2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2003
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 17, Number 5
|
| ||
|
CONTENTS | ||
Routine Proceedings |
||
| Page | ||
| Introductions by Members | 7437 | |
| Introduction and First Reading of Bills | 7437 | |
| Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 81) | ||
| Hon. S. Hawkins | ||
| Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act (Bill 82) | ||
| Hon. S. Hawkins | ||
| Statements (Standing Order 25B) | 7438 | |
| Transit services in rural areas | ||
| B. Bennett | ||
| Small business in Burnaby Heights | ||
| R. Lee | ||
| Small business and community involvement | ||
| H. Bloy | ||
| Oral Questions | 7439 | |
| Increase in fees for seniors' care | ||
| J. MacPhail | ||
| Hon. K. Whittred | ||
| Expenses of Fraser health authority CEO and number of care beds | ||
| J. Kwan | ||
| Hon. C. Hansen | ||
| Barkerville Historic Town | ||
| J. Wilson | ||
| Hon. G. Abbott | ||
| Rain damage in Fraser Valley and government response | ||
| R. Hawes | ||
| Hon. R. Coleman | ||
| Income assistance regulations and loss of benefits | ||
| J. Kwan | ||
| Hon. G. Hogg | ||
| Second Reading of Bills | 7442 | |
| Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 74) | ||
| Hon. K. Falcon | ||
| Committee of the Whole House | 7443 | |
| Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73) | ||
| J. MacPhail | ||
| Hon. S. Hagen | ||
| Report and Third Reading of Bills | 7445 | |
| Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73) | ||
| Committee of the Whole House | 7445 | |
| Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill 53) | ||
| J. MacPhail | ||
| Hon. J. Murray | ||
| Reporting of Bills | 7452 | |
| Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill 53) | ||
| Third Reading of Bills | 7452 | |
| Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill 53) | ||
| Second Reading of Bills | 7452 | |
| Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 60) (continued) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Committee of the Whole House | 7454 | |
| Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| J. MacPhail | ||
| Reporting of Bills | 7459 | |
| Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59) | ||
| Third Reading of Bills | 7459 | |
| Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59) | ||
| Second Reading of Bills | 7459 | |
| Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 76) | ||
| Hon. T. Nebbeling | ||
| J. Kwan | ||
[ Page 7437 ]
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2003
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
E. Brenzinger: Today I'd like the House to help make welcome two visitors we have here from New Hampshire. I met them in the hall this morning. It's their first time here at the Leg. Can everyone please welcome our visitors.
Hon. J. van Dongen: Visiting us in the Legislature today is a number of ministry staff and their spouses. They're here in Victoria to be recognized for their many years of service to the public, and I'd like to introduce them. Starting from Kelowna, Wray McDonnell and Creighton Smith; from Kamloops, Ted Moore; from Victoria, Gayle Pennie; from Vernon, Alma Schier; and from Abbotsford, Linda Hokanson, John Robinson, Mark Sweeney, Rick Van Kleeck, Madeline Waring and Robert Puls. Robert Puls has completed 35 years of service to the ministry. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.
Hon. L. Reid: I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today my constituency assistant who's visiting us, Shellee Nash. Would the House please make her welcome.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 25 public servants seated in the west gallery, who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. This workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly provides a first-hand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of the ministries and how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
HEALTH PROFESSIONS
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003
Hon. S. Hawkins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003.
Hon. S. Hawkins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm pleased to introduce the Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. The amendments proposed in this bill will facilitate the transfer of the existing pharmacist regulatory framework from the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act to the Health Professions Act.
This bill is a companion piece to a bill I will introduce shortly, which is the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, which will re-enact as a stand-alone statute the existing provisions for licensing, operations, inspections and other matters with respect to pharmacies that are currently administered by the College of Pharmacists.
Basically, this bill will bring the pharmacists under the Health Professions Act in Bill 81, and it dovetails with the designation of other established health professions. It will enable the pharmacists, then, to be brought under Bill 62, which received third reading earlier in this sitting.
As the House is already aware, the Health Professions Act covers 15 professions, from dental hygienist to traditional Chinese medicine practitioners. With the amendments passed in Bill 62, the act will be extended to include chiropractors, dentists, physicians, optometrists, podiatrists and registered nurses. The legislation that I'm introducing today will, then, complete the process of moving all of the health professions under the Health Professions Act.
We believe the Health Professions Act as amended by Bill 62 achieves the right balance among the interests and needs of health professional colleges; their dedicated, hard-working members; and the public, who look to those members for high-quality care. By enabling the designation of pharmacy under the Health Professions Act, Bill 81 will ensure that the mandate of the College of Pharmacists is equivalent to that of other health professional colleges, which have direct responsibility for ensuring quality patient care and safety as well as public confidence in health care professionals.
It also ensures that the B.C. health care system is more accountable and transparent, and in the process it will help to strengthen health care delivery in British Columbia.
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 81 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.
PHARMACY OPERATIONS
AND DRUG SCHEDULING ACT
Hon. S Hawkins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act.
Hon. S. Hawkins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm pleased to introduce the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act. There are several key elements to the legislation being introduced today.
[ Page 7438 ]
As I said earlier, this new Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act will re-enact as a stand-alone statute the existing provisions for licensing, operations, inspections and other matters with respect to pharmacies that are currently administered by the College of Pharmacists. This change is largely a re-enactment of the existing legislative provisions. There are minor amendments that will enhance confidentiality provisions and streamline the administration of drug schedules that regulate the manner in which drugs are sold. Our amendments also provide for the establishment of a new, independent PharmaNet stewardship committee responsible for managing disclosure of patient information contained on the PharmaNet database. This bill includes amendments that have been introduced previously as Bill 54, so consequently I would like to advise the House that Bill 54 will be withdrawn. These amendments will enhance both patient privacy and transparency in information disclosures and will also strengthen our ability to do necessary research and information-gathering.
This bill is a companion piece to Bill 81, which I just introduced, that makes further amendments to the Health Professions Act. As I said, those amendments will facilitate the transfer of the existing pharmacists' regulatory framework from the pharmacists' Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act to the Health Professions Act. Under this bill, Bill 82, the College of Pharmacists will continue to oversee licensing standards of operation and discipline of pharmacy managers and pharmacy owners through its bylaw-making powers.
Finally, the amendments in this bill will consolidate existing provisions dealing with veterinary drugs, creating a second stand-alone statute that will be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. The change is a technical one only. Provisions governing the prescribing and use of veterinary drugs are the same, and responsibility remains with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
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 82 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. C. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. C. Clark: I am delighted to be able to introduce to the House today a new member of our team. We've been falling behind a little bit on our side of the House, so I'm pleased to say we're catching up. Holly Robertson Molony is joining us today in the gallery with her mom, Janis Robertson, a longstanding, valued member of our team over in the B.C. Liberal caucus. I met the little girl for the first time today. She's just a perfect, perfect specimen. She's going to be a great citizen and one day — I'm sure — a very, very valued member, perhaps, of this chamber. I hope everyone will please make her welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25b)
TRANSIT SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS
B. Bennett: I rise today to talk about an important priority for the heartlands: the development of public transportation between our rural communities. What workers, students, the self-employed and even shoppers take for granted in the lower mainland and in our regional centres, for people in rural regions is only a dream. Students, often adults who are retraining, can't get to their classes. Rural citizens are seen hitchhiking on our winter highways in the Rockies because there is no public transportation between our communities.
As real estate values around our resort communities go up, the low-wage workers — mostly youth — operating these resorts must live further away in less expensive real estate, which usually means they are scrambling for transportation.
In the East Kootenay seniors, disabled and low-income citizens sometimes have no way to get to their specialist's appointment at the regional hospital in Cranbrook. The regional hospital is improving dramatically, but patients must be able to access these improved services from their communities. Recently the regional district of East Kootenay made their case to the government for cost-shared public transportation. The 2002 B.C. Transit studies show that public transit can be feasible in the East Kootenay.
I support the people of my region in their quest for public transit service, and I look forward to working with B.C. Transit and the Ministry of Transportation to find innovative solutions to this challenge. We must remember the unique transportation needs of rural citizens in B.C.'s heartlands. Our distances are great; our services, centralized; our incomes, not as high. Our people cannot access education, health care, social services, work and recreation as easily as those in the lower mainland and regional centres.
SMALL BUSINESS
IN BURNABY HEIGHTS
R. Lee: I would like to acknowledge Small Business Week and the tremendous role small businesses play in our communities. There are few urbanized regions in B.C. that can boast having a neighbourhood that's almost entirely composed of healthy and successful small businesses. Fortunately, I have the pleasure of representing a constituency that's home to a most extraordinary exception to the rule.
Burnaby Heights neighbourhood on East Hastings Street is home to 600 small businesses, including close
[ Page 7439 ]
to 60 restaurants and cafés. I'm also pleased to report that the spirit of the Heights is alive and well, despite the fact that these businesses are going head-to-head with no less than three major shopping centres in Lougheed, Brentwood and Metrotown.
I can tell you that it's the people who make the Heights the success story that it is today. These are people who care about their businesses, their neighbour's businesses and their community. They are not just providing us with goods and services. They are cleaning our sidewalks. They are painting over graffiti. They are taking a role in anti-crime initiatives to keep their streets and customers safe.
The Heights Merchants Association deserves a pat on the back for helping small businesses bring a sense of old-fashioned community spirit back to Hastings Street. The same can also be said about the Burnaby Board of Trade, which is helping small businesses across Burnaby achieve their dreams one day at a time.
As we celebrate Small Business Week, let's not forget that small businesses constitute 98 percent of all B.C. retailers and that the B.C. retail sector provides us with more than $3.8 billion in provincial sales tax each year to help us provide health care, education and other crucial public services.
In closing, congratulations to small businesses in Burnaby and throughout B.C. Keep up the good work.
SMALL BUSINESS AND
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
H. Bloy: As my colleague from Burnaby North has mentioned, today is the beginning of Small Business Week in British Columbia. Small businesses in British Columbia account for almost 98 percent of all businesses. After years of decline, the total number of small businesses operating in British Columbia grew by 3.1 percent in 2002. This has allowed nearly one million British Columbians to be employed in small business.
In my riding of Burquitlam small businesses are starting to feel the positive effects of this government. By bringing in 27 tax relief measures and an increase in the threshold for corporate taxes from $200,000 to $300,000, businesses in British Columbia are receiving a clear message that B.C. is the place to do business.
I'm also proud that many small businesses in my riding are taking an active role in the community. The retail shops and restaurants along the North Road corridor have demonstrated an outstanding display of community spirit in recent months. Not only are they in the process of forming what may be the first business improvement area jointly between two cities, they are also working together with myself, the RCMP and other stakeholders to keep their community safe for their customers.
Speaking of community spirit, I would also like to mention that on October 8, the Society for Community Development announced the Spirit of Community Awards winners in 2003. These awards are presented to recognize the accomplishments of individuals in many categories ranging from the environment to cultural harmony.
I would like to recognize the nominees from Coquitlam and the vital role they play in their community. In particular, I'd like to mention one person, Gaylene Harrison, for winning the Tri-City News Neighbour to Neighbour Award. Gaylene stood out for commitment to our community by going one step further to lend a helping hand. I would like to congratulate Gaylene Harrison and all the nominees and winners of the Spirit of Community Awards.
Oral Questions
INCREASE IN FEES FOR SENIORS' CARE
J. MacPhail: Wherever the Minister of State for Long Term Care goes, she gets a pretty bad reaction from seniors — even boos. Seniors feel betrayed by a government and a minister that are picking their pockets to pay for their cuts to health. Services are declining, and as of October 1 of this year, the government is forcing seniors on fixed incomes as low as $18,000 per year to pay much more for less care.
To the Minister for Long Term Care: can she point to the New Era documents and show middle- and low-income seniors where it says they will be forced to pay more for less care?
Hon. K. Whittred: For ten years the government that was in before us had an opportunity to plan for the future. It was not a secret that we have an aging population, and we are making changes. We made that commitment. We made a commitment to serve patients. We have ensured that the price to those patients at the lower end of the income scale is, in fact, fair and equitable, and 72 percent of clients in long-term care facilities will see no increase in their fees.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.
J. MacPhail: Let's look at the record of this government and see what has changed. Let's just look. Here's what's new under this government. A senior making $28,000 a year is paying $1,500 more a year for care. That same senior has seen her drug costs go up and her MSP premiums go up. So that's what has changed.
What else has changed? The government promised 5,000 new long-term care beds. Instead, they're closing 3,300 beds: in the Fraser health authority alone, 675 closures since the Liberals came to power; Vancouver Island health authority, 554 long-term care beds gone; interior health authority, 1,551 closures.
Can the minister of long-term care explain how closing 3,300 long-term care beds and charging seniors more fulfils her promise to build an additional 5,000 long-term care beds?
Hon. K. Whittred: This government made a commitment that we were going to plan long-term to pro-
[ Page 7440 ]
vide for the challenges of an aging population. We are in progress with that plan. We are in progress in terms of delivering more beds. We are in progress in terms of delivering a broader spectrum of services. We have looked at the co-pay — which, by the way, is nothing new. That government increased the fees in 1997 by a larger amount than we did. We have looked at those. We have kept the rates fair for the lower people in not only long-term care but in Pharmacare and in MSP.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.
J. MacPhail: I really look forward to the day when this minister takes responsibility for her misleading promise under the new era when she said she would create 5,000 new long-term care beds. When is she going to come clean and admit that the promise wasn't delivered? Here she does….
Interjections.
J. MacPhail: She blames….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.
J. MacPhail: Again, the Attorney General sets new standards for that office.
She blames health authorities. She did it recently when she was confronted by seniors on the North Shore. So much for her taking accountability. The government's own planning documents, uncovered by the B.C. Health Coalition, recognized that the plan is completely inadequate not only for this generation but for the next generation. So what is the long-term planning she talks about? It says the documents clearly show that the minister of state's ill-advised plan represents less than 50 percent of what is required by 2006. With a rapidly aging population, can the minister…?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, order, please. Would the member now please put her question.
J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was. Clearly, the government is not interested in listening.
With a rapidly aging population, can the Minister for Long Term Care tell British Columbians how they and their parents, and perhaps even the generation after that, are going to be cared for when B.C. is now on track to have the lowest number of beds for people aged 75 and over in the entire country?
Hon. K. Whittred: In the ten years that member's government was in power, they added 1,000 beds to the system. That is 100 beds per year. They also only looked at two means of looking after seniors: (1) put them in a residential facility, and (2) keep them with no care, basically, at all. We have added day care beds; we have added adult programs; we have added community service programs; we have added assisted living to the mix. Health authorities are working at being innovative around a number of programs. We have made a commitment for 2006, and we realize this is long plan. It is going to present our seniors with options that will keep them independent and enjoying quality of life.
EXPENSES OF
FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY CEO
AND NUMBER OF CARE BEDS
J. Kwan: Just like the Minister of Human Resources, this minister refuses to acknowledge reality. Seniors in B.C. are hurting, and she just sends out her message box. Well, let me ask her this. Today we learned that the CEO of the Fraser health authority got $15,000 for one month's expenses. Can the minister explain how she can justify this expense when the Fraser health authority is closing more than 600 long-term care beds?
Hon. C. Hansen: I must confess I lost the thread of the member's question there somewhat, but perhaps if she could restate the allegation she was making about expenses, that might be helpful to me.
J. Kwan: I'll repeat the question for the Minister of Health Services. I'll also add my new question to the Minister for Long Term Care.
For the Minister of Health Services, my last question was….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Please let us hear the question, hon. members.
J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The last question that I asked was…. Today we learned that the CEO of the Fraser health authority got $15,000 for one month's expenses. Can the minister explain how she can cut and justify the expenses for the Fraser health authority when she's cut 600 long-term care beds?
Hon. C. Hansen: In fact, not only has the budget for health services in the province gone up by $1.4 billion since we formed government, but the budget for every single one of the health authorities in each of the years that we have been government has gone up. At the same time the administration costs in the health authorities have gone down by a minimum of 7 percent, and several of the health authorities have actually exceeded that by a considerable margin.
The CEO of the Fraser health authority, as I understand it, had expenses in one year of $75,000, which
[ Page 7441 ]
included his moving costs from Halifax to take up this position. We are fortunate that we were able to attract back to British Columbia one of the top health administrators in this country, and he is worth every dime of the salary that we are paying him to provide leadership for an extremely complex organization that has a budget of $1.4 billion and a population base of 1.5 million people.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.
J. Kwan: Well, that's comforting for the seniors who are actually losing their homes — some 3,300 beds being closed. This government promised a new era for seniors, and they put this minister in charge to deliver it. But since then, seniors are paying more for drugs; they're paying more for less care. They are losing home support. There are many of them who are stuck on a long, growing wait-list. That's quite a legacy for this minister.
Seniors want to know: when does she plan to leave politics so that someone else can be put in charge to look out for the interests of seniors in B.C.?
BARKERVILLE HISTORIC TOWN
J. Wilson: Today I have a question for the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. A number of my constituents have travelled to the Legislature to voice their concerns over the proposed changes to the Barkerville historic site. My constituents feel the government's commitment to maintain the security of Barkerville's assets still requires a clearer explanation.
For the benefit of the Cariboo residents and visitors to the site, can the minister reaffirm that the security of Barkerville's assets will be ensured?
Hon. G. Abbott: I did have the pleasure of meeting with the member's constituents just before QP, and I think I had an opportunity to answer a number of their questions. I'm looking forward to meeting them again. Clearly, the first concern of the heritage branch is the preservation and protection of both heritage values and heritage buildings and artifacts.
Clearly, what we have in Barkerville is a vital heritage site, and we also have a great tourism generator for the Cariboo and northern British Columbia. The protection of assets there is obviously a key concern to the ministry.
What we want to do at Barkerville is build on the successes with non-profit and local management of heritage sites, which has occurred in other parts of the province. I'll point to, for example, in the Victoria area the Emily Carr House and Craigflower Manor, where local management really has brought some new energy, vision and commitment to the operation of those sites.
Similarly, we've recently come to the memorandum of understanding with the Friends of Fort Steele, and again, I think that will be a great model for Barkerville as we move into the future with that site.
RAIN DAMAGE IN FRASER VALLEY
AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
R. Hawes: The recent devastation from the 100-year rainstorm that happened in the last week or so was not confined only to the Pemberton-Whistler-Squamish area, but the residents of the Fraser Valley have also been devastated greatly by the rainfall. Bridges, roads and highways have been washed out. The mobility of goods and services and the movement of people have been compromised in the Fraser Valley and other parts of the lower mainland. Many farmers are facing huge loss to their crops.
My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General tell us what assistance is available to the residents of the Fraser Valley who have suffered losses, and how do they access that assistance?
Hon. R. Coleman: When roads are washed out and mobility of goods is compromised, we find other ways to get those goods into communities, like we did on the weekend to Pemberton when we airlifted milk and water into the community because they were short. Of course, today the road is open, so we're actually getting goods and services into Pemberton.
Floods are a disaster financial assistance event because they're not insurable. Any person who is affected by the floods has the opportunity to make an application through the provincial emergency program for disaster financial assistance. The easiest way to do that is to go to the provincial emergency program website at www.pep.bc.ca. If not, they could actually go to their MLA's office or any MLA's office, and that information could be accessed by the MLA's office on the Net, and an application form could be provided. Those would be sent in, and they're measured based on, basically, whether the application is allowable or not.
INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS
AND LOSS OF BENEFITS
J. Kwan: We're all getting used to the Human Resources minister's message box rhetoric about the socialist hordes, but today is a chance to see if some brave new soul will try out a new message box. The minister says his own leaked documents are wrong. They're wrong about how many people are being kicked off income assistance the next fiscal year. He refuses to tell the House what the numbers are. Here's the FOI that blanks out the numbers of people who will lose income assistance. Could the minister's designated backup…? Is it the Deputy Premier? Could whoever that is take this opportunity to dispense with the outdated Cold War rhetoric and fill in the blanks? It's a simple question.
Hon. G. Hogg: Well, let me tell you firstly that anyone who can't work — whether it's for physical, emotional or intellectual reasons — will be fully protected by this government. This government will take care of
[ Page 7442 ]
people. The time limits are for employable people, people who refuse to work or refuse to be involved in training.
Let me reiterate what the minister explained to the media at the beginning of the week. He said he's instructed his staff to report to him in January regarding the number of clients affected by the time limits in April. He's going to get that report in January. I can assure this House and the people of this province that the Ministry of Human Resources staff are working with every expected-to-work client. That means employable clients working so that they have active employment plans, fulfilling their responsibilities under those plans.
Let me also point out that it wasn't that long ago that the opposition was decrying the review that was taking place for those people with disabilities. They said there were 19,000 people with disabilities who were going to be removed from the rolls. They were fearmongering, and people were frightened.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us extend the courtesy of hearing the answer.
Are you finished, Mr. Minister?
Hon. G. Hogg: No, I'm not, Mr. Speaker.
The opposition was saying there were going to be 19,000 people, as a result of that review, being thrown off disability. As a result of that review of those 19,000 clients, in fact, only 400 were affected — taken off — and 67,000 more were put on it. The net result was that there was a shift from what the opposition was saying — of some 25,600. There were 6,600 more people receiving benefits after the process than there were before.
[End of question period.]
Introductions by Members
Hon. C. Clark: I'd like to seek leave to make another introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. C. Clark: This is really a reintroduction of Holly Molony, if I can. I've been advised by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville that "specimen" is an inappropriate way to refer to a brand-new arrival. I'd like to perhaps amend my introduction of Holly by referring to her instead as a baby, a child, a bundle of joy, a treasure, a gift, a bambino, an enfant, a little one, a gift from God and, certainly, a blessing for her parents.
Hon. T. Nebbeling: I ask leave to make an introduction as well.
Leave granted.
Hon. T. Nebbeling: During question period I noticed we have in the gallery Mr. John Haibeck. Mr. Haibeck is the chief executive officer of Whistler Rail Tours. This is a company with partners such as cruise ship operators, major railway operators in British Columbia, airlines, hotel operators and resort operators. The goal is to bring rail traffic back to B.C., starting in Vancouver, destination Whistler and beyond — right up to Prince Rupert. Mr. Haibeck is in Victoria today meeting with a number of members to discuss the plans of this company. I ask the House to make him very welcome.
B. Penner: I, too, seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Penner: I've just been made aware that during question period we were joined by a young man from Chilliwack by the name of David Burnie. I've know him for several years, and I'm advised that today is his first day working for the B.C. Liberal caucus. Would the House please make him welcome.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 74.
Second Reading of Bills
MOTOR DEALER AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased to now move second reading. As part of government's commitment to reduce the regulatory burden by one-third in our first three years, the province has embarked on changing the way business is regulated both legislatively and administratively. These changes include the modernization of the motor dealer legislation.
At present in British Columbia, motor dealer regulation occurs through the Motor Dealer Act, which establishes the rules and regulations with respect to operations. Government, through the registrar of motor dealers and an investigations staff, administers the licensing and enforcement provisions. The new Motor Dealer Amendment Act will allow for the creation of a delegated administrative authority, an organization outside of the traditional government structure, to be responsible for administrating motor dealer rules and regulation.
The Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003, will firstly provide authority to delegate administration of the motor dealer rules and regulations to a self-managing body. Secondly, it will continue the motor dealer customer compensation fund but allow for regulatory powers regarding administration of that fund to be administered by the delegated administrative authority. Thirdly, it will increase penalties substantially to reflect the current value of vehicle transactions. Finally, it will add new regulation-making powers for
[ Page 7443 ]
the licensing of the industry to allow for enhanced industry professionalism and consumer confidence.
Delegating regulatory authority will enable government to save significant administrative costs. Government will be able to focus its resources on policy while the delegated administrative authority focuses its resources on the delegated powers. The powers of the delegated administrative authority will include registration and licensing of industry members; inspection, investigation and prosecution of violators of regulations; refusal, revocation or suspension of registrants; handling registrant inquiries, resolving consumer complaints and administering the motor dealer customer compensation fund; and, finally, developing effective consumer relations, education and training programs.
This means that prospective dealers that wish to be in the field will now approach the delegated administrative authority, not government, for licence applications and renewals. The delegated administrative authority will be the Motor Dealer Council of British Columbia, which is established under the Society Act as a not-for-profit, self-funded organization. It will have a board of directors with representation from industry and consumers, and it will conduct and manage its own financial and operational affairs.
Board members to this new society will include Shell Harvey — Mr. Harvey was a former assistant deputy minister who, during the 1990s, played a vital role in the expansion and diversification of the B.C. post-secondary education system, including the creation of three new universities — Neil Kalawsky, the national chairman of the General Motors dealer communications team and a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association; George Morfitt, who is a former two-term auditor general of British Columbia; Anne Salomon, a founding and current member of the Motor Dealer Standards Association; and Bob Stewart, who is formerly the chief constable of the Vancouver police department and a current board member and director of the Justice Institute Foundation.
It will be fully financed from the fees collected from the motor dealer industry members, and the provincial government, through the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, will continue to have responsibility for all policy and legislation governing motor dealers, including any changes to the Motor Dealer Act. Accountability for standards remains with the minister, while the delivery of the delegated functions will be the responsibility of the delegated administrative authority.
Any and all changes to legislation will still require approval by the Legislative Assembly. Changes to regulation will continue to require approval of cabinet. The Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise will monitor the performance of the authority to ensure that performance standards are maintained through transparent accountability mechanisms such as business plans, annual reports and three- to five-year post-implementation evaluations.
This new act will maintain high levels of consumer protection while stimulating a competitive market environment for the motor dealer industry. The direction is entirely consistent with what has already taken place in provinces like Ontario and Alberta.
Motion approved.
Hon. K. Falcon: 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 74, Motor Dealer 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. R. Coleman: I call committee stage on Bill 73.
Committee of the Whole House
SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 73; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The committee met at 2:50 p.m.
Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.
On section 21.
J. MacPhail: This is the piece of legislation, Bill 73, that was introduced 48 hours ago. The government had second reading yesterday, and today we are at committee stage. I say that, just for the record, for the people who may think this government is doing things in a way that allows for consideration and consultation around legislation they've introduced.
I hope that belief may be dispelled now, seeing that just merely 48 hours after the first time anyone had a chance to see this, besides the minister and the government caucus, we're now going to pass this piece of legislation completely. That, by the way, Mr. Chair, has had an effect on how I am able to do my job in holding the government to account.
Could the minister please explain section 21?
Hon. S. Hagen: The amendment of section 5 of the Assessment Authority Act, which is section 21 here, removes the requirement that B.C. Assessment request the approval of the minister when it wishes to obtain or dispose of land. Because B.C. Assessment is an independent corporation and seldom obtains or sells land — I understand they own only two pieces of land — this is an unnecessary regulatory requirement.
J. MacPhail: What makes the B.C. Assessment Authority different from anyone else, except for the size of their portfolio?
Hon. S. Hagen: As I said in my answer, B.C. Assessment is an independent corporation and seldom obtains or sells land.
[ Page 7444 ]
J. MacPhail: I don't understand the term "independent."
Hon. S. Hagen: They're independent because when they get the levy, they use the proceeds of the levy if they're going to buy something. It doesn't come from the government.
J. MacPhail: Are they not a Crown corporation? Honestly, I've never heard the term "independent corporation" before.
Hon. S. Hagen: They're independent, in that although they're a Crown corporation, they pay taxes and operate like a corporation.
J. MacPhail: I understand a commercial-based Crown corporation or a taxpayer-subsidized Crown corporation, but what precedent does this set for other…? I gather that by independent, this minister means that they don't incur any taxpayer-supported debt and that they're self-funding, which makes them a commercial Crown corporation. What precedent does this set for commercial Crown corporations?
Hon. S. Hagen: It doesn't set a precedent.
Sections 21 to 25 inclusive approved.
On section 26.
J. MacPhail: We have amendments to the Community Charter, and of course, we haven't passed…. It's interesting. This legislation — again, it's 48 hours old — will amend legislation that hasn't even been passed yet. It's still a bill. I would also note for the public's information that there have been two bills tabled around Community Charter. So here we are, amending legislation that hasn't even been passed in this House. I'm surprised at that. But what Community Charter bill that hasn't been passed yet are we amending?
Hon. S. Hagen: I want to apologize. I neglected to introduce two of my staff that are here: Julie Williams, who is the manager of legislation and policy, and Catherine MacDonald, who is manager of legal services division, B.C. Assessment.
The purpose of this change is that it's a change that's necessary in preparation for legislation that is before the House.
J. MacPhail: Yeah. What legislation? was my question.
Hon. S. Hagen: It's a consequential amendment necessary for the Community Charter legislation.
J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, I'm trying to figure out how the government does these things. It's bewildering. We have a piece of legislation before the House that is the current Community Charter bill, which replaced a previous Community Charter bill, that I take it has been withdrawn. Why are we doing this when, in fact, we could just amend the Community Charter that hasn't been passed yet?
Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that was an option, but the preference of the drafting people in Ministry of Attorney General was the way that we're taking it.
J. MacPhail: The reason I'm very curious about this is that this doesn't sound like just a small amendment and that maybe in the context of the legislation, which we haven't passed yet, this might be appropriate for debate in that context. With the greatest of respect, what is it that would drive a government of politicians to allow — and I say this in a completely non-pejorative way — or that some legislation officials would disallow, this amendment to be debated in the context of legislation that may have not yet been passed?
Hon. S. Hagen: There's no policy issue here. This is a consequential amendment necessary for the Community Charter.
J. MacPhail: Well, I have no idea whether that's true or not. That's actually why we debate at committee stage — and we still do that in this British parliamentary system here — clause by clause, so that we can have a discussion and a debate in context of new legislation.
I must say I am very disappointed that the government is proceeding in this fashion. I think it takes away from our ability to properly assess the full meaning of a not-yet-passed piece of legislation called the Community Charter.
Section 26 approved.
Sections 27 to 51 inclusive approved.
On section 52.
J. MacPhail: We have some amendments to the Local Government Act, and let me just read this into the record, if I may. Section 52 says: "Sections 620, 629 (5), 632 (5) and (6), 756.2 (3), 990 (1) and 1011 (5) (b) and (6) (b) are amended by striking out 'authenticated' and substituting 'revised'."
I'll read that into the record because I then go to section 83 of this piece of legislation, where it says: "Amendment to this Act." Section 83 amends section 52. I'll read it into the record. Section 52 is the one we're discussing right now. Here it says: "Section 52 of this Act is amended by striking out '620, 629 (5), 632 (5) and (6),'." Help.
Hon. S. Hagen: This is a consequential amendment, and we don't know when the Community Charter will repeal the Local Government Act.
J. MacPhail: Thank you for your indulgence on this, Mr. Chair, because it really is…. I have to look at 83 in the context of 52. What's with section 83 of this bill?
Hon. S. Hagen: Section 83 refers to section 52 of this act, which is amended. It amends the Local Gov-
[ Page 7445 ]
ernment Act. It further amends to strike out sections 620, 629(5), 632(5) and 632(6), which will be replaced when the Community Charter is in force.
J. MacPhail: Section 52 changes words within certain sections of the Local Government Act, and then 82 removes those changed sections. Why? What's the distinction here? What's going on? Is there a way that you could explain it so that not only I understand it but maybe those who are watching understand it?
Hon. S. Hagen: Section 83 is in place if the Community Charter is in place. Section 52 is, if it is not. It provides for both contingencies.
J. MacPhail: This is my last question. I'm looking at the commencement. Both sections 52 and 83 come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Has the minister got in mind some plan for staged implementation around this?
Here's why I have focused on this particular issue. It is because the Local Government Act is tied to the Community Charter, which we haven't even passed yet, and we're now amending the Local Government Act in a curious and somewhat strange way. We haven't even passed the Community Charter. There's a thread here that, if it exists and if there's a line from A to B in all of this, I can't figure out.
Hon. S. Hagen: This is standard procedure in drafting. We have two contingencies here depending on which act is in place. That's all that this is about.
Sections 52 to 87 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:05 p.m.
The House resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 73, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 53.
Committee of the Whole House
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 53; R. Stewart in the chair.
The committee met at 3:12 p.m.
On section 1.
J. MacPhail: In section 1 are definitions. I'm interested in the definition of "qualified monitor." This is new. It's not in the old act, but here's what the new act says: "…perform required professional services for pesticide users and will reduce the monitoring required of government." I think that's actually included in the…. Oh, sorry. No. The actual definition says: "…means a person who has the prescribed qualifications." What is a qualified monitor? What's in the mind of the minister when she prescribes this person?
Hon. J. Murray: A qualified monitor will be a person who has the qualifications to monitor the application of pesticides. That definition will be set out in the regulation.
J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm sorry. I knew I got this from the bill, but this is the explanatory note. This is the government's own explanatory note of what a qualified monitor is. It's a person "…who will perform required professional services for pesticide users and will reduce the monitoring required of government."
My curiosity is on the last point there: "…will reduce the monitoring required of government." Is this qualified monitor a public servant?
Hon. J. Murray: No, they are not a public servant.
J. MacPhail: Who hires them?
Hon. J. Murray: The proponent using or applying the pesticides hires them.
J. MacPhail: So we have a person hired by the company to monitor the company?
Hon. J. Murray: It's similar to a company hiring an auditor or a professional accountant to audit their books. Yes, this will be a company hired by the proponent.
J. MacPhail: Well, actually, it's not similar to that — is it? — because the auditor comes from outside the company. I gather this is going to be a company employee monitoring his or her own company.
Hon. J. Murray: Not necessarily. Not if we order it to be an outside monitor.
J. MacPhail: What are the plans for making sure there are no conflicts of interest?
Hon. J. Murray: These people will have qualifications. They will most likely belong to professional bodies that have codes of practice and codes of ethics. We have a pesticide administrator in the government that will be assuring that there isn't conflict of interest. These are
[ Page 7446 ]
people that have professional credentials, and part of a professional's job is to ensure that they remove themselves from situations of conflict of interest.
J. MacPhail: When the minister says these are professional people…. This kind of profession exists now. Is that right? Where? Where are they in the province? What do they do in the province?
Hon. J. Murray: It depends on the function in a particular pesticide application situation. Foresters, in some cases, have the qualifications. In other cases it might be people who have been certified by the province and certified that they do have the training around pesticide applications.
J. MacPhail: Could the minister describe under what situation monitors will be required?
Hon. J. Murray: Three activities. One is ensuring that integrated pest management processes are being applied. The second is doing pre-treatment assessment of environmentally sensitive areas. The third is that in situations of high concern to the public, there will be a third-party monitor required.
K. Manhas: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
K. Manhas: I'd like to take a moment to introduce a couple of guests who have just arrived here in Victoria. They're up in the visitors gallery. First, Mr. Bud Ryckman and his son John Ryckman. Both of them have been working very hard in developing recreational property in British Columbia. Bud Ryckman was involved in developing Whistler when it was first developed years and years ago with Mr. Franz Wilhelmsen.
Also here is Eugene Siklos, who is here from Ontario visiting. He is looking at business opportunities and investing in recreational property and potential future ski resorts in British Columbia. All three of them are very interested in the Indian River valley corridor north of Coquitlam. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.
Debate Continued
J. MacPhail: Just to clarify, what's a third-party monitor?
Hon. J. Murray: A person who is not an employee of the proponent.
J. MacPhail: When and how do monitors, whether they be employees of the proponent or third party, report to the ministry?
Hon. J. Murray: That will be laid out in the regulation, and there will be a requirement to report to the ministry.
J. MacPhail: Actually, I must say that my curiosity around this has been raised by the explanatory note. It says that this person or this new group of people, which didn't exist previous to now…. Part of the reason why they're there is to reduce the monitoring required of government. I'm curious as to the link between these people — outside people now — and government. I've asked about conditions of conflict of interest, and the minister said they'd be part of professional groups. Who's working for government on these matters? The minister herself has had a budget cut of 47 percent by next year — 47 percent.
It's typical of this government to want to reduce the work of government. Fair enough. They live with the consequences of that. But we are talking about pest management here, and the title is integrated pest management. So who inside government is overseeing all of this?
Hon. J. Murray: We retained staff in Victoria and in some of the regions who will be responsible and accountable for this program. I would like to draw the parallel to how the ministry manages with respect to contaminated sites currently.
There are a number of functions in terms of identifying the scope of potential contamination and reporting on risks and parameters of a contaminated site that are done by individuals who are professionals, who are third-party consultants, who are on a roster and who do much of that kind of work in the contaminated sites field. Those reports are then made available to the client and to government, so it's not that there is no precedent for this kind of arrangement. In fact, this does what I think conceptually is the right thing to do, which is that it places some of the costs and the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the environment on the proponent rather than on the government and the taxpayer.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
J. MacPhail: Section 6 is "Permit for use of pesticides," and it says that the applicant for a permit must meet prescribed criteria. "A person must not use or authorize the use of a prescribed pesticide or class of pesticides or a pesticide for a prescribed use unless the person (a) holds the permit that is, under the regulations, required for that purpose, and (b) complies with the terms and conditions in or attached to that permit."
It then goes on to say that there will be prescribed criteria established. What are the prescribed criteria?
Hon. J. Murray: A permit will be required based on four categories of criteria. One is for specified pesti-
[ Page 7447 ]
cides of high concern to the public. Second, it's for use of pesticides for predator control; third, use of pesticides for which no ministry standards have been set; and fourth, the aerial application of pesticides over residential areas.
J. MacPhail: In this same clause, "Permit for use of pesticides," 6(3)(d) says: "(3) The administrator may issue a permit to an applicant if satisfied that…(d) the pesticide use authorized by the permit will not cause an unreasonable adverse effect." What are the parameters of determining the unreasonable adverse effect?
Hon. J. Murray: This is the same wording that's in the previous act. This is not a new concept.
J. MacPhail: Fair enough, but I still wouldn't mind having the question answered. How does the current system work? How does it work in terms of any changes that are contemplated under this legislation? Is it based on a pesticide? Is it based on location? How does one determine it?
Hon. J. Murray: In terms of what's considered an unreasonable adverse effect, that would be looking at issues such as damage to vegetation, damage to water bodies, fish habitat. In order to prevent that, the administrator would look at factors such as the active ingredient, the receiving environment, the volume of pesticide contemplated and the time of year or the weather.
J. MacPhail: Will all of that remain the same when the act is changed?
Hon. J. Murray: Where a permit is issued for a prescribed pesticide, yes, that stays the same. Not all pesticides will be prescribed as requiring a permit.
J. MacPhail: Currently, in the minister's department, who makes this decision?
Hon. J. Murray: The decisions are made by the administrator of the act, with advice from the province's Pesticide Control Committee.
J. MacPhail: Who is the administrator of the act? Is that a public servant? Can we have a title? Will that remain the same?
Hon. J. Murray: That is a very good reminder by the member opposite that I have the pleasure of introducing my staff this afternoon. To my far left is Eric Partridge, the director of environmental management. Christine Houghton, to my left, is the manager of public safety and prevention initiatives and the administrator of this integrated pest management legislation. To my right is Robert Adams, pesticide licence officer.
J. MacPhail: The act does define adverse effects. We do have that in the act. What we're trying to determine now is what an unreasonable adverse effect is. Is any pesticide that's applied close to a water source considered to have an unreasonable adverse effect?
Hon. J. Murray: For most if not all pesticide use, there will be a pesticide-free zone that's a buffer zone beside a water body. The distance of that zone will depend on the circumstance — the active ingredient, the concentration of that active ingredient in the product.
J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain why there's not one mention, as far as I could determine, of water anywhere in this legislation?
Hon. J. Murray: References to water used to be in the act because permits were issued based on the act. There will be a regulation that specifies the various kinds of water bodies and the distances that need to be kept from those, so it will be specified in the regulation.
J. MacPhail: I would have thought that the government would want to be pretty transparent around matters of water, given the high sensitivity all British Columbians have about quality of water, and what we're talking about here is pesticide control.
Under the old act, which was called the Pesticide Control Act, there were several very specific sections dealing with actions involving water and pesticides — very specific. There were specific statutory requirements in the legislation. Under the old act that this is now replacing, section 7(2) read: "A person must not do any of the following: (a) dispose of a pesticide other than under the regulations or the Waste Management Act; (b) wash or submerge in a body of water equipment or a container used to prepare, mix or apply a pesticide."
Now that we're going to a results-based management system, where the monitors won't even be part of government — may be part of the proponent that's being monitored — there's no mention whatsoever of water in the legislation. So the public now, I guess, has to go to a set of regulations to find out how at-risk they are. I will put on record once again that there are many studies that show results-based management is a risky and unproven tool. Now we're applying that risky, unproven tool to water, and we're not even doing it in a transparent way. We're going to have to look to regulations. The act has removed all reference to water.
What regulation will it be that lists the specific requirements that will ensure that pesticide users aren't contaminating bodies of water? Can the minister point to the act where she has the right to make that regulation?
Hon. J. Murray: The regulation that will specify how pesticides are applied with respect to water is in section 38(2)(i), with further details in the administrator's regulation section 39(g).
J. MacPhail: Well, I guess we're going to have to take the minister's word for that, because it doesn't talk
[ Page 7448 ]
at all about the use of water. It talks about the pesticides. This is from the point of view of the pesticide, how the pesticide has to be stored or contained. Neither permits a description about quality of water in relationship to pesticides.
Let me ask this question, then. Tell me how all of this relates to the Drinking Water Protection Act, and let me tell the minister my concerns that she can alleviate, if possible. There was an interesting article — and I'm sure she's read it as well — about pesticides in the Globe and Mail earlier this month, and if not, I'd be happy to provide a copy to her.
It was by Johanne Gelinas, who is the environmental auditor at the federal level. It's called "Pesticides: A grave oversight." She starts off the article by saying: "Across the country, Canadians are passionately debating whether or not to ban pesticides that keep lawns weed-free." That's where she starts her article. But she then talks about how many pesticides were registered for legal use decades ago, when health and environmental standards were lower.
At the conclusion of her article — well, not the conclusion, but the final point she makes — she says: "The problems don't lie only with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Health Canada has done little to understand the health impacts of pesticides. Canadians are operating in the dark about the long-term environmental effects on water quality…." She links the two, of course, and actually our kids link the two too. It's a pretty straight line of concern: water quality and pesticides. That's why, when I was doing my research, I was looking to see how this legislation handles that link. So is it to the Drinking Water Protection Act that we turn?
Hon. J. Murray: There are a number of comments and questions there, so I'll attempt to go over several of them. How is this going to be transparent? Well, the transparency will occur because we will be consulting widely as we develop this regulation, and that includes industry, landscapers, forest companies, ENGOs, UBCM, Ministry of Health provincially, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Health federally, Environment Canada.
This will be a consultative process. It is not our intention to change the standards. It is our intention to actually improve the process by introducing integrated pest management as the process. That's for the protection of water quality but also to improve the process by removing what I believe is an unnecessary requirement for permitting in routine cases. My intent is that there's a lot less time that staff and companies are spending writing permits in the office and that the focus is actually on integrated pest management.
Municipalities will still have the ability to develop bylaws that address the cosmetic use of pesticides in their community. I have read the article the member refers to, and the thrust of that article is that Health Canada is simply not doing its job in updating its roster of pesticides. I agree with the member. There are many, many pesticides that are now being used in other countries like the United States that are considered to be lower impact than the ones that are currently licensed by Health Canada, but they haven't gone through the approval process in our country. I have had debates and discussions about that with other ministers in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and we've requested the ministry of environment federally to pressure Health Canada to update their roster of pesticides.
With respect to drinking water quality, I agree that's a concern for all of us. The integrated pest management process will require the user of pesticides to ensure that they go through a process which includes ensuring that the pests are properly understood and inventoried, looking at how they could be prevented from being present or expanding, and looking at how they could be treated by non-chemical means. Those are all part of the process, and I believe that over time we will see a lower use of chemical pesticides than we have in the past.
With respect to the Drinking Water Protection Act, we also do have the provisions if there are concerns about the quality of drinking water. The Minister of Health, through the regional drinking water officers, can cause the development of a plan to address that concern and to take it forward to cabinet.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
J. MacPhail: This section is entitled "Use of pesticides in accordance with a pesticide use notice." It basically requires that a pest management plan be prepared prior to application. A person must also give notice of that to the administrator. The administrator then confirms receipt of the notice and dictates the terms of use required of the applicant.
Now, in section 7(2)…. In the past the administrator's office actually looked at the pest management plan. That's no longer the case here, so what replaces that process? I assumed it was at that step the government found out whether or not a valid pest management plan had been completed.
Hon. J. Murray: We'll be setting standards for the development of plans. We will be doing some auditing, and these plans will be public documents that will be available for the public as well as our ministry to review.
J. MacPhail: So the government will actually see the plan?
Hon. J. Murray: When requested, yes.
J. MacPhail: Okay, that's what I thought. I thought the government never actually saw the plan. The provision exists for the inspectors to demand the pest management plan, but I expect that in most cases, the government won't ever see the pest management plan.
[ Page 7449 ]
I certainly look forward to seeing — if the minister stands up and says, "Yes, the government will see it," — how she is going to do that in the context of the 47 percent cut to her budget.
There's no process for reviewing the integrated pest management plan, so how does one determine that the plan is appropriate and safe? You see, this is the downfall of risk management. It's that it's in the breach that matters come to the attention, and it's pretty risky to have a breach of pest management when it's dealing with our water, for instance.
Hon. J. Murray: I just want to correct a statement that the member opposite has made twice now about budget reductions in my ministry. It's not 47 percent but 24 percent over a three-year period.
In answer to the member's question, these plans will be developed with input from community members, because people in the communities are, of course, interested in and concerned at times about pesticide use in the area around their community. We've got confidence that the proponents developing these plans will use the services of professionals. There will be standards that they will be reflecting in their plans. The community members will be aware of what is planned. If there are concerns expressed, the ministry does have the authority to request to see the plan.
J. MacPhail: Well, I apologize for my view of the budget cuts. I thought that by next year, '04-05, 100 million bucks was cut out of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. I did my calculation, and that's 47 percent. That's where I got the 47 percent — 100 million bucks cut.
All right. Again, it's a "trust me." The minister is taking a "trust us, trust the companies to do the right thing…." Well, is there going to be any regulation around professionals creating the plans? They did bring in amendments to the Forest Practices Code that foresters and biologists had to be the ones creating plans, so what's the corollary here?
Hon. J. Murray: The regulation will specify the qualifications that are required for the person signing off on the plan, but government will not be prescribing the person or persons and their qualifications that would do the work to create the plan. We'll have to have the assurance of a qualified person through the sign-off on the plan.
J. MacPhail: Okay. I must say, Mr. Chair, I am concerned about this in our discussions, particularly as it relates to water quality.
We're relying on a system of audit. Is that what the minister said? Is it a system of audit to figure out whether a pest management plan was completed or not? Is that what's going to be done?
Hon. J. Murray: Yes, it will be a system of audits to ensure the plans are living up to the standards that are being set out, but the ministry will also have staff that audit on the ground. That's one of the benefits of not having staff tied up in offices reviewing and writing permits. We will have an ability to have members of our staff on the ground, because no matter how good a plan is, if it's not being carried out according to the plan, we might not get the results that are expected in the plan. It is an audit system.
J. MacPhail: Yeah, there won't be staff tied up in the office filling out permits because there won't be any staff. The budget of this ministry in '01-02 was $214.266 million. Starting in April of this year, it will be $113.071 million. That's a 47 percent cut. Environmental stewardship has fallen from $83 million in '01-02 to $36 million starting April 1 of next year.
Environmental stewardship is water protection, so we're going to have staff doing audits. These are my questions: who will do them, and how many audits will be done, let's say, for every 100 permits?
Hon. J. Murray: I'd like to offer the member opposite a brief briefing on our budget. I do understand why there's confusion and why that 47 percent figure comes up. My ministry's budget, at the outset, had a fund for Britannia mine cleanup. That's no longer a responsibility of my ministry. Crown land cleanup is now in SRM.
Secondly, with respect to the stewardship budget, there has been a change in the consolidated revenue fund allocations for that part of my ministry because of the new policy that fees are dedicated to my ministry. So it's not a 40 percent budget cut. I can understand how the figures might present it that way. I would be happy to sit down with the member and go over what the actual budget reduction is.
In answer to the other part of the question, the ministry will have seven expert staff in the regions. Those will be the people that are auditing the plans and the carrying out of the plans on the ground.
J. MacPhail: Is that an increase or a decrease?
Hon. J. Murray: It's a reduction from ten.
J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm going to take a real crack at that and say that's a 30 percent reduction. I don't think we'll fight about that in terms of people who are actually doing the work of checking up on whether there's proper pesticide management.
Will the ministry be able to take complaints from members of the public regarding the existence of pest management plans?
Hon. J. Murray: Yes, the ministry is always interested in hearing from the public.
J. MacPhail: Are there high-risk situations where a pest management plan is mandatorily required?
Hon. J. Murray: Integrated pest management plans will be required for all uses, whether routine or higher
[ Page 7450 ]
risk. For the higher-risk or higher-concern pesticides, a permit will be required as well.
J. MacPhail: Section 7(7) says that a person may request to inspect a pest management plan. I just want to make sure. Yes, it's basically saying that the plan has to be there and, if requested, has to be produced. Is that the section under which the public or an ordinary person — me, for instance — would be able to request a pest management plan?
Hon. J. Murray: That's correct.
J. MacPhail: What's the fee for that?
Hon. J. Murray: That fee hasn't been set. It will be in the regulation.
J. MacPhail: Are these public documents? In other words, when received, they can be distributed publicly? Let me leave it there.
Hon. J. Murray: Yes, they will be. They will be available to the public.
J. MacPhail: I understand that the public can request them, but is there a confidentiality agreement? What I'm saying is that they're then in the public domain and can be distributed.
Hon. J. Murray: That's correct.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
On section 9.
Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name on the orders of the day.
[SECTION 9, by deleting the proposed section 9 (3) (a) and substituting the following:(a) refuse to issue a licence, certificate or permit,
(a.1) on application by the holder, amend a licence, certificate or permit, or refuse to make the amendment,
(a.2) on the administrator's own initiative, amend a licence, certificate or permit,.]
Amendment approved.
Section 9 as amended approved.
Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.
On section 14.
Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 14 standing in my name on the orders of the day.
[SECTION 14, in the proposed section 14 (1) (c) by deleting ", renewing".]
Amendment approved.
On section 14 as amended.
J. MacPhail: This is the first section under part 4, "Appeals to the Environmental Appeal Board." Section 14 deals with how one appeals to the Environmental Appeal Board. I must say that I was confused by this section. As far as I understand it, members of the public can appeal a permit right to the Environmental Appeal Board, but they can't appeal a pest management plan. I assume that's due to the fact that the plan must no longer be reviewed by the ministry.
We did have a situation where all pest management plans were subject to permits. Therefore, every plan could be appealed, because permits were allowed to be appealed. Now that we have the two-track system, where we have the risk-based system and where the plans have to be done but not produced, they won't be reviewed by the ministry and may or may not be audited. There's a prohibition now of any right of appeal to perhaps half of the pest management plans. That's how I understand it.
Subsection (3) of section 14 states that a person may appeal a decision under this act to the appeal board. How does that exclude pest management plans? Wouldn't that include pest management plans?
Hon. J. Murray: There is no decision made by the ministry with respect to pest management plans, unless they are in those prescribed categories.
J. MacPhail: Yes, but this says a person may appeal a decision under this, so I assume that…. It's an interesting question. If risk-based, performance-based standards mean that it's only after the fact that the government gets involved, why does that preclude the public from getting involved before that? The pest management plan exists. Maybe a person has a great deal of difficulty with that pest management plan, and it does say that "a person" may appeal a decision. Isn't the government making a de facto decision through their risk-based management that they're allowing those pest management plans to proceed? You can't have it both ways. You can't say: "Oh, we're not going to issue permits, and by the way, we're also not approving the pest management plan, which is the only way you would be able to deny an appeal."
Hon. J. Murray: The public is not precluded from being involved, because the public may be involved during the development of the integrated pest management plan, should they so choose. The plans will be required to measure up to standards that are designed to protect water and the environment. There will not be a decision by the ministry with respect to a plan that is using routine pesticides, and so the plans will not be appealable.
J. MacPhail: Well, I think that's very troubling, and I must say I'm raising this issue on behalf of many first nations who have contacted us about this concern. The ministry has decided to abandon the permitting system because of its onerous nature, according to them. Then
[ Page 7451 ]
they also deem that no decision has been made; therefore there's no right of appeal. Well, then you're virtually guaranteeing that a person who may be negatively affected by a pest management plan has no right to make that case until damage is done. I think that makes a mockery of a risk-based management system — an absolute mockery.
It is entirely feasible and probable that there will be people wanting to inspect pest management plans and who will disagree and want to appeal that pest management plan. How do they do that?
Hon. J. Murray: The public will have a right to participate during the consultation, and the members of the public can make that case to the proponent during the consultation. There will be specified standards for consultation so that the requirements to consult may be different for larger projects or proponents with larger pesticide use than for a small amount of pesticide use, but in either case the public will have the right to participate and make their case fully to the proponent. Part of the job of proponents is to partner with the communities around them and have plans that the community is aware of and that address the community's concerns.
J. MacPhail: Well, that works very well when there's a dispute resolution mechanism, but there isn't any dispute resolution mechanism in the particular case that the minister describes. You have the proponent. That's the company; that's the group that needs to have the pest management in place. Probably they will make an economic case. There's a group that may disagree with that. Gee, if I were a proponent and the group disagreed with my plan, and I wanted to proceed anyway, I sure as heck would do so, based on the fact that the person complaining doesn't have any avenue of appeal. Who actually does have the right to appeal to the appeal board?
I must say this is deeply concerning, if this government's risk-based standards system means you have to wait for a problem to occur before there's any action.
Hon. J. Murray: Any person has the right to appeal a decision, and the plan is not a decision.
J. MacPhail: I'm sure that will give great comfort to people. It's almost Kafka-esque. We've got a plan, but the government hasn't made a decision, so you have no right to appeal, even though that plan may negatively interfere with your quality of life. I mean, just because the government's turning a blind eye to many plans until either an audit occurs or damage is done doesn't mean the rest of the public is abandoning their responsibility to environmental health and safety. This is deeply disturbing, Mr. Chair.
Section 14 as amended approved.
Sections 15 and 16 approved.
On section 17.
J. MacPhail: Section 17 deals with inspections, and I think I just heard…. I did ask the minister how many people would be doing audits, and she answered that seven people would be doing audits, whereas there used to be ten. Does she deem an auditor to be the same as an inspector?
Hon. J. Murray: Audits will be done of plans. Inspections will be done of operations in the field. The audits and inspections will be carried out by the same staff members.
J. MacPhail: Does the minister anticipate more audits being done?
Hon. J. Murray: Yes, there will be more audits, because there are no audits at present. We don't audit plans; we approve them.
J. MacPhail: Is the figure of ten inspectors from 2001? Is that how many inspectors were in place in 2001?
Hon. J. Murray: Yes, ten is the number of inspectors we had in 2001.
J. MacPhail: Okay. So we now have seven, and these inspectors are also going to be doing audits. I find that troubling.
Under the old act, an inspector was free to enter premises occupied solely as a private residence. That has changed and been deleted. Why?
Hon. J. Murray: We received advice from the Attorney General's office that that power was considered to be an infringement of personal rights. So in that case, the officer will now need to get a warrant.
J. MacPhail: The reason why I raised this question is that there could be a private residence bordering a water source, so in those particular circumstances the inspector will have to get a warrant. What does that entail in terms of time lines?
Hon. J. Murray: The inspector will need to obtain a warrant from a judge. I can't tell you the turnaround time, because this is new. We haven't done this in the past.
J. MacPhail: Okay. The act says that an inspector can carry out his job at any reasonable time if the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that…. Then there's a series of circumstances. What constitutes reasonable grounds?
Hon. J. Murray: That's a legally defined term. There is case law around what that term means, and it's across various legislation.
[ Page 7452 ]
J. MacPhail: I like to use these opportunities as working with the public. Can the minister explain what the legal opinion is on that?
Hon. J. Murray: There's no word definition of "reasonable grounds." It's defined through court cases, and it's defined differently in different situations and in different cases.
J. MacPhail: I just want to say that the other part of the act that is new and that needs to be monitored is section 39.
That finishes my questions on this particular act. I must say it is one that — I wasn't going to before — I will now be monitoring very carefully, particularly because of the whole issue of the lack of right of appeal, which will be disturbing to many, and also the silence, the dead silence, on any aspects of water quality and pesticide management and water protection. Those are the two areas I'll be monitoring very carefully.
Sections 17 to 38 inclusive approved.
On section 39.
Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 39 standing in my name on the orders of the day.
[SECTION 39, in the proposed paragraph (k) by deleting "multiple use dwellings;" and substituting "multiple residence buildings;".]
Amendment approved.
Section 39 as amended approved.
Sections 40 to 47 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Murray: I ask that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:14 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
Bill 53, Integrated Pest Management Act, reported complete with amendments.
Third Reading of Bills
Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?
Hon. J. Murray: By leave, now.
Leave granted.
Bill 53, Integrated Pest Management Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. R. Coleman: I call a five-minute recess.
The House recessed from 4:16 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 60.
Second Reading of Bills
BUSINESS CORPORATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
(continued)
Hon. G. Collins: I just want to close debate. We've heard from the member for Vancouver-Hastings in her response to this piece of legislation, and I want to just set the record straight on a couple of things she mentioned.
The previous administration, I think in 1999, did do a rewrite of the Business Corporations Act. It's fair to say that that government chose not to enact that legislation, probably because the legislation wasn't going to do what it was that needed to be done with this legislation. I remember the comments at the time. There were items embedded in that legislation that would have made British Columbia, rather than a better place for people to invest and build businesses and create jobs, probably one of the worst places in North America to do that.
There were all sorts of provisions in the act that would make it more difficult to open a business here, more difficult around residency requirements, more restrictive in a whole bunch of ways. I think the final decision of the government at that time was not to proceed with the legislation. It certainly was passed through this House, but it was never proclaimed. I believe it was 1999. By 2001, when we took office, it was clear that the job that had been done previously was not an effort that would get us where we needed to go. I could quote from others out there who had stronger terms, who spoke of that piece of legislation in much stronger terms than I just have, but suffice it to say that that legislation was not going to do the job that either this government would like to see done or even the government that was in place previously wanted to achieve.
What we committed to do was upgrade this legislation. It has not been amended in any substantive way since 1973, so we now have 30-year-old legislation. It's fair to say that the world in the financial sector, in the business sector, has changed dramatically since then as the world has opened up, as British Columbia has become ever more an open trading economy, as we compete ever more tightly with other jurisdictions — surrounding jurisdictions as well. We certainly saw a sustained decline in the number of businesses here in Brit-
[ Page 7453 ]
ish Columbia as a number of them moved, particularly to Alberta. It wasn't just the business legislation, the Company Act, that was driving them out of the province. There were all sorts of things: taxation, just a hostile business climate, some of the rhetoric that came from the government. It was not something that was encouraging people to come to British Columbia and invest.
We have done a number of things across the spectrum on taxation, on legislation and on deregulation to try and make British Columbia a more hospitable place for investment. The Business Corporations Act is a key component of that. At the time I introduced the first legislation last year, it was very clear. I said this was going to be a several-stage process. It was very complex legislation. It had a lot of impacts. We wanted lots of public consultation. We wanted to hear from people who practised corporate law. We wanted to hear from people in the business community. We wanted to hear from other advocates with regard to this legislation and how it might work or not work.
We also said we wanted to be leading-edge in the type of legislation that was in place around corporate governance; to be flexible; to be innovative; to be creative so that we would see people looking to British Columbia as a leading jurisdiction in this type of legislation; and to be able to create here in B.C. corporate structures that worked well for industries that are just starting to develop, that worked well for different varieties and different corporate structures and that would allow people to compete internationally.
Certainly, I think this legislation does that. It has been quite positively received by people who deal in the corporate law sector, people in the business sector and others. I must say, I think I've received two letters opposed to the legislation. They were exactly the same letter — it was a form letter — and it was signed by two lawyers in the same law firm. They each sent it separately. That is the extent of the opposition to the legislation that I have received and that I've actually seen and read, etc.
The commitment I made at the time I introduced the first piece of legislation was that before we proclaimed this act and actually put it into force, which we're going to do next spring, there would be a couple of iterations. Certainly, we've done that. This legislation here today is part of that. There will be several other steps as we move through this fall session and then into the spring. My hope is that early next year, hopefully by the new fiscal year — although somewhere around then — we would be able to proclaim this legislation and bring it into force.
There is an education process going on with the Legal Education Society of British Columbia. I spoke to that group some time ago, trying to bring people up to speed on what is a very large piece of legislation with, in some cases, significant new and innovative ideas. Our hope is that it will become a tool that attracts interest across North America and around the world and will attract investors here to British Columbia who are looking to invest and create new jobs.
It's interesting to note just how outdated the legislation is that had been in place prior to this and the message that it sent to people looking to invest. There are many lawyers here in British Columbia who are licensed to practise in the Yukon, and the reason they've managed to arrange to be licensed in the Yukon is that the legislation around corporate governance in the Yukon was much better than the legislation we had here in British Columbia. People looking to invest or start a business in B.C. would actually incorporate in the Yukon in order to have something that was workable. That just gives you a sense of how out of date we were.
With these changes, I think we're going to see some significant improvement. It is one component of a whole range of initiatives that government has taken to try and improve the investment climate in the province. I mentioned the taxation issues. I mentioned some of the deregulation initiatives. There's more legislation to come as we review the financial institutions, as we review a whole range of financial legislation in the province.
I want to just counter a little bit what the member for Vancouver-Hastings said in her comments in second reading a couple of days ago, when she talked about some of the negative things that have happened to B.C.'s economy in the last couple of years. Despite the challenges that we and other jurisdictions have faced in the last couple of years, with the war on terrorism, the meltdown in the tech sector, the financial problems with the stock market now in Canada, the rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar, SARS, BSE, floods, fires — all of those things — it's encouraging to see some of the indicators changing and to see some of the real baseline data that you get as a response from the economy that British Columbia is actually doing reasonably well.
Since December of 2001 British Columbia has created about 107,000 new jobs. For the first time in the history of the province there are over two million people working in British Columbia. One of the things that happens when you start to create those kinds of jobs…. I think we're number two or three in the country and certainly well ahead of the national average — more than twice the national average — for job growth. One of the things that happens when you see that is that people in British Columbia decide to get back into the workforce. We've certainly seen that with our EI rolls and our Human Resources rolls. People are coming off those and looking for work. That tends to drive the numbers up of those seeking employment in the workforce as well. If you look at the number of jobs that have been created in the province in the last couple of years, we've done extremely well as a province.
Exports in B.C. continue to climb — 2.1 percent in the first part of 2003. Housing starts in B.C. are up 28.5 percent year to date compared with last year. That's almost double — not quite double, obviously — the national average increase of about 16.9 percent. Building permits are up 13.3 percent from last year, well ahead of the national gain. Residential permits are up 17.2 percent in B.C., more than triple the national in-
[ Page 7454 ]
crease of 5.6 percent. All of those numbers are very positive.
We've been hearing lots about the oil and gas sector and how well that's doing in response to some of the initiatives that the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Finance put in place after discussions with the Premier, where he directed us to put in place a regime that was going to make us the most competitive jurisdiction in North America.
We've done that, and the response has been immediate — some $418 million in a single land sale for the month of August, which we found out about in September. Residential construction is up 26.7 percent in the second quarter this year compared to the same time last year. That's more than twice the national increase of 10 percent.
Private sector investment intentions. We used to be dead last, year after year, in this measurement. This year we're third from the top — it's not first, but we're third; it's a long way from tenth — at 7.6 percent increase in capital investment intentions in B.C. That's almost double the national average of 4 percent. Contrary to comments that member made in her statements about the number of businesses going down in B.C., we've actually seen a 10 percent increase in business incorporations in the first six months of 2003. That's the highest they've been in six or seven years, so those numbers are very positive.
One of the measures that I take a great deal of interest in, aside from the job numbers, is family income — after-tax family income — because, as I mentioned, tax initiatives have been a key component of our attempt to move the economy along. I think it's important to note that after-tax family income in British Columbia jumped 4.7 percent to $57,581. That's the third-strongest increase in Canada and the largest increase in after-tax income for B.C. families in over two decades — the largest after-tax income, take-home pay income in over two decades. The average income tax paid by a British Columbia family decreased by 13.5 percent as a result of some of the changes that we brought into place. That's the largest decrease in over 20 years.
Individual British Columbians are benefiting from that. The statistics that we're seeing coming from Statistics Canada and other measures — independent measures — are showing some good response to some of these changes, and in some areas we're leading the country or very close to leading the country.
There are a whole series of other issues around home sales, housing starts, mineral exploration, cargo traffic and containers at the ports, new vehicle sales, residential sales and retail sales. All of those items have been exhibiting positive trends for some time now. Despite all of those challenges that we have faced, the numbers, I think, are starting to prove that we're having an impact on that.
I am very excited about the key component that this legislation will play in making sure that British Columbia is even more competitive starting next year. I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for committee stage debate at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 60, Business Corporations 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: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 59.
Committee of the Whole House
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 59; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The committee met at 4:35 p.m.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed section 2 and substituting the following:2 Sections 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 22, 37, 39 to 41, 43 to 45, 47, 56.1, 57 to 62, 70, 72, 75 to 79, 79.2, 79.3, 80 and 82 are amended by striking out "Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations" wherever it appears and substituting "Minister of Finance".]
Amendment approved.
Section 2 as amended approved.
Sections 3 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
J. MacPhail: Section 10 of the Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003, actually adds a new section to the act, section 56.4. It's section 56.4 that I want to discuss: "Debt services fees." As I read it, this allows for the Minister of Finance to set debt service fees to be paid by government bodies to the ministry for service provided by the ministry in relation to debt owed by the government body. So the version of this in the current act on the Web defines a government body as a government corporation, hospital district, a school board, a board of school trustees, a francophone education authority, a university, a college, BCIT, and any other local or provincial authority designated by regulation.
When I put those two together, I had this question. As all of these government agencies of one form or
[ Page 7455 ]
another…. In most cases they're solely reliant on the provincial government for their funding, including their debt funding. Why is the minister now finding it appropriate to change the way these public agencies get debt, pay for debt, owe the government for debt that they incur in the provision of public services? What's behind this?
Hon. G. Collins: The Treasury has and the Ministry of Finance has for a long time, as the member knows, borrowed money on behalf of agencies, helped them with loans, etc. There has always been a process of charging those operational costs, those charges, back to those people who are drawing upon it. In fact, that's how this funds itself. It is self-funding, based on those fees.
Previously, it was done as a matter of policy. We wanted to put it in legislation so that it's clarified. It also allows us to be flexible in the types of charges we make, depending on the risk and also depending on the amount of energy and effort in response to the complexity of the various transactions. This gives us the legislative ability to do that and to do it in a way that's flexible.
J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, but I was not aware of that. Is the minister saying this merely confirms in legislation the present practice and no different?
Hon. G. Collins: I am advised the answer is yes, although this does give us a bit more flexibility to respond, as I said, according to the type of risk and the type of complexity that are there in the transaction. Some could be more complex, and the fee should be greater. Some might be very simple, and the fee should be lower.
J. MacPhail: And am I correct when I defined…? Actually, I had to go to the current act, which is fair enough, that defines a government body. There's no change to the definition of government body? I read into the record what government body is.
Hon. G. Collins: That's correct.
However, if the member goes ahead to section 19 of the bill that's before us today, to section 19(2), which is an amendment to section 88(2) of the act, and then to section 19(2)(b), this allows — without limiting section 19(1) — that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make the following regulations, "deeming an organization to be a government body for the purposes of Parts 8, 9 and 9.1 of this Act." So there is the ability to include, if it were necessary, other sort of public entities as part of the government entity for the purposes of this act.
J. MacPhail: Yes, I noted that, and I noted…. Well, it's section 10. Is it under part…? Sorry. Does it apply, then, to this? Is this part of part 8, part 9, or 9.1 — section 10? I can't tell from the….
Hon. G. Collins: Section 19(2)(b), which is actually section 88(2) of the act, would be to deem an organization to be a government body for the purposes of parts 8, 9 and 9.1 of the act, and that is what deals with the ability to grant loans and provide that kind of service for those entities.
Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved.
On section 16.
Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to Bill 59, section 16, which I believe is in the hands of the Table.
[SECTION 16 (d), is amended in the proposed paragraph (g) by adding "(1)" after "section 56.5".]
Amendment approved.
Section 16 as amended approved.
Section 17 approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to add section 17.1.
[SECTION 17.1, by adding the following section:17.1 Section 83 is amended by striking out "Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations" wherever it appears and substituting "Minister of Provincial Revenue".]
Sections 17.1 to 19 inclusive approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to add a section 19.1.
[SECTION 19.1, by adding the following section under the heading Consequential Amendments and Transitional:
Home Owner Grant Act
19.1 Section 12 of the Home Owner Grant Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 194, is amended
(a) in subsection (1) (b) by striking out "Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations" and substituting "Minister of Provincial Revenue", and
(b) by striking out "Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing" wherever it appears and substituting "Minister of Provincial Revenue".]
Sections 19.1 and 20 approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment in my name on the order paper to add section 20.1.
[SECTION 20.1, by adding the following section:
Indian Self Government Enabling Act
20.1 Sections 5 (3), 31, 32, and 33 (1) of the Indian Self Government Enabling Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 219, are amended by striking out "Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations" and substituting "Minister of Provincial Revenue".]
Section 20.1 approved.
Hon. G. Collins: Perhaps I can just do these amendments all together. I move the amendments in
[ Page 7456 ]
my name on the order paper to add sections 20.2, 20.3 and 20.4.
[SECTION 20.2, by adding the following section:
Insurance Premium Tax Act
20.2 Sections 12 (3), 34 (3) and 40 (1) of the Insurance Premium Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 232, are amended by striking out "Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations" and substituting "Ministry of Provincial Revenue".
SECTION 20.3, by adding the following section:Pension Agreement Act
20.3 Section 4 of the Pension Agreement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 351, is amended by striking out "Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations," and substituting "Minister of Finance".
SECTION 20.4, by adding the following section:Taxation (Rural Area) Act
20.4 Section 51 of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 448, is amended by striking out "Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations" and substituting "Ministry of Provincial Revenue".]
Sections 20.2 to 23 inclusive approved.
On schedule A.
Hon. G. Collins: I move an amendment to schedule A standing in my name on the orders of the day.