Hansard -- Monday, October 27, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 9 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tributes		7523
	Chuck Connaghan
	Hon. G. Campbell
	J. MacPhail

Introductions by Members		7523

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7523
	Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 86)
	Hon. G. Collins
	Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 87)
	Hon. G. Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7524
	Canadian Institute for Sport, Learning and Leadership
	S. Brice
	Crime prevention in Surrey
	E. Brenzinger
	Economic links to Asia
	P. Wong

Oral Questions		7525
	Property crime rate in Vancouver
	J. Kwan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Funding for addiction treatment and mental health services
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Cheema
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Impact of loss of income assistance benefits on community services
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Gravel extraction from Fraser River
	R. Hawes
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Housing for women leaving abusive situations
	E. Brenzinger
	Hon. L. Stephens

Second Reading of Bills		7528
	Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83)
	Hon. K. Falcon
	J. MacPhail
	R. Nijjar
	K. Johnston
	L. Mayencourt
	J. Bray
	Police Complaint Commissioner Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 80)
	Hon. G. Plant
	J. Kwan
	Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)
	Hon. G. Collins
	Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78)
	Hon. C. Clark
	B. Kerr
	L. Mayencourt
	J. Bray
	J. Nuraney
	K. Johnston

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7554
	Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr406)
	T. Christensen

Committee of the Whole House		7554
	Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Clark

Reporting of Bills		7566
	Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52)

Third Reading of Bills		7566
	Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52)

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7566
	Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr407)
	V. Anderson
	Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr408)
	V. Anderson

Committee of the Whole House		7566
	Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. S. Hagen

Hon. G. Campbell: Over the weekend a great British Columbian passed away. Chuck Connaghan passed away after exceptional service as a citizen of our province and of our country. For 20 years he served in the interests of all of us in British Columbia. The Legislature would like his wife Erma and his children, Michael, Susan and Katie, as well as his two grandchildren to know how deeply Chuck will be missed and how much we appreciate and respect the work he's done on behalf of all of us.

Chuck was chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission. He chaired the advisory committee on the B.C. provincial judges' compensation. He was an active chair of the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He served on the board of governors for Royal Roads University. He was a recipient of the Order of Canada and the Queen's Jubilee medal. He was always at work in the community. He had a strong association with the Boy Scouts of Canada, with the Boys and Girls Clubs of Vancouver, with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, with the Council for Canadian Unity and with St. Paul's Hospital. He had an exemplary life of citizenship.

On behalf of all of us in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you convey to the family our deep sense of loss at Chuck's passing.

J. MacPhail: I rise to join with the Premier and all government members in celebrating the life of Chuck Connaghan. He was a man who, besides being a personal friend, believed very strongly in what we did here in the Legislature. He always took a balanced approach to every aspect of his life. He was a strong believer in the labour movement, in trade unions, as well as a strong believer in a free enterprise economy. He was deeply spiritual. He was very, very active in his church, as well as doing all of the other wonderful community services that the Premier has so ably outlined.

It comes as a shock, I think, to all of us that Mr. Connaghan has now moved up to where he has as many friends up there as he did down here. While older than some of us, he seemed so youthful because of his vibrant personality and his commitment to everything in the community. So it is a very, very sad day that we give condolences to his family, all of his friends and his church and community. He will be very, very sorely missed.

R. Sultan: I rise to introduce two guests who have had a measurable fiscal impact on this government. David Osborne is a distinguished lawyer, president of the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C., a person who has done research on the human brain at UBC and who represents brain-injured victims in medical malpractice cases.

Our second guest is Jeffrey Witton, also a trial lawyer who represents victims in motor vehicle accidents and routinely goes after six-figure awards. Would the House please make these two guests welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to be able to introduce two good friends of mine today who are in the gallery. They are Mya and Eric Morgan, both passionate parents who care deeply about education. I hope the House will make them welcome.

K. Krueger: With us in the precinct today is a very important constituent of mine — one of my favourites. I drove up to the buildings with her last night. We drove up to the back, and there was a gigantic chain-link fence with razor wire all along the top and a gate and a pickup truck. It looked like they were still setting it up. She said: "You know, I think your Speaker is going a bit too far with this security thing." Happily, it turned out they were taking it down. It was the movie set that had been here over the weekend. I'd like the House to bid my beloved wife Debbie Krueger, with us today, welcome.

L. Mayencourt: I rise to introduce three individuals that are from my riding of Vancouver-Burrard. The first is Cara Thein. Her husband is Joseph Maskell, and he's joining us today as well. Then my favourite brother, Richard Mayencourt, has joined us as well. Would the House please make all of them welcome.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. This act follows on Bill 60, last spring's Business Corporations Act amending bill, and makes further refinements to the Business Corporations Act to enable its implementation as planned in spring 2004.

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

Bill 86 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. The primary purpose of this bill is to clarify the treatment of court trust funds under the Unclaimed Property Act. In this regard, the bill provides for regulations to be made to define when court trust funds will be considered unclaimed and to define the rights and duties of the non-profit administrator of unclaimed property in relation to unclaimed court trust funds. These definitions and duties will be determined through consultation with the judiciary.

The bill also clarifies the administrator's responsibilities in cases where the court has or has not yet made a determination as to the owner of the court trust funds. As well, the bill provides that only a judge, justice, master or court registrar may authorize the Minister of Finance to transfer unclaimed court funds to the administrator.

The bill also incorporates two housekeeping amendments to the Unclaimed Property Act. The first is intended to ease regulation of the administrator by eliminating the requirement for an order-in-council to prescribe where the administrator must keep administrator records. The second exempts the administrator from the current schedule of court document searching and photocopying fees. A separate schedule of fees may be established in future if warranted by heavy usage of court document searches and photocopies.

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

Bill 87 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.

S. Brice: I am pleased to advise this House of an initiative developed by Camosun College and PacificSport–Victoria. The Canadian Institute for Sport, Learning and Leadership will be situated on six hectares at Camosun College Interurban campus and will be a place where high-performance athletes, dedicated learners and future leaders will come together to develop their potential and ensure that our athletes prepare for their post-competitive life by acquiring an education and serving as role models for our youth.

The proposed new sports facilities will include a triple gymnasium, all-weather playing field, stadium, and athlete and student residences. The goal is to have the first phase of the institute complete by 2005 and all phases fully operational by 2009, in time to welcome international teams looking for training facilities and accommodation for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

In addition to assisting B.C. athletes achieve podium performances in 2010, the institute's holistic approach also includes the delivery of health and wellness services to the entire community. Through the development of unique partnerships with schools and community programs, it is believed that the institute can become a model for the country in terms of our population's overall level of fitness and good health and a system reducing the incidence of childhood obesity with its attendant complications.

The remarkable and talented leaders at Camosun College and PacificSport strive through this joint project to make the provincial capital the most active community and to ensure that an enduring legacy of the 2010 Olympics will be fitter, healthier British Columbians.

E. Brenzinger: I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard, often thankless work that's done in my constituency by the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force in cooperation with an action team that was formed this year by the city of Surrey council. This action team includes the Surrey RCMP , Surrey fire/rescue services and the city of Surrey's bylaw enforcement department. The team is aimed at reclaiming some of the rougher parts of Whalley for its residents and business people.

Specifically, police and other team members have targeted a quarter-mile strip of 135A Street between 106 and 108 Avenues. "The strip," as it's known locally, has been deemed by the Surrey RCMP as the number one hot spot in all of Surrey for open drugs and prostitution. As the stretch of road in question is within a few blocks of a heavily travelled SkyTrain station, not to mention my constituency office, it is reassuring to know that steps are being taken to ensure that the citizens and businesses of Whalley can have their streets back and feel safe in their own neighbourhood.

Earlier this month Surrey RCMP reported successes in the war against drug dealers and prostitution and in their efforts to clean up the area and make it safer for people through extra police patrols and the effort of the action team. The cleanup effort was launched in August as Operation Clean Sweep and included redirecting the strip's traffic and increasing roadblocks, as well as increasing foot patrols and bike patrols. The program is continually being evaluated. Surrey RCMP and

the city of Surrey are to be congratulated for their efforts and their successes in this area.

P. Wong: I participate in the Asian economic development committee, which was formed to seek ways to stimulate economic development in our province through connections with the Asian business community and to strengthen B.C.'s ties to Asia-Pacific.

British Columbia is well positioned to benefit from market growth and economic opportunities within the Asia-Pacific region. Our geographic location makes us a natural entry point to Canada, and our natural resources create great potential to expand our ties to Asia.

Also, we have many Asian immigrants living in our province. Many have brought immense skills and expertise with them, broadening our understanding of Asian culture and business practices. Despite the SARS outbreak this year, both Canada and Asia have successfully weathered that crisis and are on the road to economic growth.

We have known for many years that the Asia-Pacific region provides important export opportunities for our province. The accession of China to the WTO will allow us to continue our economic momentum and increase our market share. The Premier remains committed to growing B.C.'s economy and has already identified Asia-Pacific as an area of growth. The Premier will be travelling to China and India to continue relationship-building and to identify additional opportunities for growth. This benefits every British Columbian. I join all my colleagues in wishing the Premier and his delegation every success during the upcoming trip.

J. Kwan: As the B.C. Liberals are finding out the hard way, tax cuts for the few don't lead to prosperity for the many. B.C.'s economy is dead last in Canada. More than 200,000 people are looking for work — the most ever. Now we learn that property crime rates in B.C. are second only to Miami. The board of trade is calling for a massive infusion of dollars to fight the problem. Can the Solicitor General tell us if his government is going to respond with new money?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think that, first of all, the board of trade, when they put out a report, should give us an opportunity to actually review it when they…. What statistics are they comparing to what statistics? I can tell you this: the property crime in Miami is 12,000 per 100,000. It's 7,000 per 100,000 in Vancouver. It seems like a pretty big gap between Vancouver and Miami, and I think it's a bit irresponsible for the board of trade to compare us to Miami when the stats read that way.

Vancouver is a city that is policed by the Vancouver city police. Frankly, the relationship between the police and the community and the community groups, as we try and push back on property crime, is something that everybody is working on. It would do well for the board of trade to enjoin themselves in that discussion to find long-term solutions with everybody else.

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

J. Kwan: Well, this government doesn't like to listen, but the people who wrote this report are raising serious alarms. The board of trade points out that with the Winter Olympics coming, the impact of increased property crime on tourism will be severe.

They're calling on the government to put more resources into mental health as well, but the government is cutting those services. They've cut millions from alcohol and drug….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, let us give each other the courtesy of listening to the question and to the response.

J. Kwan: While the Liberals have cut millions from alcohol abuse counselling, and just last month we have learned of cutting millions from mental health at the Vancouver coastal health authority…. Will the Minister for Mental Health listen to the board of trade and fight to reverse his government's severe cuts to mental health programs, which are leading to increased crime and despair? We don't need to hear from this Minister for Mental Health to go on and on about how it's the NDP's problem. It's this government's doing…

J. Kwan: …and we want to know how he's going to respond to the problems that he's created.

Hon. G. Cheema: The board of trade report made two major recommendations regarding addiction services in Vancouver. The first recommendation was to improve services for people who live with both an addiction and mental illness. Our government has addressed that issue, and we have already integrated mental health and addiction services to better serve people with a dual diagnosis. We have done that.

The second recommendation was to increase the duration of addiction treatment. In the past we have seen that each health authority researches addiction services systems to ensure that they are providing effective and evidence-based treatments. Increasing the duration of treatment time does not necessarily improve the outcome. It is more helpful to…

Hon. G. Cheema: …match a suitable type of treatment to meet the needs of the clients…

Hon. G. Cheema: …and the health authorities are working hard to provide a full continuum of services to serve the needs of the patients.

J. Kwan: This minister should know, if he doesn't know, that their government is cutting mental health programs. Clearly, the B.C. Liberals are in denial. They're presiding over the worst economy in Canada, the highest unemployment rate in a decade, and they stand up and insist that everything is just fine. Almost 29,000 people are about to lose income assistance, and they say: "Don't worry; be happy." Hunger is on the increase, and they say: "Not our problem." Crime rates are going through the roof, and they say: "Me? Why should we worry?"

The board of trade is calling for the government to greatly increase treatment beds for those with drug addiction. Maybe the Minister for Mental Health will take some responsibility. Is he prepared to respond by earmarking new moneys for drug treatment beds, which the board of trade is calling for?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, we welcome the board of trade's report. It's comprehensive and it's thoughtful.

Secondly, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. I accept that the members opposite actually care about these issues. But let's start with this. In 2001-02 we added $15 million in new funding to mental health services in this province. In 2002-03 we added $18 million for mental health services. We've added $138 million to provide new facilities in Prince George, in Coquitlam, in Kamloops and in Saanich. We know this….

Hon. G. Campbell: We know that 70 percent of the clients that are accessing addiction services in this province also have mental health problems. We are working to bring those and integrate those together so that we start, for the first time in a long time, dealing with those people's true issues.

Mental illness is something that we have to deal with not with empty promises as the two members opposite did, not with empty promises of a mental health plan with no funding and no action but with true action, true funding and true caring for people with mental illnesses.

J. MacPhail: What we do know is that when this government took over, $420 million of mental health funding disappeared from the budget — disappeared from the budget.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Hon. members, let us extend to each other the courtesy of listening.

J. MacPhail: According to a recent report on hunger in Canada, as a result directly of B.C. Liberal cuts, B.C. food banks are reporting higher numbers and a huge increase in recipients — many of them mentally ill — and a huge number going to food banks before their distribution day because those people's cupboards are empty, completely empty, and so is the refrigerator.

Penticton Mayor David Perry is warning that with thousands about to be kicked off assistance, crime in his community will continue to get worse. The mayor made that same report to the prebudget consultation committee, along with mental health advocates, saying the programs had been cut. The Minister of Human Resources is in denial about this growing problem. Perhaps the Solicitor General…

J. MacPhail: …can tell us what he's told police in B.C. to prepare for when people start getting kicked off income assistance. What plans has he got in place?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, you know, the member opposite was a member of a government that for ten years didn't even have a discussion with police about the priorities of policing in British Columbia. In the last two and a half years we've actually built a working relationship with the RCMP and our municipal forces in an integrated manner for policing in B.C. I'm proud of that.

Hon. R. Coleman: In the Okanagan Valley we actually have a regional concept in policing, and we've ac-

tually been working with the communities to improve policing in the Okanagan Valley. It's interesting that Mayor Perry hasn't called me and asked me about crime rates in British Columbia. He hasn't made any overtures to myself as the Solicitor General either at UBCM or at any other time.

Frankly, we are building a world-class, professional five-year plan for policing in British Columbia to deal with crime. It's being done because this Premier saw fit to have a Solicitor General who woke up every morning and thought about crime and policing in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the ten government caucus members who are travelling this province on prebudget consultations don't talk to the Solicitor General either, because the mayor, over a month ago, told every government caucus member exactly what he said publicly. Every single member heard that.

Once again, all we get from this government is a bunch of ministers hiding from the truth. The board of trade is telling them that crime is going through the roof and more resources are needed, and the Solicitor General says: "They didn't call me." Food banks are reporting big increases in usage and numbers, and the government over there denies that it has anything to do with it. Local mayors are saying that crime is rising, and the Solicitor General says: "He didn't call me."

The economy in this province is dead last in Canada, and unemployment is skyrocketing through the roof. To the Premier — it's a simple question, and maybe now that he's back, he can actually answer it: how many people will be kicked off income assistance starting April 1, 2004? How many?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, again I say that the members opposite, I'm sure, are concerned about this, so they want to base their discussion on the facts. Here are some of the facts. In the first quarterly report in 2003, the crime summary pointed out that the peak of property crime in British Columbia was 86.7 offences per thousand people — in 1996. In 2002, that is down to 64.9 offences per thousand people. It goes on to point out that property crime, actually the decline, coincides with the decline in income….

Mr. Speaker: Order. Leader of the Opposition, the courtesy extends both ways.

Hon. G. Campbell: The decline in the property crime coincides directly with the decline in income assistance caseloads. As this government has gone to work, for the first time over two million British Columbians are at work. Over the last two years there are over 100,000 new jobs in British Columbia. That's number two in Canada.

While the member opposite may want to spread fear, as she has in other situations, let me remind the member opposite of this. This is the situation we face with regard to that: the time limits do not apply to people with disabilities, to people with temporary medical conditions, to single parents with a child under three, to pregnant women, to people participating in training and job programs, to women participating in bridging employment programs, to people participating in ESL, and many, many more.

As we build this economy, as we provide literally hundreds of millions of dollars for job training, we are confident that British Columbians will have a much brighter future.

R. Hawes: After almost a decade-long federal moratorium against dredging sand and gravel out of the Fraser River, there's been a massive, massive buildup of sand and gravel in the river — so much so that navigation is now very dangerous in parts of the river. What's worse is that the level of the bottom of the river in parts of the river near Chilliwack has come up by almost a metre. That means there's one metre less freeboard on the dikes that protect the people and the property in the Fraser Valley.

My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. Can he tell my constituents and the people of the Fraser Valley exactly what's being done now to get this gravel out of the river to protect people and property?

Hon. S. Hagen: Thanks, in part, to the very, very hard work of three MLAs in the Fraser Valley — the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, the member for Chilliwack-Sumas and the member for Chilliwack-Kent — Land and Water B.C., in cooperation with the Fraser Basin Council, will be issuing permits for specific removal of gravel in the Fraser River between the Vedder and the Agassiz-Rosedale bridges.

The total we have approved is at least 300,000 cubic metres of gravel. That permit will be issued in November. That compares to 70,000 for last year. Work will begin in January of '04 and will continue through March. There is the potential for the removal of additional quantities in both this and subsequent years. In the longer term, LWBC has commissioned an engineering consultant to develop a five-year plan for gravel removal in the area.

E. Brenzinger: My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. We all know that women fleeing violent situations often face added challenges because of economic dependence on their abusive partner. While a roof over their head and a warm place to stay is a step to security, what happens when they leave these places? Can the minister tell me what they

Hon. L. Stephens: I want to thank the member for her question. It's a very important one. As part of our new-era vision of safer streets and communities and as part of our safer communities strategy for women, we are working to ensure that women leaving safe housing after leaving the transition houses are, in fact, addressed.

We all know that housing is a very important factor that allows women to make those positive changes in their lives. To help them do that, we've established a $25,000 endowment fund, and it's managed by the Cooperative Housing Federation of British Columbia. This loan program will help women purchase shares in non-profit housing to access safe and secure housing for themselves and their families. This initiative has been very well received across British Columbia, and it's more good news for women in B.C.

J. MacPhail: I rise on a point of order. Last Thursday the Minister of Finance, after question period, rose in his place on a ministerial statement and presented to the House a modification of his answers to questions I raised during question period.

Mr. Speaker, this point of order is not to call into question your granting the Minister of Finance the floor, but I do seek guidance from you regarding the conduct of ministerial statements, specifically in the context of past practice in this House. I want to raise the point that until recently it was the practice in this House that the Speaker sought a written copy of a planned ministerial statement in advance of it being brought to the floor. Indeed, the practice was that the opposition was also provided an advance copy to facilitate a timely and appropriate response in the House.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know…. Sorry, Mr. Speaker; I don't know that. As I now can inform you, I was not given notice of that; nor was my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. The minister rose in his place, and there was not an opportunity for a reply. Indeed, had that courtesy been extended, this point of order could have been dealt with then.

Given the matters I have outlined, can you please provide this House, at your convenience, Mr. Speaker, with some guidance as to the conduct of ministerial statements in the future — whether you will be reaffirming past practice or making a change?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for your point of order. I will take it under advisement and bring back information in due course.

Hon. G. Collins: Certainly, it is the effort of all governments to try and provide members of the opposition as well as the Chair, where practicable, with advance notice of a ministerial statement. The information that was provided to me arrived at the end of the period. The member had already left the chamber partway through question period, which is always her prerogative if she wishes to do so.

The fact of the matter is that the information was pertinent to the discussion. It was pertinent to the public interest, and I felt that given the timeliness of it, it was important to present it to the House at that point in time. There are practice recommendations. They are just that; they are recommendations for practice. There are exceptions when the information is of a timely nature and needs to be brought before the House at that moment.

As I explained during first reading, Bill 83, the Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act, will implement a key recommendation of the government's core services review.

The PNE is very important to the residents of Vancouver and, indeed, the lower mainland. We feel the municipal level of government is best suited to manage its role in the community into the future. The PNE is an essential part of British Columbia's heritage. It is indeed a cultural institution known and loved throughout our province. It's also a vital economic engine and a unique feature in British Columbia's tourism landscape. The PNE generates more than $115 million in economic spinoff annually and employs 4,000 people throughout the course of the year — 2,600 of whom are youth. The transfer of the PNE indicates a responsible, accountable management of public resources and tax dollars while also reducing the provincial regulatory burden.

The proposed bill also comprises amendments to the Hastings Park Trust that will address mandate issues. The province established the trust in 1889, granting Hastings Park to the city as the trustee "for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public." Since that time, the use of the land has evolved and now includes activities that are not necessarily reflected in the original enabling order-in-council. That means that the terms of the trust had to evolve as well. The amendments to the trust will authorize the city of Vancouver to undertake specified uses of the lands that are consis-

tent with the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public to better reflect the current practice. The amendments also expand the powers of the PNE corporation with amendments to the Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act.

This proposed legislation confirms the land grant of Hastings Park Trust in 1889 from the province to the city of Vancouver and its predecessors and successors, and it provides for contemporary interpretation of the objectives of the trust. The city of Vancouver will be responsible for permitting any form of authorized gaming to take place on the trust lands. The city will control advertising and security and will be able to make decisions regarding building new facilities for authorized uses of the PNE site.

The city of Vancouver will also have the ability to authorize future uses and activities at Hastings Park that are consistent with the legislative objects of the trust. The Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act gives the PNE its powers to carry out certain activities. The proposed bill amends these powers to provide greater clarity and the necessary authority to undertake current activities that residents and visitors to British Columbia have been enjoying for many years. This authority includes making or charging for the making of television, movies, photographs and sound recordings.

The proposed act removes the province's authority to appoint directors to the board of the PNE and gives authority to the city of Vancouver, thus effectively transferring control of the PNE corporation to the city. It also removes the province's ability to appoint and terminate a chair of the board. As a result of this, the city has the discretion to determine the number of directors on the board of the PNE.

This bill provides clarity regarding the members of the board of the PNE on transfer of its control from the province to the city of Vancouver on January 1, 2004. It also ensures that the provincially appointed board members will no longer be board members after December 31, 2003. City-appointed members will comprise the PNE board as of January 1, 2004. It's consistent with the direction where we feel the city of Vancouver is the best suited to manage operation of the PNE and, based on consultation with various stakeholder groups, develop the future direction of the PNE.

The sections of this legislation relating to the Hastings Park Trust come into effect either on the date of transfer of control of the PNE from the province to the city of Vancouver — being January 1, 2004 — or earlier by regulation. The sections amending the Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act come into effect on January 1, 2004. The city of Vancouver will continue to operate the PNE until 2005 and will work to undertake public consultations with stakeholders and residents of Vancouver to create a new vision for the PNE.

J. MacPhail: I rise to address this issue, and I'm going to do so at length. I don't know whether I'll take up my full 30 minutes, but if I do, I'm the designated speaker on this piece of legislation.

I am a bit taken aback that the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, who has been responsible for the PNE for the last two and a half years, is not leading this debate. I'm not quite sure why he's not leading this debate. It's of very great importance to people in Vancouver and, particularly, people who live in Vancouver-Hastings. For the Minister of State for Deregulation to respond at second reading is a bit troubling, I must say.

I do notice a pattern amongst this government, where the ministers can't even show up for their own legislation. Perhaps they have such a weak legislative agenda — this government — that in order to keep the Legislature even moving, they're having to sub in with the B team, such as the Minister of State for Deregulation, on this legislation. Nevertheless, it is troubling — I have to tell you — that the very minister who has been guiding this process for two and a half years isn't here to shepherd the legislation through, because it's very important legislation.

Of course, it was introduced last Thursday. I spent a great deal of the weekend consulting on this legislation and talking to my community. Now, of course, here we are: the legislation is going to be passed. Probably tomorrow the legislation will be passed.

The reason I raise that point is because not one single person in that government talked to me about this legislation. Not one single person talked to me about it, and not one single person in this government talked to my community either. That's what I spent the weekend doing, saying, "Okay, who have you heard from in government?" talking to my community organizations. Not one single person in the Liberal government talked to anybody.

I guess I can understand that a government as partisan as this government would continue to take a partisan approach to the PNE. I can understand their reluctance in wanting to talk to me, but to ignore the entire community is completely another issue. So I'm going to use this opportunity to put the history that I've had and that my community has had around Hastings Park, the trust, the PNE, use of that site, the city's role in that and how this government has basically said: "We're going to ignore all of that past history, and we're going to abandon any consultation with the community whatsoever."

I will start off, though, by saying that the reaction to this legislation is mixed. There is a great deal more work that needs to be done within the community on whether this legislation is viable or not, so I will have many, many questions at committee stage. At this stage of the debate, at principle stage, the opposition will not be opposing the legislation, but we will be raising some pretty substantive issues at committee stage.

I certainly hope that the minister responsible will be able to answer those questions. There is certainly nothing whatsoever that I have seen to date of the Minister of State for Deregulation being able to answer those questions. In fact, it was his government that stopped the plan of economic rejuvenation for the PNE

and the city of Surrey, for which he is a representative — stopped the rejuvenation of both the PNE and the city of Surrey and abandoned a very viable plan for the future of the PNE. I'm not sure how much credibility the Minister of State for Deregulation has on any of these issues.

When I was preparing for elected politics in 1990, the major issue facing the riding of Vancouver-Hastings was the future of Hastings Park. It wasn't a partisan issue, I might add, at the time. It was not at all. The then mayor of Vancouver, who is now the Premier of this province, and I worked very closely on the future of Hastings Park.

There had been a huge amount of activity at the local level about Hastings Park. In fact, back then in those days over a dozen years ago, the site wasn't really even referred to as Hastings Park by the vast majority of lower mainlanders. It was referred to as the PNE, the Pacific National Exhibition. The reason for that was that the Pacific National Exhibition, the agricultural fair in this province, had been at that site for almost a hundred years. The PNE had a long and glorious history as an agricultural fair. That history and support, too, has been abandoned by this government, with their massive agricultural fair grant cuts. They've cut the grants to agricultural fairs, so the Pacific National Exhibition has been abandoned as a fair by this government as well.

The community had come to the conclusion that we needed more green space on the east side of Vancouver. Now, why was that? Well, the NPA–dominated city council, who had been in power for absolute decades, and the park board in Vancouver, who had been in power for decades, had paid very little attention to east-side greening of space. In fact, there had been studies out that showed that the east side of Vancouver actually suffered — by more than half — a reduction of green space versus the west side of Vancouver.

So the community — many, many community activists, of whom I was not one — came together and said: "We have this potential jewel called Hastings Park. You may know it, citizens, as the PNE, but it really is Hastings Park. That's its legal name, and there's a trust in place. There's a trust in place that guarantees that site is for the use of the community." Many, many activists living in East Vancouver joined together and mounted a campaign to return Hastings Park to community use and to green Hastings Park.

It was that issue, along with the issue of education, upon which I decided to get involved in electoral politics. I had just had a son, and his dad and I were terribly concerned about where he was going to be able to play as he grew up. So we got involved in restoring Hastings Park as a green space. I was working with the now-Premier of the province on that. There were huge public meetings. Hundreds of people came out to meetings about the future of Hastings Park. Even though the Premier and his NPA–dominated city council and park board had been the ones that had ignored the east side in terms of greening, he did attend the public meetings and heard the outpouring of support for the greening of Hastings Park. Tied up in all of this was the future of the PNE as well, because the PNE was very, very popular.

I remember one of the first points of disagreement my son and I had over politics — just one of the first points of disagreement. I took my son Jack to a public meeting on the future of Hastings Park. The now-Premier was there as the mayor, and I was there. Jack was about four, and he listened carefully to the discussion. Then he came up to me afterward and said: "Mommy, are you talking about getting rid of Playland? Well, I'm not in favour of that." So it was the first disagreement — many of which have flowed since then — about politically divergent views between my son and me.

It was over the future of the PNE that we had a disagreement. I had become convinced by the people in my community that there could be a bright future for the PNE, but at the same time we could have a Hastings Park that was a green, east-side jewel. That may mean that Playland would have a different location and perhaps even a future that wasn't going to be long-term.

In 1991, Mr. Speaker, you know that the NDP formed government, and a former mayor, Mike Harcourt, became Premier of the province, which was excellent news for the east side of Vancouver. A decade later, that news turned to disaster, but in 1991 that was very good news for the east side of Vancouver — a government who cared about working people, a government who cared about the poor, a government who knew that in a city where there really was a divide between the east and west, the east side of Vancouver was going to have as much attention paid to it as the west side of Vancouver.

We turned our minds quickly to the future of Hastings Park, and we listened carefully to the community, who had mounted many challenges to the city of Vancouver about what the use was going to be of Hastings Park. There was a young-in-spirit but old-in-chronological-age man named Guy Faint, who had mounted a challenge to both the then–Social Credit government and the city of Vancouver about violations of the 1889 Hastings Park Trust. In 1980, after years of advocacy and research, Guy Faint, who was born in 1919, brought to the attention of B.C.'s Legislature the violation of the 1889 trust that gave Hastings Park to Vancouver "for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public."

Without this pivotal event by Guy Faint in the struggle to reclaim Hastings Park, the historic 1996 city-province agreement could not have been achieved. The sanctuary's now peaceful beauty and the elegant Giardino Italiano — sorry, giardino means garden — would not exist. That was the beginning of it: Guy Faint's activities in 1980.

By 1991 it became abundantly clear to the new government of the day that Mr. Faint's actions had to be brought to fruition, but we had a rocky start, too, on

this matter. I remember having many, many discussions with my own government, as the local MLA for Vancouver-Hastings, getting my government to realize what the community wanted at Hastings Park and how that could be achieved in a cooperative, inclusive way.

Unlike, I think, the government caucus members of this day, I actually had a voice. Even though I was disagreeing with my government's initial agenda in this area, I had a voice. I got my community to have a say in what the government's proposal was. We actually changed the course. We, at the local level, changed the course of my own government's actions. I just wish that was possible by the government caucus members today, but I see none of that.

It didn't take wild protests from my community. It just took unbelievably close cooperation and listening to each other — my community members and me as the local MLA. What was originally put forward by my own government with the original NDP–appointed board of directors of the PNE as a substantial reinvestment in that site, but a reinvestment in a way the community ended up not wanting, was changed.

That original board of directors of the PNE was well-intentioned, came from the community itself and had only the best of intentions for the future of that site. But while many thought that more development at the site was what the community wanted, and perhaps was what was best for the PNE, the community said: "No, that's not what we wanted. No, we don't want more development at that site. We actually think the park can be greened and made a sanctuary, and perhaps there's a role for the PNE as well."

The then Premier, Mike Harcourt — as was always his way — listened to government caucus members. In this case, it was me. He made changes in the governance, those who governed at the PNE — not in any disparaging way to the previous board. He acknowledged their success but made changes. He said to the new PNE board of directors — I think it was around 1993, maybe 1994 when he made that change: "Pay close attention to the wishes of Vancouver-Hastings residents about the future of the PNE."

Mr. Harcourt, the then Premier, also appointed a group of government caucus members of the day to open up negotiations with the city of Vancouver about what would work best for the future of the PNE. I was very fortunate to continue to work with my own constituents. We had public meetings. We worked hard together. We did surveys. We talked to the park board. We brought in experts. We gave options to the community about the future of that site. We had a president of the PNE, Ian Aikenhead, who said first and foremost that the PNE must bring the community to the table about the future of the site.

Mr. Aikenhead said, along with his board of directors, which was a diverse group from business, from the community and from the city: "Yes, we support the PNE, and we want the PNE at this site, but we want to do it in a way that welcomes the community. Let's see whether we can work toward that." By that time, the then mayor, Gordon Campbell, had moved on to become the leader of the B.C. Liberal opposition, and Philip Owen was in the mayor's chair. Philip Owen said: "Yes, we want to work with the government of the day, the NDP government of the day, to make sure the community gets what it wishes at Hastings Park." In the meantime, groups like the Hastings Park Conservancy, business community members and Burrardview community, just to name a few, were working hard to ensure that Hastings Park would be turned into a sanctuary.

That culminated in a historic agreement in 1996 between the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver about the future of Hastings Park. It was a funding agreement. It also included the racetrack at the time, and it was a funding agreement about how provincial revenues flowing from the racetrack and the PNE fair would go to Hastings Park to green Hastings Park. It was, I would say, a model of consultation and cooperation, and I would also say that as the city and the province moved toward this cooperative agreement, the then opposition MLAs were included in all of the discussions as well — all of them, unlike what this government has done to me. This government has not had one single conversation with me about the future of my own community.

That was then, Mr. Speaker. That's the decade this government now likes to shout and say what an awful period of time it was. In fact, what happened around Hastings Park should stand as a model of open and inclusive and non-partisan cooperation. It is with dismay that I have to stand and say that has all been set aside now by this Liberal government.

The historic 1996 agreement that was signed by the NPA mayor, by me as the local MLA, by the cabinet minister who was responsible for the PNE, by city councillors such as George Puil and by local Vancouver MLAs and the community has proven to be incredibly successful. Hastings Park is a jewel. The PNE is more successful than it has ever been, and they sit on the site side by side.

Does more work need to be done? Absolutely. Has more work been planned? Absolutely. But how will that work continue, and how will it continue in a balanced and inclusive way? It means that all parties have to come to the table with an equal voice and an equal say. It can't be the city dominating. It can't be the province abdicating its responsibility for funding of the site. It has to be that every voice within the community is at the table as well. It is that open, transparent, inclusive and cooperative process that I want assurances from this Liberal government will continue. I want those assurances.

They're certainly not off to a good start by the way they've treated the community in not talking to the community or the local MLA. While it is a sanctuary — a beautiful, beautiful sanctuary — it's an urban sanctuary. It's got a hot skateboard park that is one of the best in North America, and that skateboard park is right next to Il Giardino Italiano, which is so beautiful. The

gardens are so beautiful. They're formal, European-style gardens that make you want to sit there on beautiful benches amidst the shrubbery and the statues and the sculptures and just be at peace.

There's the Momiji Gardens that were brought in by the very first NDP board of directors and are a tribute. The Momiji Gardens are a tribute to the Japanese Canadians who were interned during the Second World War at Hastings Park. There's the restoration of the salmon stream that is absolutely spectacular, and all of this greening has taken place at the same time that the PNE has grown and modernized and adjusted to being located at a park that is a very much different park.

What does this legislation do to all of that? Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. It may be a simple transfer of the responsibility of the city to now uphold the Hastings Park Trust and ensure that the city works with the community, or it could be a downloading, once again, onto the city of Vancouver with the government of B.C. abdicating its responsibility for using provincial moneys to fund the greening of Hastings Park.

Let me read into the record a letter from many people from my community to the Premier of the province. It's dated October 26, 2003. I'll just tell you who it's from. It's signed by Mariken van Nimwegen, vice-chair, on behalf of the board of directors of the Hastings Park Conservancy. I will let you know that I am a member of the Hastings Park Conservancy as well.

I joined the Hastings Park Conservancy less than a year ago because I wanted to support them in what I thought was a well-established, non-partisan agreement on the greening of Hastings Park. It was my way of making a very small contribution to that process. As a result of that, I get their newsletters, and I must tell you that even before this legislation came down, there were many questions being raised about the future of Hastings Park, given this government's wont of expansion of gaming at the racetrack.

For those of you who have not been at Hastings Park, the racetrack takes up — I hope my memory is not failing me here — about 40 acres of a 160-acre site. The racetrack has been there for a long time, and I am a huge supporter of the racing industry in this province and also of the Hastings Park racetrack. The community has worked cooperatively with the racetrack, but they were alarmed about lack of consultation by the government about the expansion of gaming at the racetrack, with the minister responsible for gaming, the Solicitor General, saying that there could be a huge expansion of slots.

What I do know about my community is that if a government consults them, they are always about find-

ing cooperative solutions, just as the letter to the Premier of today said. They want to be included. They don't want to go to courts, to be in the courts. They want to negotiate and reach agreements. I think that's what they were asking for in terms of changes at the racetrack as well. So I expect that today the very many members of my community are viewing with concern and, in some cases, alarm the direction this Liberal government is taking about Hastings Park.

Now, I do note that we have a city government in Vancouver that, on its own, has made a commitment to the future of Hastings Park, and I am thankful for that. I also know, though, that the city of Vancouver is in a great deal of trouble and chaos because of the downloading foisted on them by this Liberal government.

There are huge pressures on the social services in Vancouver, huge pressures directly because of the actions of this Liberal government. Just today, the mayor of Vancouver wrote a very thoughtful piece that was published in the Vancouver Sun about homelessness in the city of Vancouver. He wrote a piece about how homelessness is an ever-growing problem in Vancouver because of the cuts to social programs and social housing in this province.

The provincial government denies this. It's like every day they stand up as if they…. Well, they do have their heads in the sand, but like ostriches, they can have their heads in the sand and still put their rear ends in the air and assume that they're doing good for the province. The cuts to welfare, the draconian cuts to welfare by this province and the cuts in social housing — the kicking of the mentally ill onto the streets no matter how much the Premier is in denial about that — are leading to crisis conditions on the street.

Here's what the mayor said, and the mayor is wanting to cooperate with the two levels of government. He's saying:

The mayor of Vancouver wants to take a non-partisan approach to solving this matter, but they, too, can't get answers about how the cuts to welfare will affect the city of Vancouver. Once again, the Premier today denied giving that information, refused to give that information so that the city of Vancouver can plan. Even with their ever-decreasing resources, their limited resources, the city of Vancouver wishes to make a commitment to new housing programs, but they've received nothing from this provincial government about new housing programs — absolutely nothing. Even though they know they're having to pick up the slack for cuts to child care and they know they are going to be facing almost a doubling — the prediction is — of the homeless on the streets, they have still said to East Vancouver: "We want to work with you on a vision for Hastings Park." I say thank goodness we've got that type of government at the city level, that we still have some politicians who want to work in a cooperative way at the local level for the best of the community.

I was pleased to note that the city of Vancouver announced last week, on October 23, a PNE–Hastings Park community visioning process. I just want to read into the record that visioning process, because I want to hold the city to account for this visioning process. I want to be there for them if they get into financial trouble because of the downloading by the provincial Liberal government. I want to be there for them to refer to the record about what they had intended for the future of Hastings Park. Let me read what the city has planned.

The city has been "actively consulting the Hastings-Sunrise community and other stakeholders about the future of their neighbourhood through efforts such as the Hastings-Sunrise CityPlan initiative…." Considerable and important community input "has already led to the creation of the Hastings Park restoration plan completed in 1997."

Other factors that will or could have an impact on the park are the venues that are being planned to host some of the 2010 Winter Olympic events and whether or not city council allows slots at Hastings Park racetrack. The PNE–Hastings Park visioning process will consider how to mitigate any impacts should slots be approved at the track.

Well, thank goodness we have that kind of government at the local level, a city government that recognizes it's better to consult and include rather than to stiff-arm and ignore, which is what the B.C. Liberal government has done to the residents of Hastings-Sunrise community. I wish the city of Vancouver well in their visioning process.

I will be there, alongside my community, to add whatever voice and support I can in making sure that

the community wishes are heeded and, just as importantly, that there's money there from provincial revenues — as has been the case for the last 12 years — toward the greening of Hastings Park. Every year for the last 12 years, money has flowed from the province to the greening of Hastings Park, and it will be very interesting to note what's going to happen about that. We are a community that is having buildings for 2010 foisted upon us. I happen to be a supporter of the 2010 Olympic Games, but I'm not sure that my community was ever asked by this government about the future of Hastings Park and the Olympics.

I'm not sure that they were ever asked that, but I'm sure the Minister of State for Deregulation, as B team, would be able to say whether his government ever talked directly to the people around Hastings Park. I expect that the answer will come back: "No." He likes to call….

J. MacPhail: He likes to talk about a referendum. Well, it wasn't his government that had a referendum. It wasn't his government at all. Believe you me, it would be the cheek of all cheekiness for that minister to take credit for consultation with anybody in Vancouver about the 2010 Olympics — the cheek of all cheekiness. I certainly hope he won't be going down that path at all.

We have buildings for the 2010 Olympics that will be developed at Hastings Park. We have a Solicitor General who likes to suggest that he's not expanding gaming, but he's going to more than triple the number of slot machines in the province and increase revenue from gaming by well over 40 percent. Only that Solicitor General would say that's not an expansion of gaming. But, of course, he has to revisit history because it was his government that made a promise that they wouldn't expand gaming. So it's like Liberal-speak. I love that Liberal "new-error-speak" — and yes, I do say "new-error-speak" — where they have to say to the public: "No, no, no. Increasing gaming revenue by 40 percent and tripling the number of slots in the province is not expanding gaming. How could you possibly interpret it that way?"

Well, at Hastings Park where, probably, there's a proposal put forward to expand slots or to add slots to the track…. Now, what has the government done for the racing industry in this province? What has this Liberal government done? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

The racing industry creates 7,000 jobs in British Columbia. It has a long and diverse history. It employs thousands of young people. It's agriculturally based. We could be a huge and successful racing industry, and we were on the road to rejuvenating the horse-racing industry right up until 2001. The previous government paid very close attention to the wishes of the horse-racing industry and delivered a substantial amount to assist them. I'm not sure what this government has done, if anything, for the horse-racing industry. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has done nothing.

Once again they've downloaded the problem for the future of the horse-racing industry at Hastings Park onto the city of Vancouver. It will now be the city of Vancouver that has to do the hard slogging of community consultation about the future of the horse-racing track at Hastings Park. They are going to do that, but it is downloading. There's no question it's downloading from this Liberal government onto the city of Vancouver.

I just want to say there is much to be answered about in this legislation, Bill 83. There will be many questions coming from my community about the intent of this legislation and the intent of this government on the future of Hastings Park. I will say this, though: I am the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings for another 17 months, and I will work as hard as I possibly can to protect and enhance the unbelievably wonderful work my community has done to green Hastings Park, to make it a sanctuary and to work cooperatively with the Pacific National Exhibition and the racetrack. I will work as hard as I can to ensure that this Liberal government does not undo any of that hard work and does not backtrack on agreements that were made at the provincial and city levels in 1996. It is hugely important that we continue that good work which was carried out around the PNE.

There was a very good plan, a very economically viable plan, in place to relocate the Pacific National Exhibition. But because it was….

J. MacPhail: Oh my God. This is how out of touch some of these Liberal MLAs are about the whole city. They're talking about the bog. I have no idea what the member for Vancouver-Burrard is talking about. They sure got themselves in trouble there, not being able to pay the money they owe for purchasing Burns Bog like they promised.

There was a very viable economic plan to move the PNE to Surrey. The mayor of Surrey was on board. The business community was on board. The province was on board. There had been due diligence done about it. There was an incredibly viable plan, but as is the wont of this government to play partisan politics with everything, they immediately shut that plan down to the detriment of Surrey.

Of course, Hastings Park — all of the work my community had done in cooperating with that plan was thrown out the window. Is the economy doing better because of this government's great business sense? Hmm — dead last. Dead last in economic growth.

J. MacPhail: Dead last in economic growth in 2002, 2003 and 2004. For the very first time in British Columbia's history, the only avenue a Finance minister has to

even attempt to balance his budget is equalization payments from the federal government — $2 billion under the B.C. Liberals that they'll be getting from Ottawa in equalization payments, because we're now a have-not province because of their failed economic policies. We'll be getting $2 billion from Ottawa in welfare payments. Not one cent of that is going to working people. It's all going to pay for the tax cuts to the rich that this government gave away and that failed so miserably to stimulate any economic growth.

They failed to actually work on an economically viable plan to move the Pacific National Exhibition to Surrey. They've done nothing to support the horse-racing industry. They've downloaded social service costs onto the city of Vancouver. They're expanding gaming at a rate that is unheard of. Now they've brought in this legislation.

All of those factors impact hugely on the east side of Vancouver, and this Liberal government hasn't talked to anyone on the east side of Vancouver. Absolutely no one have they talked to on the east side of Vancouver. So it will be with great interest that my community watches this. I will be raising questions, holding the B team of this cabinet to account on the future of the Hastings Park Conservancy, because I know absolutely no one in the Liberal caucus gives a whit about the future of Hastings Park — not a whit.

R. Nijjar: It is with great pleasure that I listened to the member for Vancouver-Hastings speak on all the issues under the sun, right from what they did to bring the economy from number one to number ten, to city council, to the proposed project in Surrey. Let me touch on some of those.

First of all, I commend the minister of state for doing exactly what one should do, which is allow the city to make a decision. What a novel idea. Why shouldn't the province allow the city to make a decision as to what's best in their community? Of course, under a socialist regime, one would never think of that, because everything should be controlled by the province. Only the province….

Deputy Speaker: Order, order. The Leader of the Opposition should be speaking from her chair only. Any member in this House can only speak from their chair. They cannot be standing in the gallery speaking, so I want every member to remember that.

R. Nijjar: The notion that only the province knows what's in the community's best interest is outrageous. However, we went through ten years of that type of government, who repeatedly told us: "Yes, we want to consult, but while we do, let us remind you that we know what is best."

I'm from the east side of Vancouver — born and raised there. I was one of those youths — the 2,600 youths a year — who got a job at the PNE. I worked there when I was a teenager for a few years just after high school. Getting older…. We know the economic viability of the PNE, projected to make about $2.3 million next year; the heritage aspect of it; the great cultural aspect; the contribution that it makes as it attracts tourists; and the contribution that it makes not just to East Vancouver, not just to Vancouver and the lower mainland, but the message that it gives across Canada that, yes, we have a national exhibition on the west coast. For generations it has been the heart of our community in East Van — of which I am a representative — but also the heart of the whole lower mainland.

I'm not going to get into the details of how it contributes $115 million to the economy — we know that; we can read that — and how it creates 4,000 jobs a year — 2,600 jobs for the youth, many of those from my community. There are more important things than reading out stats, however important those stats are. It's about how we're going to ensure that the land and the PNE, in whatever form it may be, can continue if the people in that community want it to continue.

We could do what the former government did, which is spend a decade of wobbling and gobbling and doing all the little things that they do under that type of regime and then at the end of it say: "Well, at least we maybe did one thing."

I'll remind the member for Vancouver-Hastings that the city council they were conversing with during that time was the NPA. It's very easy to say, "City hall didn't do this, city hall didn't do that, and we were trying to engage in consultation" — well, who was the city hall? It was the NPA — and then to say: "At the same time, though, we achieved a lot." Well, if you achieved a lot, then whom did you achieve it with, other than the NPA?

On top of that, the member for Vancouver-Hastings tries to remind us that the NDP city hall party now is going to have a great consultation process. They've announced that they're going to have a consultation process in 2004. Well, of course they are, because they've been working with the minister for the transfer of the rights to make the decision for the park. Thus, they are having a consultation process.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings says: "I'm the representative from that area. They never consulted with me." Let's ask the residents of Vancouver-Hastings: "What would you rather have? Would you rather have this government consult with that one person, or would you rather have us give the authority to your city so the city can consult with you and plan with you and make a future in your community?" I don't know of one person in East Vancouver, and I'm from East Vancouver, that would ever say: "I want you to consult with just my member."

I actually am proud of the fact that this government is willing to hand over the reins to the NDP at Vancouver city hall, even though, as the member tries to point out, they are this opposition to us. The member for Vancouver-Hastings can call it, I guess, whatever the member wishes. However, maybe we trust that a city

hall that consults with the President of the United States over war in Iraq, consults with the United Nations and discusses with them and tries to send them letters about the Star Wars and about the perimeter around North America, a city hall that is so engaged in world issues…. Why wouldn't they be engaged in issues in their own community?

If there's a city hall that this member for Vancouver-Hastings is so fond of, I'm shocked that the same member then says: "Oh, I'm not happy that you as a government are going to give that very city hall the right to make the decisions." Let the public decide. Should a city hall that tries to consult with every member of this world on almost every global issue, although they are elected to represent Vancouver…? Are they capable of consulting with them on their own city issues? That's for them to decide, as residents, because they voted for that type of city hall. It is not my job to say that I like or dislike a certain level of government, and therefore, based on that, I'm going to give them or not give them the authority to govern over their own area.

This government is doing the right thing. Consultation should take place at the local level. That is why we took the NDP system of health care from Victoria and gave it back to the regions by creating regional health authorities. That is why, in education, we are taking the NDP's control in Victoria and saying that parents will be allowed, will have the authority to be engaged with decisions in their communities. It follows, then, that we are saying that whether there should be more green space or less green space, whether the PNE should stay in the east side of Vancouver or should move, is a decision of the people who live in that area. That is the consultation.

One of the opening remarks from the member for Vancouver-Hastings was that she's not going to oppose this — either that or "We support it in general." Of course the member does, because a lot of the rest of the part she said was rhetoric. Of course they support it, because it makes common sense. It makes sense to allow the city to make its own decision.

One of the reasons why it makes sense is because we need to get a focus on it. For ten years there's been unfocus. Sure, there's been some green space there. Does anybody know where the PNE is going after ten years? No, they don't. Does anybody know if there's any stability at the PNE as we as visitors go there from year to year? No, we don't. If, as the member explains, during the nineties so much was done under Premier Harcourt, then the only question I can ask is: why did the rat pack from the NDP work so hard to oust the Premier? The Premier only lasted for a few years. If he was doing such a great job, if so much progress was made, then why would his own caucus members work to push him out?

I am proud of the work my government is doing to ensure that the racetrack becomes a viable business. Under the current structure, all 79 members here agreed that the future was limited, it was dying, and we had to bring it to the new age of racetracks and copy what they're doing in Toronto and around the world. We made the necessary steps. As the member for Vancouver-Hastings says, she supports the racetrack business. We made the hard decision you have to make in order to ensure that if you support it morally, it would exist.

It becomes very easy for an opposition member to say, in secret, "That's great that the government was willing to do the hard thing, because my government wasn't. However, now what I can say publicly is: 'Oh, I think you're increasing gaming; I think you're bringing us more slot machines.'" Who is that message coming from? A member of a government that tried to bring casinos in all over the place to the point where their own Premier got his hands dirty on the issue, where he was willing to sell off his own political career.

An Hon. Member: The government that approved the slot machines in the first place.

R. Nijjar: The government that approved the expansion in the first place now stands up and says: "How dare you, as a government, approve the slot machines?"

As the East Vancouver MLA, I'm going to continue to work with my minister on the various issues that touch my community, including getting rid of regulations that hamper economic growth. When I was going to university and living in my community of East Van, our economy was number one. When I used to go to university, we used to talk about all the things you could do, what kind of career you want, what kind of job you wanted to get.

I got a job right in my own community at the PNE when I was going to college. Over those ten years I saw the number of jobs at the PNE available to youth go down and down and down. Every year I heard young people say: "I don't think I'm going to apply at the PNE next year. I don't even know if it's going to be around, so I better start looking somewhere else." Everybody would scramble for letters of reference before the board was gone, before the PNE was gone and you wouldn't be able to find anybody to prove you ever worked there.

We have an MLA, a member of the opposition, who then speaks about the great impact that the PNE has had on the community and how much they have done around the PNE and around the province to make this place viable. All along, while I was a youth, this province went from a number one economy to number ten. It went from number one to number ten, and then with the greatest majority in the history of this province, people said: "We want a change." Less than two years later we have a member — that member, part of that government — standing in the House and saying: "What are you doing to Hastings Park?" and "Look at you. Your government is incompetent because your government has this province at number ten economi-

cally." Well, of course this province is number ten. That's because they brought it to number ten.

Anybody who understands the economy understands you cannot put a province from number ten to number one in 24 months. That member knows it also, and that member is playing with that reality. She believes that if she can just keep saying over and over again that the B.C. Liberal government is in power and the economy is low, therefore you associate the government with the economy. Well, I don't think the public is so ignorant to believe that, although the basis of the member's party being in existence is trying to make way with misinformation and people's lack of knowledge.

Let me repeat: we are making the best sound business decision and regulatory decision and the best decision as far as the consultative process is concerned by giving the city control of the trust, control of the board, control of the direction of the park, control of the green space and control of the future of the PNE. I am proud of that. I am proud of the fact that in just over 24 months, we have started moving this province back towards number one. I am proud of the fact that the minister of state did the right thing in my community, and I'm proud that my colleagues from Vancouver and the surrounding area are working together to consult with the people we need to consult with — like our city halls, regardless of how many Star Wars they're fighting and how many wars in Iraq they want to fight. We are respecting the wishes of the people of the city and giving their city council the say.

K. Johnston: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak to second reading of the Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act. I listened very intently to the member for Vancouver-Hastings regarding the PNE, regarding her passion for the PNE, and I can tell you that I actually share that passion. I, too, am a Vancouver boy born and bred, and I understand the value of the PNE to so many people — probably hundreds of thousands — that have worked there over the last hundred years — or certainly in the last 50. So many youth have gone forward and worked there. It would be interesting to find out how many community leaders we have in British Columbia today who actually got their very first job working at the PNE. I understand that passion, absolutely.

It's an institution that is ingrained in you, especially when you were sort of born here. It's just in your blood. Every year I go. I still go. It's incredible — the smells, the feeling, the donut place in the same spot and Ken's diner or Ken's Lunch or whatever. You go to the same spots all the time. It's just an unbelievable feeling.

What I'm getting out of this today is a little bit of confusion, certainly from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. We were going back and forth and back and forth. We started out, and she certainly wasn't opposing this legislation, but on the other hand she really kind of was opposing it. On the one hand, it was good for the province to be making this decision. On the other hand, she didn't want the city dealing with this decision, but then maybe that was okay too. It was somewhat confusing.

What really confused me was the passion — again, which I understand — about keeping the PNE in Vancouver, at Hastings Park, and then the disappointment with the fact that somehow or another it didn't end up in Surrey or in Burns Bog, where it may have slipped away into never-never land. Who knows? I was confused with the messages that were going back and forth, back and forth.

I see this strictly for what it is before us. The government, the province of British Columbia, has consulted with the city of Vancouver — and I know this — about who will run the PNE. What it effectively is, is a transfer of control of the PNE, control of the board, control of the future actions — control. I would have thought, certainly with the city of Vancouver and the province coming together, that's good consultation on behalf of both parties, including the province. I think it's an extremely positive step that will, hopefully, keep the PNE at Hastings and will keep it there for, hopefully, another hundred years.

I think it's really, really important, too, that as part of this we know — and the member for Vancouver-Hastings talked about it — there is going to be a tremendous consultation process — the visioning from the city of Vancouver to the stakeholders, which is the right place for it to be at. It should be civic, and it should be with everybody in the community. It shouldn't be by some provincial government in Victoria. It should be civic.

That visioning process is going to start very soon and will be completed by 2005. There is the opportunity for the people of Vancouver, specifically all stakeholders and all people in Vancouver, because it affects not just Vancouver-Hastings folks but also people in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, Vancouver-Burrard and, quite frankly, probably the whole region — the whole GVRD — if not all of British Columbia.

The province looked at the operation of the PNE and decided, in the best interests of the fair and of the whole organization, that they should devolve themselves from it and let that city take over. I've been listening to the debate. I hear all kinds of things about economics, and this province is turning around. We are making strides. We are moving ahead. But I've yet to hear absolutely anything from city of Vancouver or anybody saying that this enabling action is not the right thing to do. That also confuses me a little bit when I listen.

I hope I've got this right. I want to paraphrase what the member for Vancouver-Hastings said. She was talking about the history of the PNE and the work that had been done over the years. She said something very interesting to me. She said — and if I don't have it 100 percent right, I apologize: "We at the local level changed the course of actions regarding the PNE." What that says to me is that she feels it should be at the local level, yet somewhere in there I thought I heard

there was some sort of debate that it shouldn't be at the local level, and I agree with that. It should be at the local level, and that's where it's going to be. That was very confusing.

In terms of the green space, I think the green-space work that's been done there in the last ten years is tremendous. It's changed the face and the look of the site, but I think there is that green space.

I also took a little exception to the fact that private members…. You know, we get the standard nonsense all the time: we're not involved in government; we're so far away; we don't get involved in anything. I can tell you that all of us, specifically from Vancouver, had the opportunity to look at this plan coming forward. People talked and discussed and thought this was the best thing the government of British Columbia could do with regard to the PNE.

The horse-racing industry has been talked about and talked about, and steps are being taken to make sure that is a viable industry, because we understand the importance of the jobs in that industry. We understand the importance of the breeding that goes out right through the rest of British Columbia. We are hopeful that will be viable through various policies.

The member also talked about the B team being here. I appreciate the minister bringing this forward today, because quite frankly, in my mind, B is for "bright" in terms of that minister, so I take exception to those type of comments as well.

K. Johnston: Yeah, you did say that, didn't you? He sent me a note saying to say that, but anyway….

I realize this is the forum to talk about everything in the world except what the subject's about. I'm not going to do that. I'm just going to say I am proud of this government. I'm proud of dealing in a consultative manner with the city of Vancouver. This is the right step regarding the PNE, and I am truly hopeful — because it's in my blood too — that the Pacific National Exhibition stays in its present form, in a better form, and that it goes 50 to 100 years into the future. I know the province has done its part to ensure that.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. The amendments we have before us to the Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act give the city of Vancouver the authority to appoint board members to the PNE, which, in effect, gives them the entity, the PNE. It means that the city is going to put these folks in there, and their term of office will start in 2004.

We think it's important to do this because the municipal level of government is probably the most able to manage this particular entity. It has been in the city of Vancouver for many, many years. There are a great number of people within the city of Vancouver, many of whom were referenced in the comments of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who feel a great deal of passion, as she does and as the member for Vancouver-Fraserview has, for this particular park — for Hastings Park and for the PNE.

Anyway, those folks all have this opportunity now to get together and decide what the shape and direction will be for the Pacific National Exhibition, and I think that's where it belongs — in the hands of people in that community. The amendments also confirm the land grant of Hastings Park to the city of Vancouver, and it allows the city of Vancouver to authorize future use and activities on the site that fit within the new parameters that are specified here.

What kind of new uses might they envision? Well, you know, in the last few years there has been a lot of evolution at Hastings Park and at the PNE. As a matter of fact, just in the last few years it has become a place where there are sound stages. We have the film industry that has come in and started to use the large buildings on site here. It's giving the city of Vancouver the ability to expand opportunities for businesses that are in Vancouver and for community as well.

I've had a lot of time down at the PNE, also known as Hastings Park, and I just want to comment a little bit. As all the members have talked about in this House, the PNE is a great tradition in British Columbia. Almost all of us were there in our early days, as children, and we take our kids or our grandchildren, as the case may be, to this wonderful place. It's a great, great park, and it's a great, great institution. It means a lot to a lot of people.

When I go around Hastings Park now, I look at the wonderful work that has been done to green Hastings Park. There are the Italian gardens that were put together by Al De Genova and a bunch of folks from the Italian community who put in bocce courts, put in wonderful gardens that you could enjoy, the fountains and all the wonderful things that are there — great marble work — and the great craftsmanship that's been put into that park.

It's beautiful, and it's part of the greening of that park. I mean, it's also an opportunity that has been taken over the last few years to improve the usability of that park. For example, there's the best skateboarding spot in all of British Columbia right in the middle of Hastings Park. It's a wonderful place where kids that are interested in skateboarding or roller-blading or extreme sports of some kind can get in there and, in a safe environment, have some fun. That's what parks are all about. They're supposed to be there for people to use as best they can.

You look at the sanctuary, the land around Hastings Park…. There used to be a wonderful pond there and a stream that ran all the way down to Burrard Inlet. Over the last several years, we've been restoring that. We put in The Sanctuary, which is this wonderful pond. It's got wildflowers and wild grasses that grow around there. More birds have come back to the PNE

and Hastings Park than ever before. I mean, it has become a wonderful green spot.

Over the next few years, there are plans to take that stream and reconnect it to bring it right down back into Burrard Inlet. I mean, those are wonderful accomplishments. Those are things that make this park so beautiful and so unique. You know what, Mr. Speaker? Even with all the greening of Hastings Park, somehow they managed to fit the PNE in there. Somehow they managed to accommodate Playland.

When I was listening to the member for Vancouver-Hastings…. I just want to be clear about this. I have, as does almost every member of this House, great respect for the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I really do. She's someone that's given a lot to this province. I won't take any of that away from her, but I want to go back to one of her comments that was really telling for me. It was when she was speaking about Jack.

I've met Jack. He's a bright kid. Jack, at the age of four, said to his mom: "Mommy, don't take the PNE away. Don't take Playland. I can't support that. Don't do that." Well, you know what? There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of British Columbians that are saying exactly the same thing.

It used to be in vogue that everybody wanted to get the PNE out of Hastings Park; it used to be. People wanted to get it out of there. But you know what? That's changed. What has changed is that people started to reminisce about what the park meant to them, what the PNE meant to them.

It's an agricultural fair. There were so many different opportunities for excitement, joy, laughter and experiencing life right on the edge. Whether it was the roller-coaster, the octopus or whatever else, there were wonderful things going on there. I can remember the logging shows, knowing what our province was about. There were the guys that were logrolling, and there were the guys that were chopping down the trees. I mean, it was amazing to go to the PNE and see all of British Columbia represented there.

I'll digress for just a moment because there's one part of the PNE that's gone today, and I really feel bad that it's gone. That was the relief map of British Columbia. You used to go into that building and be able to stand over top of the entire province and see all the highways, the beautiful towns, the mountains, the valleys and the rivers and all the wonderful things that make up our province. That should be there too. Do you know what? I think that's the mood or the feeling in the city of Vancouver, including the neighbourhood that the member for Vancouver-Hastings represents.

People have started to take a sober second look at the PNE and Hastings Park and say: "Wait a minute. We can have green. We can have a green park. We can have a park that is useful to the neighbours around it. We can have wonderful facilities here. We can use it for film-making. We can use it for all kinds of things, and we can still have our agricultural fair. We can still celebrate the ranchers of British Columbia, the poultry farmers of British Columbia, the pig farmers of British Columbia. The people that build and create all of the wonderful things that are in our agricultural industry can be celebrated there, and we can have a heck of a good time riding the roller-coaster to boot.

"We can go up on that thing that drops you 500 feet down and lets you do a bungee jump or get slingshotted around the park with some of the wonderful rides that are there. We can have those things together, and we can have them in a way that allows British Columbians to still recognize the wonderful environment they live in. The birds and the fish and the kids can come to the park and still be part of British Columbia, still be part of Hastings Park, still be part of the PNE."

We think the absolutely best level of government to handle the PNE is the city of Vancouver. Why? Because they're closer to the ground. They're right there. They know the issues. They know what it's about.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings did say a couple of things that I took exception to. One of them is that she felt she should have been consulted by the minister about Hastings Park before this piece of legislation came forward. Well, you know what? I'm an MLA. If I'm concerned about something happening in my riding that a minister is going to be doing in my riding, I go to the minister and say: "Hey, what are you doing? Why are you doing it? Have you thought about how it will impact my riding, or have you thought about how it will impact others?"

That's the job of an MLA, and that's what the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings should have done. She should have gone down to the minister's office and said, "What are you doing with Hastings Park? What are you doing?" or she could have read the service plans that have been in place for the last several years to know that government didn't see this as a core business for our government to be in.

I said a little earlier that I and many members of this House respect the member for Vancouver-Hastings. You know what? The ministers of this government…. The Minister of State for Deregulation respects the member for Vancouver-Hastings. It's not like she's not going to be welcome in his office or in the office of any minister, because we all recognize this is a person who knows an awful lot about government in British Columbia. She's been the minister of just about everything in this province at one point or another, so we recognize that she's got a talent — something to contribute.

I wish that she'd gone down and seen the Minister of State for Deregulation or read his service plan or taken some time to just talk this out. I think that had she talked it out with him or as she listens to the debate, she'll understand that the very best thing we can do is let the people of Vancouver have Hastings Park. Let the people of Vancouver have the PNE. Let the people of Vancouver have some fun, celebrate our provincial agriculture, celebrate all the wonderful things that are British Columbia, and go on.

Sometimes when we're in this chamber the member for Vancouver-Hastings will heckle me if I'm speaking,

and sometimes I'll kind of respond back in kind, and maybe that's a little distracting for her. But she raised a point of her government wanting to move the PNE out of Hastings Park to Surrey or to Delta or wherever.

I can remember when the minister then responsible, I think it was Ian Waddell, trotted out this idea of moving the PNE to Burns Bog. That's what I shouted out, because the whole idea there was to pave Burns Bog. She's been talking about a green environment, about having a green park in Hastings. I completely agree with her, but I would hate to see Burns Bog paved and become this amusement park. It just doesn't make sense to me.

That's why I raised the issue of Burns Bog. I didn't mean disrespect to the member, but I do want to say that we have a tradition in British Columbia of trying to preserve that. This government has been really clear that we want to do that. I think we're going to be able to do that. Moving the PNE over there was just dead wrong. There wasn't a single British Columbian I talked to that said it was right. They all said: "That's wrong; that's a bad idea. Don't do it." I think we've made the right decision here.

There's another reason for keeping the PNE in existence. It is about the opportunity — many of the members have talked about it — for young people, for ordinary people in British Columbia, to find a job for the summer. I'm really impressed that over 4,000 people work at the PNE every year. That's a lot of people. That's a lot of people who are fulfilling dreams and buying hotdogs and buying cars and buying houses. That's a lot of people; that's economic development. That's a very significant contribution to the economy of British Columbia; in fact, it's $115 million every year. I think that's pretty significant. I think we should be celebrating that.

I think the people of Vancouver have, in the last couple of years, gone: "You know what? We don't want to kill the PNE. We like the idea of having a green park in Hastings Park, and the citizens of Hastings, of that area, certainly deserve a park that their kids can be in, but there is a way to coexist, and we should allow that to happen." All this bill does is enable the city of Vancouver to sit down and go through a visioning process with its citizens to find out what the best use of Hastings Park is and to determine where the PNE should be.

I don't know that the PNE should stay in Hastings Park. You know why? Because we haven't gone through a public consultation process with the people of Vancouver. That's what we are enabling here. We are enabling the citizens of Vancouver to go down and talk about what their vision is for Hastings Park. I think that's a spectacular accomplishment of this bill.

As a matter of fact, I was reading a little press release. I'll just quote from it. This is from Mayor Larry Campbell, the new mayor of Vancouver. "Hastings Park and the PNE are part of the historic fabric of our city," said Mayor Larry Campbell. "We welcome the opportunity to work with the community and other stakeholders to build on their vision for the PNE and its role within the park."

I am confident that Mayor Campbell and his council will sit down with the people of Vancouver. I would encourage the member for Vancouver-Hastings to attend those public hearings and to give her input, as she has in this House, in this chamber today, and as she did with the neighbourhood. I think she said that this is the one issue that drove her into politics. Good on her. She should be part of that and be part of the contribution to making this park green, retaining it, making it useful for the citizens of Hastings and to determining what should happen with the PNE.

I for one, if I'm fortunate enough to attend those hearings, will be speaking in favour of keeping the PNE in Vancouver. I think it's a pretty good thing. I think that kids from all across British Columbia, when they get their little pass in their report card at the end of the school year and come down to the PNE, are exposed to a whole world of entertainment, fun and excitement. They're educated about their province. I think that's a very important thing to do.

I'm very much in favour of this bill. I look forward to the continued debate. I look forward to the public consultation that will take place in the city of Vancouver on this particular visioning for the park and for the PNE, because I think we're moving in the right direction. I think the people of British Columbia, the people of Vancouver-Hastings and the people of Vancouver are empowered by this act, and I support it wholeheartedly.

J. Bray: I, too, am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 83, the Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act. I've really enjoyed the debate so far and hearing the passion, especially from the Vancouver members — the member for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview — who are all very involved with the Pacific National Exhibition with activities that impact their community and, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard pointed out, with issues that affect all British Columbians.

I wanted to add a couple of additional support comments to Bill 83, because the Leader of the Opposition rose and talked about her great concern about lack of consultation. Somehow, somebody didn't pick up the phone and call her. As the member for Vancouver-Burrard correctly pointed out, perhaps as the MLA she could have picked up the phone and made a phone call. I think that was a very salient point.

Right in section 2 of the act, what we actually realize is that this is in fact…. The first three words are: "The trust condition…." This is a trust agreement. This is actually an agreement between the province of British Columbia and the elected officials of the city of Vancouver. In other words, our government was consulting with the elected officials of the city of Vancouver, who are responsible for representing the citizens of Vancouver. So there was great consultation going on with respect to this bill. This is an agreement. This is an agreement the city of Vancouver says it wants. They sat

down at the table with our government, and we negotiated a trust condition, a trust agreement. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition wasn't sitting at that table…. Well, the elected officials of that city were there, and that's what their job is.

The other thing that was very interesting was her talk about, somehow, lack of private member involvement. In fact, she spent quite a bit of her debate talking about and insinuating things about our lack of involvement as members of the B.C. Liberal caucus. I take great exception to that. Being a Victoria person, I want to relate, first of all, one of the most entertaining parts about the previous government's time in this chamber. It was a bit of a sport to sit up in the legislative gallery when the government was introducing new bills, because you liked to watch the shock of the NDP government members who had some shock and dismay when they'd actually find out what legislation they were bringing in. Their own members didn't even know what legislation was coming forward or what the public policy issues being dealt with by their cabinet were. That was one of the great sports we used to have here in Victoria: to actually go and watch how many NDP backbench MLAs only found out about public policy issues their government was dealing with when it was introduced in the House.

I'd like to remind the Leader of the Opposition and her colleague about all the parliamentary and institutional changes that our Premier brought in on the first day of government and the way this place is operating differently than it was during the ten years of the NDP and even before that.

First of all — and I think this is critical in the discussion of parliamentary reform and the role of private members in this place…. That is the institution of free votes. I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to be one of the first members to actually vote against government. It wasn't something I enjoyed. It was on a very emotional and difficult issue, but I exercised my right in this chamber, and I had the full support of the Premier, the full support of the House Leader, the full support of the minister in charge of that bill — the Minister of Labour — and the full support of every single member of this caucus, because those are the kind of democratic principles we believe in. I'm proud to be about a government that supports the freedom of MLAs to do their job.

That was simply one avenue the Premier introduced for the way government will operate now and into the future as long as you have a B.C. Liberal government. That was an institution called a government caucus committee. Now, a government caucus committee was, in fact, five different areas of public policy whereby ministers would come to those caucus committees to discuss the public policy issues they were dealing with, to discuss their budgets, to discuss their service plans before they went to Treasury Board, before they went to cabinet, to allow us as caucus members direct input into those service plans, direct input into those public policy decisions.

I sit on the Government Caucus Committee on Economy and Government Operations, but I am free to attend any of the government caucus committees on any issues that are important to me. Certainly, one that I participated a lot in was the Government Caucus Committee on Health, when the Minister of Children and Family Development was dealing with the school programs his ministry dealt with. I was free to participate and provide my input.

It's very interesting. We're discussing Bill 83, which is the Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act. I'm an MLA here in Victoria, so obviously the PNE isn't particularly close to me. But this public policy issue came to my committee to be discussed — not the actual bill but the public policy issue — so I still had input into looking at it from the perspective of a British Columbian as opposed to perhaps an MLA from Vancouver — to provide my input, for my opportunity to give advice.

I can tell you that when the NDP were in government, their caucus members never had that kind of discussion. At best, they carried the briefcases of ministers around the buildings, but they certainly were never able to give advice, comment and change public policy direction the way we do here in this caucus. That's because the Premier recognized that there are 75 exceptionally talented British Columbians on the government caucus side and that the best way for us to govern British Columbia is to take opportunities to use the talents of every single member of this government. That's what we do every day of the year.

Now, there's another issue. There are several institutions within this building that deal with financial issues and legislative issues and what issues come before the House. Those are organizations like Treasury Board, agenda and priorities, legislative review. Primarily, in historic times those were all cabinet ministers who sat on there. Well, the Premier recognized, again, that we have an exceptionally talented caucus, so these committees have private members who participate in them. In fact, the member for Okanagan-Vernon is on the legislative review committee. The member for Victoria-Hillside is a member of Treasury Board. Those are significant opportunities for private members, caucus members, to have huge influence on government policy and to represent their constituents' and British Columbians' views. That never happened under the NDP.

There's another key element that changed. We said during the election we were going to reinvoke and reinvigorate the select standing committee process. Prior to 2001 the Select Standing Committee on Education had not met…. Now, are you ready for this, Mr. Speaker? K-to-12 education, the second-largest budget item in this province, one of the most fundamental public institutions in our society, and the Select Stand-

J. Bray: That's just absolutely shameful. The public had no opportunity to speak directly to MLAs about education. The Select Standing Committee on Health — the number one budget item, the item that affects every British Columbian every single day of the year — had not met and allowed British Columbians to participate since 1983. Well, we committed to reinvigorate this critical parliamentary function, to reinvigorate MLAs' abilities to represent their constituents on broader public policy issues.

We have had the Select Standing Committee on Finance tour the province. We're just completing our third tour in three years. The Select Standing Committee on Health toured the province in 2001 and produced one of the most detailed reports of any select standing committee in the history of this country. Last year that same committee convened again, heard some witnesses, to actually see where government was at in implementing its recommendations from the previous year — in other words, following through on its recommendations. The Select Standing Committee on Education produced an exciting and forward-thinking document for advice to this Legislature about education issues in K-to-12. The Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs toured this province in advance of the referendum to listen….

Deputy Speaker: Order, member, for a moment. I'd like to bring you back to Bill 83 and the intent of what we're speaking about here today.

J. Bray: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps a couple of other examples pertinent to Bill 83. We've heard in the House two-minute statements where members from Vancouver have talked about the importance of the Pacific National Exhibition. They've used that opportunity — that's new since our election — at prime time in this House to talk about the Pacific National Exhibition and how important it is. We never heard NDP MLAs ever stand up doing two-minute statements, because they were never given the opportunity. They were never even asked about their opinions from their cabinet ministers, from the Leader of the Opposition when she was a cabinet minister.

I do take great exception to the Leader of the Opposition when she somehow suggests that the private members, on bills like Bill 83, have no input, because I've just detailed several examples where private members haven't just had input but they've been the drivers of public policy in this province. They've been drivers of issues that affect their constituents. They've been key to the way this government has opened up this place, become more accountable to our constituents and more transparent than ever before. Bill 83 is just another shining example of how this government has changed this place to make it responsive to the needs of British Columbians.

Hon. K. Falcon: Bill 83, the Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act, will do something that has been echoed by many members of this House, something very important; that is, it will transfer ownership and management to the city of Vancouver.

This, by almost any definition, is just really positive news, and yet we had to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, go on and on about how this was a bad thing or maybe could be a bad thing. She's kind of hedging her bets. She went off on a tangent and talked about the economy, how they destroyed it, though she's trying to point the finger at us for the challenges the economy faces. It was a fascinating dissertation that had little or nothing to do with this act. I guess I was left thinking to myself: how on earth could even that member turn this very positive thing into such a negative thing? How on earth could turning the operations and management of the PNE over to the city of Vancouver possibly be a negative thing?

Hon. K. Falcon: She doesn't trust them. That's a very good point that the Minister of Labour points out. Is it an issue of trust? I'm not sure. Part of me thought, well, surely that member must still know what's going on in her riding. I mean, I recognize she lives on the west side now, but I would think she's aware of what's happening over on the east side of Vancouver.

I want to quote the mayor of Vancouver for that member, because maybe she's not aware of how excited the mayor and the city of Vancouver are about this. The mayor of Vancouver said: "We welcome the opportunity to work with the community and other stakeholders to build on their vision for the PNE and its role within the park."

Hon. K. Falcon: The mayor said that. That is positive news. Then — and this was the best part — she talks about the great plans her NDP government had to relocate the PNE. Well, that is fascinating.

Let me just review those great plans, because some of our viewing public…. I hope the member for Vancouver-Hastings is among them. Actually, it would be helpful if she would hang around and listen to some facts, because that would actually educate her on the importance of these facts. I'll go over them for her, be-

Firstly, they planned on relocating to Burns Bog. They wanted to pave Burns Bog, so they lent $25 million to a private investor so they could develop a theme park on Burns Bog. Well, I can tell you that under the leadership of our Premier, we as the B.C. Liberal opposition were deadly opposed to that ridiculous, poorly-thought-out plan, and thankfully, the public of British Columbia was totally opposed to that ridiculous plan. They blew it out of the water and killed that ridiculous concept. In fact, I'm proud of the fact that we are actually working to buy that for future generations of British Columbia to conserve it as the important environmental asset that it is — as the lungs of the lower mainland.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the House that the minister is closing debate on this bill.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it wasn't the only ridiculous plan, as the Minister of Labour reminds me. In fact, the second thing that the member for Vancouver-Hastings referenced…. I want to draw attention to it and respond to it directly, because it's very relevant. She talked about the very viable plan they had to move this to Surrey, and she was astounded that I could have possibly opposed it. Well, she also made reference…. Perhaps she slipped. Perhaps she wasn't thinking when she made this comment. She pointed out that she attended a meeting with her four-year-old son Jack, and he said: "Why are we moving this?"

Well, you know, I wish the government had listened to more four-year-olds. Frankly, we asked the very same question. What they actually did was say, "Let's buy a piece of land in Surrey," which they did, on 100 percent borrowed dollars, over $20 million — a price that no private sector individual would have ever dreamed of paying, way above market. Then what they wanted to do was spend 80 million to 100 million taxpayer dollars to relocate the exhibition to Surrey.

There was no business plan. This will be a common theme, folks, I recognize. Absolutely no thinking had gone into this. It would have just hosed the taxpayers, as we have been hosed so many times, so we didn't support that. Well, no kidding.

Ladies and gentlemen, she then points out that I haven't consulted her. Evidently, neither I nor the previous minister that had responsibility for this file — the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise — had consulted her. Well, I want to remind the member for Vancouver-Hastings of something: the other members from Vancouver had absolutely no problem coming and speaking to the ministers responsible. I heard from the member for Vancouver-Burrard. I certainly heard from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I heard from the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. I didn't hear from that particular member.

Maybe we're supposed to go and check with the member before we do anything, to make sure everything's okay with her. I'm not sure how she believes….

I really don't follow the thinking there. Our door is always open, and if the member for Vancouver-Hastings wants to talk to us about anything, we are happy to listen to those concerns.

Finally, I want to respond to the rant that particular member went on about the state of British Columbia. This is the one that gives me the most joy, and I can't wait until I get to talk to the members opposite during estimates and third reading on this issue. She talked about how B.C. is in last place. Let me just say this. Her party was the party that drove British Columbia to last place and to become a have-not province for the first time in the great tradition of this great province. They were the ones.

The year 2000 was when British Columbia was declared a have-not province for the first time in the history of this great province. They doubled the provincial debt. They ran deficits every single year. They would come up with financial budget management plans and then throw them out after they missed every single target they set. It was an utter and total disaster, and for her to stand up in this House and lecture our government, which is trying to clean up the disaster that they left us…. That this is somehow something that we should be responsible for does an injustice to this House, and it does an injustice to the fact that it is just so far from reality.

In conclusion, let me just say that I want to echo the comments of the other members who have spoken here so thoughtfully about Bill 83. How important it is going to be and how exciting it will be that the city of Vancouver has taken the leadership to hold a visioning exercise so that they will develop in consultation with stakeholders — and that member can drive from the west side over to the east side, and she can take part in those discussions if she wants to — and so that all the residents of Vancouver have an opportunity to engage in that visioning process to determine the great future for that great Pacific National Exhibition.

Hon. K. Falcon: I know. I recognize that I could go on. There's a lot I could say, but in the interests of time I move that we now continue with our vote on second reading.

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 83, Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

We'll have to give a few minutes for the Attorney General to get down here. He is in another meeting, and we'll make sure he gets here as soon as possible.

Deputy Speaker: We will go into second reading of Bill 80, and we will take a five-minute recess.

These provisions in Bill 80 are enabling and validating provisions that have a limited time application. They are intended to rectify errors made innocently in the appointment of the current police complaint commissioner.

Following a motion of the Legislative Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor issued a royal commission appointing Dirk Rynevelt, QC, as the police complaint commissioner effective February 13, 2003. He has been paid at the agreed-upon salary, which is equivalent to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, since then. Mr. Rynevelt was also promised, during the interview and recruitment process, pension benefits equivalent to those of the auditor general — that is, 1.5 years of pensionable service for every year of service.

Several errors were made in the paperwork concerning his appointment, and as a result, validating and enabling legislation is now required. Let me elaborate. First, the Police Act requires that the police complaint commissioner be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In fact, an order rectifying this error was signed on September 11, 2003 — the error being that the original appointing instrument was a royal commission issued directly by the Lieutenant-Governor rather than, as required by the act, an appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The legislation retroactively appoints the police complaint commissioner to February 13, 2003, the date that he commenced his responsibilities as police complaint commissioner, and the legislation validates any decisions, proceedings, actions or appointments made by the police complaint commissioner since the date of his originally intended appointment.

The second point is this. The Police Act requires that the police complaint commissioner's salary be set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, by cabinet. This process was also not followed. As the question of his appointment has since been rectified through the proper procedures, this legislation speaks to the interim period by retroactively authorizing the payment that has been made to the police complaint commissioner.

Third, the Police Act is silent on the issue of pension benefits in the context of the office of the police complaint commissioner. The police complaint commissioner was, in fact, receiving regular benefits of one year of pensionable service for each year of actual service, when in fact at the time of his appointment he was promised 1.5 years of pensionable service for each year of service.

This legislation makes the Public Sector Pension Plans Act apply to the current police complaint commissioner. It also makes it clear that the 1.5-to-1 pension benefit ratio applies only to the current police complaint commissioner for his current term. That is, it gives effect to the understanding in the agreement that was reached at the time of the recommendation for his appointment. It is personal to him and to his current term of office. It is not something that will apply by statute, necessarily, to his successor.

The legislative counsel office — that is, the office that is part of the Ministry of the Attorney General — and the office of the Speaker are, I am told, working on a protocol respecting appointment of officers of the Legislative Assembly so that errors of this nature will be avoided in the future.

J. Kwan: As the Attorney General has stated, really, the sole purpose of this bill is to compensate for the fact that when the government appointed the police complaint commissioner, they neglected to do so by order-in-council, as required by the Police Act. Both the Attorney General's own comments and the explanatory notes for Bill 80 indicate very plainly that the Attorney General was forced to bring in this bill in order to correct the results of the flawed process, as well as the original error.

In view of the fact that the Attorney General is actually admitting the error, the only rationale we in the opposition could come up with to debate this bill at any length would simply be to draw the attention to the new low standard — I may add — that this member is bringing to his office, as well as to highlight this government's own incompetence in general.

We have had, of course, many opportunities to do that in the last week. In some ways, that is sort of flogging a dead horse. Instead of doing that, we will simply let the Attorney General proceed.

The only other comment I had with respect to this bill is that as the Attorney General has said in his second reading debate, part of the bill is also to correct another error. That is to ensure that the police complaint commissioner receives the compensation that was promised to him at the time of hire. I was actually on the legislative committee that did that work and did the interviews. I had just momentarily confirmed with the Chair of the committee that did that work and asked about the compensation package and whether or not indeed an error had been made, instead of the one-

year pension versus one and a half. The Chair shrugged and seemed to indicate no knowledge of the error being made. I'll be further canvassing that with the Chair about this error that was, in fact, made and that is now being corrected by legislation by the Attorney General to see exactly what went wrong in that process. It was news to me, as a member of that committee, to know that there is an error. I wasn't aware of it, and it appears that the Chair is not aware of that fact either.

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate the comments of the member opposite. She raises issues that there may be an opportunity to pursue during committee stage debate.

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

Bill 80, Police Complaint Commissioner Enabling and Validating Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The new Manufactured Home Act replaces the current Manufactured Home Act in force since 1978 and provides for the tracking of ownership and location of manufactured housing in British Columbia. The new Manufactured Home Act enables the manufactured home registry to expand its automated functions to provide greater electronic service delivery. The move from a paper-based system to an electronic system will streamline the registration of manufactured homes and reduce the costs of operating the registry.

In order to maintain the integrity of the registry information, the new Manufactured Home Act restricts electronic filing of transfers and exemption applications to specified persons. By the fact of their qualifications, these persons will have the expertise required to take over the document examination role from registry staff and to determine whether documents are complete. In addition, an authentication system will be developed to provide an audit trail of any party making changes to the registry information.

The new Manufactured Home Act will improve the service received by clients, create an effective and efficient registry and save taxpayers approximately $250,000 per annum when automation is fully implemented.

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

Bill 72, Manufactured Home Act, 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 second reading of Bill 78. The minister is on her way.

Hon. C. Clark: This bill amends the Accountants (Chartered) Act, which established the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. This self-regulating professional body regulates the practice of accounting by its members and students. The bill is a result of extensive consultations between the institute and government. It will provide a number of improvements, such as better consumer protection, enhanced bylaw-making ability, increased access to membership and improved public representation on the institute's council. These benefits will be achieved in a number of ways.

First, the bill will strengthen the institute's investigation and disciplinary powers, which in turn will enhance consumer protection. It will increase the maximum amount of fines the institute may assess. It will provide the institute with clear authority to license, investigate and discipline chartered accounting firms rather than just individuals. Although the current legislation already protects the public interest by allowing the institute to investigate and discipline individual chartered accountants, the institute does not have the necessary statutory authority to license, investigate or discipline chartered accounting firms.

As I am sure many are aware, the ability to investigate and discipline firms has received increased focus since the financial reporting problems of Enron and WorldCom in the United States. It should be noted that one of the results of these high-profile issues was the establishment of the Canadian Public Accountability Board in July 2002. This board is a new, independent public oversight body for accountants and accounting firms that audit reporting issues. It was created with the cooperation of federal and provincial financial and securities regulators, as well as Canada's chartered accountants.

Second, this bill will protect consumers of accounting services by enhancing the institute's ability to conduct investigations and hearings. As well, it will create an incentive for increased compliance with the act, bylaws and rules of professional conduct by enhancing the institute's ability to recover costs it has incurred in its investigative and disciplinary processes.

The institute will be given new authority to establish a costs tariff, giving it the discretion to require members, students or firms to pay part of the costs incurred by the institute in conducting investigations and disciplinary hearings. Members, students and firms will also be able to recover part of their costs from the institute if it is determined that the allegations upon which the disciplinary proceedings are based are without merit.

Third, the bill will enhance the institute's bylaw-making powers. This will assist it in governing the chartered accounting profession in a more efficient and effective manner. Currently, the act does not give the institute's governing council adequate authority or flexibility regarding its bylaw-making powers. Specifically, the institute will be able to make bylaws relating to the appointment of committees, special general meetings, fees, voting procedures, appeal procedures, standards of conduct, and qualification and procedures for admission to membership and enrolment as a student.

Fourth, the bill will ensure the independence of government appointees to the institute's governing council, resulting in better public representation. This bill stipulates that only non-accountant representatives be permitted to comprise the three public members-at-large on the council.

Fifth, the bill establishes a new associate category of membership so that the institute can admit individuals who are not chartered accountants as members — for example, other types of accountants or professionals. The institute will also be able to make bylaws establishing other new categories of membership and outlining the rights and obligations of non–chartered accountant members. This will broaden access to the profession for individuals who are not chartered accountants and ensure that professional standards also apply to them.

Sixth, the bill will allow the appeal of disciplinary orders to the British Columbia Supreme Court rather than to a committee of the institute's council, which has limited expertise in disciplinary matters. This ensures fairness for institute members and licensed firms by allowing them to appeal disciplinary orders to a body with expertise in disciplinary matters.

Seventh, the bill will streamline processes by providing the institute with more flexibility regarding the timing of its elections. Since the terms of council members are generally two years, it is not always necessary to hold elections every year. Therefore, the bill will allow for elections to council every second year rather than annually.

Eighth, this bill will also assist the institute in governing the chartered accounting profession more efficiently and effectively by providing it with more certainty regarding effective dates of its bylaws and the government bylaw-approval process. Instead of waiting until an annual general meeting for approval of bylaws, the institute's bylaws will come into effect as soon as they are made but will have to be approved by the membership at the next annual general meeting or special general meeting. The institute will also be required to file its bylaws with the minister and government, and the minister and government will have 45 days to disallow them.

Finally, the bill will provide chartered accountant members of the institute and certified general accountants who are members of the CGA Association of British Columbia with a new ability to use the certified public accountant designation in certain circumstances. This will enhance the ability of British Columbia chartered accountants and certified general accountants to market themselves to foreign clients.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments are about enhancing consumer protection, improving efficiency and effectiveness, and strengthening public representation in the governance of the chartered accounting profession in British Columbia.

B. Kerr: It gives me great pleasure to stand up and support this amendment act. I should say that if you had mentioned to me eight years ago that I'd be standing in the House in support of this bill, I would not have believed it — not because I didn't think about politics at that time, but…. I was a chartered accountant. I still am a chartered accountant, but at that time I was on the executive council and in fact was the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia in 1995.

This has been a long time coming. We made presentations to government year after year with the protection of the public in our mind, and it fell on deaf ears. I'm glad to say that our government has listened, put the protection of the public at the forefront and allowed these changes to go through.

I would like to say that this is not self-serving bar membership by any stretch of the imagination. What I think we have to do is put before the people one of the Rotary pillars, and that's "service before self." In this thing here we are actually tightening up some of the regulations on chartered accountants. We want the standards and the bar and the ethical standards for chartered accountants to be held exceptionally high, because if they keep that bar up, the trust for our profession will be held in the highest esteem.

Now, there have been a lot of problems in the accounting profession in the past few years. We've talked about WorldCom and Enron, and you might think this particular amendment act came out as a result of a reaction to the WorldCom and Enron scandals, if I can call them that. I have to say that's not the case.

We tried to get this passed in the early nineties and in the mid-nineties when I was the president, and I guess in subsequent years they also tried to get this passed. This really is not a reactive bill; this is a bill that

we've been trying to get by for quite some time because we think it's very important.

The business world has changed. I'd like to go over some of the things that our profession recognizes and how the amendment act fits into our profession, but first I'd like to sort of describe what a chartered accountant is. I know everybody would rather be lion tamers than chartered accountants, but some of us took a different path in life. So we're not lion tamers; we're chartered accountants.

It's a long road to become a chartered accountant. You have to attend university. You have to be almost at the top of your class with a BCom accounting option or a BCom designation. Then you have to get a job with one of the approved firms before you can go to the Chartered Accountants School of Business. So you've got four years' university; you've got a job with a firm. Now you can go to the Chartered Accountants School of Business, which is held in Calgary for all of western Canada. That's a 36-month course, so there are an additional three years of studying that a prospective chartered accountant must do.

At the completion of that 36 months…. We're now talking seven years of post-secondary studying. At the completion of that time they do what's called a uniform final evaluation. In my day we used to call it a uniform final exam, but there's more involved now than just an examination. There's an entire evaluation of that prospect to become a chartered accountant.

If he passes that hurdle, then he can become a chartered accountant and he's accepted into the profession. So it's quite a difficult job to become a chartered accountant. It's not an easy course. Because it's so difficult to become one, people hold it in high regard, and members that are chartered accountants actually hold it in high regard also.

One of the things about chartered accountants is that it's a national designation. It's not a degree; it's a designation. It's conferred upon us by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, so they can take it away from us. This is one of the things we have in this amendment act, also, for the disciplining. A chartered accountant in British Columbia is a chartered accountant in Ontario and a chartered accountant in New Brunswick. It's national in its scope, and for that reason one of the changes here was necessary to make. I'll go into that in a few minutes.

What I'd like to do, though, is go in on some of the changes that this amendment act has done and why we've done it, because I think it's quite important to understand how the world is changing and how we have to change this act. Because it has been in since 1987, we have to change this act to bring us up to the current times for looking at the public interest.

In the past, as articling students, you were indentured to one particular chartered accountant. That chartered accountant did the work whether he was with a large company or a small company. He signed his name, and he was responsible for the work that was being done, and he was responsible for his student's work. We know that's not the case anymore, and a lot of the chartered accountant firms are LLPs. They're just like large limited companies. The partners are the same as shareholders, and they have offices all over Canada, the United States and indeed all over the world.

It's pretty difficult to go after a single individual when the firm itself might be the one that's breaching the ethics. The chartered accountants have asked, under this amendment act, if they could go and discipline firms. I think that is absolutely critical — the ability to discipline firms — considering that now when a chartered accountant does the audit of a company, he signs his report with the name of the company, not with his own personal name. This act has allowed the chartered accountants to do that. They can now go after the firms and discipline the firms.

I think this is pretty important, and the fines can be quite high — up to $100,000. That's fairly significant. I think if it ever got to the stage where the Institute of Chartered Accountants was disciplining a firm to the extent of $100,000, there would be a significant number of lawsuits the firm would also be facing, and like Andersen, it may even find itself out of business. The ability to go after firms is very important. We've been trying to do that for a number of years. I'm really glad it can happen now, because that is facing reality. That's essentially what we're talking about.

The other issue the firm can do is get back their costs. In addition to the $100,000 fines for firms and increasing the fines for members to the tune of $25,000 and up to $4,000 for students, the Institute of Chartered Accountants can also recover costs at a much higher level. They can actually schedule costs. That puts the onus on the firms to make sure they comply with the regulations and the disciplinary hearings.

I'd like to go into the disciplinary hearings and sort of explain how that works and explain the importance of cooperating with what's called the professional conduct inquiry committee, which looks into complaints, as the case may be. Maybe it's a good time to do that now. I was going to do that later, but maybe I'll do that now just to show you. A lot of people sometimes think that professional bodies circle the wagons to protect their members. That really isn't the case. In fact, I think what we do is put the public at the forefront, and we take every complaint….

I'm using the word "we" because I'm going back to when I was on the executive council. I should get away from that, because I'm no longer on the executive council. In fact, I don't practise publicly anymore, and I haven't since 1990.

The chartered accountants take every complaint very seriously. The first thing that will happen is that the vice-chair of the professional conduct inquiry committee will receive information. It may come in the form of a formal complaint. It may come in the form of something he's read in the paper as a result of a lawsuit or as a result of charges that have been made against a member. He will do a review of that, and he will determine, with that information, whether it should go forward to an inquiry or not. If he makes the decision

that it shouldn't go forward to an inquiry, he then has to have that passed by two out of the three laypeople on the executive council.

Now, one of the other items here in this act is that the governing council is made up of nine people, three of which have to be laypeople appointed by the government. This act has also said that those people can't be accountants. Even though they can't be chartered accountants, they can no longer be members of the Certified Management Accountants or the Certified General Accountants. They truly have to be independent people that sit on the governing body. If the vice-chair of the professional conduct inquiry committee decides that this information he has, this complaint, has no merit, then he must show that to two out of the three laypeople on the governing body and have them approve that.

If he decides it needs further work, then it goes to the committee, and the committee will do an inquiry. Again, it's like a decision tree. We go step by step as you go down. The conduct inquiry will be made, and they'll make a determination whether it should proceed further or not proceed. If they decide that it should not go any further than that, that there is no merit after they do their investigation, then again they must get two out of the three members who are independent to ratify that decision. Again, this is all with the intention of putting the public first and protecting the public interest. Chartered accountants do not want to get the reputation of circling the wagons.

If they do their investigation and then determine there is a problem, that the complaint was justified, they'll do what they call a determination and recommendation. This is to resolve issues without getting into a large harangue or without getting into a large legal battle with the member who's had the complaint laid against them. They will sit down then and work out what they think would be the appropriate discipline for a member.

In some cases it's not much. What they'll find is that the member may have signed an inappropriate document that might not be a serious one to sign. He may not have paid attention to a file, or more attention should have been paid to a file. It could be sort of like the equivalent of a misdemeanour. If that's the case, the remedial action may be to send him back to take some more professional development courses, or it may be the fact that he hasn't kept up with his professional development course, and that would be the remedial action he would have to take.

The determination and recommendation…. That committee will sit down with the member, and they'll say: "Listen, we have found you at fault in this issue. We think you should pull yourself away from doing any audits for the next while. During that time, we want you to take these courses to bring you up to speed on what an audit is all about. Then after that, go on probation and have your audit files reviewed by another independent partner." This could be the type of thing that could happen as a recommendation.

Now, the member may accept that, or he may say: "That's far too difficult for me to do. I don't agree with you. The onus is too much on me. I don't think I'm at fault." He could have any number of excuses in that issue, and he may want to take it further.

If he takes that any further, then the professional conduct inquiry committee actually makes a statement of complaint, and that goes to the professional conduct tribunal. The tribunal is a quasi-legal body, and actual hearings are held. When the hearings are held, they are in a public forum. They are recorded. The member is allowed to bring his own legal counsel with him. The chartered accountants will have their legal counsel with them, and an actual formal hearing will be held. The determination of the tribunal will be made, and that member will have to comply.

I'm sorry, I'd like to go back one step. There is another opportunity that the member has. If he thinks the original determination or recommendation was too hard, he can say: "Listen, I want to take this to binding arbitration." It's called "binding opinion." If they do that, arbiters will be selected from a pool of about 70 people who are chartered accountants knowledgable in that area. They will come and listen to the member and listen to the complaint, and they will make a binding determination and recommendation of whether the remedial action is correct or not, and the member must adhere to it.

The next step is a tribunal, when you get into a fairly expensive proceeding. Again, with the clerks there, with legal counsels on both sides, with a forum open to the public, that's taken very, very seriously. I can tell you, it doesn't happen too often, but there seems to be one every year, and the costs can go up to $50,000. They can be quite high when you get into a real hearing of this nature.

The tribunal's decisions are final, and if the member doesn't comply with the tribunal's decision, then the option for the institute is to expel him from membership. In some cases the member will say: "Well, you can't do that to me. I'm going to quit." When a member says that, he can't quit that easily. What the institute will then do is put ads in the paper. Again, this is for the interests of the public, to protect the public's interests. They will put ads in the paper saying that this particular member has quit in the face of disciplinary action, and they'll state what the disciplinary action is. He can't get away with just quitting.

That's sort of how the disciplinary procedure works. It's very onerous. There are procedures along the way. Independent laypeople that are on the board of governors are involved in the process all the way along so that it can't be something that's just done for self-interests inside chartered accountants. The system works very well. Now, with increasing the size of the fines and increasing the ability of the institute to recover certain of its costs, it will be taken more seriously. I think that's a very important issue.

I just have to take a look at my notes here, because there are a lot of things this small act has done that I

think are fairly good. I mentioned to you that when you're a chartered accountant in British Columbia, you're also a chartered accountant in Ontario. It's a designation that applies nationally across the whole country, but every province has its own provincial institute. So you're a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia; you're also a member of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

There are a number of committees for looking at all aspects of the profession that could be considered inter-institute or interprovincial committees for the Institute of Chartered Accountants. They meet on a regular basis, and they look at issues that are important that could be coming up — they could be emerging issues that are coming into the profession — which may require some changes to the way the chartered accountants conduct their business.

In the past changes could only be made at an annual general meeting at the provincial level, and then they'd also have to be made at the national level, at the CICA. Under this amendment act they've allowed the bylaws to be made immediately, so the executive council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants can put through a bylaw immediately, and it could be in place immediately. The advantage to that, of course, is that when all ten provinces get together and all ten of the provincial chartered accountant bodies get together and say, "This is what we need for the profession to protect the public's interest," they don't have ten of the members saying: "Well, I can't do it for another ten months because the annual general meeting doesn't come up." They can go back to their respective executive councils and get the changes made right there.

Again, it is a democratic organization, and so any bylaw changes will have to be made and ratified at the annual general meeting. Also, the government has the right of veto. I think that's a fairly important issue, because it is an act…. The chartered accountants exist because of the government act, a statute, so the government does have a veto. When this bylaw is made, the chartered accountants must send the bylaw to the government for their review within 30 days. Then the government has 45 days to veto it. If they haven't vetoed it within 45 days, then it becomes a bylaw in good standing, and it's in full force and effect by the institute.

I think that's certainly going to be in the public interest. It's going to help the public, and it will allow chartered accountant institutes, particularly in British Columbia, to move forward and make decisions that are necessary as they go along, as opposed to having to wait each year.

Now I would like to talk about another issue. This came to my attention just about two weeks ago. Somebody mentioned to me a problem they had with their accountant. They came into my constituency office, and they thought their accountant had stolen from them. They were really concerned: how can an accountant do this to them? Oh, I remember what it was. It was some bad tax advice that they had gotten, and Revenue Canada came back and reassessed their tax returns and assessed them a considerable amount of money. They were wondering how their accountant can do that to them. My first question, when I talk to people like that, is: "Well, is your accountant a chartered accountant or a certified general accountant?" They said: "No, he wasn't."

In British Columbia anybody can call themselves an accountant. Anybody can call themselves a public accountant. Anybody can hang up a shingle and go out and accept money, receive money, for doing public accounting work. They are not governed by any professional code of ethics, by the chartered accountants or certified general accountants or certified management accountants. It is absolutely caveat emptor on the part of the public. A lot of people don't realize that. They think if a person hangs out a shingle and calls themselves an accountant, there's some body that's looking out for them. That's not the case.

One of the other things chartered accountants have is that they're allowed to bring other people under their wing who aren't necessarily chartered accountants. I remember this debate a number of years ago. I was fully involved in this debate on whether we could bring in associates of the chartered accountants and what we should call them if we did that. A chartered accountant is highly trained, and as a result, it costs a lot of money to engage a chartered accountant. A lot of small businesses don't necessarily need the expertise of a chartered accountant. They could use somebody with less expertise that can still get the job done for them.

So it's important to say that…. So the chartered accountants have had another course that they've allowed for people working, let's say, in chartered accountancy firms and have been doing bookkeeping or public accounts for companies but haven't taken the CGA program or the CMA program. They can't become chartered accountants that would still like to be part of and within the profession.

We looked at that, and we said anybody that can come in — this is when I was discussing it — and work under our code of ethics and our rules…. We've protected the public for that person. The public has been protected for that person, so we shouldn't restrict membership solely to chartered accountants. We should say that other people, associates, can come in under the membership, and then we know that these people are holding to the high standard of ethics and the code of conduct.

This act allows this to happen, and I think this is very, very important. Again, the caution should be that if a person doesn't have initials after their name that say chartered accountant or CA or FCA, CGA or certified general accountant or CMA or certified management accountant, I would recommend anybody dealing with that type of person be very leery, because it's strictly caveat emptor. There is no governing body looking out for the consumer protection interests in that regard, so that's another issue that this particular act allows to happen.

B. Kerr: Let me talk. This is so exciting; I have to tell you that this is more fun than being a lion tamer. They wanted me to come up here and speak with great passion about this, and what I've done is that I've spoken like a true chartered accountant. I've been very dry. I talked about the facts. So these are just the facts.

But I could tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the accountancy profession is a great profession. It has certainly served me well. It has served my family well, and I will tell you that my son-in-law is now a chartered accountant, and it's serving his family well. He got his degree in biology, and he was a marine environmental toxicologist when he decided to go back to become a chartered accountant.

He had to take another three years of university to close the gap between the science majors and the commerce major, and then he had to do another three years to get his chartered accountancy. I'm glad to say that after ten years, he became a chartered accountant, but that wasn't good enough for him. He wanted to study for another two years to become a tax specialist, so after 13 years he's finally settling into what his profession should be.

There's another situation mentioned in this act that I think is very important. In the United States they're called CPAs, certified professional accountants or certified public accountants. It's called the CPA designation. There are a number of members in Canada that have got both their CA designation and their CPA designation, but they've never been allowed to show that, so they've lost out on a marketing opportunity to show both designations. This act allows them to show both their CA designation and their CPA designation. This act coincides with the same provisions under the CGA act and the CMA act, so there will be a reciprocity there between the CMAs and the CAs for those people who want to show that they are certified public accountants and have been licensed to practise in the United States.

As I say, we've been trying to get these amendments in for a number of years. Every single one of these amendments is in the public interest. It's not self-serving of the profession at all. It's certainly putting service before self, as I can say. I'm extremely happy that I can stand up and do this, because having tried to get these amendments through for a number of years, it gives me pleasure to be in government when these things are going to go through.

I commend the minister for bringing these to the forefront and allowing these amendments to go through. Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I will take my seat and allow some of the other members who I think might want to, to talk on this issue. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.

L. Mayencourt: It's not often that we want to restrain the member who spoke just ahead of me, but he was obviously quite excited about this bill. I'm glad he is, because I am as well.

Let me begin. I want to thank the Minister of Education for taking the lead on bringing this legislation to us today for second reading. I know she's filling in for the Minister of Advanced Education, who today is attending to her mother who is very, very ill at this time. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the Minister of Advanced Education and our gratitude to the Minister of Education for her support in this bill today.

The Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003, will broaden the powers of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. That entity is the self-regulating professional body that governs the practices of chartered accountants in British Columbia. This bill is being introduced as a result of consultations with chartered accountants across this province and with the institute, which saw a need to enhance its ability to protect consumers and strengthen its ability to govern the chartered accountants in this province.

Specifically, this legislation is going to enhance consumer protection by providing the institute with clear authority to license, investigate and discipline chartered accounting firms rather than just individuals. In other words, it's not just the chartered accountant who is on the hook for bringing his or her integrity to this task but also the firm where they are employed. It will ensure the independence of government appointees to the council. It will broaden access to membership in the institute for individuals who are not chartered accountants, such as other types of accountants and professionals — as was mentioned here, certified public accountants, certified general accountants and so on.

This bill will provide the institute with more flexibility in its bylaw-making powers and more certainty regarding the effective dates of those bylaws. This will allow it to govern the chartered accountants profession more efficiently and carry out its public protection role even more effectively. It will allow qualified chartered accountants and certified general accountants to use the certified public accountant designation — which was mentioned by the member that spoke just ahead of me — making it easier for them to market themselves in other jurisdictions such as the United States.

The institute plays an important role in protecting consumers by setting, monitoring and enforcing standards of conduct and competency for its members. However, the act has not undergone significant amendment since 1987. Today we are introducing amendments to the act in order to enhance the ability of the institute to carry out its role in protecting consumers and the public. This will be done by enhancing the institute's investigative and disciplinary powers,

strengthening public representation on the institute's council, improving efficiency and effectiveness in governance of the chartered accounting profession in British Columbia, and broadening access to membership in the institute to include individuals who are not chartered accountants.

This bill is good news for consumers of chartered accountant services and for the general public. Currently, individual members are held accountable for compliance with the institute's standards of conduct and competency, the act and the bylaws, and they are subject to disciplinary measures for failure to comply. However, chartered accounting firms have not been held accountable in this way.

The ability to investigate and discipline firms has received increased focus since the financial reporting problems of Enron and WorldCom in the United States and the resulting establishment of the Canadian Public Accountability Board. It is important, since accounting services are increasingly provided through large chartered accounting firms where audit or review reports are signed off in the name of the firm rather than by individual members. This bill will give the institute jurisdiction over licensed firms rather than just individual members. That means firms will be subject to the institute's standards of conduct and competency. The act and the bylaws allowing the institute to license and discipline firms are also consistent with legislation and practice in other Canadian provinces, such as Alberta and Ontario.

Currently, the act only allows the institute to reprimand, suspend, expel, fine or impose conditions on a member or student. It does not allow the institute to discipline firms. In addition, the current maximum penalties for incompetent practice, professional misconduct or failure to comply with the act or bylaws are no longer high enough to act as an effective deterrent.

In addition to extending the institute's authority to allow it to investigate and discipline licensed firms, this bill will strengthen the institute's disciplinary powers. If the institute finds that a member or firm has engaged in incompetent practice or professional misconduct, it will have the discretion to impose fines of up to $25,000 for members, up to $4,000 for students and up to $100,000 for licensed firms. These fines are consistent with fines in other professional legislation in British Columbia and with fine levels of other provincial chartered accountant institutes. In addition, the institute will be able to bar a former member or formerly licensed firm from membership or licensing in the future.

This bill will also clarify the institute's ability to recover some of the costs it has incurred to conduct investigations and disciplinary proceedings. This will strengthen the institute's ability to conduct investigations and hearings and will create an incentive for increased compliance with standards of conduct and competency, the act and the bylaws.

This act only applies to members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. It does not apply to certified general or certified management accountants, who are governed by their own professional bodies and legislation, or to other individuals providing accounting services in British Columbia.

Although the Chartered Accountants Act only applies to chartered accountants, this bill will amend the Certified General Accountants Act. This is being done to ensure equity between chartered accountants and certified general accountants in the province regarding the use of the certified public accountant, or CPA, designation. The CPA designation is one that is granted in the United States and some other jurisdictions. However, currently both chartered accountants and certified general accountants are prohibited by their legislation from using this designation in British Columbia. This has affected the ability of chartered accountants and certified general accountants who hold CPA designation from other jurisdictions to market themselves to foreign clients who recognize that designation. Therefore, this bill will amend both acts to allow for use of the designation here in British Columbia by chartered accountants and certified general accountants.

The institute is governed by a council composed of up to nine individuals. The act currently allows the government to appoint up to three of these members, as long as they are not members of the institute. The purpose of lay membership is to represent the broader public interest and provide a mechanism for public participation in the decisions of self-governing professional bodies. Therefore, this bill will amend the act to provide that government-appointed members must not be members of the institute, the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia or the Certified Management Accountants Society of British Columbia. This will strengthen public representation in the governance of chartered accounting in British Columbia.

To carry out its role in regulating chartered accountants in the province, the institute needs to be able to act in an efficient and effective manner. Therefore, this bill will amend the act to clarify the institute's authority to make bylaws, including bylaws relating to the appointment of committees, special general meetings, fees, voting procedures, appeal procedures, standards of conduct and competency, and qualifications and procedures for admission to membership and enrolment as a student.

This bill will also amend the act so that instead of waiting until an annual general meeting for approval of its bylaws, the institute's bylaws will come into effect as soon as they are made. This will allow the institute to address issues quickly as they arise, and the bylaws will still have to be approved by the general membership at the next annual general meeting or a special general meeting.

The government has a role to play in the bylaw-making process. In passing legislation that establishes the profession's self-regulating status, government has a responsibility to ensure that such legislation is in the public interest. Therefore, professional legislation usually gives government an ability to annul, disallow or

approve any bylaws of a professional body to ensure that they are within the scope of powers granted under the act.

Currently, government may annul the institute's bylaws at any time. This creates uncertainty for the institute and its membership regarding the status of bylaws. Therefore, this bill will amend the act so that the institute must file a bylaw with the minister within 30 days after it is confirmed by the membership at a special general meeting or annual meeting. Government will then be given a time limit of 45 days to disallow the institute's bylaws.

Currently, only individuals who have completed training as a chartered accountant and have met standards established by the institute may become institute members. However, there are no legislative restrictions on providing accounting services to the public in British Columbia. Anyone may do so, whether or not they are members of the institute or other professional accounting body. This bill will broaden access to membership in the institute by authorizing it to accept individuals who are not chartered accountants as members. These members will be allowed to use the "associate" or the "chartered accountant" designation and will be held to standards of competency and conduct by the institute.

As I said a little earlier, it's been many years since the Chartered Accountants Act was first established and passed. Throughout the years a few minor amendments have been made, mostly consequential, but as we know, much has changed and occurred in the business world and in the world generally. It is time to bring this act up to date to meet the demands of the twenty-first century.

People today want better service, faster service, value for money — even in the accounting world. It's a fast-paced world that we live in, and no profession can escape change. There is new technology. There are new reporting requirements, new expectations of accountability. All of these require that we bring up to date our original obligations, both expressed and implied. We must meet the challenges of today and the needs of today's world.

Amendments on matters such as how members are appointed or elected to their council or board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants are important. They are important because we have expectations of this profession, and we depend upon the self-regulatory nature of this profession to benefit the people of this province and to ensure the public interest is well protected. What the accounting profession does is very important. It is important for business. It's important for large and small businesses, it's important for large corporations, and it is equally important for individual citizens of this province. It is also important for jobs, and that means it is important for our economy — an economy that will provide the resources we need to provide vital public services, such as health care and education.

It starts here today. It begins with legislation that will offer renewed confidence to taxpayers and to the business community. I am fully in support of this legislation, as are other members of this House. I know that many want to speak on this bill, and so I will yield the floor to them.

J. Bray: I am pleased to rise in support of Bill 78, the Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003. Although I will not be able to emulate the passion and the firebrand speech from the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, being the lowly lion tamer that I am, I will nonetheless try.

I rise in support of this bill for a number of reasons. The first is just to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Advanced Education. As the member for Vancouver-Burrard alluded to, of course, our thoughts and prayers are with her and her family.

This is a minister who continually responds to the needs of a changing world of the twenty-first century and who has, on several occasions, brought legislation before this House that really is transforming a lot of aspects of our world. She is to be commended for continually being at the forefront of these changes. Now, many members of this House and the Minister of Education alluded to the fact that Bill 78 comes out after significant consultations with the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I was struck by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca's history of those consultations. The fact is that professional accountants came to Victoria to ask for modernization of their bill, literally, since the early nineties.

It's interesting that this critical aspect of business — of our economy, of professionals in our province — couldn't seem to get anywhere with the previous government. I find that quite fascinating. I find it more fascinating because during various histrionic debates in this House, the Leader of the Opposition actually talked about incidents with companies like Enron — about the great, mass evil corporations and all these types of incidents — and yet accountants right here in the province were coming to say, among other things: "We need to modernize our act so that we can discipline both individual accountants and also firms." The opposition, then government, didn't want to listen for ten years. The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca was president of the institute and couldn't get in to talk about it. I find it absolutely fascinating that in less than two years, this government has responded to the professionals in the accounting world and is making the changes they have asked for.

Another reason I want to speak on Bill 78 is that one of the areas of concern my constituents raise is the area around consumer protection, in the sense that they want to know that those self-regulating bodies that are there to look after the public have the tools, the regulatory framework and the public accountability to do so. The Minister of Health Planning brought forward a couple of bills to deal with health professions to bring them all under one regulatory framework and to make them more accountable to the public in ways that people have been talking about almost for a generation — to open

that process up so the public can have more confidence in the 99 percent of health professionals that do a wonderful job and more confidence in the process that deals with the 1 percent that may be into difficulties.

Anything that improves and enhances consumer protection is very important to my constituents, and Bill 78 does that. By providing the independence for the three laypersons to be appointed to the board, it ensures that a perspective on that board is based on what's best for the consumer without any influence by being an accountant and part of that general profession.

This is a significant amendment, because it ensures that consumers are always at the forefront of discussions that the institute will have when a complaint comes forward. Having two out of three of those members having to approve actions ensures that you've got the technical expertise within the accountants to deal with the technical issues, but from a consumer protection standpoint, this strengthens that role significantly. For my constituents and indeed, I would think, for all British Columbians, that's an important aspect.

Section 3 of this bill also does a lot to clarify the council's authority and to clear up issues that at times have been, perhaps, a bit murky. Again, providing a regulatory framework that improves the efficiency and effectiveness of a self-regulating body enhances the services to the public, as well as the services to chartered accountants themselves.

Another critical aspect that sometimes my constituents are concerned about are penalties within legislation with self-regulating bodies, and so by bringing in a new level of $100,000, it ensures that when firms or individuals truly go offside, there are penalties there that will deal with that. More importantly, it acts as a type of deterrence for the one or two bad apples to not go there in the first place.

There are many other positive aspects of Bill 78, and I think the Minister of Advanced Education and the Chartered Accountants Institute are to be commended for working together collaboratively in a consultative process to bring forward a progressive piece of legislation to further enhance consumer protection in the province of British Columbia.

J. Nuraney: I, too, have difficulty, like my predecessor here who just spoke, in mustering that excitement about this bill that the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca expressed in this House. My image of an accountant is the vision of this middle-aged man with a visor over his eyes, bent over these piles of paper. The only tool of his trade was a pencil sharpener.

It is very difficult for me to muster that excitement, but nevertheless this bill before us is one of the exercises that this government has taken in trying to clear up some of the difficulties that institutes like the chartered accountants have. This bill will not only ease making the bylaws for the institute that will govern the conduct of its members, but it will also be a protection to the consumer by increasing the awareness and tightening the code of conduct of these members.

This bill also gives the opportunity for enhancing the protection of the consumer. As we witnessed, a year or so ago, the disturbing aspects of the accounting profession that were exhibited in the United States, it is increasingly important, therefore, that any kind of regulation or bylaw that can be established to tighten the controls and have a better oversight model is always a welcome thing in our world today.

This bill will also, I presume, allow flexibility for the institute to make their own bylaws and yet have the ministry in the role of oversight so that any bylaw the ministry or the government feels is not conducive to better management or better conduct can always be repealed or refused within 45 days of being instituted. With all these little checks and balances I think, overall, this bill needs the support that it deserves. I stand here today to support this bill, and I thank you for the opportunity.

K. Johnston: Thank you very much for the opportunity to join this extremely spirited debate on a very exciting subject. I know, Mr. Speaker, you're on the edge of your chair. I just wanted to quickly talk about the good public policy of this. This is all about consumer protection, enhancing consumer protection.

I had the ability to start my career quite a ways back as a public practice accountant. Those days were a little different than today in terms of competence and in terms of requirements and stringent rules. The records in those days and the work that was done were lacking in many cases. In fact, just as an aside, some of the files I created way back in the seventies are actually being used as teaching aids by some very qualified practitioners on what not to do when providing accounting and auditing services. A good friend of mine named Brian Galloway is a great teacher. He's using those, so it's kind of a dubious honour.

I had a chance to visit the workplace I was in many years ago, and I can tell you that today the standards for all accounting professionals have changed. They are extremely, extremely high. This act is not about any kind of incompetence or any kind of misuse of standards. What it's about is enhancing public consumer protection.

CGAs, CMAs and also CAs have very stringent professional development requirements. The courses that are required to be taken by professional individuals in the accounting profession are extremely, extremely stringent and intense, like most other professions that are self-policing to that degree.

This bill enhances consumer protection by giving the profession clear authority to license, investigate and discipline chartered accounting firms rather than just individuals. I think that's key. I think the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca talked about signing off on financial statements. With Enron, WorldCom…. In the papers, unfortunately, across the world there seems to be an incident a day with regard to the accounting profession. The bill will increase the maximum amount of fines, and I think that's a good step.

The other thing I think is really critical — and certainly I'm a member of the Certified General Accountants Association— is that the CPA designation that's utilized in the United States will be allowed to be used here for those who have passed the tests and qualify to use the CPA. Government still has a role in oversight and passing the legislation and the ability to review any bylaws that maybe go out of bounds.

I bring the support of the Certified General Accountants Association of B.C., who have contacted me, to the initiative to support this bill. I just wanted to say that I'm sure all 12,000 members and students are behind this. This is another example of good government policy in self-regulation.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 78 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 78, Accountants (Chartered) 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.

T. Christensen presented a bill intituled Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003.

T. Christensen: I move that a bill intituled Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

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

Bill Pr406 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Hon. L. Stephens: Noting the hour, I move the House stand recessed until 6:35.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 52; H. Long in the chair.

J. Kwan: In the "Definitions" section of the bill, the definition of "career training" in the legislation reads: "Training or instruction in the skill and knowledge required for employment in an occupation defined in the regulations." Could the minister please provide a sense of what occupations will be included?

J. Kwan: The minister asked me to repeat the question because there was background noise behind her. In section 1, the "Definitions" section, according to the bill, it reads: "Training or instruction in the skill and knowledge required for employment in an occupation defined in the regulations." Could the minister please provide a sense of what occupations will be included in the regulations?

Hon. C. Clark: It will be those that prepare people for a career, and it will likely refer to the national occupational classification, otherwise known as the NOC.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry; I couldn't hear the tail end of the minister's answer either. Maybe I'm going deaf or something.

Hon. C. Clark: It will likely refer to the national occupational classification, which is a national list of occupations.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise who she is consulting with in terms of writing these regulations?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised the ministry has already done extensive consultations on this particular part of the bill and will likely be consulting the interim board of PPSEC in order draw up the regulations. My understanding is that the ministry feels it has the information it needs.

J. Kwan: The issue is about the regulations that are yet to be developed. Presumably the consultation will be ongoing, because nobody's been able to determine what the regulations would entail. Presumably there would be consultation then in terms of the drafting and crafting of the regulations itself.

Hon. C. Clark: That may be the case, as necessary, but again the ministry feels that it's collected the information that it needs in order to draw up the regulations.

J. Kwan: Has there been any specific feedback with respect to ESL education?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, there was a discussion paper posted on the ministry website, which I understand elicited a great deal of excited response.

J. Kwan: Could the minister then explain how come ESL education, ESL training, is not deemed to be related to career training, according to these definitions?

Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, it would take a minute to point out that ESL training groups will have the opportunity to voluntarily be a part of this and be certified, if they see that's important in terms of marketing their product, marketing their expertise overseas in particular. But ESL is not one of the national occupation classes, and with this, we're very much getting ourselves, in British Columbia, in line with other jurisdictions in Canada.

J. Kwan: Well, the concern I have is this: yes, while institutions can opt in, they're not required to be included. The reason why I raise ESL is this — and my family has firsthand experience with this : one would think that English as a second language, in terms of English language training, is pretty important towards the end goal of career training.

As I said, in my own family, in order for my father to continue in his career as a tailor by trade…. He's now retired, but that's what he was before he retired. In order for him to get back into that field — without English, as a new immigrant in the country, he couldn't get a job — he had to get English training so he could secure employment, which he did do through VCC some years ago now.

I would think the logic would be that ESL training is pretty important as it relates to career training. I would have anticipated that that would be part of a requirement to ensure this is included in the legislation in terms of its definitions. Without that component, for many people, in terms of their career training, they would be severely hampered or not have the opportunity, actually, to enter into the career training.

My question is: would the minister consider and commit, actually, to adding ESL training into part of the definition in terms of career training in the context of Bill 52? Would the minister not agree that ESL training is a critical component to career training?

Hon. C. Clark: I certainly agree that ESL training is an absolutely vital part of our education system, and its provision and its quality are vitally important to many people. It's also vitally important in all the other provinces in the country. No other province in the country has deemed to regulate it the way we have in the past. We are moving British Columbia in line with other provinces to whom ESL education is equally vitally important.

J. Kwan: If the minister recognizes it as equally important or vitally important, then she would agree — I would assume — that we add this as part of the definition under career training. Even though the other provinces may not have done so, it doesn't matter. The fact is that in British Columbia — and this impacts on British Columbians — we actually have a very significant immigration rate. A significant number of people come here without English.

If the minister agrees that it's crucial as part of the training, then the logic ought to follow that ESL training should be added in the definitions. Would the minister commit, then, today that she would in fact add ESL training as part of the definition in the context of this legislation?

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to that question, in short, is no. I think the logical extension of the member's argument is different from the way she's presented it, and that is this. If indeed the argument she's making is correct, then it must also be true that in the nine other provinces in Canada, who don't regulate this, somehow this isn't important and somehow their ESL training has been irreparably damaged by the fact that they haven't overregulated in the way British Columbia has tended to do. In fact, other jurisdictions in Canada, which attract a huge number of people who require English-as-a-second-language training and who value that immigration into their province profoundly, have chosen not to regulate it the way British Columbia has. Nonetheless, they offer a marvellous array of services. I don't think the member could argue that every other jurisdiction in the country does a noticeably worse job than British Columbia has because they haven't overregulated it in the way British Columbia has.

J. Kwan: Well, if you follow the logic of the Minister of Education, then it ought to follow that if we want to actually follow the other provinces on the child labour bill, then this government would have supported

child labour regulations that ensure that there are some limitations in terms of minimum standards. If you follow that logic, it would follow that you would put in place such provisions.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard goes: "Are we on section 1? Are we on section 1?" Mr. Chair, let me just draw the analogy for you.

The minister just answered my question with respect to ESL training per this bill. I asked the question: why won't we include ESL training if she agrees that career training is critical — that it's critical for you to have English and ESL training is critical for a person to have career development? Then she further went on to support her argument by saying that the rest of the country has not included ESL training, so therefore it then follows that we shouldn't. If you follow that logic….

I'm drawing another example, then, and that is on the child labour bill. On the child labour bill, amendments were made to ask this government to follow the rest of the country — that is to say, to provide minimum standards for child labour standards. This government rejected that out of hand. Even Alberta had minimum standards, and they rejected it out of hand. If this government wants to be with the pack, so to speak, then you would think they would actually accept the amendments for the child labour bill, but they didn't.

It's not an issue about whether or not we should be with the pack. It's about doing what makes sense for British Columbia. That's the issue with this whole government. They actually will mouth some things, and they'll say whatever they want to say as though they really care, but the insincerity of it is astounding, and it follows in this bill with respect to ESL training.

It would make sense for ESL training to be included in the career training definition under section 1 and to ensure that there's protection, and it doesn't matter what the rest of the country is doing. What matters is what British Columbia does and that we recognize the importance of ESL training as it relates to career training and therefore would be willing to include that definition in this bill and to provide protection to those individuals who are seeking to develop their career, who need English language training.

The minister has said publicly on record that no, she would not commit to making an amendment with respect to that, and I think it's a shame. I think it's a shame, and I think the government should be amending it to ensure that ESL training is included as part of the definition for career training.

Let me ask the minister this question. Looking at subsections (a) and (b) of the definition, career training designation will be limited to programs "(a) for which the tuition charged is greater than or equal to the prescribed minimum amount, and (b) for which the instructional time is greater than or equal to the prescribed minimum duration…." Is there anywhere in the legislation that gives specifics about the tuition amount or instructional time?

I do just want to correct a couple of facts, though. I know it is true that the member opposite doesn't care about what's going on with the rest of the pack in Canada. That would explain her behaviour at a cabinet table for five years and a decade of her government, which she supported, that raised taxes, that lowered the number of jobs, that cut investment, that killed our economy and that put British Columbia into the tank on not just a national but an international level. We are fighting and clawing our way back up the standards to try and make British Columbia number one again. Now, that's because we had a decade of…

Hon. C. Clark: …a government, just as this member continues to express, that said it doesn't matter what other jurisdictions are doing. It doesn't matter what's going on anywhere else. Well, the fact is that it does matter because British Columbia has to compete. This is a business. It is an educational business — no question — but it's an area of enterprise where it is absolutely, viciously competitive, and British Columbia has to be at the top of its game.

We have to make sure that these enterprises are able to compete, able to market their product to students all over the world. We need to make sure that the environment for everyone who wants to compete in British Columbia is as good as it can be, and that's the difference between this government and the previous decade of government. This government does think it matters what happens to jurisdictions, because we do understand that British Columbia has to compete in order to make sure that we get back to being number one in the world again.

J. Kwan: Yes, it certainly shows that this government cares when it comes to the race to the bottom. That's why we have the worst child labour legislation in the entire country. That's why we have child labour legislation that violates international laws.

The Chair: Member, I think it's important that you stick to the bill we are talking about — Bill 52 — please.

J. Kwan: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville is saying: "Don't be ridiculous." We do have the worst child labour laws in the country, and that is a fact, and it's this Liberal government that brought it in. Mr. Chair, I may add, it is this minister who suggested that she, under her government, has actually created an environment for our economy to boom. You know what? Just facts for this minister's information. We are number ten in the country in terms of the economy. We

are in a position with over 200,000 people who are unemployed — the most ever. The unemployment rate is at a nine-year high at 9.1 percent.

Just for the record, for every single member of the Liberals in this House: the unemployment rate, when this Liberal government took over from the previous administration, was at 6.8 percent. We're now at 9.1 percent — a nine-year high.

J. Kwan: When we talk about wanting to be competitive with the rest of the country….

The Chair: Order, order. If you could get back to Bill 52, I would appreciate it.

If we want to be competitive with the rest of the country to ensure our unemployment rate actually goes down and to ensure there is support to the people who need the training, then it would follow and make sense that ESL training is included. It's not about this legislation racing to the bottom to see that we're the worst ever on everything. The Liberals have already done very well on that on a whole number of scores, especially on the economic front.

If this government wants to make sure that there are opportunities for ESL people or immigrants, if you will — people who have language difficulties — then they would ensure that there's protection here under Bill 52. This government has chosen not to do so.

Getting back to the question around subsections (a) and (b), I asked the minister whether or not there would be prescribed minimum duration in terms of instructional times and the tuition amount anywhere in this legislation. The minister said no, there would not be. Yet during second reading debate several government members mentioned $1,000 and 40 hours in terms of a 40-hour rule — that is to say that career training and thus forced registration does not apply to programs under $1,000 or under 40 hours. So I'd like to know where these figures come from.

Hon. C. Clark: Government is discussing a range of options. Certainly, some of the options that have been raised by government members of this House are among them.

J. Kwan: Well, in the second reading debate, it was brought up not as an option, and I'll quote onto the record. On October 9 the member for Maple Ridge–Mission said: "This bill says that if you're going to school less than 40 hours a week and your tuition fees are less than a thousand dollars, you're not going to be offered protection if the organization you've paid your tuition to happens to fold or go broke or something happens. The provision that's been put forward by this member is not about a range of options; it's definitive.

Can the minister point out where in the legislation this is true, and has it already been described somewhere else?

Hon. C. Clark: Those items are actively under discussion, as I said. The government and the Minister of Advanced Education, who unfortunately isn't here tonight, have consulted very widely on these issues, including government members of the Legislature who, for the first time in many years, are very influential in the decisions of government. Certainly, their advice is being taken very seriously.

J. Kwan: It's not advice. I'm going to quote another passage from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission and another passage from another member, because they put it forward as definitive. I want to know where this came from, because it wasn't a range of options; it wasn't an opinion that they suggested.

How is eliminating consumer protection for people who cannot afford a thousand dollars or more in terms of tuition better consumer protection? The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said we should be protecting students first. What about ESL students and those who cannot afford the $1,000? Here we have ESL students, students who need language training, not getting protection. According to these two members at least, for a thousand dollars or less in terms of tuition fees, you have no protection; 40 hours or less in terms of instruc-

tional hours, you have no protection. But they somehow think it's better protection. How is that better protection?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the regulations have not yet been set, and the regulations will speak to the issues that the member has raised. Certainly, government will be taking the advice that's been offered by MLAs very seriously on this matter. I know that the minister and the ministry will be reviewing, if they haven't already, the members' comments that have been made in Hansard. I certainly trust that this member has quoted them accurately.

My understanding is that the numbers that the members have discussed have been numbers that were put forward in the discussion paper, and that may perhaps resolve some of the member's confusion.

J. Kwan: Let's say even if the amount wasn't set, although it appears members in this House were very definitive in their second reading debate in putting forward these numbers — under a thousand dollars or less than 40 hours of instructional time…. They were very definitive about it, and in fact they went on to accuse me of not reading the bill and not knowing what I'm talking about.

I went through the bill from cover to cover, and I didn't see these numbers, but somehow those were in their heads, and they actually stood in this House and said that's what the numbers are. Now the minister is saying: "Hey, you know, those were just suggestions."

Let's just go back to the language of the bill, because the language of the bill reads…. Under "career training," it means: "(a) for which the tuition charged is greater than or equal to the prescribed minimum amount, and (b) for which the instructional time is greater than or equal to the prescribed minimum duration." Why would you actually even set a minimum amount or minimum duration for people to not get protection? Why would the minister omit mandatory protection for these programs?

Hon. C. Clark: Government needs to make a decision about how much it's going to regulate and when, and that is at the heart of this decision. Obviously, this member thinks everything should be regulated all the time, no matter what issues are involved. Clearly, that's a different view than this government has taken. We went to the electorate on it, and the results of the election are now known.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can tell me where in the new-era campaign it promised they would actually take away consumer protection for students, in terms of those students who are seeking career training. Nowhere in the New Era document does it actually say that. This minister would like to say: "You know what? We don't want to regulate everything — or anything, in fact." We've seen, in the environment area, that the Minister of the Water, Land and Air Protection's motto is this: "No regulation is good protection."

Here in the career training component we have a situation where the member for Maple Ridge–Mission and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head are screaming at me under second reading debate, about me not knowing what I'm talking about and not knowing what the legislation says, and saying that the NDP opposition do not want protection for students. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that we do want consumer protection. We're saying that for students who are paying less than whatever the minimum prescribed hours of instructional time might be or whatever the minimum tuition fees might be, which the member for Maple Ridge had suggested is at $1,000 and 40 hours of instructional time…. Whatever those limits are set at, it makes no sense that the people who go below that limit would get no consumer protection. Isn't it the case, if you read the definition of this bill, that if the minimum provision is set and if the students' minimum tuition is less than whatever is prescribed by regulation at a later date and the instructional hours are less than whatever the hours are prescribed, they would get no consumer protection?

Hon. C. Clark: I think at the heart of this argument, the heart of this issue, is the difference between the opposition's view of regulation and the government's, as I said. The opposition seems to believe the way to govern British Columbia is to regulate everything as much as we possibly can, and if only we had more rules, somehow everything would be better. The last decade of their government proved that that was not true. Every time the member gets up and talks about the fact that the economy, particularly in some parts of the province, has faced challenges, I note a sense of glee in her voice that I don't think the citizens of British Columbia appreciate hearing.

I mean, the fact is that the job numbers are up in every census area of British Columbia since this government took office. It's also true that more than two million British Columbians are at work for the first time in the history of our province. Now, there's no question that this place has faced economic challenges. There's no question that there have been a number of economic obstacles for all of us, including not just the government but, more importantly, for citizens of British Columbia. We are certainly doing our best to deal with that. If the member's answer to those challenges is to say, "Well, by golly, if we want to get this economy going, if we want to grow business enterprise in British Columbia, if we want to attract more people here, if we want to compete with other jurisdictions, all we need to do is write a lot more rules, " I would submit that she's wrong.

All we need to do is look at the history of this particular sector to see the truth in that. For example, the NDP approach to regulating this sector meant that instead of looking at the quality and the outcome of

course offerings, government would look at what the job descriptions were for the secretaries. Well, you know what? That doesn't improve the quality of education for anybody. What government needs to be focused on, as a regulator — and certainly government does have a role in regulating this; otherwise we wouldn't be writing what we call regulations in order to make sure that the sector worked…. What we need to do is make sure that the quality of education is delivered. We need to make sure that the outcomes are appropriately adhered to. We need to make sure that the quality of education that is provided to students in British Columbia is the best they can get anywhere in the world. That is the way we will ensure that this sector and every other economic sector in British Columbia moves to number one.

J. Kwan: It's a bit much to take from this Minister of Education, who's gutted education funding by increasing costs to the school system without funding it. That is what this Minister of Education has done, and I know she's proud of her record of closing some hundred schools across the province. I know she's proud of that record, and I know she's proud of the record that there are more kids in the classroom than ever before and that students do not have the support they need. I know she's proud of that record.

I know that this minister is also proud of their record of actually having the highest unemployment rate in the last nine years — 9.1 percent, over 200,000 people unemployed, and she's proud of that record. She's proud of this record under this bill, under "Definitions," where ESL language-training individuals would not get consumer protection and where there are students who will need career training — who may not pay the minimum prescribed in terms of tuition and the minimum prescribed in terms of instructional hours — and would not get consumer protection.

This minister is proud of this record, and, I bet you, so is every one of these Liberal MLAs sitting here in the Legislature. I bet you they're proud of that record. Somehow by taking away consumer protection, they think it's good for the economy. Nothing like a race to the bottom, as has already been demonstrated in the child labour bill, where this government has taken the approach of trying to rebuild an economy of their own making through their failed economic strategy and the tax cuts that don't pay for themselves. Now the burden is being hurled onto the children through the child labour law, and this government is proud of it — and from a Minister of Education at that. For shame, for shame. It is shocking indeed.

J. Kwan: And maybe the Minister for Mental Health is proud. Well, in fact, I know the Minister for Mental Health is very proud of his record of cutting mental health funding in education. He's proud of that, and so is every single MLA in this House.

J. Kwan: We're used to the nattering going on next to me. That's all right. It's kind of like this, Mr. Chair, for the Liberals. I think this is what it is, and it's actually a very good analogy. If you don't see or hear, by shutting your eyes tight and closing your ears and putting your hands over them, then all the stuff that people raise in terms of concerns they have with what this government is doing, they can't hear and they can't see. Then, if they don't hear and they don't see, all the concerns that people raise must be not true.

That is the approach they have adopted, just like in section 1 here, where we're talking about consumer protection. We're talking about consumer protection for language-training students. For these government MLAs and for this minister, if they close their eyes and shut their ears on the concerns that have been raised with respect to ESL language-training protection and those who fall under the categories of below the minimum tuition and minimum instructional hours, who will get no consumer protection, then the issues that have been raised by the community and by the opposition don't exist. That's the approach this government has taken.

Then they'll go on to say they've brought forward the best consumer protection ever, just like the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who says it's the NDP who's against consumer protection. I'd like to know from the minister: is it the NDP who's against consumer protection, or is it the Liberals who are against consumer protection? It's not prescribed in this section of the bill.

Hon. C. Clark: If I could ask the member for further clarification of how this applies to section 2. It certainly applies in section 5, and I'd be happy to deal with it when we get to that stage.

J. Kwan: Under section 2, titled "Private Career Training Institutions Agency," sub (1) reads: "(1) The Private Post-Secondary Education Commission is continued as a corporation under the name of the Private Career Training Institutions Agency and consists of the registered institutions." Then it goes on to say: "(2) For the purposes carrying out its objects, the agency has the rights, powers and privileges of an individual of full capacity. (3) The Company Act and the Business Corporations Act do not apply to the agency unless the minister, by order, provides that specified provisions of one of these Acts apply to the agency." Then sub (4) reads: "(4) The Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act do not apply to the agency or its employees."

In terms of the question of what kind of public reporting will be required of this new agency, I think it's pertinent, because under this section it actually puts forward the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission as an agency, the Private Career Training Institutions Agency. What kind of reporting would they have to undergo?

Hon. C. Clark: Of course, in section 2 we're only talking about the transitional body. In section 5 we can speak more fully about the reporting requirements, which I'm sure the member is interested in. This transitional body will be required to report as requested by the minister, and there will be an annual audited financial report on finances.

J. Kwan: When the minister says they will be audited and there will be financial reports, is it public reporting?

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to correct my earlier comments. This section allows it to change the name and creates the new powers. It is the transitional section. I apologize. I said it was a transitional body; I meant to say it was a transitional section. I wonder if the member could repeat her question just very quickly.

J. Kwan: The minister said, in her answer previously, that there would be a requirement for financial statements and financial audits. The question is: would those financial statements and financial audits be made public?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, I'd be happy to deal with that question when we get to section 5.

J. Kwan: Well, it doesn't matter if the minister wants to deal with it under section 5 or section 2. Section 2 deals with the agency itself in terms of the structure itself. One would have assumed that for this new agency, the minister would be able to answer the question of what kind of public reporting would be required of this new agency. It's not that complicated, but if she doesn't want to answer the question under section 2, that's fine. We can go on to section 5 for that.

Let me ask this question of the minister, then, and I'll earmark that question for under section 5. Will student outcomes, attrition rates or dropout rates or other performance information be public, for the public to have access to it easily?

Hon. C. Clark: My understanding is those agencies aren't required to do that now, and unless the new agency, which will have the power to require that, chooses to do so, they won't be required in the future. Again, I do want to express my willingness to certainly answer those questions that the member has raised, but I'd be happier to do it in the appropriate section.

J. Kwan: As I said, I think those questions actually fall under section 2, but if the minister doesn't want to answer those questions under section 2, that's fine. We can go on to 5 when I ask those.

The issue here is this as well. In terms of this new agency we have a section that establishes a new agency, the new agency that deals with private career training institutions. Under this agency, what is the public reporting? The minister doesn't want to answer that until later. In terms of the outcome, attrition or dropout rates, etc., the minister says that information is not going to be made public — and only if the institution wants to provide it. If they don't, then it's not going to be made public.

Let me ask the minister this question: will the new agency be subject to the freedom-of-information legislation, as the previous commission was?

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to the last question the member posed is yes. If the member has any questions in her mind about her previous question and why things are remaining the same as they were before, perhaps she'd like to spend some time reflecting back on her time around the cabinet table and ask herself why her government saw fit to have things the way that this government is proposing to have them with respect to the discussion we just had.

J. Kwan: It's been a pattern of this government and particularly this minister that when asked a question, she will rise and say, "Well, you know, we didn't do anything; there's nothing that's changed. Therefore, if you have any question about that, you should ask yourself" — with the exception that we have a brand-new act and a brand-new commission. Then this minister earlier got up and said: "There was an election, and everything has changed."

If everything has changed, then one would assume these questions are valid. I don't know why the minister is so defensive all the time. When she's asked a question, all she can do is say: "We didn't do anything; everything is the same." Do you know what? The ministers actually give that answer, as well, when they know very well that everything is different and that they've actually brought forward legislation, changed policy and cut budgets that hurt many British Columbians and particularly those who are most marginalized.

The minister can be defensive all she wants, but the questions will keep on flowing. I will ask the question that the minister would not answer under section 2, under section 5, when we get to section 5. My next set of questions will be on section 4.

J. Kwan: This Liberal government has chosen to adopt a self-regulating approach to this sector. The previous Private Post-Secondary Education Commission had a balance of government appointees representing the public, including a member of the Better Business Bureau as well as those from the private institutions.

In second reading debate we raised some of the concerns I had here, particularly when you compare the composition of this board to that of the public education system, where the Minister of Education herself has decided that the self-regulation components that relate to the public education system would no longer be acceptable. Therefore, she brought in legislation to change all of that. Teachers in the public education system are now going to be regulated primarily by government appointees, and the self-regulation component is now no longer applicable in the K-to-12.

How is it that the private education institutions get a self-regulating body, yet our teachers in our public system don't?

Hon. C. Clark: That sounds to me more like a question about the College of Teachers as opposed to on this section, so I'll try and address it within the bounds set by this House as well as I can.

This bill talks about private business — moneymaking enterprises for the most part. They are not mandatory. People are not required to attend until they reach a certain age. They do not receive public funding. For the most part, these agencies accept people who are near or above the age of majority. Now, if the member cannot understand how what this bill is talking about is different from the public education system, we should all be very glad that she sits in opposition today.

J. Kwan: What is interesting is this. This government, and particularly this minister, has decided to pick a fight with the public education system and particularly teachers. She has chosen that teachers in our public system somehow are not trustworthy enough to be self-regulating, when every other profession is self-regulating.

All the members on the government bench are worried, because it's true. These are the facts I put forward to the minister in terms of the issue around self-regulation. Teachers are not self-regulating, but every other profession is. Even in this bill, as we talk about the composition of the board, as we talk about the private education institutions…. They are self-regulating. The minister of post-secondary education says, in fact, that is the more efficient way of doing things to ensure that there is independence, to ensure that there are self-regulating provisions allowed. Yet, for the K-to-12 system that's not applicable.

What I don't understand is why this Minister of Education would decide that teachers in the public education system are somehow not trustworthy enough to be self-regulating, to have the authority to do that. Somehow she's decided to pick a political fight with them to say that we don't trust you to be self-regulating. She's decided to make the College of Teachers a partisan issue by appointing people to the college and then requiring the teachers to pay for it. They're not doing that in this section of the bill. They're not doing that with the private institutions. But they are doing exactly that with the K-to-12 system.

I think it's a shame. The Minister of Education goes, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever," looking bored in her chair. But the reality is this: it is not helpful for our education system. If this minister deems that it is worthy of the private institutions to be self-regulating, she ought to deem that in the K-to-12 public school system teachers are trustworthy enough to be self-regulating and to revert the changes that she's brought in through legislation in the K-to-12 system.

Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, the changes in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system reflect a view of the government that education is the broadest public enterprise that government can embark upon. As a broad public enterprise, it's not good enough to just ensure that quality is the responsibility of one stakeholder group. It's important that everyone who has an interest in public — mandatory public, publicly funded — education gets to have a say in ensuring quality. I know that's a view that's at odds with what the member has expressed in the past. But I do think it's a broader public enterprise, perhaps, than she does.

I am, I must say in light of the member's comments, having difficulty discerning whether she is speaking for or against this particular section of the legislation.

J. Kwan: You can tell the twisted logic that the Minister of Education just provided. She says that the difference here is with the private institution, it's private money; therefore it should be self-regulating. With a public system, it is public money; therefore individuals should be appointed to the college. Therefore, it should

Yet our health care system and the nurses' system are also largely publicly funded enterprises. Health care services are also largely publicly funded, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons is self-regulating. So, too, are the nurses. So, too, is every other profession that exists in British Columbia, save and except for the teachers. That is the only college that this Minister of Education and this government have chosen to make political and partisan, and in that process, I would submit that she's hurting the education system, she's hurting the children, and she's also hurting the teachers to whom we entrust our children in the classrooms.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chair, in an effort to try and focus the member a little bit on the matter at hand and the legislation in front of us, perhaps she could clarify for the House whether indeed she's arguing in favour of or against this section of the legislation.

J. Kwan: The opposition supports self-regulation in the truest sense for every profession, including this provision. What I don't understand is why the minister chose to exempt the teachers from a self-regulating authority. That is the reason why I ask what the difference is, and the minister's answers and the minister's responses are illogical.

J. Kwan: I have questions on section 5 for the minister because she refused to answer the questions that I asked her under section 2. I'm now going to ask the question I asked the minister earlier under section 2.

Hon. C. Clark: The minister can ask for any information she or he requires in addition to the financial information that I mentioned before.

J. Kwan: The public reporting of this new agency would only be required if the minister asked for it. So it's not automatic?

Hon. C. Clark: That's true, and that's certainly the case with many other professions.

J. Kwan: What would trigger the minister asking for the agency to report publicly?

Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, any questions that raise issues of due diligence or professionalism of the agency. And I think everyone in this House would agree that our Minister of Advanced Education is nothing if not extremely diligent.

J. Kwan: Well, thank you for that clear answer in terms of what would trigger the public reporting of these agencies. It may be by complaint, but it may not be by complaint. It's at the minister's request when she feels like it. There's no concrete information for the public to discern when and under what circumstances an agency would be required to report publicly.

Hon. C. Clark: If it gives the member some comfort, she'd be delighted, I'm sure, to remember that this provision is very similar to the provision that the government currently relies on for public institutions.

J. Kwan: With the exception, though, that we're talking about new legislation, a new commission and new provisions that apply…. So there are some very fundamental changes here. I know this minister, as I mentioned before, and other ministers have done it before. They like to fall back and say, "Well, gee, nothing has changed," when something very fundamental to these matters has actually in fact been changed.

It seems to me that the minister is not going to put forward any more answers. Maybe I would get a better result by getting the information from the Minister of Advanced Education when she returns from her personal matter. We might actually be able to get better answers from that minister than from this one.

J. Kwan: Section 8 deals with registration with Bill 52. Currently, there are about 1,100 registered private post-secondary institutions, and if you use the numbers put forward earlier by the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, approximately 500 will be deregulated. This would mean that those institutions that are not regulated, which are deregulated, will get no protection. What happens to those students who are in programs that are not registered? Does that mean they will have no consumer protection?

Hon. C. Clark: It's important to remember that British Columbia will still have many, many more institutions that are registered than any other jurisdiction in the country under this legislation. Institutions can voluntarily register if they deem that to be an important part of ensuring that their market is protected. Certainly, this legislation offers new consumer protections that were never there before, including the right to be able to approve course offerings, which is something this current government feels is important and certainly is a big change from the way the previous guys did it.

J. Kwan: How many institutions does the minister expect would be deregulated and, therefore, not be registered?

Hon. C. Clark: It's impossible to speculate about that until the regulations are written.

J. Kwan: The minister said she consulted far and wide on this bill. Therefore, she has a good sense of what the regulations would look like. Surely she can surmise in terms of how many institutions would be deregulated. Would she at a minimum agree that those that are not registered would not be regulated and, therefore, not have any consumer protection?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said to the member earlier in the debate, we have not yet written the regulations, and the way those regulations actually look will determine the answer to her most recent question.

J. Kwan: Well, answer this question, and a simple answer would suffice. In those that are not registered, will the students have any consumer protection?

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to that is yes. Most consumers of most goods and services do have protection.

Hon. C. Clark: The normal protection that's afforded to people who are buying a good or service in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Clark: People who require redress for small claims, for example, can go to court in British Columbia. They can address the Better Business Bureau. There's a whole number of protections that are afforded to consumers who buy anything from a car repair to any number of other goods and services that are provided in British Columbia — many of which are very, very important, I'm sure, in the member's view.

Hon. C. Clark: This piece of legislation will set thresholds for protection for standards, and people, as I said, will be able to voluntarily comply, as well, and be part of the regime.

J. Kwan: In other words, with the institutions that are not registered under this act, the students would not get any protection under this bill. That is the answer the minister would not say. She got around to saying something but without answering the question in a clear and definitive way. She knows it, and she thinks she's being cute, perhaps, by not answering the question.

The reality is this. The issue here is this. The consumers would not get protection under this bill. She says they can go to the Better Business Bureau. They can go to small claims court and all of those things. Yes, those provisions are there, but the students who fall under the minimum threshold that was established in the definitions section, which we debated earlier and which I voted against for the same reason…. Those who fall under the minimum threshold would get no protection. Those students who go to institutions that are not registered would get no consumer protection under this bill.

Somehow in the minds of the Liberal government, the Liberal MLAs and particularly the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head…. She thinks that's better consumer protection, and she's simply wrong. I would ask and suggest to these members that they should read the bill. Read the bill and understand the ramifications of it.

If you use the numbers that were offered by the member for Maple Ridge–Mission that the threshold for tuition is $1,000 and the threshold for instructional hours is 40 hours, then with the about 1,100 private institutions that are now registered, approximately 500 of those will be deregulated and no longer be required to be registered. That means about 500 institutions to which the students go to get an education will get no consumer protection under this bill.

I want to be very clear that when I voted against section 1 and called division on it, it is because under the career training definition, it does not provide consumer protection for ESL students or those who require language training. The students who may not meet the minimum requirement threshold would not get consumer protection. It is for that same reason that I object to this section of the bill — because through this bill, with a minimum threshold, there will be institutions that would be deregulated and deregistered. Therefore, the students who seek education there will not get the consumer protection that they deserve in this legislation.

Hon. C. Clark: Just a couple of comments. It's important to remember that all consumers in British Columbia are protected. That is part of the rules of engagement of doing business in British Columbia. First I'd like to note that.

Second, this bill offers new protections that were not there before for consumers to make sure that the quality of education people are getting in British Columbia remains high and actually gets better.

The member can fearmonger as much as she likes, but I would remind her and other members of this House and members of the interested public that we are not talking about a change in British Columbia that is going to be radically different from other provinces in our country. In fact, what we're doing is we're putting British Columbia on the same footing as other provinces in this country. It may serve her short-term political purposes to fearmonger and to suggest otherwise and to talk about the fact that somehow British Columbia is going to be worse than other provinces. The fact is that's not true.

This legislation offers new consumer protections that weren't there before — consumer protections that

for the first time are focused almost in their entirety on quality and outcome and results, which ultimately are what every student wants. Regulations are no longer focused on the minutiae of administration like secretaries' job descriptions, which the previous government saw fit to regulate.

As I said, while it may serve her political purposes to put out these kinds of bogeymen and try to scare people, it certainly doesn't serve the interests of students very well. If that member was indeed sincere and serious about protecting the interests of students, then perhaps she would spend a little more time talking about the facts and the information that's out there as opposed to just trying to raise fears that are groundless.

J. Kwan: You know, it is shocking when you hear from this Minister of Education, who proclaims that she cares about education and about children and students who need access to education. It is shocking when you hear from this minister, when you raise the issue with her that when you have students who need language training and their careers depend on it, and that impacts our economy and that….

You know, the Minister of Education says: "Well, yeah, like you care about that." Yes, I do. You know why? Because my own family experienced it. My father, when we first came here, did not have English. We lived in poverty for many years until he did, so that he could go back and practise in his trade. I know how hard it is as an immigrant to come here without the language and for them to get jobs and to survive. I experienced it firsthand with very little food on the table, and I saw how my parents struggled. I know I'm not the only person who experienced that. I know there are many other people who are experiencing that today, which is why I have raised these issues in terms of consumer protection.

When you talk about immigrants particularly, when they come to a new country, they can barely figure out where to take the bus to get from point A to point B, where to register their kids to go to school, where to go and get medical help and find a doctor, where to get the basic services that I now take for granted but I know exist. I can access them just like that, except for the programs that are being cut.

When you're struggling to survive on a day-by-day basis…. This minister is effectively saying to them, those individuals who need consumer protection above and beyond what is just there as a standard set of consumer protections for the public, that there is no need for that and that somehow I'm raising these questions just to be fearmongering.

J. Kwan: She goes: "Yup." The minister goes: "Yup, she is fearmongering." I wish that I was. I wish that all the issues and concerns the opposition raised were just simply fearmongering, but when I go and talk to seniors who have to eat dog food because their MSP and health care costs have increased…. They are suffering, and that is the reality of it. I know it bothers the Liberal MLAs when I raise these issues. They don't like to hear it, because they like to have their eyes wide shut. They want to close their ears. They don't want to see what the reality is. They're completely in denial.

When we talk about consumer protection for ESL students, for students who may be paying institutions less than the minimum requirement or less than the minimum requirement in terms of tuition or instructional hours…. They are struggling to get a better education and to improve themselves by doing the best they can. They may not have the wherewithal to ensure that the institution they go through is, in fact, credible. It does beg the question in terms of consumer protection.

You know what? These government MLAs and this minister just sit there and laugh. They think somehow it is just funny that the opposition dare ask these questions and dare raise these concerns. Somehow, in their minds, this is just fearmongering. I wish that it was, but I know firsthand the people who do have these challenges and who have experienced these challenges and continue to experience them. We as a government, as legislators in this assembly, do have a responsibility — a responsibility to ensure that there is better protection for the people who need it the most.

The members may be sick and tired of hearing me speak about consumer protection under section 8 —to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, through you, Mr. Chair — as it relates to why this is important. The schools that are going to be deregistered under this section, section 8, in accordance with the minimum threshold suggested by the member for Maple Ridge–Mission…. There are about 500 institutions that would be deregistered and that will have no consumer protection under this bill. That is the relevance. Perhaps if the members will open their eyes, they'll see the issues and concerns that are being raised.

Hon. C. Clark: You know, it's a little bit disingenuous for the member to stand up and talk about her deep, deep concern for social services in British Columbia when it was, in fact, the decade of her government that put those social services at risk. If we had continued as a government trying to sustain the level of spending that she promoted for a decade, we would have nothing left for future generations. It is a little hard to take to listen to her stand up here as a defender of the needy and a defender of the people who consume social services, when her government sat here for a decade without a care in the world for what future generations might need, without a care in the world for where they would find the resources to support her generation.

I think it is time for a government to sit back and say: "Hang on a second here. It isn't just or right for a single generation of people to consume every single available resource, plus the resources that are due to the future generations of our province. It isn't right for

a government to do that." Her government sat in office for a decade and did that. Now she stands up gleefully and quotes job statistics that are a little bit less than sunny in particular parts of the province that have been suffering as a result of issues like the failure to conclude a softwood lumber agreement with the United States and places that have suffered as a result of some of other public crises that have hit British Columbia.

When she stands up there and takes joy in those statistics, I understand why this government has so much of a mess to clean up. It is important for us to remember that when she stands up and talks about the number of institutions that will be regulated in British Columbia, one of the comparators we can use, for example, is Ontario. In Ontario there are currently 450 institutions that fall under the regulation in a population that is three times the size of British Columbia. When she stands up and tries to scare people into thinking that somehow this legislation is going to lead into some terrible new world, all she needs to do is look at the rest of the country and see how well they're doing. Honestly, Mr. Chair, in the areas of private post-secondary education, other parts of the country are doing very, very well.

In fact, in British Columbia we have in this legislation decided that we will introduce new consumer protections for students, better legislation for students and, quite honestly, better legislation for the economy of our province. After ten years of what she and her pals did to British Columbia, it's about time.

J. Kwan: You know, what a bunch of nonsense. It is just like verbal diarrhea or something — honestly. When you look at the other provinces, you'd know that the other provinces are faced with problems that are as great as, if not greater than British Columbia's. They faced SARS. They faced the mad cow disease. They faced that blackout in Ontario. The list goes on. They faced tremendous challenges too. Yes, so does British Columbia.

You know what? All the other provinces are performing better than British Columbia. When this minister rises up and says: "You know what? We care about people, but we're cutting those programs for our future because we need to do that…." You know what it is to do? It is to pay for the tax cuts for the rich and the wealthy and the big corporations.

It is the failed economic policy that this Liberal government and this minister supported, which is causing the social safety net to collapse. It is this government that for the first time in the history of the entire country is going to be cutting income assistance recipients off of income assistance, not because of need but because of some arbitrary time limits that this government and this minister have voted for.

She might want to call me a bleeding heart or whatever she wants to call me. Call me whatever she wants. It doesn't matter. The reality is this: this Liberal MLA — this minister and this government— promised that she would protect the poor and those who are most marginalized and those who are in greatest need, when in fact she has done anything like that. She's gone out with the most punitive legislation and policies to punish the people who are in greatest need.

The reality of this section of the bill is this: it does not change the reality. Whatever way this minister wants to colour it, the reality is that those who will be deregulated, who are not required to register under this new legislation introduced by this Liberal government…. Those students who go to those institutions that are deregulated will no longer receive consumer protection under this bill.

Perhaps they are the people who need it the most, because they are likely the people who are new immigrants and who are faced with language barriers. They are likely the individuals who have less money to get access to an education, which is probably why they would have to go for a lesser cost, a minimum that may not meet the minimum threshold, which is why they might be single parents, which is why they might not be able to go over the prescribed hours of institutional training. They are the people, I would submit, who need the protection just as much as those who would be able to meet the minimum threshold per the regulation that this government is going to bring forward.

Hon. C. Clark: I move the amendment to section 14 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. C. Clark: I move the amendment to section 25(2) that is in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 52, Private Career Training Institutions Act, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 52, Private Career Training Institutions Act, read a third time and passed.

V. Anderson presented a bill intituled Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003.

V. Anderson: I move that a bill entitled Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

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

Bill Pr407 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

V. Anderson presented a bill intituled Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003.

V. Anderson: I move that a bill entitled Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

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

Bill Pr408 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 46; H. Long in the chair.

J. MacPhail: My discussion begins with section 1, but I really do need some guidance from the minister on this. This is Bill 46, the Land Amendment Act, 2003. I'm not even sure whether it says "working forest." No, it doesn't. It just says "the land amendment act."

There was much discussion at second reading of this bill that revolved around the designation of working forest — not from me but from the members of the government caucus. In fact, everyone seems to be in agreement that this legislation is about the working forest. Before getting into specifics — and perhaps, for the sake of clarity, I really do need guidance from the minister on a couple of things about how this legislation…. Is this the only piece of legislation we'll be able to debate around the working forest or not?

Here's what the minister said at second reading. Of course, as you well know, Mr. Chair, the committee stage is to explore further the principles that are enunciated at second reading, so that's what I'm doing here. But I can't find those principles in this legislation. Here's what the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management said at second reading: "…these amendments do not in themselves create the working forest. The amendment simply enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make designations such as the working forest." The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management then also went on to say: "The actual designation of the working forest will occur through a cabinet order, and this is where the concerns of the public and stakeholders can and will be addressed."

I thought it was interesting that the minister would claim a cabinet order behind closed doors was the

place the public would have input. Though I think it's clear that this legislation is not the working forest — anything to do with the working forest — and according to the minister's own comments at second reading, the working forest will be done by cabinet order, I don't think that's exactly what the public had envisioned.

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member opposite: as the member opposite knows, I'm sure, for many years now a series of land use plans have been worked on and are being worked on. I think there's a total of five or six of them. As those plans become completed, then they will come to open cabinet, be approved in open cabinet — okay? — as land use plans. Then Bill 46 is the enabling legislation that will be used to put them into effect.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister making a commitment that every single land use plan will be discussed, debated and passed in an open cabinet meeting?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would encourage the member opposite to read our New Era document, because in our New Era document it commits to bringing every land use decision to open cabinet.

J. MacPhail: Well, thank you. That and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. So a new-era commitment doesn't mean much in terms of the number of flip-flops that have occurred. There have been flip-flops on 25 of the major new-era commitments, let alone the smaller ones, so I need more specifics than that from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

The minister is making the commitment that it will be done in an open cabinet meeting, so he'll have to live with that. I will, as will the public, be watching that very carefully. As we've seen, those open cabinet meetings…. You know, there are rehearsals for them. We know that. We know the government invests quite a bit of money into practising for those open cabinet meetings. We also know that the government itself has said, "Oh, we're now going in camera," where the real decisions will be made in many areas.

Just tell me: leading up to the open cabinet meeting — let's just take it that there will be some work done before the open cabinet meeting, given this government's history on those open cabinet meetings — how will that occur in terms of the working forest?

Hon. S. Hagen: As you know, the LRMPs are underway. They are an open process. Anyone can come in and watch an LRMP table meeting. There's a broad cross-section of people representing various interests on the land base at those tables, including first nations, conservationists, industry and communities. Some of those tables have a deadline of December 31; some are March 31; some are June 30.

When I receive the land use plan for the central coast, for instance, then we will commence government-to-government negotiations with first nations, as we will do with the north coast and with Sea to Sky as well. That will be a process that takes place over a period of months. When the final plan comes to cabinet, it will come to open cabinet for discussion and hopefully approval.

J. MacPhail: Let's just be clear, because I had a lot of calls about the working forest initiative. People actually assumed that there might be some legislation, and I said: "Oh yes, I assume that too, and it's just not before the Legislature." Yet it's becoming increasingly clear that there will be no working forest legislation — none.

So if one wants input into working forests…. If you're the IWA, what do you do as an IWA member? Do you have to go to the LRMP process, and how is the decision-making occurring at this Liberal government's LRMP?

Hon. S. Hagen: At the LRMP table, where the discussions are…. I explained that to you, but I can do it over again.

The table is where all the interest groups that have an interest in the land base have been meeting over the last several years. Represented at those tables is the IWA, through their own representative. That representative reports back to their executive and, I assume, to their members. They must be satisfied with it, because I have a letter of agreement or acceptance of the working forest from the IWA.

J. MacPhail: I made no comment on what the IWA thinks about the working forest legislation. I was just asking: well, what's different? What, in the year of forestry that the Premier proclaimed, has changed?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, certainly the member opposite is correct. This is the year of forestry. This government has said from the day we started the campaign that we value the forest industry, forestry workers and forestry communities. If anything has changed, I think it's the positiveness that we view the forest industry in. The objective of this legislation and many other things that the government is doing is to bring back certainty to the land base so that we can again attract investment and have new jobs created for forestry workers.

J. MacPhail: That will certainly be a relief, seeing as how 75 percent of them are out of work now. That will come as a relief. Never in the history of this province has that high a proportion of IWA workers or forestry workers been out of work, so that will come as a relief.

What I mean is: given the fact that the minister is not going to have working forest legislation, and given the fact that the minister says it's the LRMP process that will continue and that's where everyone gets their input, what's different?

Hon. S. Hagen: In answer to the member's question, what's different is that this government is actually prepared to have enabling legislation, so all of the work these individuals had been doing over this number of years to find the balance between the environment and the economy in communities on land use is actually going to be implemented. We're actually going to take the work they've done and have it implemented under this legislation.

J. MacPhail: That existed before. This government just didn't like the agreements that were reached in the community prior to this government taking over, so you legislated out of existence previous agreements that had been reached at the community level. That happened before. It was just that this government came in with a heavy hand and undid all of that local work.

All of the sort of bravado that the government caucus members said about working forests, in fact, is nothing. There isn't any legislation; nothing has changed. I guess the government just feels like it would rather be able to choose, at the end of the day, which community interests it likes better.

The minister himself brought up the issue of first nations. In the second reading debate, the member from Prince George said this:

Mr. Chair, I was looking for, in the legislation, where first nations were mentioned at all. Can the minister point to the part of this bill that is about working with first nations?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd like to thank the member for those brilliant comments, because they actually helped. The work with first nations has been going on since we became government. The first nations have never been as engaged at the LRMP tables as they presently are, and they're being a very positive aspect of the table. They're contributing. They're bringing their own land use plans to the table to be integrated with ours. The relationship with first nations, as many of the leaders have said, has never been stronger with this government.

J. MacPhail: Oops. Clearly, the minister isn't that well prepared. Let me ask the minister again. The member from Prince George said this legislation is about working with first nations. Where does it say that?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have been working with first nations since July 5, 2001. They have been totally engaged at each of the land use tables. In some cases, they co-chair the tables, so that work is not…. And first of all, we wouldn't legislate, in any case, to work with first nations. They have been voluntarily working with us since the start, since June 5, 2001, and have been a very positive contribution to the table. We will continue the government-to-government negotiations with them after the plan has been prepared.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so the member from Prince George was wrong when he said this legislation is about first nations. The minister says there's nothing in this legislation about first nations. Let's see what first nations say about this legislation. The minister stands up and says they've had a positive, wonderful working relationship. What are the first nations saying about that? Well, they came together last Thursday. The first nations from all across British Columbia came together just five short days ago.

They issued a joint statement because of their concerns about how this government is changing the way our natural resources are being managed. Now, here it is. I'm sure the minister has had a chance…. Actually, given his previous comments, I'm not sure the minister did read this. How could he stand up after reading their joint statement — first nations joint statement about land use planning in this province — and say what he did, except only maybe to want to poke first nations in the eye and to insult them?

Here's what they said just last Thursday, after we had had the debate at second reading about the Land Amendment Act. I will read it into the record, Mr. Chair:

Mr. Chair, that was last Thursday, and hence you can see my confusion when I heard the member from Prince George say that this Land Amendment Act was working with first nations, and I'd just asked the minister what his plan was to work with first nations. Let me ask the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management again: given this condemnation of the government's agenda when it comes to managing B.C.'s resources by just one group in our society — but that group has the most legitimate reason to be demanding a say in how our resources are managed — in what way does the minister see this legislation or, indeed, his land use planning process help end uncertainty?

Hon. S. Hagen: On the central coast LRMP we have 18 bands represented at the table — all the bands on the central coast, including as far north as the Nuxalk from Bella Coola. We have the Haida engaged on the Queen Charlotte Islands. We have the Squamish engaged in Sea to Sky. We have all of the bands in the north coast represented at the north coast LRMP, and one of the chiefs co-chairs the table.

J. MacPhail: I'm always amazed at how deep this government can bury its head in the sand, even confronted with the reality of an action plan by the very first nations that this minister wants to hold up as being part of his great working forest initiative.

Let me carry on, if I may, because maybe — and God knows I cannot speak for the first nations, although they are the ones that directly have asked me to raise these issues — just maybe, the first nations are saying that the government is not speaking directly with them in terms of what the LRMP process in which they are participating will result in. Maybe, just maybe, they don't trust this government to actually deliver on what are the legal rights of first nations and what are the legal obligations of this government in areas such as duty to consult and duty to accommodate. Let me carry on, then.

Perhaps the minister can bring assurance to this House about certainty of land use, which is what he claims this legislation is all about. Here's what the first nations said in their joint statement just five days ago: "The next step in developing and implementing a coordinated action plan will be in a provincewide first nations meeting hosted by the Carrier-Sekani tribal council in Prince George on October 22 and 23."

Here's what happened. Here's what the Carrier-Sekani are writing about this. It's from the newly elected Carrier-Sekani tribal council chief, Harry Pierre. He wrote to the Minister of Forests:

Clearly, the first nations — all of them, aligned, unaligned — have joined together to tell this government: "Stop." Mr. Chair, through you to the minister, just what certainty is this legislation bringing to land use planning?

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member opposite, the people who represent the groups at the LRMP tables — and have done so since the fall of '01 — have made tremendous progress, and that includes the first nations who are at the table. As I mentioned before, there are 18 bands represented at the table of the central coast LRMP. We have the Haida in the Queen Charlottes. We have the Squamish in the Sea to Sky plan. We have…. I can't remember the number of bands represented on the north coast, but there would be quite a few. All of them are totally engaged at the table and are great contributors to the decisions that are being reached.

There is nothing in this bill — if that's the question — that limits treaty negotiations or affects treaty negotiations either positively or negatively. The land use plans that are going to be delivered to me in December and March and June will all have had total first nations working with all of the groups at those tables.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister actually discussed any of this with any first nations since them passing this joint statement or…? I mean, I know how this government feels about the Carrier-Sekani tribal council. There is new leadership there, though. Has the minister discussed what he has just said about either this legislation or the working forests with first nations since they issued this statement?

Hon. S. Hagen: I've had discussions with all of the first nations represented at these tables through the time that the process commenced until as late as this afternoon.

J. MacPhail: And the minister still says that the first nations are fully engaged and fully supportive. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Hagen: The first nations that are engaged at the tables that I talked about are fully engaged and supportive of the process.

J. MacPhail: I guess the minister is just going to have to live with those words about how he challenges the first nations joint statement and how he dismisses it, because the first nations are making a very clear statement to this government that his legislation and his policies are not going to bring certainty to the land base.

I actually find it quite dismaying that this minister is willing to move forward and create even greater upheaval in our forest sector, on our land base, than already his government has brought. Our economy is in complete disarray and in a downward tailspin in the natural resources sector because of this government's policies, and yet he stands up and says….

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, could you ask members to come to their seats if they're going to heckle, please?

He thinks it's going to bring certainty. Perhaps given what the first nations have just said and what other members of this Legislature have said about this bill, can this minister point to any legislation, including this legislation, that promises what he said would happen, which is to improve access to the land base?

Hon. S. Hagen: I was really going to try to refrain from saying what I'm going to say. You know, I was in government in 1991. In 1991 we had the strongest economy in British Columbia of any province in this country. Five years later, under the leadership of the member opposite and others, we had dropped to number ten — from number one to number ten in five years. That was 1996.

In 1998, two years after that, we were declared a have-not province. I don't think there's one person living in this province who ever thought that British Columbia would become a have-not province. For that member opposite to be standing over there lecturing this side on what we should be doing to bring certainty or economic growth back to this province is a joke.

J. MacPhail: As always, the member for Nanaimo adds scintillating comment to the discussion. Regardless of how this minister tries to avoid actually answering the question, it is his job to answer questions. I am not lecturing this minister at all; I'm merely pointing out the facts.

Again, to the minister: stand up, earn your salary…. Through you, Mr. Chair — stand up and earn his salary. Explain. When he made the commitment that this legislation would improve access to the land base, demonstrate it through pointing to the section.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd refer the member opposite to section 93.1. "The Lieutenant Governor in Council by order may designate areas of Crown land for one or more of the following purposes: (a) conserving or managing natural resources; (b) balancing multiple natural resource uses; (c) implementing a plan for a specified use of Crown land; (d) resolving land use conflicts; (e) use for specified economic development opportunities."

J. MacPhail: Well, it is just that that the first nations pointed to, to say that this government would be doing it behind closed doors. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the cabinet sitting amongst themselves making decisions about land use. What the first nations are saying is that that doesn't meet the test of certainty.

I find it, just the same way the minister has it completely wrong in terms of how this economy has operated…. What a joke. He says this province became a have-not province in 1998. Wrong. It's only since this government took over that we have become a welfare dude, only since then — billions of dollars that this government is relying on because they have messed up the resource-based economy so much. I don't revel in that. I find it sad when I go to places like Prince Rupert and see how awful the economy has sunk in the area of resource management.

It's exactly that that the first nations are saying will be done behind closed doors, without consultation and without the obligation of this government in their duty to accommodate, which will lead to uncertainty. Let me ask this question, if the minister can answer it. He said that this bill would ensure tenure security. What is meant by tenure security?

Hon. S. Hagen: This bill assures that the land is available for industry to use, as well as other users of the land base. That gives them the tenure security they need to operate. That's the whole purpose of this.

I want to go back to the member's regurgitation of the talk about the order-in-council and everything. She's obviously forgotten. What I said was that before the OICs take place, the land use planning process will have come to a completion with the agreement of everyone at the table including first nations. Then we commence nation-to-nation negotiations on the land use plans if there's a difference between the first nations plan and the one presented by the table. Then it goes to open cabinet for debate and passing. That's the openness and transparency, and the first nations are engaged with that process from day one right until it goes to open cabinet.

J. MacPhail: Where in this bill does it say that this legislation guarantees tenure security? First nations are asking that question.

Hon. S. Hagen: I would remind the member opposite that this is enabling legislation. What this does is make the land base available for the users.

J. MacPhail: One minute the minister is saying, "Oh, we're open and transparent, and everything is going to be done in the open," and then he says: "Oh, sorry. This is enabling legislation where cabinet can do this behind closed doors." I don't think anybody is fooled by those infomercials this government has that decisions are made at open cabinet meetings. If the minister himself believes that the public thinks that happens, it's probably time for retirement or a new gig — maybe a new gig somewhere — because that's all those infomercials are, are acting gigs. People know that those decisions aren't made there.

What the first nations are asking is: tenure security. The minister said in his comments at second reading that this would provide for tenure security. First nations are saying — let alone other interested groups that want to have access to the land use; they want to know — when will tenure security be given? At the expense of what? The minister can't answer this.

Let me ask him a more simple question, then, because it's a comment on what one of his own members said about this legislation. I'm just repeating what his own member said about the legislation, and he can tell me where his member got that information from, or that view. The member for Prince George North said: "In fact, this legislation absolutely dictates" — those are the words he uses — "that you cannot sell off Crown land in the future, not on a large basis for forest resources." Could the minister please tell me, and the public watching this debate, what section of this bill says Crown land will not be sold off for forestry purposes? What section absolutely dictates that?

Hon. S. Hagen: Section 23: "Unless, in the opinion of the minister, Crown land is required for agricultural settlement and development or other higher economic use, Crown land that is suitable for the production of timber and pulpwood must not be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act."

Hon. S. Hagen: It's section 23 of the existing Land Act, which is not being amended.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but that doesn't in any way absolutely dictate that Crown land cannot be sold off. It

The Chair: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor on section 1, which ranges over broad issues.

J. MacPhail: Are you challenging the Chair? Perhaps the Attorney General would like to challenge the Chair. Go ahead, challenge the Chair.

Hon. G. Plant: No, I'd rather not. I'm waiting for your participation in the debate.

J. MacPhail: I know it's very difficult for this government to allow for any debate, Mr. Chair, but thank you very much. The leadership shown by the Attorney General in wanting to always shut down debate is quite astounding. It's the most negative kind of leadership I've ever seen in this Legislature, I have to tell you, and quite shocking for his office.

That legislation in no way does what the member from Prince George said — not whatsoever. Or perhaps the minister could put it in context for me about what the member from Prince George said, because I couldn't find it in this bill where it says "absolutely dictates." That's a quote from him: "…absolutely dictates that you cannot sell off Crown land in the future, not on a large basis for forest resources."

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll just read into the record again section 23 of the Land Act: "Unless, in the opinion of the minister, Crown land is required for agricultural settlement and development or other higher economic use, Crown land that is suitable for the production of timber and pulpwood must not be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act."

J. MacPhail: I'm sure people will take great comfort that the government is amending legislation to allow those decisions now to be made behind closed doors, because that's exactly what this legislation does. In fact, the minister….

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, would you like to repeat that — what you just said?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think the member opposite must have misunderstood what I read, and I'd like to read it out one more time. "Unless, in the opinion of the minister, Crown land is required for agricultural settlement and development or other higher economic use, Crown land that is suitable for the production of timber and pulpwood must not be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act."

J. MacPhail: I very much appreciate the minister reading it for a third time. I fully understand it, as do people who are concerned about this legislation, as do first nations. That's why I asked the minister a question about what he meant by security of tenure and where the member for Prince George North got that there are absolute dictates that land can't be sold off.

The first nations don't believe there's any security of tenure, so I wanted to know what kind of security of tenure the minister said was in this legislation, and he pointed to nothing. There's nothing — given the fact in the current legislation, combined with this government now giving itself, by order-in-council, rights behind closed doors to do with what it wants on the land base — to say that this government won't sell off Crown land to forest corporations. It also permits this government to sell Crown land to forest corporations. Section 23 permits that and is exacerbated by this enabling legislation.

Let me ask this question again. It's not again; it's new. I'm trying to find the sections referred to in this legislation that the members of the government caucus talked about. Is it true that it will be the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management alone, according to the legislation he just read out, who will decide whether or not Crown land can be sold off for a private non-forestry use? Is it his decision alone?

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to read into the record, again, to correct a statement that was made by the member opposite with regard to the selling off of land. Section 23, again, says: "Unless, in the opinion of the minister, Crown land is required for agricultural settlement and development or other higher economic use, Crown land that is suitable for the production of timber and pulpwood must not be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act."

I don't mind reading it again if you still don't get it — okay? — and I'll read it as often as I have to, but it's important that you get it and that you understand it.

J. MacPhail: Chair, sorry, I take offence to him talking directly and not through the Chair. He claims to be an experienced parliamentarian, and his style is absolutely insulting and unparliamentary. Mr. Chair, I fully appreciate your role in the chair, and if he could just try to at least engage in the proper decorum in this Legislature…. I expect it has something to do with age and the lateness of the hour — his inability to actually do his job properly.

In fact, my question arose out of that very section. Let me repeat my question again: is it the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management alone who will

decide if Crown land can be sold off for a private non-forestry use? It's directly on point from the section the minister just read out.

Hon. S. Hagen: Through you, Mr. Chair, to the member opposite. Section 11(1) of the Land Act: "Subject to compliance with this Act and the regulations, the minister may, on an application, by public auction, public notice of tender or public drawing of lots, dispose of Crown land, either surveyed or unsurveyed, to a person entitled under this Act as the minister considers advisable in the public interest." This act has been in force for many, many years and does not change under Bill 46.

J. MacPhail: What I'm trying to get at is just exactly what it is that this Minister of Sustainable Resource Management does. When it says "the minister" under that act, is it this Minister of Sustainable Resource Management? It's a yes-or-no question. That's what I was asking.

Hon. S. Hagen: When it refers to the minister in this act, it refers to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

J. MacPhail: Whew. That was what I was asking. So it's this minister that will make those decisions. Why is the Minister of Forests being cut out of decisions on the sale of forested Crown land?

Hon. S. Hagen: The responsibility is the responsibility of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. That makes one person responsible. The member opposite may be referring to the fact that in previous legislation, the Minister of Forests had to check off as well, but now it's just the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

Hon. S. Hagen: Because the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is responsible for all of the uses on the land base: forestry, exploration and mining, agriculture, tourism, conservation. All of those come under my responsibility, and it clarifies it to the public.

J. MacPhail: I will tell you, one thing that is not clear to this public is who's actually making the decisions around land use planning in this province — or land use. The forest sector is dealing with the Minister of Forests on land use and forest policy changes. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management just said that the Minister of Forests had been cut out of land use issues. That'll come as a great clarification to the forest sector, for instance.

Mr. Chair, noting the hour and the fact that there are many more questions on this legislation, I move adjournment of debate.

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

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.


	YEAS — 47

Falcon	Halsey-Brandt	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	Santori
van Dongen	Wilson	Masi
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Collins	Clark	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Bray	Les	Locke
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hawes
Kerr		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY