decision-making within a fiscal framework. That's good and responsible business and management practice. We should point out that every institution in the province last year received more or the same number of dollars that they received the year before. In fact, we are asking institutions and the boards that govern them to make challenging decisions in the best interests of students in their communities. That's called management. That's what we expect them to do.

J. Kwan: But the reality doesn't change. That is that by '05-06, funding to institutions will be cut by $19 million, and in fact, by '05-06 the per-student funding will hit a 30-year low. At the same time this government, this minister, is demanding more seats from these institutions without more funding to deal with it. My concern from the opposition side is that these pressures are being put on the institutions, which later on in many instances is off-loaded to the students. People are therefore being impacted by this incredible financial burden that this government has put on.

I'm concerned, in terms of the emergency provision, that language is being repealed in this new legislation on emergency funding, yet the minister says: "Don't worry; everything is fine." The record in the past from other ministers, from other debates, shows that whenever the minister says, "Don't worry; everything is fine," it usually actually throws up a red flag to say that everything is not fine and that there is something we should be concerned about.

The opposition is certainly concerned about the ability of the institutions to manage the budget cut, to ensure that advanced education is protected and that access to education is not hampered for the students who are faced with financial pressures. These are our concerns, and we want to make sure the minister understands them.

Section 7 also repeals section 39 of the old act, which is the position of a bursar, which is a financial adviser to the board. Why would the ministry eliminate this position?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, this is permissive. If the institutions would like to have a bursar, they can have one. We're bringing this bill, the College and Institute Act, into line with the Institute of Technology Act and the University Act. Neither of those acts requires the position of a bursar. Certainly, institutions are more than welcome to have a bursar if they would like to have one.

J. Kwan: This section, as we understand it, changes section 44 of the old act. Changes to the section on the expenditure for benefits will allow the minister to withhold money from future grants if an institution

owes money to government due to a lockout or strike. Employees don't get benefits while locked out or on strike, and so institutions must pay back that money to government. The new legislation makes it easier for the government to, of course, get at this money and for them to automatically deduct it from next year's grant.

Is it the minister's anticipation that the dollars that are clawed back from the institutions as a result of this provision…? Would those moneys be earmarked for advanced education for institutions, to be redistributed back somehow, or do they go to general revenues?

J. Kwan: Would the money be redistributed back to a range of institutions, in some form, within that fiscal year?

J. Kwan: Is it anticipated by the minister that the mechanism in which the minister would do that would be…? I suppose towards the end of the year there's X amount of money in this account, and then the minister will make an announcement of sorts to say this money has been saved from this provision and will therefore be redistributed back to the institutions for educational purposes.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the circumstance itself would be very unusual. That would be an option we would consider, but certainly we have no specific option that we've determined at this point in time.

J. Kwan: Would this apply to the situation with UBC, the strike that took place this year?

Hon. S. Bond: This is, of course, the College and Institute Act. Technically speaking, it wouldn't apply to the UBC circumstance, and it wouldn't, obviously, go backwards. But a scenario in the future, where something like that might occur in the college and institute sector…. This would be something that would apply from here forward.

J. Kwan: Could moneys be held in a special account so that you actually know distinctively how much money is saved from this provision?

Hon. S. Bond: The money would be returned to the Ministry of Advanced Education. It would remain in the line that is responsible for post-secondary institutions and would be reallocated from there.

J. Kwan: Section 9 deals with section 51. This section allows for the minister to have more flexibility in applying certain parts of the Company Act. Could the minister please advise: what is the intent with this section?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this provision already exists. What this amendment does is simply move the responsibility down from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Advanced Education to sign off. We do that to try to streamline and make the process more efficient, with certainly a quicker turnaround time.

J. Kwan: Sorry. The minister says this already exists. Could she direct me to the old act, where that section is applied?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, it's section 51 of the current College and Institute Act, and it reads: "The Company Act does not apply to an institution, but the Lieutenant Governor in Council may declare that all or part of that Act applies to an institution." We're simply moving that line of responsibility down from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Finance.

J. Kwan: Section 15 makes amendments to the Institute of Technology Act, and the changes in this act are similar to those described under the changes to the College and Institute Act. Once again, can I assume that where the questions were asked with respect to designating a bachelor's degree or honours degree, in terms of the process — instead of it going to cabinet, it being delegated to the minister — the issues around institutions applying for that authority are the same as what we talked about earlier?

Hon. S. Bond: That's exactly right. In essence, what we're doing is simply streamlining the process for approval, moving it down one level again from the Lieutenant-Governor to the minister.

D. Hayer: I'm interested in the changes to section 17 of the bill as it relates to financing for the Institute of Technology. Could the minister explain in greater detail what these changes in section 17 will mean to the institution and how they will help them? And will these also apply to all post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, section 17 reflects pretty much the same dialogue and discussion that we had with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. In essence, it walks through the same issues around not

incurring a deficit and the issues that were debated earlier. In fact, it brings into legislation current practice, and it simply says that institutions must manage their institutions well. Again, it just brings consistency across the entire post-secondary sector. In order to respond to the member's question: absolutely, this will apply to the institutes. We have just dealt with that in the College and Institute Act as well.

J. Kwan: Section 26 deals with amendments to the Royal Roads University Act. It appears to me it's a small amendment, which would allow the Minister of Advanced Education to recommend that all or a part of the Company Act may apply. Could the minister please explain specifically what the impacts are on Royal Roads University with this amendment?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, we are simply creating consistency across the acts, so the existing Royal Roads University Act in section 3(5) says: "The Company Act and the Society Act do not apply to the university, but the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order direct that the Company Act or the Society Act or any provision of either applies to the university." We're simply saying that it's no longer the requirement of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do that, but the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Advanced Education can sign off on that. So the provision already exists in legislation.

J. Kwan: It used to say "Company Act and Society Act" that applied, and now it's being changed to "the Company Act" only — right? Are there any implications with respect to deleting the Society Act?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, we're cleaning up outdated legislation in the sense that there was no determination at that point whether it was either Company Act or Society Act, and it's been determined that the Company Act is the one that would apply.

J. Kwan: When the minister says that it's outdated legislation, is she saying that the Society Act no longer applies, so therefore it's not relevant? Or is it just the provisions within it that are not relevant? If the anticipation is such that the answer is that the provisions with the Society Act are no longer relevant…. My apologies. I actually don't have the Society Act in front of me, and so I'm just wondering what kind of provisions would no longer be relevant in this instance.

Hon. S. Bond: Apparently, and certainly using the history of my staff, it was common practice to use both in terms of the use of language. The best fit that would cover all the needs for Royal Roads is inherent in the Company Act, and so certainly that is the one that makes this provision more reflective of Royal Roads University.

J. Kwan: Yes, my apologies, Mr. Chair. I was trying to expedite things. Because I don't have the Society Act in front of me, I'm just curious to know what doesn't apply under the Society Act. Perhaps the minister can seek that advice from her staff.

Hon. S. Bond: Royal Roads is a corporation, not a society, and there's nothing that would be covered in the Society Act that isn't covered in the Company Act for Royal Roads.

J. Kwan: Will we see or will we anticipate the frustration or anxiety that arose when the Sea to Sky University was proclaimed as a company through legislation, rather than an institution? Will we be seeing any of those kinds of ramifications on the repealing of this section of the act? I'm now just going with the minister's opinion.

Hon. S. Bond: No, we don't expect major impact in that direction. Certainly, the Company Act has been in place and used as a provision for a significant period of time. We don't expect there to be a significant impact in that direction.

J. Kwan: Section 29 deals with the definition of the faculty member, which is being changed to include those who are not full-time and have served less than four months as university staff. Could the minister please tell what kind of implications, if any, there are with this amendment?

Hon. S. Bond: The section actually amends the definition of faculty member to allow more flexibility. I think it's good news in the sense that new and part-time faculty members now will have the opportunity to serve on university boards and senates, and that wasn't possible before. In fact, it was inconsistent with the College and Institute Act and also the Institute of Technology Act. It means employees, whether they're new or part-time, will have the opportunity to serve on boards and senates.

J. Kwan: I guess I'll ask that question when we get to section 34, because related to it, of course, is that under section 34…. Well, I'll ask the question when we get to 34 so as not to confuse things. I'm ready to go to section 30.

J. Kwan: On section 30, which amends the section to say that the Company Act may apply, all or in part, on the recommendation of the minister. Could the minister please advise under what circumstances she would make a recommendation to apply the Company Act? What sections of the Company Act would be applicable for this amendment?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, our intent is not to impose the Company Act. We anticipate that an institution would come to the Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Finance, and request that the Company Act be applied, and we would look at the individual circumstances — certainly, at the request of institutions. It's not our intent to impose that.

J. Kwan: Section 31 amends sections 19 and 23 and allows that students and employees sitting on the board of governors no longer need to be full-time students or workers. Can I take that to mean…? It further goes on to say that a person residing outside of B.C. can now be a full member of the board. Maybe the minister can advise: why this change, particularly with the provision that allows for a person residing outside of B.C. to be on a board of an institution in B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: Section 31 is certainly about the ability for boards and institutions to look for great people to work on boards. We believe that students also…. To this point in time if you came from outside the province, you couldn't serve on a board. We think there are extraordinary people outside the province of British Columbia, though the majority of them live in British Columbia. We think boards should have the ability to look for the right people — fantastic and talented people. This just creates more flexibility and basically removes what we believe to be an arbitrary criterion.

J. Kwan: The amendment, I see, does not prescribe how many people are from British Columbia. In other words, could it be that a board could have a composition of members all from outside of B.C., as an example?

Hon. S. Bond: If we were to take the provision to its utmost, I suppose, technically, you could end up with that circumstance. But I'm totally confident that wouldn't happen. I should point out that in essence, we are responding to a request from the institutions, which asked us to consider this provision. Mainly they were concerned about students — that part-time students and students, in particular, from outside the province were not given that opportunity. So really, institutions came to us and said, "Would you consider this?" and we are responding in a positive way to their request.

J. Kwan: Is there anticipation for an outside appointment — that is, people outside of B.C. — to facilitate bringing in financial support to the institution? Is that the main thrust behind it?

Hon. S. Bond: No. Certainly, that's not the major intent. I think the principle behind it is simply that we want our institutions to be governed by extraordinary people, and they are. If there is a case where there is someone with incredible expertise in a particular field, we want institutions to have the ability to involve that person in our institution in this province, and we think that's a good idea.

J. Kwan: Section 34 amends section 35(2) of the old act. The students sitting on the university senate do not have to be full-time students, and the senate is losing its requirement to have an additional four members appointed by cabinet. Why this change and, particularly, the addition of four members to be appointed by cabinet?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we're removing the role of cabinet in appointing members of senate. We believe that institutions should be able to do that, so in fact we're allowing institutions to make those decisions, and cabinet will not be involved in that process.

J. Kwan: So the composition of the number of people would stay the same. Or would you lose four people also?

Hon. S. Bond: In the case of both senates and foundations, typically cabinet would make their decision based on recommendations by the institutions in the first place. So in fact, what we're doing is leaving the composition as it exists, giving institutions the autonomy to make those choices and removing cabinet from the process.

J. Kwan: I just want to ask a quick question here, and I think the answer I anticipate is similar to the one that the minister gave earlier, and that is about the composition of the amendments to the University Foundations Act. Once again, it's the process around the appointment that's being changed, and that is that the foundation would be able to make their appointments, but the composition remains the same.

J. Kwan: Same question to section 40. That is the University of Victoria Foundation Act. I just want to double-check.

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

Bill 35, Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 70; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 70, Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 65; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: As I raised at second reading, the opposition does have some specific concerns with this bill that I wish to explore in committee.

The creation of a system to allow municipalities to more efficiently resolve bylaw infractions could be a good thing, but not if it comes at the expense of increased costs for municipalities and, of course, at the cost of due process. The act, section 1, deals with the positions of adjudicator, bylaw enforcement officer and screening officer, and those titles are defined. How would these three positions function under this new system?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm sorry, I didn't catch all three of the positions. The adjudicator, the screening officer and the bylaw enforcement officer — were those the three, and how do they function? Just hang on a second.

The bylaw enforcement officer is very similar to the position that exists now where someone issues a ticket. The screening officer is a new position, although there is an analogue to existing positions, I'm sure, in most medium and large municipalities — somebody who is employed to act as a bit of a quality control person to make sure the parking meter is working. If someone sends in a letter and says you really shouldn't ticket me for this day because the parking meter wasn't working, then that would be someone who could do a bit of that. The screening officer here will have a slightly more expanded role in terms of entering into compliance agreements.

The third category of officials is the adjudicator. The adjudicator means exactly what it says in section 1, "a person appointed under section 15," which is the dispute adjudicators provision. The people appointed under section 15 will be appointed to adjudicate disputes with respect to the enforcement of bylaws.

J. Kwan: What would their counterparts be under the current court-based system? The adjudicator, I pre-

sume, would be like the judge, the enforcement officer would be the enforcement officer, and the screening officer would be….

Hon. G. Plant: This is a new system, and I've already explained it. The bylaw enforcement officer is a little bit like the person who issues the ticket now. The adjudicator would, in most cases, be a Provincial Court judge or a judicial justice of the peace hearing an enforcement matter. The screening officer is a new position — at least, it's a statutory position — but I suspect that most cities have somebody that works in their bylaw enforcement department who currently acts in a way as a bit of a quality assurance person. The screening officer function is described in more detail in section 10, I think, of the bill.

J. Kwan: While I flip to section 10, perhaps the minister could tell this House what qualifications the screening officer will need.

J. Kwan: Section 10, "Screening officer," actually talks about what the screening officer is able to do or not do — cancel the notice, etc., — but the minister actually said the screening officer would be some sort of quality control or quality assurance person. When he refers to this notion of quality assurance, what is he referring to?

Hon. G. Plant: I already gave an example. I was referring, in the context of the existing regime, to where sometimes a ticket is issued for a reason it ought not to have been. I am sure there are times and places where somebody writes a letter to the municipality and says, "I got a parking ticket for this, and you really shouldn't have issued the parking ticket because the parking meter wasn't working," and there is somebody in city hall who goes and checks and finds out that the parking meter wasn't working that day and has the ability to recommend that the ticket be cancelled.

That is a function that probably exists now. In terms of the new regime, section 10 of the bill is the first provision — there are a couple of others that are relevant — that says what the new position of screening officer is all about. I would commend those provisions to the member for an understanding of the role of the screening officer.

J. Kwan: That's extremely helpful of the Attorney General, with his answer in terms of referring the opposition to various sections of the act. We'll get to those sections of the act and will ask those specific questions accordingly.

What are the possible prescribed bodies under the definition of "local government"?

Hon. G. Plant: I think this definition may be similar to the definition of local government in the Local Government Act. It certainly would be intended to be a body that was a local government–like body.

Would these prescribed bodies, municipalities or regional districts, etc., be required to implement this act?

Hon. G. Plant: At the moment, no, but eventually they may be. As the member knows, one of the things we're doing at this point is working on the terms of a pilot project with the three municipalities in the North Shore of Vancouver to make sure this model is workable and efficient and affordable. I am confident that we will learn from that pilot project that this model will work, but we have a little more work to do yet before that happens.

I think that, in fact, this act has a special provision, or a somewhat unusual provision, in section 29 that allows the act to be phased in. That provision expressly contemplates the possibility that the act will apply to different local governments at different times, because we are contemplating that this scheme will be phased in rather than imposed provincewide all at once.

J. Kwan: So in other words, a municipality or a board of a regional district or a prescribed body could opt not to move to this new system as the legislation stands now?

J. Kwan: In other words, then, what the minister will do at some point…. Even if municipalities do not want to exercise the authority under this act, they'd be forced to do so at some point in time?

Hon. G. Plant: Not necessarily. The act is designed to be empowering and enabling, if you will, and so that's why there's a section — section 29 — that allows for the act to be phased in. If the scheme works and can be made to work for all municipal governments, then it is possible that at some point the act will apply to all local governments in British Columbia. That's not a sure thing at this point.

J. Kwan: You can't have it both ways. When the question, "Could a municipality, a regional district or a prescribed body opt out of this new system?" was asked, the minister said: "No, the opposite is true." So that means that all municipalities, regional bodies or prescribed bodies at some point in time would have to buy in per section 29, which doesn't actually specify when exactly. It simply says "applying this act to different local governments at different times." That's

what it says. If municipalities cannot opt out, that means they will be forced into the system at some point in time. Isn't that true?

Hon. G. Plant: I suppose it's possible that there may be some municipalities that might want to opt out at some point. At the moment what we're working on and have been working on is a scheme that we think local governments will want to opt into. So far that is our understanding — that there is a general level of interest on the part of local governments in British Columbia in this scheme. We think that as we continue the work we have undertaken in relation to things like the idea of a pilot project with the North Shore municipalities, we're going to discover that this system will in fact be a more useful tool for enforcing local government bylaws and that local governments will want to use it.

There's no intention at this point to impose this next month or next spring on all local governments in British Columbia. What we're trying to do here is establish a legislative framework that has some flexibility in it, which incorporates some basic structural arrangements that we think are the right structural arrangements, so that we have the framework in place that we can then use to see how that framework might work on the ground in some targeted municipalities around the province, where we're happy to sit down and talk with them about that. Then we'll take it one step at a time and see what we can do from that point on.

J. Kwan: The reason I ask this question is this. What I heard from the minister now is that, yes, at some point in time the government will force this onto local governments. Yes, I can appreciate that you're going through a pilot project and so on and so forth, but there are some municipalities that have already expressed concern.

I want to note one in particular, and this was just recently reported. This is an article written in Burnaby Now, relating to the Burnaby council. The article's headline is "Corrigan blasts new bylaw plan." Just to quote parts of the article, and I'd like the Attorney General's comments with respect to this: "'All this is downloading,' Corrigan said after the B.C. Liberals introduced a new Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act in the Legislature last Tuesday. It'll take citizens out of the courts and a process that is democratic and fair and put them into a situation of dealing with a non-legally trained arbitrator. 'I think they just threw out the fair hearings,' said Corrigan, a lawyer by trade."

Then further, it goes on to say: "'They care less about a fair and impartial system than they do about the costs to the provincial government,' he said. 'Everything is the bottom line. The ministries are being challenged constantly to find better ways of getting rid of expenses, but they're not being challenged to be a better government.'"

It would appear to me, in reading this document, this news clip, that the Burnaby mayor has a lot of concerns with respect to off-loading costs and this bylaw provision, which is why I ask the question: can municipalities decide to opt out of the process?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I think the reality is that if Burnaby is unalterably opposed to the proposal that is represented in this act, then it's unlikely that the arrangement would ever apply in Burnaby.

J. Kwan: According to section 2, which is the application of the act, in order to use this alternate system the local government would need to first designate the bylaws subject to it, then establish penalties and fines, establish the allowable period to pay the fine or dispute it and set up a dispute resolution process. Are there any areas for which the municipalities could not designate a bylaw and resolve through this alternate system? Is there any area in which they can bypass this alternate system?

Hon. G. Plant: One example of the limit on the ability of a local government to use this framework is established by the limit on the fine amounts of $500, which appears somewhere later on in the act. It is possible that there are some kinds of penalties or bylaws where the nature of the issue would not lend itself to this kind of a dispute resolution mechanism. So that's why the system is generally, as I said, enabling. It gives us the flexibility to make sure that only the cases that really are appropriate for this kind of dispute resolution mechanism will be made subject to it. The penalty limit is established in section 6(3).

J. Kwan: What are the areas that the minister would deem not appropriate for this new system?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, we're looking at that. If the member has some ideas, I'd certainly be interested in hearing her suggestions. I have heard it suggested that if there was a municipal bylaw dealing with firearms issues, that might not be something that was appropriate for this. Certainly, we intended to look at this from the other side of the telescope, if you will: what are

some kinds of bylaw infractions that are particularly suitable for this sort of a process? I've talked about parking tickets; I've talked about noise bylaws. That kind of thing, I think, is pretty well suited for this framework — people who don't put their garbage out on the right day of the week, those kinds of bylaws — as opposed to the more serious bylaws for more serious kinds of infractions.

I'm not certain that there is, as yet, a complete list of what might be in and what might be out, but that's an indication of our thinking at this stage.

J. Kwan: Will the minister share, then, with the public the list of areas which the minister is contemplating would be included under this new system, just so the public knows what we're looking at? When can we expect the complete list to be available?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, in section 28 of the bill there is the regulation-making power, and that includes some regulation-making powers that will require that there be prescribed a list of contravention of the kinds of bylaws that would be subject to this.

At some point that will certainly become formally public, but also, as we continue to work to design the project on the North Shore of Vancouver, I expect it will reach a point where there will be some public statements made with respect to which kinds of infractions will be included within the scheme and which would not be.

J. Kwan: Well, yes, I know that under section 28 it talks about the power to make regulations, and it goes on to talk about the authority under which regulations would be made, etc. The issue here is this, of course. When I asked the question to the minister, as an example, under definitions, local government, he stated that a prescribed body could be a number of other local government–like authorities. Asked whether or not Nisga'a would be included, the minister said that, yes, they could be.

As such, then the question becomes: under the application of the act under section 2, in terms of the public — and therefore municipalities and other prescribed bodies — when will they have an opportunity to review this draft regulation, if you will, or the work that the minister is now undertaking to produce this list about what will be included and what would not be included? Then a further question to that is, as an example: have the Nisga'a been consulted on this, about their inclusion in your legislation here, and what is their response?

Hon. G. Plant: As to the second question, the Nisga'a have not been formally consulted, to my knowledge, with respect to this legislation. I would remind the member — although I'm sure she doesn't need reminding — that the Nisga'a, in fact, have their own form of law-making authority and their own form of legal process with respect to law-making authority and of course their own government. To the extent that they may be interested in using some of these procedures as opposed to some other procedures, my sense is that they would already have the ability to do that within the ambit of their self-government authority, including their law-making authority with respect to the establishment of courts.

We are still in a relatively early stage of the development of this, in the sense that this is not about to come into force — even in the potential pilot jurisdictions — in the next month or so. I think we're still some months away. Again, if there are areas of municipal bylaw-making authority where the member — who is someone who has experience in local government — believes this scheme would not lend itself well to, I'd certainly welcome her comments. I'd welcome comments from members of the public.

I don't know that we're going to conduct a formal public consultation process with respect to the prescription of these matters. I think these things will be developed over time. If there are problems with respect to particular kinds of bylaws proposed to be included within this scheme or excluded from it, then there's certainly lots of time to make sure we identify those issues and get it as right as possible before this thing rolls out in a more comprehensive way across the province.

J. Kwan: Then it begs the question: why are we debating this bill? It seems to me that there are a lot of things that still need to be ironed out. There are still a lot of things that need to be worked through and, I would argue, consultation that needs to take place.

Absolutely the Nisga'a government, as the Attorney General acknowledged, is self-governing. They were recognized in the treaty process with respect to that. Actually, the answer to my question under section 1 — in terms of prescribed body, would the Nisga'a government apply? — I would have expected to be "only if they wanted to." However, the minister's answer is that they could. When I followed up that question with, would people be forced, or can they opt out of this new system? the minister's answer was no, they could not opt out. In fact, on the contrary; over time, under section 29, they'll be made to comply under section 65.

That raises my concern, because we as the Legislative Assembly have acknowledged Nisga'a as a self-governing body — and local governments, too, to that extent, especially under this government, where they said that they would not force things onto local government and that the Community Charter — although there's another amendment to the Community Charter now — actually recognized the local government as an independent body. Having said that, I find it strange that we have yet another piece of legislation where the government, the Attorney General, could force onto the local government something they may not want.

I appreciate that this is all very new, that you're still working out the kinks and that you're still doing the pilots, and so on and so forth. The reality remains, though, that there will be people…. I put on the record

that the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, has raised some concerns. They may not want to participate in this process, as an example.

So one would have assumed that the authority for local governments to opt out would exist, and if local governments don't want to get into it, they don't have to. One would have assumed that particularly self-governing first nations aboriginal communities would be able to decline participating in this bylaw if they wished to do so.

Hon. G. Plant: We have been working with the Union of B.C. Municipalities for pretty well as long as this idea has been in development, and we are working with them now, and we're working with the Local Government Management Association with respect to regulations. This is not something we're doing off the side of a desk in some office in my ministry. This is work that's been done from the outset in partnership and collaboration with local government in British Columbia. It will continue to be done on that basis. The member reads rather too much into one answer I gave to one question she asked a few minutes ago.

The main thrust of the structure of this act is that it is set up in a way that allows us to implement it partially at first to make sure it works, and then to phase it in. That is the intended structure of this act. But as I said quite clearly earlier, it also seems to me, sitting here right now, that if there were a large local government like Burnaby representing the citizens of Burnaby that thought this system was so completely flawed they could not in any way support it, then I would certainly think the government would take that opposition seriously and might allow Burnaby to continue to take its chances with the status quo in terms of the extent to which they are able to use the existing court system efficiently for the enforcement of local bylaws.

The reason why we have this initiative on the table is because many local governments have come to the provincial government over the course of years and said: "That system doesn't work very well. We don't have great success in getting access to the Provincial Court system. It is expensive." It is certainly expensive in relation to the relatively modest fines that would compose the vast majority of the business under this system. We have responded to that by working with local government to design a system that I think is a promising alternative to the status quo, one that will ensure that local governments will in fact be able to enforce their bylaws in a meaningful and effective way without compromising any important principles around due process.

This is but one step along the path of the implementation of this initiative, which has been discussed, as I said, for a number of years. We're now putting on the floor of the Legislature a framework that allows us to take this to the next stage. I think it's a good framework. If it meets the test of the initial run around the province, then it may turn out to be the right framework that we can use to phase this in over all of the province or at least as much of it as is interested in picking up this initiative.

J. Kwan: Well, with all due respect to the minister, I'm sorry, but I can't quite figure out which answer the minister provides that I should put more or less weight on, especially when some of those answers are contradictory with follow-up questions. All of those answers…. I take equal weight, and I try to get clarification from the minister, especially in light of some of those answers appearing to be contradictory as the questions are being posed.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Who did the minister say he spoke with relative to the aboriginal community?

J. Kwan: Okay, then the UBCM. On the question related to the UBCIC, the First Nations Summit, etc., has the minister consulted with them in terms of the aboriginal communities, especially those who look at the issue around self-governance as a major issue — and having the authority to do so? Has the minister consulted with the aboriginal community on this?

J. Kwan: Well, that's interesting: a government who commits to consultation and yet is bringing in a piece of legislation that the Attorney General says could apply to the aboriginal first nations community — the one that exists now, in terms of self-governance, is Nisga'a — and the minister has not done any consultation with respect to the aboriginal community and what their thoughts are with respect to this. That's an important piece to note, actually, in terms of that consultation.

Does the minister anticipate that the regulations that would be brought forward at a later date…? Will the minister be consulting at least, then, with the UBCM on these regulations? Or will they just come into force, and then once they are in force, the minister will work through the kinks of what should or should not be applied?

Hon. G. Plant: We are now consulting with the Union of B.C. Municipalities about regulations.

J. Kwan: UBCM would be the only group that would have the opportunity to provide input and to review these regulations? Would there be any other opportunities for the public to provide that input and have an opportunity to look at the draft regulations?

Hon. G. Plant: In an earlier answer I informed the member that we were working with the UBCM —

that's the Union of British Columbia Municipalities — and the Local Government Management Association of British Columbia with respect to the regulations that would form a part of the legislative package here.

The reason I ask these questions, Mr. Chair, for the Attorney General's information…. According to Derek Corrigan…. He states in Burnaby Now: "I don't know what we'll do at this point. Usually it's not until the government makes legislation that we discuss these issues, and I don't know what discussion has gone on." This is why I asked the question. It surprises me. If discussion has gone on, then presumably municipalities would know about it. Certainly, at least Mayor Corrigan has not received that information, which is why I asked the question about the process.

J. Kwan: Actually, there wasn't a question. It was just a statement to say the reason why I ask these questions. Concerns are being raised — at least, reported publicly — by at least one mayor who has not received information with respect to any discussion that's gone on and the opportunity for input, which is why I raise these questions.

I would urge the Attorney General, as well, to go broader than the consultation groups he has outlined to date and allow for the broader public to provide some input into the draft regulations, particularly the aboriginal communities who might actually be impacted by this piece of legislation.

I think I want to clarify one thing, though, for the purpose at least of people who might be reading the transcript. The member earlier referred to an organization by the acronym UBCIC, which I believe is the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. That organization entirely — and I think I'm right — represents first nations that are not in treaty negotiations with the government of British Columbia or the government of Canada. In fact, it is an organization where all of the members currently are governed under the Indian Act in respect of matters of local government and so are beyond the reach of the Legislature of British Columbia in respect of these matters and are not currently engaged in any negotiation with government that would involve consideration of these issues.

With respect to the first nations of British Columbia that are in the treaty process, who are for some purposes represented from time to time by the First Nations Summit, I think the member makes a good point when she implies, at least, that we should ensure that this sort of a dispute resolution model and other ideas are talked about as we pursue self-government negotiations at the treaty table. I think that's a good suggestion, and we'll certainly do it.

I can also say, however, that the vast majority of aboriginal communities in British Columbia are quite small. I don't want to claim to be statistically valid, but I would say the vast majority of the 197 Indian bands in British Columbia are groups of a thousand people or less. We think the primary focus in terms of getting this model up and running initially is probably in the larger centres of British Columbia, where the volume of this sort of business is much higher, where there are existing issues of access to the court system that are quite real and create practical difficulties. We will probably give some thought to how this scheme would work economically in smaller communities at some point, in any event. Certainly, in that context, talking about these issues with first nations in the treaty process would be a good idea, and I welcome that suggestion.

J. Kwan: Well, just because the UBCIC, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs organization, is not in the treaty process per se, it does not mean — in my view — that they should not be consulted on the matter. There are individuals who belong to that organization, who may be impacted by this piece of legislation — likewise the general public — which is why the issue around consultation is much broader than the organizations that would be directly impacted. Many individuals would be impacted by its application when this new structure is set up. They may well have to go through the new structure, and they may well have something valuable to contribute in the setting up of this system and the regulations that the minister is contemplating applying.

J. Kwan: Section 3 deals with where the local government that moves to this system has the option of establishing a screening officer. I presume, in the way I read this section, it's not required under this new system — to establish a screening officer. Am I reading this correctly?

Hon. G. Plant: I thought we had passed section 2. Does the member want us to go back to section 2?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, we're now back on section 2 and we're in subsection (3), and the five different subparagraphs of that are permissive, I guess. The member reads it rightly. It says, "A local government that enforces bylaws by bylaw notice may, by bylaw, establish a position of screening officer," and that means that they may choose not to. If they choose not to, then they will not have someone working for them who will be

able to take advantage of the powers available to screening officers under this act.

Hon. G. Plant: Compliance agreement is described in more detail in sections 11 and 12.

J. Kwan: While I go to look at 11 and 12, let me ask the minister this question on (3)(e). The local government can establish a schedule of fees for a dispute adjudication system, and in (4) the act allows for one local government to join with others to deliver this system. Is there a requirement for the fees to be the same in all municipalities participating? Is there a limit that could be set for the fees? Is it on the basis of cost recovery? How would these fees be set up?

Hon. G. Plant: The member is referring to section 2(3)(e), which talks about establishing fees or a schedule of fees for the purposes of section 23(2). Section 23(2) says: "A local government may provide for a fee of not more than $25 payable by a person who is unsuccessful in a dispute adjudication, in relation to a bylaw notice or a compliance agreement, for the purpose of recovering the costs of the adjudication system."

J. Kwan: Going back to the compliance agreement, and I've just looked at sections 11 and 12 on the compliance agreement. It doesn't, in my reading of it…. The compliance agreement, under section 11, reads as such:

The compliance agreement, under section (3)(c), into which the screening officer has the power to enter with the offending individual, I would presume, is…. Am I reading it correctly, then — that these compliance agreements are an admission by the offender that they have violated the offence prescribed and there's some sort of repayment towards that offence? That's what these compliance agreements are?

Hon. G. Plant: Broadly speaking, a compliance agreement is an agreement in which someone accepts liability for a contravention and then commits to a certain activity or action, like promising not to do it again — or perhaps, if there's an amount that they agree to pay, to pay the amount over time. It's essentially an agreement to comply with the bylaw.

J. Kwan: Section 3 deals with the application of the Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act. Could the minister please explain what is the purpose of this section?

Hon. G. Plant: This section allows the bylaw notice system to apply to young persons who would otherwise be required to be dealt with under the provincial Young Offenders Act.

J. Kwan: Section 4 deals with the enforcement of bylaws by bylaw notice. This section really establishes, if you will, the nuts and bolts of the new structure for resolving bylaw infractions. Under section 4(2) it indicates that only matters prescribed by regulation will be in the purview of the new alternate bylaw resolution structure. Is that correct? Am I reading this correctly?

Hon. G. Plant: Subsection (2) says: "If a matter is prescribed by regulation as only enforceable by bylaw notice, a local government bylaw in relation to the matter may only be enforced by bylaw notice." That would be read in conjunction with the phasing-in provisions and would mean that in any jurisdiction where this scheme was in effect, then the matters to be dealt with in the scheme would be provided for and listed and identified in regulation, and at that point that would be the only way you as a municipality could enforce that bylaw.

What we're trying to do here is essentially say that if you have opted into this system for a particular category of bylaws, then you don't as a local government get to choose which ticketing system you're going to use.

J. Kwan: In other words, matters that are not prescribed by regulation would not apply. Section 4(6)

reads: "Despite any rule of law, custom or practice to the contrary, a bylaw notice is not invalid by reason only that it is not signed by the bylaw officer that issues it or endorsed by any person." Could the minister please explain this clause? Does it mean to say that if a ticket is issued and it's not signed by any officer, it is still valid?

If that's the case, how would a person know they have been issued a ticket? How would they know who they're dealing with in terms of who actually issued it? Then if the matter is disputed and goes to some screening officer, how would the person who received the ticket know or, actually, even have an opportunity to engage in a discussion on this matter? How would you be able to verify that?

Hon. G. Plant: A notice of infraction will identify the local government that's issuing the notice, and that will be the person that the alleged violator will deal with. It's the municipality.

J. Kwan: In my view, then, doesn't this raise issues around due process? I mean, for a person to have been alleged to have violated some sort of bylaw, you receive a ticket. The ticket is not signed. You don't know who issued the ticket, other than the municipality — that somebody somewhere within the department, if you will, issued the ticket. If you want to dispute that and you want to challenge it, you won't even have an opportunity to talk to the person, because you don't know who actually issued the ticket.

Hon. G. Plant: In fact, there is a dispute resolution mechanism established in the act. Subsection (6) needs to be read in conjunction with other sections, including the fact that in subsection (5) it's provided that a bylaw notice "may be completed, issued and stored (a) in electronic format by electronic means, or (b) by another means that allows the bylaw notice to be reproduced in intelligible form."

This act sets out deliberately to make sure some of the old, traditional rules that may have been established in some other contexts a long time ago don't necessarily apply to things like parking tickets. We want to make sure we have a system in place that allows the enforcement of those kinds of bylaws to take place efficiently and does not in any way remove the opportunity that the person who receives a parking ticket has to challenge that ticket.

The other sections in the act, as the member knows, create an opportunity for people to dispute the ticket. If that eventually results in an adjudication in front of an adjudicator, then there will be rules of evidence that will come into operation, as provided for in this act and elsewhere, to ensure that fair process is respected.

J. Kwan: Section 4(5) reads that a bylaw notice may be completed, issued and stored in an electronic format by electronic means or by another means, etc., that allows the bylaw notice to be reproduced in intelligible form. By that, it doesn't require it to be in another format. It just says that it may be. Going back then to the notion that you received a ticket and that it has not been signed but is still deemed to be valid under the provisions of this act, section 5 does not negate the issues that have been raised under section 6.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I referred to subsection (5) in part to illustrate the possibility that under this scheme, people may get tickets by e-mail. I mean, this is not about sitting around waiting for a writ of summons to issue out of Her Majesty's court. This is about changing the way we do these kinds of things. I expect that at least in some of the larger municipalities, what they're going to be looking at is in fact little hand-held computers that may be like a BlackBerry, may be connected to the Web.

You may find that there's a parking ticket in your e-mail in-basket before you leave the parking lot because of the way this system may work. I don't know that that's going to be so.

In fact, what we're really interested in here as a provincial government, in terms of our interaction with what local governments will be able to do under this scheme, are the things that are in subsection (4). That is to say, irrespective of its formal requirements — what it looks like, what colour the paper is, how big the print is — "A bylaw notice must contain all the following information: (a) particulars of the alleged contravention of the bylaw in sufficient detail that a recipient of the notice would be able to identify the bylaw and the contravention alleged." In other words, you know exactly what it is you are alleged to have done wrong and, if you will, the juridical origin of that in terms of the bylaw at issue.

Subsection (4)(b) says, "the amount of the penalty that the recipient is liable to pay in respect of the contravention," and then some other provisions in terms of discounts for early payment, surcharges for late payment and the consequences of failing to respond. The bylaw notice must also tell you how to pay it, must tell you how to dispute it and may also contain any other information required under the regulations.

What we're interested in as a provincial government, in terms of telling local governments how they can enforce bylaws, is that we think there are some minimum requirements. They are important, they are necessary, but I also think they are sufficient. That's the scheme of this act, and it's part of that scheme that you no longer have to have some meter officer actually physically sign a five-carbon-copy copy of the ticket.

J. Kwan: I would have presumed that even if a ticket is issued in electronic format — whether by e-mail, a hand-held computer or whatever the case may be — there would actually be some indication on the ticket of who actually issued the ticket so that the alleged offender would know. In the instance where, as you say, it's a handwritten ticket and it's not signed, that's the issue I'm trying to raise with respect to due process here and the concerns that I have, from my

point of view. I'm not talking about limitations on how a ticket could be issued but rather knowing who actually issued the ticket so you actually know if you were the alleged offender.

Hon. G. Plant: Let's continue the education process, if I may, because the member used a very interesting word in that question. She used the word "offender." We don't use that word anymore, not in this act. This isn't a criminal process. Park the criminal procedure book at the door. This is an administrative process for enforcing bylaw infractions — contraventions. We don't even call them infractions. I think they're called contraventions. I'm not even completely there on the terminology.

The question that I think the recipient of a bylaw notice wants an answer to, in addition to, "What have I done wrong? How much am I going to have to pay? How do I pay," is: "How do I complain about this? Who do I complain to?" That's exactly what subsection (4)(d) says. They have to be told in the bylaw notice how to dispute the allegation in the notice. I can't imagine that that wouldn't involve, "Phone call or write to the following address," or "Send an e-mail to this person," or "Call this 1-800 number in Pouce Coupe, and you'll find out how to dispute the parking ticket that you got in downtown Pouce Coupe."

I don't think that the identity of the metering officer is, in fact, a critical element of due process in relation to the enforcement of these matters. That is why that's not provided for in this act.

J. Kwan: With all due respect to the Attorney General, I disagree. I would think it is important in the case, even about the validity of the ticket itself, in terms of making sure that you know who actually issued the ticket or at least that somewhere in the ticket there's some accountability there. In some cases it might be a number, in terms of registration, in terms of a dispute that might have taken place while the person was receiving the ticket by the particular enforcement officer. Lots of times people, when they're in a situation, would want to know who actually issued the ticket, especially if you want to challenge or dispute that at a later date. There is no provision here that allows for that, and in fact it goes out of its way to say that you can exclude that information. I would argue the contrary to the Attorney General. I would disagree with that.

I know there are members in this House who are rolling their eyes, including the Solicitor General who you would have thought, as the person who is the head law enforcer of this province, would be concerned about this, but not so. He's just thinking: "Hey, you know what? Issue those tickets. Who cares who actually is issuing the ticket and whether or not there are any issues around due process in terms of the violation?"

J. Kwan: Section 6 deals with the amount of the penalty. According to the act, except for a ceiling of $500, is there any restriction on what penalties, in terms of different local governments, can be set and what discounts, if you will, that they may decide on?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm informed there is no such restriction, because a lot of them already have a discount and surcharge mechanism in place.

J. Kwan: On section 7, which deals with the delivery of the bylaw notice, could the minister please advise how the system outlined in this bill differs from the current system?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm told that what's new, in terms of delivery, is the ability to mail a copy of the bylaw notice and the ability to leave the bylaw notice on the vehicle involved.

J. Kwan: Section 7(2) appears to be problematic, especially in light of a highly mobile population. I know this has happened to me before. Where a bylaw notice is presumed to have been received on the seventh day after mailing to the last known address, what if — in the event that the mail is lost or whatever the case may be — the person does not receive the bylaw notice on the seventh day? Are there provisions for the alleged offender to deal with that?

Hon. G. Plant: There are procedures later in the act that protect against the risk that the member identifies. The municipality essentially won't be able to enforce collection unless, in effect, they are able to establish that the ticket has been received. If it hasn't been, then the person on the receiving end of the enforcement mechanism will get a chance to apply to have the bylaw infraction set aside.

J. Kwan: I'm looking at sections 24 and 25 and wondering whether or not the sections that the minister says are in the act address this issue. Am I reading the right sections under sections 24 and 25, or is it another section? Perhaps the minister can direct me to the particular section.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I spoke about the requirement to deliver a notice of enforcement. I think that's the requirement in section 24. In section 24(3) there's a provision that says the collection procedures "may not be started until 28 days after the date a notice…is received or presumed received…." I think there is a provision in section 25 — what happens if the original bylaw notice has not, in fact, been received. So there are some mechanisms in those provisions that deal with ensuring that somebody who did not, in fact, re-

J. Kwan: I'm looking at sections 24 and 25, and let me just put this on the record. I don't see explicitly how one might deal with that, because the section actually talks about if a person…. Well, let me just read this, and then I'll direct the question to the minister related to these two sections as it relates to section 7(2).

We're dealing with sub (7): "…with the exception of a manner authorized under sub (7) (1) (c). "

Then it goes on to say in sub (3): "Collection procedures under section 26 [amounts owing enforced as Provincial Court judgment] may not be started until 28 days after the date a notice under subsection (1) is received or presumed received under section 7 (2) or (4) [delivery of bylaw notice]."

Section 25 goes on to read: "(1) If a person to whom a notice is sent under section 24 (1) [notice required if no response to bylaw notice] advises the local government within 21 days after the date the notice is received or presumed received under section 7 [delivery of bylaw notice] that the bylaw notice was not received…." Then it goes on to talk about the debt, etc.

It doesn't explicitly say, though, that if a person doesn't receive it because the mail has gone missing or whatever — something's gone awry…. How would the person know that you've actually been alleged to have violated some offence if you haven't received it? In this section of the act, it is prescribed that the person must engage in some sort of action — whether to appeal or to pay or whatever — within a prescribed period, but you may not even have known that you actually received the alleged offence itself.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, in some respects, the member's question is a little bit like the famous line about: if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? At some point enforcement, to become real, has to be brought to the attention of the person against whom the matter is to be enforced. At that point I think there is room within this process for the person to say: "I'm sorry. I never got the ticket, " or "I never got the ticket or the first attempt to enforce it."

Now, what we're told is that is actually a favoured strategy by the people that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano referred to during second reading debate as scofflaws — that is, there are strategies for actually avoiding compliance, and so the need is to strike a balance. These provisions, taken as a whole, are intended to strike that balance. At some point I don't know how you actually collect whatever it is you're trying to collect without actually bringing that fact to the attention of the person from whom you are seeking to collect something. I think a process will eventually kick in, which will allow the person to complain about that.

On the other hand, having said all of that, I actually think the kinds of bylaw notices we're talking about, generally speaking, lend themselves well to a mailing requirement. First of all, we're talking about parking tickets. If you don't keep your address up to date with respect to your driver's licence, I frankly don't have a lot of sympathy for you. Secondly, we're talking about noise infractions. Usually when there's a noise infraction, they know where you are, because where you are is where they're making the noise. I think the same would also be true of garbage day and dog licences and things like that.

I'm not saying the member's questions aren't legitimate, but I'm saying the scheme, read as a whole — I suggest with respect — in fact creates a pretty reasonable way of ensuring that these matters are brought to the attention of the people they need to be brought to the attention of. We are, for the most part, talking about pretty minor matters, and to impose a requirement of personal service on municipal governments would, I think, bring this scheme to a crashing halt in a matter of moments.

As it is now, the average process cost for disputed bylaw infractions in this province is on the order of $3,000 a ticket. We're talking about $50 tickets, $75 tickets. I think we need to look for new ways of doing things. The member's questions are important, but I think the scheme, as a whole, is fair.

J. MacPhail: Section 10 creates what I think is a brand-new position in the realm of things called screening officer. Could the Attorney General point out if there's a position similar to the screening officer elsewhere in the system or in any system?

Hon. G. Plant: Not in the court system, not as an official position. In the early part of the debate I did suggest that there are probably some city governments that have people who are responsible for bylaw enforcement who, from time to time, may exercise discretion when it comes to their attention that a notice of

infraction may have been wrongly issued, but that would probably be done on a pretty informal basis. This represents the first formal creation of a position like this.

J. MacPhail: In the consultations the Attorney General did, were any concerns raised about this position in the context of due process being able to be carried out?

Hon. G. Plant: Not that I'm aware of. I do know that in the early stages of consultation around the concept of a bylaw from a couple of years ago, there were some questions about the potential or the need to think about the independence in the context of the adjudicators themselves. Those issues have been resolved. I'm not aware of any concerns that were addressed with respect to the position of screening officer.

J. MacPhail: Section 15 starts a particularly interesting part of the act — part 3, bylaw notice dispute adjudication. This is what I would call the most crucial part of the legislation and the one of deepest concern to those from whom we have heard, so I'm going to be asking a series of questions. My main efforts are going to be concentrating on this section.

Section 15 in the overall context of part 3, bylaw notice dispute adjudication, places limits on who may be appointed a dispute adjudicator. It's my understanding that this is the crux of the bill, which will replace what used to go on in the courts. The dispute adjudicator is to be appointed by the Deputy Attorney General. Given that, what list of names or pool of candidates will the Deputy Attorney General be drawing on for these appointments?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, there have been some discussions with an organization in British Columbia that I think is called the B.C. Arbitration and Mediation Institute — something like that. They are a non-profit organization that exists to help raise consumer confidence in the use of arbitrators and mediators by prescribing standards for qualifications for people who do adjudicative work. It's possible that we may end up entering into some kind of understanding or arrangement with that group, which allows the Deputy Attorney General to appoint a group of potential adjudicators.

As the member can tell from the provisions of the section she's been talking about, the section does require that these people have the qualifications. It leaves open to regulation the precise parameters of those qualifications. There are some other provisions that ensure that these adjudicators are not city employees or city officials, but we are looking at making sure there is a merit-based process here. Well, we haven't actually formalized an arrangement with this institute, and indeed we may not do so, but that is one option.

J. MacPhail: When will the qualifications that are envisioned for these adjudicators be established, and how?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the qualifications will be established by regulation. It will have to be done before we get the first potential pilot project on the North Shore in Vancouver up and running — so over the course of the next few months.

J. MacPhail: How will it be determined how many adjudicators are hired for each municipality or group of local governments? Just a subsequent question to that. Well, I'll let the Attorney answer that first.

Hon. G. Plant: One of the provisions in section 15 is subsection (3). It says: "Rosters may be established (a) for the Province generally, and (b) for one or more local governments." I don't think there's a specific answer to the question of how many adjudicators there will be in British Columbia. I suspect that at least at the first stage, at the implementation of this, there will need to be enough adjudicators to implement the pilot project on the North Shore in Vancouver.

I also think it's entirely possible that at some point there may be a general roster for the province and specific rosters for particular areas or local governments. The way this will operate will probably vary a little bit according to whether you're in the capital region or the lower mainland, at one end of the spectrum, or in a smaller, more remote community where there just won't be enough bodies around to have a roster in the local town. We're trying to make sure we have an open list of people who have met certain qualifications. Then we'll see, as the thing rolls out, how many rosters eventually get appointed.

J. MacPhail: What's the relationship between the screening officer and the adjudicator?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the screening officer has some functions that are dealt with in the act, which include the possibility of entering into a compliance agreement with the offender. They also include the possibility that the attempt to issue the bylaw notice may be set aside because there's been a problem with the computer system or something like that. Once you reach a point where there's clearly a crystallized dispute, then the dispute adjudication mechanism kicks in. Screening officers will not be dispute adjudicators, because almost without exception I think screening officers are going to be local government employees, so they would be barred from being dispute adjudicators.

J. MacPhail: Under section 15, "Dispute adjudicators," will the municipalities who are affected by these changes have any say in the appointment of the adjudicators?

Hon. G. Plant: No, and intentionally. That is part of how we dealt with the issue I referred to a few minutes ago, where there were questions raised in the early stages of discussion of this idea about the extent to which we ought to make sure the people who are appointed as dispute adjudicators have a necessary degree of independence from the local governments who are issuing the bylaw notices.

J. MacPhail: Just for notice to the government, I am trying to figure out an efficient way of putting our concerns in opposition to this particular section on record. I think I'm going to do that under section 18, just to point to notice, but it really is a vote by division against this whole section, Mr. Chair. I think that's the section I'll choose.

J. MacPhail: I have a question. I was just putting people on advance notice of the way I was going to vote.

Section 16 is about limitation on jurisdiction of adjudicator. Again, it's our concern, expressed publicly and privately by others as well, about fairness and due process. I mean, if what the Attorney General is saying comes true, great, but in the meantime our caution lights are flashing like crazy around due process in this area.

There are limitations on the jurisdiction of the adjudicator under section 16, and I'm particularly concerned about these limitations, especially sub (d) and sub (e). I'll read into the record what those are. "Whether or not the matter arises in the course of hearing and determining a dispute in respect of a bylaw notice or a compliance agreement, an adjudicator may not decide any of the following…." And then at sub (d), "a challenge to the validity of the bylaw that is alleged to have been contravened," or (e) "a prescribed matter." Could the Attorney General please explain those two exemptions?

Hon. G. Plant: The provisions of section 16 parallel the Provincial Court Act in relation to the jurisdiction of judicial justices of the peace, so it could be said that there's nothing really new here. More broadly speaking, these are not judges. If, for example, a litigant in one of these matters believes there is a challenge that lies to the validity of the bylaw that is alleged to have been contravened, the proper place to deal with that is in a court. There is ample opportunity for that to take place. In that respect there's no interference with due process.

In terms of subclause (e), a prescribed matter, I don't know that it's our intention to put anything by way of prescription at this point. This is to preserve the opportunity, if it should be necessary to do so in the future, to add an additional category of matters where the public interest would require that the issues in question be dealt with in a more formal process in the courts rather than in this informal process in front of dispute adjudicators.

J. MacPhail: Section 17 deals with conflict of interest. It reads as the following: "An adjudicator may not hear a dispute if the adjudicator has or is reasonably apprehended to have a bias or an interest in relation to the outcome of the dispute." How is a conflict of interest determined? Who makes the judgment? If it is the Deputy Attorney General, what would happen if an adjudicator were found in a conflict of interest?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, this section quite simply prohibits an adjudicator from hearing a matter if the adjudicator has a bias or an interest in the outcome of a dispute. I would think the way that would be dealt with would be, first of all, that the adjudicator, on his or her own recognizance, would recognize the existence of a potential bias or interest and would recuse himself or herself. In the event that the matter could not be resolved on that basis, I think there would probably be the opportunity for judicial review of a proceeding if the issue arose on the basis that an adjudicator was in violation of the statutory prohibition.

Hon. G. Plant: On judicial review, the Supreme Court. In the first instance, the adjudicator. In the second instance, on judicial review. Those are two ways I can see this operating. I don't know that there is any special power for the Deputy Attorney General to recuse or order removed an adjudicator in circumstances where the issue has arisen, and so I don't know if that mechanism is there.

J. MacPhail: Section 18 is adjudication procedures. Section 18(2) talks about how one gets to appoint an adjudicator, etc. I'll read it into the record. It says: "For the purposes of subsection (1)" — which says that the adjudicator has to provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard — "a party may be heard at the election of the party, (a), in person or by an agent; (b), in writing, including by facsimile transmission or electronic

mail, or (c) by video conference, audio conference, telephone or other electronic means, if available."

I'm curious as to what consultation was done on this procedural aspect of the new adjudication process. Were there any concerns raised in the consultation process around due process regarding alternate means for a person to be heard?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm told the initiative for this provision came, in part, from local government. To illustrate the point, small communities actually may not ever be able to afford to have a dispute adjudicator attend in the community, and the only affordable way they're going to be able to deal with these issues is to have the adjudicator appear electronically or by some other means. So this really was, as much anything, the initiative of local government, but I have to say I would speak pretty enthusiastically in support of the general thrust of these provisions.

The fundamental obligation is the obligation to provide parties to the dispute with an opportunity to be heard, but in a technological era I think we are entitled to think effectively and creatively about how that opportunity could be made most real. There are many, many occasions where we now, in fact, use technology in lieu of personal appearance. Video conferencing has been used and is used in an increasing number of different kinds of ways in the courts in British Columbia. As much as anything, what it does is reduce the inconvenience to witnesses and others, and sometimes reduce costs to them.

I think what we see here in 18(2) is a pretty reasonable, comprehensive menu of options to ensure that these disputes can be resolved in a most efficient way, while preserving a fundamental principle that someone who is complaining about the imposition of some aspect of the will of a government has the right to complain about it and to be heard to do so.

J. MacPhail: What happens if the person charged with the bylaw offence wishes to be heard in person, but another party to the same charge chooses another means — either by phone, e-mail or fax?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, no one is charged, and there are no offences. But assuming there is a dispute involving two or more disputants, there is, I assume, the possibility that the two may appear through different means.

J. MacPhail: I hope there will be less assumption and more assertion around this process.

Section 18(3) says: "If a person who has requested or required dispute adjudication elects to be heard in a manner set out in subsection (2) (c), the person must pay the local government the amount by which the local government's adjudication cost is increased because of the manner of hearing." That means the person choosing the alternate means needs to be the one to pay. Does that mean that the person who is subject to the bylaw offence will have to pay?

Hon. G. Plant: There are several different ways in which a party may be heard, and it is up to the party to decide which of those they want. It's always open to a party to elect to be heard in person or by an agent, and there's no cost associated with that. It's also open to the party to elect to be heard in writing, which I imagine will be the majority of cases, where people simply want to write a letter and have someone understand their concern.

One of the other sets of alternatives is that a party may choose to be heard by video conference, audio conference, telephone or other electronic means if available. Recognizing that the option exists to appear in person or by an agent without having to actually pay anything additional for that, I think that the requirements of section 18(3) — which simply mean that if you want to appear by video conference, you're going to have to pay the cost of the video conference or the telephone conference — are reasonable.

J. MacPhail: Will there be a schedule of fees set out for the different costs of being heard, or will individual municipalities determine the costs?

Hon. G. Plant: It'll be up to the person requesting the service to figure out how much they want to pay to get it.

J. MacPhail: You mean that if a person wants to appear by video conference, they have to arrange it and pay for it?

J. MacPhail: Is this section imposing costs on a citizen fighting alleged bylaw infractions that previously have not existed — on individuals, on citizens, not organizations?

Hon. G. Plant: Generally speaking, citizens can't do this now, and by this I'm not talking about appearing in person or by agent or appearing in writing. I'm talking about appearing by video conference. If someone is complaining about a ticket and they want to have that dispute adjudicated, but they don't want to appear in person and they want to appear by video, the scheme of this section is that they have to pay for the cost of having the matter dealt with by video conference, which may be no cost at all. In fact, I'm told that the provincial Evidence Act already includes provisions that are not dissimilar to this, so this is not completely revolutionary.

J. MacPhail: Yes, those provisions do exist, but are the costs borne by the individual against whom the allegation is being made in other areas of the judicial system?

Hon. G. Plant: All the time. Costs are constantly borne by litigants who choose to invoke processes, depending upon which process they choose to invoke. Litigants in civil cases can choose to have trial by jury, in which case they pay quite large amounts of money, or they can choose to have trial by judge alone.

The justice system is, in fact, filled with all kinds of examples of situations where the process determines costs. For instance, we now permit fax filing certainly in most, if not all, registries for a variety of kinds of documents. The litigant in question always has the option of attending in person to file the document, but if they want to avail themselves of the opportunity to file a document by fax, then there's a fee for that. That's not that unusual.

This is not a criminal process. This is an administrative process, so in that respect it is new. We are changing the basic structure, just as the basic structure around residential tenancy was changed by residential tenancy legislation, and just as the basic structure around labour relations matters was changed by the introduction and creation of Labour Relations Boards. This is a new process, and as it happens, in this particular part of that process, if someone wants to have their audience through some means that has a cost associated with providing it, then they may end up having to pay for it.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the Attorney General's explanation, and I guess it's useful, because he alone is the lawyer in the room. It could be that staff are as well. My apologies, if that's the case. However, it does seem the changes that are being brought in by the Attorney General in all aspects of administrative law are increasing costs that weren't there previously, which is an interesting trend in a government.

So if the police officer chooses teleconference, is the police department then billed back that cost?

Hon. G. Plant: We're not talking about police officers here. The member talked about police officers. We're talking about municipal bylaw infractions.

J. MacPhail: So there will not be any police ever involved in evidence-giving?

Hon. G. Plant: I certainly don't want to err. We're talking about bylaw enforcement officers. I think the Beatles wrote a song about one once, and she was lovely apparently. We're not talking about police officers. We're talking about $25 dog licence violations and noise bylaw infractions.

J. MacPhail: It's my understanding — and believe you me, I'm the layperson here — that in smaller communities that is the police. I certainly wouldn't presume to know more than the Attorney General, but even bylaw enforcement officers, then, can elect to have teleconference costs. I'm just wondering whether one municipality branch will be paying another municipality branch for the costs of this.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the second part of the question. I don't want to disagree unnecessarily with the member. She may be right. In smaller towns it may be the police who are involved in enforcing bylaws on behalf of municipal governments. I have to admit I'm somewhat surprised to hear that, but it's certainly possible. But I'm not certain how that affects the general tenor of all this.

I know there is a tendency to want to talk about this in terms of accusers and the right to face your accuser and this pretty fundamental stuff, but we're not actually talking about, in my view, those sorts of matters. I mean, I recognize there are some people out there who argue passionately that there should be perfect and endless process for every instance of the application of the law to another person, and that it violates some sacred canon of our existence as a democratic society when that perfect process is denied.

That's not the case today. That's not a description of reality today, and it never has been. There is never a perfect process. There are only different sets of process and different sets of rules and requirements according to certain and different sets of matters.

This bill represents a policy judgment by government, which is supported by the organization of municipal government in British Columbia, that when it comes to minor municipal bylaws, the approach to those that had been taken traditionally — which was to treat them as criminal or quasi-criminal matters — is neither effective nor appropriate nor necessary. So this new process is put in place.

In terms of section 18 and the right to be heard and who pays for what, I think it's really important to continue to emphasize that if a party wants to appear at an adjudication to be heard in person, they may do so without paying the fee that would be associated with some other technological means of being heard, like video conference or audio conference.

J. MacPhail: Under section 18(5) it says: "Subject to the regulations, an adjudicator may (a) adjourn a hearing, and (b) adopt procedures that are conducive to justly and expeditiously determining a dispute." What does section 18(5)(b) mean?

Hon. G. Plant: I think we would find this language elsewhere. It's sort of like small claims procedure. It's certainly typical in administrative tribunals. I suspect we might find it even in residential tenancy matters. It's to be flexible. It's not to be hamstrung by process but rather to use process in a way to ensure that the parties to the dispute get to the heart of the matter in the most effective way and that the adjudicator gets a chance to resolve it.

J. MacPhail: This section captures the essence of the bylaw notice dispute adjudication. On this section 18, I am actually going to vote against it on division. There's another section that requires a recorded vote, which is of much more import.

I do want to just note that there are those city councils who are speaking out against this. The mayor of Burnaby and his council have taken a very strong position. I quote the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, saying: "I think they just threw out the fair hearing."

It is with a great deal of concern that I note that, but I will also vote the opposition's disagreement with this on division. I would just observe this. The Attorney General says these are very small infractions. To him, yes; perhaps even to me. But there are many people who feel that these are very important matters, not frivolous matters, and they don't take a specious approach to dealing with them as well. In some cases small businesses are greatly affected by them, and sometimes neighbour-to-neighbour disputes are hugely affected by these as well. Therefore, they are of great, serious consequence.

J. MacPhail: The opposition received some feedback on this legislation from around the province, and we certainly felt it important to raise some issues of concern around this bill. We are attempting to address the very valid concerns that citizens and municipalities have about the effect of this bill, both on due process for citizens and on the downloading costs from the provincial government to local governments.

This section, section 23, on cost and administration of dispute adjudication, is about downloading costs. So far in the discussion today in this chamber we've seen that the new bylaw enforcement structure departs in several significant ways, I would say, from the process our society has established to ensure a fair trial. That's why we're concerned.

We're also very concerned that this bill will download the costs of the court system onto these new bylaw administration structures, and those administration structures are now required to be run by municipalities. I think it's safe to say that the opposition has had feedback that the municipalities may welcome the increased control that some aspects of the bill may bring them, but they certainly don't want to be saddled with the increased costs. I just would note that we're receiving quite a bit of feedback from school boards who have received the ability for autonomy and local control, and they have learned the hard way about the high price of that autonomy and local control.

Mr. Chair, I also note that when the government was elected, you may remember they promised to — and I'll read from their election document — "outlaw provincial government off-loading costs onto municipalities." It would be reasonable to assume that if the new system in fact costs local governments more than it did in the past, the government will be prepared to provide the commensurate support for that system. That's also what they promised: they wouldn't off-load without compensation.

Maybe the opposition's concerns can be cleared up and dispelled, but section 23 certainly seems to go in the opposite direction. Section 23, "Cost and administration of dispute adjudication system," says: "(1) A local government that establishes a bylaw notice dispute adjudication system is responsible for (a) the administrative work of the dispute adjudication system, (b) the administrative costs of the dispute adjudication system, (c) the remuneration and expenses of adjudicators at the prescribed rates, and (d) subject to the regulations, the cost of administering a roster of adjudicators."

Section 23(2) says: "A local government may provide for a fee of not more than $25 payable by a person who is unsuccessful in a dispute adjudication, in relation to a bylaw notice or a compliance agreement, for the purpose of recovering the costs of the adjudication system." We have costs of the municipal governments, and now we also have costs to the person who loses. If indeed she decides to challenge the bylaw infraction, she is subject to a $25 fine or levy for merely challenging that and losing.

I would ask the Attorney General what led to this downloading or off-loading of costs onto local governments. And has the Union of B.C. Municipalities accepted this?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I don't accept that this is either downloading or off-loading. This is responding to a need that has been identified by local government and others. The need is to find a better and more efficient way of dealing with relatively minor municipal bylaw infractions. It's more efficient than a court system that generally is time-consuming and expensive — and not

just expensive to taxpayers, who are not always thought about in this context particularly by the people who advocate the perfect process. It goes beyond taxpayers.

When municipal governments pay bylaw enforcement officers — which they do now — to travel distances to sit in court and wait sometimes all day and quite often to wait in vain for a matter to come on where they are required to give evidence, there is a cost and no return on that investment of costs. There is a cost that flows from a system that operates inefficiently and cumbersomely. The cost is lower compliance. People know that they can beat the system, because the system doesn't work very well the way it's currently designed. That means, in terms of basic principles of civil order, that there are people who flout municipal bylaws, and they get away with it. The status quo means those matters will almost always be put at the bottom of the list and on many, many occasions will just simply never get dealt with and certainly not get dealt with in a timely way.

In addition to the cost to the basic respect for the administration of justice and the rule of law that flows from that, there are costs in terms of the loss of revenue. As the member knows, local governments get the revenue from their bylaw infractions. They get it now, and they'll continue to get it. We think that under this system, the amount of revenue the local governments will be able to collect will be increased because the rate of compliance will increase, because the system will become more effective. The cases that now fall through the cracks for the wrong reasons won't fall through the cracks.

What are the things you look at when you're designing a system on that basis? I think it's reasonable to look at setting the system up in a way that says local governments should pay the cost associated with the administration of this new model. When we were talking about some of the earlier sections in the bill earlier today, we talked about the fact that the bill is structured in a way that allows us to phase it in over time. That's partly out of respect for the need to ensure that what you might call the business case of this framework actually can be made out, and that in fact it will be an attractive proposition for local governments to embrace this system.

One of the reasons why we are designing and working with local government on the North Shore of Vancouver — at their request, I might add; not at our request — is because we want to address those issues up front and do so in a way that allows us to make whatever changes or improvements are necessary to make sure the system actually operates for the benefit of local governments.

This is, in fact, an initiative that is fundamentally driven by a couple of thoughts — one of which is, in my conviction, that the justice system in the twenty-first century has to be rethought or it will fail us all, because the status quo is not working effectively. Secondly, this initiative is driven by a sense that as a government, we ought to be sitting down with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and local governments and doing what we can to listen to and respond to their concerns. In fact, this idea is born out of that consultation and that discussion with local governments.

Are there some people out there who have questions about costs and affordability? Absolutely. We have those questions too, and that's why we are proceeding in a deliberate and thoughtful and staged way — not in any all-encompassing, all-in-a-rush way. I believe that we are going to be able to make the case for this process as it is implemented in a way that will cause other local governments to want to use it, because they will see that it will be a more effective alternative to the status quo. It will enhance respect for the law in their communities. It will pay for itself in a way that avoids any serious argument of off-loading or downloading.

J. MacPhail: Given what I would call a little bit of confusion about whether this is a voluntary exercise by the municipalities…. I was listening to the debate, and it certainly wasn't clear to me, from the Attorney General's answer, that municipalities can opt in. I heard a couple of answers, at least, where he said they could opt in and others that they couldn't — that it would be mandatory.

Given that confusion and, secondly, given this Liberal government's commitment that they wouldn't off-load costs or download costs onto municipalities, what process is in place, through the Union of B.C. Municipalities — who didn't support this in the context of off-loading costs — to determine whether there are increased costs to municipalities and, if thus, how the government will compensate those municipalities?

Hon. G. Plant: We're looking at all these issues, and we're doing it with local government, including UBCM, including the three municipal governments on the North Shore in Vancouver who are working to put together a pilot project. There's a steering committee, I'm told, at UBCM, and I think there are probably also discussions happening with Vancouver and Victoria. There's actually a fair bit of work being done to address the issue of cost from the perspective of the remarks I made earlier, which I recognize is different from the member's comments, and I certainly don't want anything that I say to be taken as an agreement with her characterization of that process.

J. MacPhail: My question is this: in that process, is there an agreement by the provincial government to compensate municipalities for increased costs as a result of this new process?

Hon. G. Plant: No, we've made no such commitment, but all of what I have said stands. We are working very hard to make sure that this is a process that local governments will want to embrace.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me read Burnaby into the record. I know the Attorney General and all of his col-

leagues would like to dismiss this mayor because he doesn't share the same political affiliation — I don't think, anyway — as this government. They certainly like to dismiss anybody who doesn't carry the same card as them. But here's what the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan said — this is in Burnaby Now dated October 16 — dealing specifically with this bylaw plan:

He continues to say: "They care less about a fair and impartial system than they do about the cost of the provincial government. Everything is the bottom line. The ministries are being challenged constantly to find better ways of getting rid of expenses, but they're not being challenged to be a better government."

That's the view of a substantially large municipality in British Columbia. I also note that these municipalities already have experienced off-loading of costs with the shutting of provincial courthouses by this very Attorney General.

Subsection 23(2) imposes a fee on a person who is unsuccessful in dispute adjudication. Is this new?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes, it's quite similar to a filing fee that exists in lots of parts of the justice system.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's similar, but it doesn't exist for this level of bylaw challenge at all, as the Attorney General has just admitted.

J. MacPhail: I'm trying to organize my thoughts, and the Attorney General seems to be upset about something.

So this is a $25 fee that has never existed before. The Attorney General likes to say, "Oh, these are matters of small import, minor matters," and yet we now have a new tax on minor matters in the justice system. I'm sure that to the Attorney General and all of his colleagues on that side — and perhaps even on this side of the House — $25 is nothing, but I can tell you, in a dispute amongst neighbours, a dispute in neighbourhoods, this will be a deterrent to someone seeking justice. For that reason, my colleague and I will be voting against this.

Hon. G. Plant: Just to make sure that those who vote against this and those who have the opportunity to decide how they're going to vote have the opportunity to make sure we understand what we're talking about…. It says that a local government may provide for a fee — first of all, it's not an obligation; it's an opportunity — of not more than $25 payable by a person who is unsuccessful in a dispute adjudication in relation to a bylaw notice or compliance agreement, for the purpose of recovering the costs of the adjudication system.

That is to say, someone who has received a bylaw notice and has decided that for whatever reason, they wish to contest the matter, which results in there being a hearing and lots of work around all of that…. If the person who has contested the infraction fails in the dispute adjudication, then just as in civil litigation when costs follow the event and in other sorts of similar processes, what there is a provision for here is a fee of not more than $25. It's strictly for the purpose of recovering the costs of the adjudication system.

I think it represents a relatively modest way of ensuring that people do not frivolously or vexatiously contest bylaw infractions but that they in fact think about it for a minute or two. I know that just as filing fees do not represent obstacles to most litigants who are wanting to pursue matters in the courts, this amount of $25, in the scheme of things, is fairly characterized as relatively modest, although I don't doubt that it's going to be a sum of money that some people will have a challenge finding from time to time.

It seems to me to be not entirely unreasonable to say that if you decide to challenge a notice of a bylaw infraction and you fail, you should contribute a small amount towards the costs of the process that you initiated by triggering the dispute adjudication system.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, the Attorney General starts off by saying: "Oh, it's up to the municipalities to decide." Well, of course, permissive language in this bill really leaves some municipalities no choice. I specifically asked the Attorney General whether, if there were increased costs because of this system being borne by municipalities, he would compensate them for that, and he said: "No, there are no plans for that." So municipalities who cannot afford this new system and the increased costs to them may be forced to invoke this particular section of the bill.

I also want to say again that I actually don't have any familiarity with the court systems personally, but I do think that in many levels of the court, costs must be at least asked for and awarded by the judge. In this case it's automatic, and it is a fee. It's a fee specifically for taking your chances under the law — which is your lawful right under a system that says you're innocent until proven guilty — and if you lose, you pay $25. That's new. It's never been done before, and it's a tax on people using the justice system.

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

Bill 65, Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 68; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Just a couple of brief points. As I stated in the second reading stage, the changes brought about by the administrative justice project are, indeed, positive steps to improve accountability and independence. However, as I noted, there are some serious policy and legislative concerns around the various commissions throughout the province. The Attorney General will recall that I laid out a comprehensive argument about the Agricultural Land Commission as it relates to this piece of legislation.

If the Attorney General looks back at Hansard transcripts, he'll see that the ALC as restructured by this government in 2002 is inconsistent with the principles of independence and accountability that Bill 68 is designed to promote. When closing debate on second reading, the Attorney General said my concerns were "outside the scope of the provisions of the bill that we have before us today. I'm certain that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management will look at her comments as he continues his work to ensure that the Agricultural Land Commission is doing the best it can to protect the public interest of British Columbia in respect of agricultural land issues."

I find it hard to believe, though, that the inconsistencies with the ALC are outside the scope of Bill 68. After all, it was the Attorney General who said in his second reading speech: "This bill is a first in many ways. It is the first in a series of legislative changes that will reform and modernize British Columbia's system of administrative justice so that it remains strong, independent and fair and so that it continues to be accountable, affordable and accessible to the citizens of our province."

From the minister's words, I take it that there are some legislative changes on the way. One would expect as much, considering the sheer volume of information provided by the administrative justice project. Therefore, one would hope that the Attorney General takes a closer look at my argument and ensures that it is considered when he embarks on new legislation. I point out quite specifically that the ALC, as changed by this government, is less independent and less fair. Therefore, if the Attorney General is sincere about his statement, he will take my concerns seriously.

Given that some of the questions I have are broader questions, if you will, I'm going to ask them under the definitions section. Can the Attorney General outline the process for bringing all other legislation in line with Bill 68 and subsequent bills on this topic?

J. Kwan: Perhaps I should further clarify for the Attorney General. By that, I mean the guiding and enabling legislation for all the tribunals throughout the province. This bill actually deals with a range of different tribunals in terms of amending the composition of it, but the guiding principle, the thrust for Bill 68, is about the notion of independence, accountability, etc. What measures will be put in place to bring these other tribunals in line with the thrusts and principles behind Bill 68?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't know that I have yet caught the intent of the member's question. The structure of

the act, as she knows, is that there are ten sections that establish a general framework for appointment, reappointment and issues related to the administration of tribunals. We then have canvassed the range of tribunals that are caught within the scope of the administrative justice project, and by the work of the administrative justice project, we have identified on a case-by-case basis the extent to which these principles with respect to appointment and administration should apply to each of those agencies.

That process is made apparent in the consequential amendments portion of the bill. There are, of course, other issues that are still at play in respect of administrative justice and the work of the administrative justice project. Those issues are canvassed in other parts of the White Paper and the supporting documents, including, I believe, a discussion paper that's currently out there in the administrative justice community dealing with a range of issues.

I think that Bill 68 applies to a total of some 28 tribunals, and as I've said, each of those tribunals was independently evaluated to determine the extent to which the general framework of principles around appointment in administration should apply to each of those agencies.

J. Kwan: When I asked the question of the Attorney General about the process for bringing all other legislation in line with Bill 68 and perhaps subsequent bills on this topic, I meant a process internal within the government. As an example, will the Attorney General's staff meet with ministries that host tribunals and commissions to ensure that their legislation is in line with the changes designed to enhance accountability and independence?

As one example: has the Attorney General's staff met with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management staff, because the Agricultural Land Commission Act is one of the amendments within this act? As I noted in my second reading comments, the ALC is, in my view, in gross violation of the principles that have been laid out under section 68. So what steps has the Attorney General's office taken, using the ALC as an example, to ensure that the ALC comes in line and actually meets the independence and accountability measures that were designed under Bill 68?

Hon. G. Plant: The answer to that question is in sections 11 and 12. Section 12 introduces a new provision into the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which makes all ten of the legislative principles in Bill 68 applicable to the Agricultural Land Commission. Section 11 has a couple of specific points with respect to appointments that are intended to ensure that the most recent version of the Agricultural Land Commission Act is, in some respects, modified to take into account the principles around appointments that are consistent with the general intent of Bill 68. That is a process undertaken with each of the ministries responsible for the 28 different agencies and tribunals that are caught by Bill 68.

J. Kwan: In other words, the minister has directed his staff to go and meet with each of the respective ministries that have tribunals under this piece of legislation, and perhaps in future where others may be brought in as well, to talk about the need for them to comply with the intentions under Bill 68. Those discussions are taking place. I take it, then, that the ministry staff are meeting with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, and they've been asked to bring, as an example, the Agricultural Land Commission to conform with the intentions under Bill 68.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm worried that we may still be ships passing in the night on this, and I don't mean to be difficult. There is work done by the people who are part of the administrative justice project across government to talk about administrative processes. That's part of what the administrative justice project is all about. But this bill is about ten provisions. It's about the initial term of the chair, the opportunity for reappointment. It's about what happens if a chair of a tribunal is absent or incapacitated. It talks about termination. It talks about what powers exist after resignation or expiry of term. It talks about the responsibilities of the chair. It talks about remuneration and benefits for members. If this bill passes, that framework of ten sections will become part of the law that creates and governs the Agricultural Land Commission.

I'm not certain, when the member talks about continuing work…. I mean, we're here to talk about these ten principles, and in terms of the Agricultural Land Commission, those ten principles are in fact going to become the law that governs the Agricultural Land Commission.

J. Kwan: Then let's just focus on the ALC and not talk about any other areas. I only threw in any other areas because I presumed that this was an ongoing project and that there would be other tribunals down the road and commissions that may well be added. Let's set that aside for a moment; let's just focus on the ALC for now.

Is the minister directing his staff to meet with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management on concerns around accountability and independence for the commission that now exists to come in line with the principles laid out in Bill 68 — and, more importantly, in the AJP's White Paper?

Hon. G. Plant: There is within my ministry an administrative justice office that has some general responsibility for providing advice and assistance around these issues across government. I suspect there's a little bit more at stake here than ships passing in the night.

I have to confess that I did not study the member's comments with respect to her concerns about the Agricultural Land Commission, but I suspect her concerns about the Agricultural Land Commission relate to the structure of that commission as established in the Agri-

cultural Land Commission Act. They relate to, for example, issues around the role of the minister, the role of the commission. I don't think those are things that are so much a matter of discussion as they are a matter of the basic structure in the act, which is a policy decision brought forward by the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and endorsed by this Legislature.

There's an aspect of the Agricultural Land Commission reform that I'm pretty sure is also on the member's radar screen in terms of what that act says about the delegation of authority to local government. That is a set of public policy decisions that have been made by this Legislature and, I think, go beyond the scope of sitting down and talking about administrative justice issues generally.

I know the member has some concerns with the way the Agricultural Land Commission is designed. I don't think those concerns are within the scope of this bill. That's what I said in my closing comments on second reading. I certainly don't mean to forestall the member's line of inquiry. It's just that as I understand it so far, I think she's talking about, in a sense, wanting to re-argue the issue of the structure of the Agricultural Land Commission, and that's not what this bill before us is about.

J. Kwan: No, hon. Chair, that's not what I want to do in terms of re-arguing the Agricultural Land Commission. What I'm doing is pointing out the fact that the Agricultural Land Commission is actually going against the principles that have been laid out in the AJP's White Paper, the principles of independence and accountability that this Attorney General is very proud of under Bill 68. Bill 68 and the AJP's White Paper principles will apply to all these commissions and tribunals that have been laid out in this act.

My question then is: for the ministries, and using the ALC as an example, where they're set up and also where the mandate given to it is contrary to the principles of the AJP's White Paper and contrary — in my view — to the notion of independence and accountability as laid out under Bill 68, then what recourse would there be for this Attorney General? What actions would this Attorney General take? How will the Attorney General ensure that those tribunals and commissions that have systems set up right now that go counter to the principles that have been listed under the AJP White Paper…? That, as I understand it, is the thrust behind Bill 68.

That's what I'm trying to get at. I don't want to rehash what I think about the ALC and how to change it. I'm interested in knowing what the Attorney General is going to do about it where those principles are being violated.

Hon. G. Plant: It would be helpful to me if I had a sense, in more concrete terms, of an example of the principles that the member says are being violated by the Agricultural Land Commission. We're not, obviously, here to talk about the White Paper. There are a bunch of issues dealt with in the White Paper — some of which have already been dealt with by government, some of which will be dealt with. The only aspect of the White Paper that really is before us now has to do with appointment and administration and the ten principles that were talked about here. If the member can give me an example of the kind of thing that she says represents a departure from a principle, that would be very helpful in terms of grounding this debate in a way that I can make more sense of it.

J. Kwan: Well, I'll then just bring forward second reading and some of the comments I made there in terms of those concerns.

I go on to further explain to the minister that in a letter to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management which expressed concerns around the commission's new ability to delegate its authority, it was pointed out by West Coast Environmental Law that the legislation allows the commission to delegate its authority to other agencies of the government. The concern is that the authority over ALR decisions could be passed on to other agencies like the Oil and Gas Commission. "The mandate of the Oil and Gas Commission is to facilitate oil and gas development, which is potentially in conflict with the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate and purpose. Allowing this body to make decisions around non-farm uses in the reserve would be a direct contradiction to the original purpose of the commission."

Here's one example. I mean, I don't want to rehash second reading all over again, and I was quite surprised when I heard the minister's response to my statements, where he basically sort of — it felt like, in any event — out of hand said: "Hey, you know what? That's not within the scope of this bill." If you look at the bill, and seriously look at the thrust behind the bill

and that the intent of it is to actually ensure the commissions and tribunals, etc., are more accountable and more independent, then you have to look at the issues that I've raised seriously.

It's not just about the composition and some of the consequential amendments that have been brought about under this bill. It's really about the application of the thrust behind Bill 68, and that comes from the administrative justice project's White Paper. I know we're not talking about and debating the White Paper. Those principles were what drove Bill 68.

I would assume that in order to make sure that ministries, commissions and tribunals align with the principles of Bill 68, some work will be undertaken by the Attorney General's ministry to go and talk to these respective ministers and ministries to make sure that in fact if there are contradictions with existing tribunals and commissions, something would be done to make sure those existing commissions and tribunals would fall in line with the principles under the AJP's White Paper.

Hon. G. Plant: While I appreciate the attempt at answering my request, what it has done is confirm me in my view that the issue she's concerned about is not within the scope of the bill in front of us. What the member is concerned about is the legislative amendments made to restructure the Agricultural Land Commission. As she said in her second reading comments that she has repeated here, it was the 2002 amendments to that commission. It talks about the legislation allowing the commission to delegate its authority to other agents of the government.

That is a question around the sort of basic policy decision to structure agricultural land issues and to organize them into something called the Agricultural Land Commission. That policy decision was made when the government brought forward changes to the Agricultural Land Commission that may have had the impact the member describes. I'm not here to debate that one way or the other, but in fact this Legislature expressly engaged in a consideration of those questions and decided them.

What the administrative justice project is about, in a practical way — or maybe what I mean to say is what the administrative justice office is more about is…. All right, we as government have committed to merit-based appointment processes. What is it that various agencies are doing to ensure they're using merit-based appointment processes? I would say it's a good thing to have merit-based appointment processes. I would say — and I've been saying this from the day the administrative justice project started…. It's the old line; one-size-fits-all solutions don't necessarily work.

What is important about the administrative justice project is the extent to which it at least recognizes and treats administrative agencies as a system, as part of the system of justice. We have deliberately refrained from an attempt to impose a universal, one-size-fits-all framework onto all administrative agencies across government. It may be that there are agencies in government where the minister and the government and then, ultimately, the Legislature decide that even though merit-based appointment principles are good, they don't necessarily apply in this particular case — you don't need to have them — in which case the Legislature could well decide not to require merit-based appointment principles. That having been the case, there's really no work for the administrative justice office.

Our work is more in terms of the implementation of the kinds of things we're now asking the Legislature to approve around things like reappointment. As a matter of policy, should we move from a world where there was a whole lot less opportunity to reappoint tribunal chairs to a world where there is much more opportunity? What happens if, having embraced the possibility of reappointment, the minister and the cabinet and the agency no longer do it? Maybe we would go and have a visit with the tribunal or the minister and say: "Have you thought about reappointing the chair?"

The fundamental policy decision around reappointment is going to be made here, generally speaking, in section 2 of the bill — when we get to it — and in the various consequential amendments that may or may not adopt the reappointment provisions.

The member had some serious concerns about the issue of delegation and the work that the Agricultural Land Commission does, but that power to delegate has been the subject of debate here in this Legislature. I actually don't think it really touches administrative justice issues anyway, but it certainly does not, in my respectful view, engage us in the work we have before us in Bill 68.

J. Kwan: With all due respect to the Attorney General, if in his own speech for Bill 68 and the way in which Bill 68 and the administrative justice project were promoted by this government, one would have assumed that beyond appointments, applications of the principles for the AJP's White Paper would also apply. That is the notion of independence and accountability — which the opposition, by the way, supports.

The strange thing here about this whole notion of the Attorney General somehow saying, "Hey, you know what? It's not within our scope in dealing with this issue to ensure that ministries, in their commissions and tribunals, actually comply with those principles of independence and accountability," is that it makes — in my view — a mockery of the whole Bill 68 and the thrust behind it and the AJP's White Paper. That means we have a piece of legislation with no teeth, other than to talk about just appointment issues.

One would have thought that the minister would have instructed his staff to engage in discussions with all the ministries around inconsistencies, if you will, with the principles outlined in the AJP's White Paper, and by extension Bill 68, and to talk to them about how to actually bring in line those inconsistencies with these principles, and that there be some measure to put in

place for those commissions that fail to meet the independence requirements and the accountability requirements as outlined by the administrative justice project.

It appears that that is not the case at all, and this is just a sheer exercise of a piece of legislation that really has not met the standards that this Attorney General and this ministry have touted with respect to the administrative justice project's White Paper. That's disappointing.

Hon. G. Plant: I rise to move an amendment in the hands of the Clerk to add section 10.1. Section 10.1 is to read as follows:

If I may speak in support of the amendment, Mr. Chair. This is a substantive amendment to bring the British Columbia Review Board into the provincial scheme for appointments to administrative tribunals. The review board is established under the Criminal Code to make or review dispositions for individuals who have been accused but who have been found by the courts to be either not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder or unfit to stand trial.

Although the Review Board is constituted under the Criminal Code, its members are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, the provincial cabinet. Under subsection 672.38(2) of the Criminal Code, the board itself is to be treated as if established under the laws of a province. The Review Board was not included in Bill 68 when it was tabled for first reading. However, it has now been determined that there are no constitutional or other legal impediments to prevent the province from including the Review Board in Bill 68, so that's what we're doing.

The enactment of this amendment will ensure that the Review Board and its appointees are subject to the same appointments provisions as other appointees to provincial administrative tribunals. It will also reinforce the accountability of the Review Board chair as the person responsible for the management and operations of the Review Board.

Hon. G. Plant: If I may speak briefly to this housekeeping amendment, the hospital appeal board is currently established by regulation under the Hospital Act. As part of the reform to appointments provisions for administrative tribunals, it was agreed to formalize the composition of the hospital appeal board in legislation — a fact which no doubt has come as a great relief to you, Mr. Chair.

This will be accomplished under section 32 in Bill 68. The regulation establishing the hospital appeal board was amended by B.C. regulation 337 of the year 2002, late last year, to delete the requirement for the appointment of a member nominated by the Health Association, because the Health Association no longer exists. The amendment to the regulation was overlooked in drafting the new legislative provisions under Bill 68, but we caught that. That's the amendment I'm proposing to the section.

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 68, Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 68, Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act, read a third time and passed.

This bill amends or repeals eight of the statutes administered by my ministry. The amending provisions will update, streamline and clarify certain provisions of the Park Act and the Wildlife Act and will also make changes to certain boundary descriptions in the schedules to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.

This bill also provides for the repeal of five statutes because they are outdated or create unnecessary regulatory burden. These acts are the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, the Drainage and Dyking Adjustment and Repeal Act, the Park (Regional) Act, the Weather Modification Act and the West Coast National Park Act.

I'd like to first address the amending portions of this bill in more detail, after which I'll touch on the deregulation components. British Columbians value our park system and support the preservation and protection of our natural heritage. The Park Act is to be amended to improve the management of our park system in three ways. The amendments will streamline the process for issuing park-use permits, increase protection afforded parks by extending the time frame for laying an information for an offence under the act, and provide adequate regulation-making authority to support the existing regulatory framework of the act.

This bill also includes amendments to the schedules of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. These changes will correct inadvertent errors in boundary descriptions to make them conform with recommendations of land use planning processes. In addition, adjustments will be made to the boundaries of certain protected areas in support of measures to address health, environmental and public safety concerns in some areas and to support economic growth in the province, while preserving environmental and recreational values.

This bill will also improve wildlife protection in our province and eliminate unnecessary regulation by streamlining and updating certain sections of the Wildlife Act. The amendments will eliminate obsolete references to provincial firearms licensing, provide authority to enforce creative sentences that have been ordered by the courts, and streamline procedures for seizure and disposition of wildlife.

This bill also provides for the repeal of five outdated statutes as part of this government's deregulation initiative. The Commercial River Rafting Safety Act is slated for repeal to make way for the new regime to be introduced by the federal government to regulate the commercial river raft industry across the country under the Canada Shipping Act. This bill authorizes the repeal of the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act by regulation so that it can be repealed in stages to make way for the federal program as it is phased in. The federal program is expected to introduce rafting guide examination requirements and equipment standards in 2004.

The Drainage and Dyking Adjustment and Repeal Act will also be repealed by this bill. This statute dates from 1965 and is no longer needed, as its main purpose has been to give cabinet authority to repeal local diking assessment statutes that are listed in the schedule. The 12 scheduled statutes that remain in force concern the operation and finances of diking districts. These acts date from 1905 to 1962 and have become redundant for one of two reasons, either because they've been superseded by more recent legislation or because they apply to diking districts that no longer exist.

The bill also provides for the repeal of the Park (Regional) Act. This act dates from 1965 and creates a regulatory regime for establishing and maintaining regional parks and trails. These powers are now largely duplicated or superseded by more up-to-date authorities and requirements set out in the Local Government Act. The repeal of the Park (Regional) Act will eliminate this duplication and will improve the statutory basis for managing regional park systems around the province. Some amendments to the Local Government Act are included in this bill to ensure a smooth transition to regulating regional park functions under that act.

Another item in this bill is the repeal of the Weather Modification Act. This act, which dates from 1973, requires that persons wishing to employ physical or chemical means to change the composition or dynamics of the atmosphere must first obtain a permit. Cloud seeding to induce rainfall is an example of such an activity. Since this act was created, only one permit application has ever been received. In addition, this act imposes administrative requirements at the provincial level that add an additional layer of red tape to federal

reporting requirements under the Weather Modification Information Act of Canada. For both of these reasons, the act has been identified as a candidate for repeal.

Lastly, the bill provides for the repeal of the West Coast National Park Act. This statute was enacted in 1969 to implement an agreement between Canada and British Columbia for the purpose of acquiring lands for Pacific Rim National Park. The act authorizes agreements with and land transfers to the government of Canada for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the national park. Now that Pacific Rim is well established, the act is spent and can be repealed at this time.

To conclude, the amendments and repeals contained in this bill form an important part of ongoing work to update, streamline and consolidate the legislation administered by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. The bill also forms a significant step in reducing the regulatory requirements of the ministry by one-third.

J. MacPhail: On Bill 55, the Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act. As the minister has told us, much of this bill is housekeeping. It's repealing bills that are no longer valid or have been overtaken by circumstance or other statutes. However, there is one exception, and of course with this government one always has to look very carefully through legislation to find an exception that stands out and is important.

That exception is the amendment that's found in this bill to the boundaries of the Satellite Channel Ecological Reserve. One may say: "Well, whatever." However, this amendment to the Satellite Channel Ecological Reserve is being made to accommodate the Georgia strait pipeline. In everyday parlance, that's referred to as GSX. I find that troubling.

Here's what the minister's press release says about this matter. It states: "Should the National Energy Board approve an application currently before them, this amendment will enable a boundary change to accommodate the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island." The press release then goes on to say: "More of the ecological features that the reserve was intended to protect would be added to the reserve to replace any portion deleted, resulting in a net environmental benefit."

Gee, that sounds good; it sounds great. It would sound even better if the minister would make this amendment to the ecological reserve regardless of whether or not the proposed deletions from the reserve take place at all. That, of course, would be a real demonstration and a real commitment to the protection of our marine environment. Yet as is always the case with this government, it's not. They do nothing for the sake of the environment or for the sake of environmental protection, and this bill demonstrates that completely.

Here's what the press release concludes. It concludes that this amendment to the size of the ecological reserve will come into force only if all other approvals are in place. So where are we at with those approvals? Well, the Georgia strait crossing — GSX — pipeline has been found not to have "significant environmental effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act." That finding has gone to David Anderson, the federal Minister of Environment.

He is to take it to his cabinet for approval, after which it would be referred back to the joint review panel and the National Energy Board. Only then will the panel and the National Energy Board issue a report under the National Energy Board Act and issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity or issue, in the alternative, a conditional certificate or — last alternative — not issue a certificate at all. The certificate of public convenience and necessity is the approval that will trigger this part of Bill 55 with respect to ecological reserve 67 in the Satellite Channel. That's the technical aspect of all of this.

As of today, the federal Minister of Environment still has that CEAA report, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act report, so we're still some distance from its approval by the federal cabinet, let alone the approval of the panel and the NEB.

The whole purpose for the Georgia strait crossing was to fuel the Duke Point generation project in Nanaimo, but that project has been denied approval by the B.C. Utilities Commission. In addition, the Washington State department of ecology is now reviewing the Georgia strait crossing project. This review was triggered by the evidence given by Terasen at the BCUC hearing into Duke Point that it could provide all the gas that this project would require simply by upgrading their existing system — interesting. In other words, Terasen can just increase the pressure in the current gas pipeline and deliver all the natural gas that would be needed. In fact, they would build storage facilities at Duke Point. That is, the proposal by Terasen would be that the Georgia strait crossing pipeline would not be necessary.

The discussion being held by our neighbours to the south is that Washington State should not bear any environmental risks or impacts from the Georgia strait crossing, when the pipeline is manifestly not needed both because the project it was supposed to fuel has been denied approval and because there is an all-Canadian alternative to the Georgia strait crossing that doesn't even require a new pipeline. In addition, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been asked to reopen its hearing into the Georgia strait crossing so that it can review the Terasen alternative, as that was not available at the time of their original review and approval.

So here we are today beginning a debate on a bill that contains an amendment that is not likely to ever be needed. I must say that there were about eight pages of amendments tabled today on the orders, which deal with several bills that are before the House, and we as an opposition caucus have not had time to look at those amendments that were tabled just today. However, I

did note that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection didn't refer to any of this in her second reading — that this part was going to be deleted. Between them tabling amendments that we have not yet had a chance to examine and the minister not referring to any change to this in her second reading remarks, I assume — unless we're told differently — that this still exists.

I also note that seven pages of amendments to legislation by a government is quite substantial. I also expect that the Government House Leader will try to debate legislation that deals with those very amendments tonight, without us even having had a chance to look at those amendments. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

J. MacPhail: In fact — through you, Mr. Chair — no, we didn't. If he looks at his own list, the legislation that he wants to debate next is not on the list.

J. MacPhail: No, the legislation that the House Leader wants to introduce next — his bills — are not on the list.

Anyway, if the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is going to stand up and now address this issue, great. But it would be late in the day. I certainly hope she does do that, because it does beg the question of the role that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection plays when it comes to this government's energy policy. Does she actually turn her mind to the implications of that action as minister or the actions of her government? She didn't address this issue at all in her second reading. Or does she simply bow to the wishes or, some would say, the demands of her colleague the Minister of Energy?

It is not unreasonable to think that as circumstances change and new alternatives present themselves, the minister would respond in a way that protects the environment or at least does the least damage to the environment. Maybe now she will stand up and address that issue. Of course, she may have forgotten about all of this, because when this bill was introduced, the government was still defending the Duke Point project. But now, like so much of its ill-conceived schemes, it has abandoned that.

It would seem only logical that this minister would follow the lead and abandon the amendment to the ecological reserve. Maybe she will stand up and agree with the opposition on this. Maybe she'll even vote with the opposition in supporting the environment. I certainly look forward to her doing that. Or maybe she should just do the right thing and expand the reserve regardless. Of course, there is no immediate or even foreseeable need for the deletion, so I look forward to the minister's reply, where she can clarify and perhaps even point out what future legislative action she may be taking on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we are at second reading of Bill 55. The minister closes debate.

Hon. J. Murray: I'm pleased to confirm that I will be introducing an amendment to withdraw the amendment to the boundaries of ecological reserve 67, Satellite Channel. The boundary adjustment will not be going forward because as the member opposite mentioned, there has been a change in the status of the Duke Point power plant project's progress.

With that said, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be….

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

Bill 55, Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: This bill has been on the order paper here in British Columbia since May — almost five months, Mr. Speaker — so I know that members have been aware of it and have had plenty of time to consider the legislation and prepare their comments. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The Financial Administration Act, 2003, amends the debt management provisions of the act. These amendments to the Financial Administration Act will benefit the government by providing specific authority and more flexibility while maintaining transparency and accountability in how the province manages its debt, borrowings and loans.

The amendments provide specific authority where only general authority previously existed, which among other things will provide comfort to investors, derivative counterparties and their legal counsel on questions of authority. Specifically, these include authority to employ expanded credit options, authority for efficient debt restructuring of government bodies and an express power to buy back securities of the province of British Columbia. This bill also provides

specific authority to reflect changes in the financial markets that have evolved over the past 20 years and flexibility to adjust for further changes which may occur in the future.

Prescriptive provisions will be removed in favour of more commercially acceptable provisions providing authority to enter into agreements with fiscal agents and other parties. Also included is a delegation power whereby certain powers of the Minister of Finance may be delegated into the Ministry of Finance so staff can respond to industry requirements, for shorter settlement periods, ensuring that the province can take advantage of cost-effective borrowing opportunities.

The amendments maintain transparency and accountability at the cabinet level for overall borrowing limits and remove ambiguity around borrowing limits and foreign currency borrowing.

Also included are more flexible sinking fund provisions. The amendments provide an authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to deem organizations as government bodies for the purpose of making loans to them. This flexibility will help, for example, to facilitate in a more transparent manner government loans to certain types of capital projects that are delivered in partnership with other levels of government or private partners. These capital projects would be those in which the optimal risk allocation among the partners prescribe that government assume financing risks and that the partners assume other risks which they are better able to bear — for example, design, construction and operations.

The amendments consolidate and expand the current fee structure in the act by including a debt services fee section in order that the Ministry of Finance can recover costs in an efficient manner by charging for the services provided to other government bodies. The debt service fee section identifies and clarifies the services for which the minister can charge a fee.

We consulted on these amendments with key clients, including Crown corporations, and with both internal and external legal counsel. The amendments in this bill reflect the benefits of the consultation. The bill also contains provision to replace "Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations" with the phrase "Minister of Finance," which is in line with the change in the ministry's name.

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons why it's so important for us to put on record House business is because there are often disagreements about House business in this Legislature, and with an opposition of two, having proper debate about matters of legislation becomes very important in the context of notice and how business of this House is conducted.

I've just checked with our small but hardy staff about how much notice we received about this bill being debated, and I'll just confirm that in a moment with the Minister of Finance.

But let's also put in context what the minister has done today in relationship to this bill. These are called the orders of the day, and every morning people in this Legislature get notice about what changes, if any, have been made to legislation. This piece of legislation, the Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 — Bill 59 — had seven pages of amendments tabled just this morning in the orders of the day.

I'm trying to figure out how long the entire act is, but seven amendments tabled just this morning that we have not had a chance to look at or in any way to discuss about what the effect of, if any, is…. It may be all very well and good that the minister says this is done through consultation over the summertime, and, yes, the original bill was looked at and examined by us over the summertime. But these amendments, I must say, are substantial, as well, to this legislation.

So here we are. We have a piece of complex legislation that affects people's lives, business lives, etc. For instance, there are some amendments introduced just today to the Home Owner Grant Act, to the Indian Self-Government Enabling Act, to the Insurance Premium Tax Act, to the Pension Agreement Act, to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. There's a schedule here affecting, I would say, over about 50 pieces of legislation. We're in this stage where you actually get to debate the principle of legislation, and that's the time you're supposed to put those on record. There is now no opportunity for us to do that at all.

I must just say that indeed, it is absolutely true we received notice that these bills would be up tonight — at 6:30 tonight. At 6:30 the Government House Leader's office notified us that these bills would be up for debate. Mr. Speaker, my apologies. Once again we have a situation here where — I can't even imagine whether it's through deliberate will or incompetence — we are forced to confine all of our remarks to committee stage on this legislation.

Hon. G. Collins: From time immemorial, the practice in this House and other parliaments in the Commonwealth has been that the process for discussing business and the negotiations that go on generally take place outside the chamber. Unfortunately, for some reason, the members of the opposition feel that the world has changed and that they want to do it on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will in future comply with their wishes. In future, I will make sure that I send them information in writing and have it signed off by a member of her staff so that I can confirm, in some form of legal way, the notice that's given to members of the opposition.

Hon. G. Collins: So in future, that's what we'll do, and I'll make sure I get a signed piece of paper from the members opposite or their staff.

Hon. G. Collins: It's a little much to hear the nattering, the bickering and complaints from the member opposite when I sat in opposition for ten years and watched the kind of ridiculous agenda the NDP used to put forward, where we would sit in this House till 2 a.m., till 4 a.m., till 6 a.m., for 24 hours a day, as they would try and push….

Hon. G. Collins: They would try and drive that agenda through the House with wild abandon. I remember countless times where the legislative agenda was…. You didn't know what was coming up next. It was whatever minister stood up in the House and started their legislation, and we just had to be ready for it.

I also remember — I can go back and check the videotapes, if the member wants to — that regularly, when we were in opposition, the NDP would have less than half their cabinet attend for question period.

So the member talks about us not showing up. The fact of the matter is — you're right — we were in Alberta. We were building a coalition and consensus in western Canada. The NDP government went out of its way to poke every other government in Canada in the eye. The reason they never met with another government is because nobody would invite them, Mr. Speaker. Nobody wanted them.

Hon. G. Collins: I want to make one other point about the amendments the member referred to, because I think it's important to respond, seeing she has brought that up. We have done something different. We have a spring sitting and a fall sitting. The point of that is to have legislation on the order paper so the public can make comments on it, so we can hear back and make changes.

Mr. Speaker, I recall year how after year after year the NDP would bring their legislation through in June and July. They would ram it through within days, and we would be back here the next year fixing all the legislation they messed up the year before because they didn't bother to hear what people had to say.

We have put in place a legislative agenda that allows for legislation to sit on the order paper so that we get feedback. The member is correct; there are amendments. There will be more amendments. That's the whole point of putting them on the order paper, and they sit there for five months. It's really hard to take the whining and complaining. I've never heard anybody whine so much in my life. When I hear the member whine about the fact that she's not prepared for this legislation…. It's been on the order paper since May 27. Let me see — June, July, August, September, October — five months, almost half a year it's been sitting there waiting for her to do the work. It doesn't matter how big your opposition is or how small it is, the legislation is there. One should be able, in five months, to prepare an analysis for it.

I can't understand the whining and complaining that comes from the members opposite. The reality is that the legislation is there, and there are amendments coming forward. In fact, when the NDP used to do it, they never even put them on the order paper; they'd just stand up and introduce them with absolutely no notice. They'd have to shuffle the paper across the House. They insisted on keeping the House going, whether the amendments had been read or anybody had looked at them at all.

Hon. G. Collins: …is put the amendments on the order paper wherever possible.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we please return to the principle of Bill 59, second reading.

Hon. G. Collins: What we've tried to do is put the amendments on the order paper so that members have a chance to see them and the House has a chance, which is the normal process. The only reason the member knows there are amendments coming is because we put them on the order paper and she can see them. The way her government operated, you didn't see them until you got to that section of the bill and the minister stood up and tabled them. That was their modus operandi.

The whining and complaining is a little hard to take, but I know it's going to continue, because that seems to be how the member wants to rebuild her party. It's going to be called the "New Democratic Pity Party" — try to get as much pity as you can from the voters of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, with that scintillating debate and response to the member opposite, I move second reading of this bill.

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

Bill 59, Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

This bill amends the Business Corporations Act, which was passed in October 2002. The Business Corporations Act, which will replace the current Company Act, governs how companies are created, dissolved, organized and managed in British Columbia. The amendments contained in this bill will enable the new act, which has been extremely well received by the community, to be brought into force most likely later this year.

These amendments are almost entirely of a technical or housekeeping nature. They correct errors and cross-reference errors, reword certain provisions for greater accuracy or clarity, and address gaps and uncertainties in the legislation which have been identified as the previous bill was put forward through introduction and passage for additional consultation with the general public.

Many of the technical amendments are necessitated by requirements of the corporate registry in its development of an automated system for corporate filings. Several minor amendments are of a more substantive nature. For example, the discretion of the registrar of companies over corporate names has been reinstated. This discretion, which exists in the current Company Act, will enable the registrar to continue to develop general policies on corporate names without the need for rigid rules in legislation. Greater flexibility is also achieved by other amendments, which give the registrar, as opposed to cabinet, the ability to establish the required format for corporate registry filings.

Another substantive amendment concerns shareholders' proposal provisions. These provisions allow shareholders in publicly traded companies to have materials circulated for consideration at general meetings. The amendment extends the time available for shareholders to submit their proposals to the company, making the provisions more consistent with those in other jurisdictions.

In addition to the amendments to the Business Corporations Act, this bill also contains consequential amendments to over 100 different statutes which reference or rely on the current Company Act. In many cases the consequential amendments merely reflect the new name or terminology of the Business Corporations Act or update references to particular sections. In other cases, consequential amendments are needed to accommodate new corporate and registry procedures found in the act. In a few cases the amendments continue the application of the current Company Act as a transitional measure.

The Business Corporations Act is good news for British Columbia's businesses. By increasing flexibility, reducing the regulatory burden and embracing new technology, the new act will allow both government and the business community to obtain greater efficiencies and will enhance British Columbia's potential as an attractive jurisdiction for incorporation.

This amending bill is a significant milestone in achieving implementation of this important and eagerly awaited legislation. You'll know that when I introduced the initial act last year and it was passed, we said we were going to continue this process and there would be another iteration of this. We introduced the legislation this spring. We have been hearing consultation out there amongst the general public. This bill will go forward. There will be an additional piece of legislation to finally conclude the drafting and consultation process later, and we hope to have this legislation in place by the end of this year.

J. MacPhail: Well, God, you wouldn't want to have a government that's business-unfriendly, given the record of pace that this government delivers for legislation. Let's really look at the history of this bill. This bill was completely revamped under the Company Act and should have been in place, even with consultation and amendments, about 18 months ago. No wonder investment is fleeing this province. No wonder corporations are choosing to leave this province and set up their headquarters elsewhere — at a record that's greater than through all the 1990s, by the way. No wonder private sector investment is falling in this province. No wonder our economy is dead last and our unemployment is as high as it's been since 1994. That's because this government, while they claim to be business-friendly, are only business-friendly when they're taking donations — political donations — from corporations. They can't actually get their act together to deliver a piece of legislation and pass it.

This Minister of Finance has been at this for two and a half years — two and a half years trying to get his Business Corporations Amendment Act through. He could have easily done that in three or four months after assuming government, taking over the Company Act, which had been completely revamped, with consultation — completely. Oh no, this government….

I guess maybe they need a reason to make people keep donating to their political party, so they keep the legislation going. Well, I must tell you that we're in serious trouble here in British Columbia. We are in serious trouble from a business and a financial point of view. I just did a tour with some of my colleagues in the House, hearing presentations from the prebudget consultation. I wasn't able to attend the last meeting, which was, I think, this past Friday. I just finished reading through all of the briefs, because we on that committee take our job very seriously, and I wanted to be prepared for the final report.

I just finished reading all of the briefs, and I tell you, it would surprise you, perhaps even shock you — the criticism that business groups are levelling against this government. They start off all of their presentations lauding, commending the government for staying the course. "But here's what's really wrong," they then go on to say. Much of it is about this government not delivering on its promise to make this province what they promised to be: a business-friendly province.

This is another example of it. That's why it's so important that these matters be debated in the Legislature here. The Government House Leader tries to say that I didn't raise any questions. In fact, he's dead wrong on that — absolutely dead wrong — and he'll have to retract those words tomorrow. Here we have new amendments from the amendments from the rewrite of the act that had already been passed and well discussed back in the year 2000. Tomorrow we'll be debating brand-new legislation that was introduced today.

There's a government that says it's open and accountable, and it's just the whining opposition…. Well, it isn't the whining opposition. No matter how much he uses personal insults to denigrate this Legislature, no matter how much he tries to do that, it is the responsibility of the opposition to listen to the interests of British Columbia, as my colleagues and I have been doing as we go around the province. It is important for us to reflect those concerns back into this Legislature.

On many pieces of legislation it is only the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I who do that.

This is an important piece of legislation. I wish the government would actually get on with it and implement it, and bring it into full force and effect. Maybe then businesses would see this as a good place to invest. They're certainly not in any way investing in British Columbia now.

In downtown Vancouver the retail, commercial and business vacancy rate is skyrocketing. Why is that? It's because businesses are leaving British Columbia. Headquarters are leaving British Columbia. It's because of legislation of this government, foot-dragging and not being able to deliver on its promises. I think it is through incompetence. I will have more to say on this piece of legislation.

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


	YEAS — 62

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Masi	Lee	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 30

Falcon	Whittred	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	van Dongen
Barisoff	Masi	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Collins
Bond	Stephens	Neufeld
Coleman	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Christensen
Bray	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Sultan

	NAYS — 1

	MacPhail


	YEAS — 33

Falcon	Halsey-Brandt	Whittred
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
Masi	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Chutter	Bennett
Christensen	Bray	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Sultan	Hawes	Manhas

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY