Hansard -- Monday, November 24, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 18, No. 14 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		8123

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		8124
	Wildfire Act (Bill 91)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill 96)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 97)
	Hon. T. Nebbeling

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8124
	Trade with Asia
	P. Wong
	B.C. export industry
	K. Johnston
	Community safety
	L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions		8126
	Privatization of B.C. Rail
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. J. Reid
	J. Kwan
	B.C. Rail privatization bid process
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. J. Reid
	Funding of teachers contract
	R. Visser
	Hon. C. Clark
	Student spaces in post-secondary institutions
	B. Locke
	Hon. S. Bond

Tabling Documents		8128
	Employment and assistance appeal tribunal, annual report, 2002-03

Second Reading of Bills		8128
	Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act (Bill Pr410)
	B. Penner

Committee of the Whole House		8129
	Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act (Bill Pr410)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		8129
	Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act (Bill Pr410)

Committee of the Whole House		8129
	Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 93)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins

Reporting of Bills		8130
	Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 93)

Third Reading of Bills		8130
	Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 93)

Second Reading of Bills		8130
	Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act (Bill 94)
	Hon. G. Bruce
	J. MacPhail
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 95)
	Hon. G. Bruce

Committee of the Whole House		8150
	Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. K. Falcon
	K. Stewart
	B. Penner

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what you were doing this weekend — I didn't see you with me there — but I must tell you that New Democrats around this province had a wonderful weekend, a very exciting weekend, with an exciting conclusion to a great leadership race.

It gives me great pleasure and incredible honour to introduce to all of us in this Legislature our new NDP leader and certainly the next Premier of the province, I expect — not a great way to get applause in this House, I know, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, we're talking beyond these walls. Would the House please welcome Carole James, the new NDP leader.

R. Visser: I would also like to take a moment and introduce the leader of my household for the first time today. My wife Caroline is here with our daughter, Charlotte — the actual real leader in our household.

R. Visser: I get voted down every time. Would the House please take a moment to make them welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I'd like to introduce some representatives of Maple Ridge school board who have joined us today. The chairperson, Cheryl Ashlie; vice-chair, Chris Luke; and the superintendent, Mike Suddaby, are in the gallery today. I hope the House will make them welcome.

S. Orr: I also want to stand today and give my congratulations to Carole James, who I consider a friend. I want to congratulate her and wish her well in her new venture. I always felt maybe she should have considered a different party, but there you go.

Hon. L. Reid: We have some lovely souls visiting with us today. First, we have individuals who represent their family interests here in Gordon Head, Victoria. Mr. and Mrs. Gregson are with us. Their daughter Joan Gregson Litke is visiting from Milton, Ontario. I'd also like to welcome our transition manager for aboriginal services for northern British Columbia, Mr. Allen Cummings. I would ask the House to make these guests very, very welcome.

K. Stewart: In the gallery or at least in the House or somewhere in the building with us today, we have a Russian delegation here on a Rotary exchange led by David Rempel from Maple Ridge, the coordinator of the visit: Vladimir Molodin, Valerly Gruk, Boris Aronov, Sergey Pigarev, Vladimir Romanuk, Tatiana Kopylova, Konstantin Jeleznov and Galina Joulidova. I'm not sure of the two who are driving them today, Liz Artimigirian or Laurie Anderson, but that's the group. I wish the House would make them welcome here.

M. Hunter: In the gallery today are 13 grade 11 ESL students from Malaspina International High School in Nanaimo. They're here with their instructor Mr. David Butler, and I'd like you to help me welcome them here today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think they're probably still recovering from a rather incredible summer, but we're fortunate today to have in the gallery seven of our finest: two members of the forests protection branch and five of our direct front-line firefighters. I'd like to introduce them. Peter Fuglem is the director of the forests protection branch, and Glenn Poffenroth is a forest protection officer. Our firefighters today are easily identifiable in the gallery: Ms. Toni Large, Harley Machielse, Brent Butler, Derek Neuwirth and John Swift. They are here, in part, to again accept our thanks for a job well done — wherever they were needed, that's where they were this past summer — and also to anticipate the tabling of a piece of legislation with which they have more than a passing interest. Would the House make them all welcome.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, we have, as you know, three very special guests from Kamloops with us today, representatives of the B.C. Wildlife Park — that wonderful wildlife park we're so proud of, with its conservation programs, burrowing owls and all sorts of achievements, recently named the B.C. Wildlife Park with its emphasis on our own wildlife. I would like the House, on behalf of the Speaker and myself, to please make welcome Mary Ann Milobar, Rob Purdy and Ira "Zeke" Withler.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we are honoured by the presence of several Legislative Assembly employees who are with us in the gallery this afternoon. I would ask all members to extend a special welcome to Joan Barton, director of the legislative library, who will be retiring in January 2004 after 35 years of public service. Maureen Lawson, manager of the reference division in the library, has also made plans to retire early next year. Pamela Welch, tour coordinator, has completed 25 years of public service. Three other employees will have carried out plans to retire before the 2004 spring session commences: Cliff Ruttan, supply supervisor with the Sergeant-at-Arms; Maria Pivetta, a server in the legislative dining room; and Greg Whincup, acting multimedia services manager, Hansard Services. Greg's wife, Sheila, is with him in the gallery today.

Please join me in thanking these employees for their loyalty and dedication to serving staff and Members of the Legislative Assembly and in wishing those planning to retire many happy years ahead.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Wildfire Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 91 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm honoured to rise and introduce Bill 91, the Wildfire Act, to the chamber today. This legislation incorporates existing provisions of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia into a separate act to comprehensively address wildfire-related issues in B.C.

The key objective of the act is to clarify specific responsibilities and obligations of not just forest licensees but all users of the forests with respect to fire use, prevention, control activities and rehabilitation. The bill responds to an earlier recommendation from the auditor general's report Managing Interface Fire Risks to establish, in legislation, firefighting priorities for the protection of life, property and natural resources.

In light of the devastating events of the past summer, Bill 91 will not be debated and voted upon this session. I'm introducing the Wildfire Act now so that members can review the legislative framework, and any relevant recommendations from Mr. Filmon's fire review can be considered when this bill is reintroduced and debated in the spring session.

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

Bill 91 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. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Timber Licences Settlement Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 96 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today Bill 96, the Timber Licences Settlement Act. This bill refers to a 1995 amendment to the Forest Act, which removed the royalty method of timber pricing, and clarifies one aspect of that legislative amendment. In 1995 the previous administration phased out royalty rates that were established in legislation for timber licences. The amendment was made after a detailed consultative process conducted by Mr. Brian Scarfe. Under the royalty system, certain forest companies were paying significantly less to the Crown to harvest timber on their timber licences than other companies who were assessed stumpage on their forest and tree farm licences.

The intent of the '95 Forest Act amendment was to end a historical anomaly. It was not the intent to pay compensation to companies that had benefited from artificially low rates. With Bill 96 we are making it clear — for all purposes, including any present or future litigation — that companies will not be compensated for the loss of benefits from a historical anomaly that disappeared with the phasing-out of the royalty regime.

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

Bill 96 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. T. Nebbeling presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Five years ago the district of North Vancouver and Canlan Investment Corp. reached a deal to build and operate a new arena. The agreement, however, contained a technical error that until recently wasn't discovered. The district has realized the error and has since corrected it. The district has now followed the right process, including involving the electors. The agreement now fully complies with the Local Government Act, and as a result, through this legislation we are providing legal certainty for the period before the procedural error was corrected.

I move that the Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill 97 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.

P. Wong: I am pleased to report to the House that the Premier's trade mission to Asia was a remarkable

success. I participated in the trade mission with several of my colleagues earlier this month. The Premier has shown great leadership and commitment to the people of B.C. to help our businesses gain overseas market shares in both India and China — the most populous countries in the world.

In Shanghai, China, the Premier was on hand for the signing ceremony to build model homes to display and showcase our building products. China is B.C.'s third-largest export market, currently worth over $1 billion each year to our economy. We have a remarkable technology base and valuable resources eagerly needed in China as well as many other countries. China has many needs in areas such as technology, education, software, management and professional training programs. These are the markets where we can help them.

B.C. has many distinct advantages in continuing to develop our close economic ties with China. Geographically, B.C. is the closest province to Asia and has one of the largest populations of Asian immigrants and descendants in North America. Now is a critical time to promote our province overseas and to attract more capital and investment to B.C. This will help us to sustain the momentum of our economic growth and provide more job opportunities for all British Columbians.

I am proud of the Premier's vision for leading the province into a stronger relationship with China. Our trading relationship with China puts a lot of food on the tables of many families across our province, and I urge all British Columbians to work together in a concerted effort to further develop this important trading market.

K. Johnston: Last week I had the opportunity to attend the 2003 B.C. Export Awards in Vancouver. The export awards are presented every fall by the British Columbia government in partnership with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. The awards recognize the success of British Columbia's top exporting companies and their contribution to our economy. The exporting industry is responsible for more than 20 percent of the province's GDP and one in five jobs. More than $38 billion was injected into our economy last year.

I was taken by the youthfulness, the energy and the talent that make up the companies in the British Columbia export sector. Most of us recognize that forestry, mining and tourism have been and will continue to be the backbone of our economic body, but I was surprised by what we export to the world. The finalists included exporters of software, log homes, fireplace inserts, salmon pepperoni, Punjabi dairy products, video games, alarm systems, baby cribs and airline components.

With our highly educated workforce and an environment created by tax relief, reduced red tape and improved labour conditions, investment in the exports sector will prosper. Exporters spend a great part of their life on the road finding customers for their products. They understand the importance of reaching out and developing relationships with other countries. They told me how much they appreciated the efforts of the Premier in his recent outreach to the United States, China and India and of the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise in his mission to Korea and Taiwan. The Premier and the minister have opened the door to the world a little wider for British Columbia business.

I believe that all the companies nominated for B.C. Export Awards are winners, but I would like to acknowledge FPI Fireplace Products of Delta for being named exporter of the year and Dr. Julia Levy from QLT, recipient of the leadership award, for being a trail-blazer in the biotechnology sector. Because of the commitment of our exporters, the future looks bright for British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: Today I want to speak about something that's very near and dear to my heart — I've spoken about it in previous sessions here — and that's community safety. Community safety starts in our homes. It's something that cannot be achieved without the involvement of every member of our community, and it is important that we work together to make our communities safe — safe for our children, safe for seniors, safe for every one of us.

I think one of the best ways of promoting community safety is by involving my community in the discussion about how to get there. As chair of the safe schools task force, I had the opportunity to hear from people across this province — teachers, students, parents — all talking about the issues of bullying, harassment and intimidation. Children were able to share their stories of what it was like to be bullied and how they would like us to deal with it. This safe schools task force will be meeting in Surrey again next week at a forum.

As well as that, I put out a proposal recently to create a school community safety zone around Lord Roberts Elementary and Lord Roberts Annex. Recently I met with the parent advisory committees in those schools, where they endorsed the idea in principle. The safety zone would mean increased police patrols in the area of the school and stiffer penalties for people who break the law in that area.

I think the best way we can address the needs of safety in my community and others is to host public consultations. I've been doing that over the past year, and I will be doing that again in January so that we can create a safer community. It's my sincere hope that through these meetings we'll find long-term solutions to the community's safety concerns. We can all work together to make our communities safer. Our new-era commitment was to create safer communities across British Columbia, and together with the people who live and work in those same communities, we'll make a difference.

J. MacPhail: On Friday the Minister of Transportation said that any deal to privatize B.C. Rail to CN needed to be better than the status quo. However, in confidential progress reports by the government's own advisers, they say the deal is a dog. Those advisers warn of huge layoffs and severe economic impacts if the B.C. Liberals go ahead and break their promise to the people of the north. When will the minister and her government finally listen to these warnings and back off the B.C. Rail sell-off?

Hon. J. Reid: We have talked to people — the communities, the shippers — and promised them that we would be looking at their concerns in making an improvement to the service, an improvement to the economy across the north. We prepared documents so that we could understand those concerns so that we could act on them.

J. MacPhail: The Finance minister keeps saying, "Wait for it; wait for it," and of course everybody knows the rumours about the legislation that's coming into this House. But not only do the government's own advisers say the B.C. Rail deal is bad, they also say the worst possible deal the government could make is with CN. So unless they're bringing in legislation to prevent that, everything is a problem. According to the government's own report, over 900 jobs will disappear in communities already suffering as a result of the B.C. Liberals' failing economic agenda. Again to the minister: despite what the Minister of Finance predicts, why is she selling B.C. Rail to CN and selling out communities, when she was told it's the worst deal for communities?

Hon. J. Reid: The member seems to confuse the gathering of information so that actions can be taken with the end result. The purpose of gathering information is so that one can act on it. There is a lot of process that has gone on in listening to communities, in listening to shippers, to make sure that those communities are well served.

J. MacPhail: Every day this minister stands up and says, "Oh, now what we're doing is this, and why should anybody be worried?" — as document after document leaks and says how badly this government is handling the file and why it shouldn't be privatized at all. And of course, the reason why…

J. MacPhail: …she says for people not to worry is because it's a secret deal behind closed doors, where the community has been shut out completely.

Not only is the deal with CN bad for jobs in communities, but the government's own advisers say it's the worst deal for B.C. Rail's customers — giving it to CN. Why do they say that? Because it lessens competition and gives CN excessive power in the marketplace. That means less service…

J. MacPhail: …and higher costs for B.C. businesses who now depend on B.C. Rail to move their product to market.

Can the minister explain why she is selling B.C. Rail to CN when she's been warned over and over and over again that the deal will reduce competition, raise prices and further damage our economy? No legislation can make up for that.

Hon. J. Reid: The document that the member, I believe, is referring to was done this past September, before the detailed proposals were received from the three proponents.

Hon. J. Reid: The purpose of gathering that information was to allow government to go through the evaluation process and understand what the concerns were that we then had to work with, evaluate and address.

This has been a process, as we guaranteed from the beginning, that would involve the communities, that would involve the shippers, to produce the result that would produce a beneficial and growing economy for the north and, in fact, the entire province.

J. Kwan: News flash for the minister. British Columbians have sent her a message around the selling of B.C. Rail; 32,000 people across British Columbia said: "Don't sell."

The government's own analysis that was done says CN would abandon 250 kilometres of B.C. Rail line, adding some 850 miles to the journey on CN's tracks and driving up costs by 68 percent. The deal makes the Coquihalla sell-off look like a stroke of genius.

The deal to privatize B.C. Rail also provides no protection to shippers if CN decides to discontinue service on the rail line. According to the warning provided to the government, taxpayers will be stuck with the bill if the rail line needs to be restored.

J. Kwan: Can the minister explain why she's proceeding with a deal that provides no protection to the taxpayers or the people who depend on CN Rail to do business?

Hon. J. Reid: The concerns that are being raised here are the ones that we were looking for to understand what the concerns were that would have to be dealt with. Indeed, the concern around the Canada Transportation Act is one that we recognized would have to be dealt with. In whatever agreement we eventually make with B.C. Rail, that will have to be dealt with in that agreement. That was the purpose of getting this study done.

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

J. Kwan: Everybody knows that the deal is done. Maybe this minister doesn't know, but the Premier's office certainly knows. Answers like that are only getting this minister into more trouble. Bad spin doesn't make the deal any better, minister. Every day more information is uncovered, which shows that British Columbians…

J. Kwan: …are being sold a bill of goods, and every day — every day — the minister has something new to say. Will the minister just admit that this deal is a broken promise…

J. Kwan: …that is bad for the taxpayers, bad for the communities, bad for the shippers, bad for the jobs and bad for the economy?

Hon. J. Reid: I appreciate the acknowledgment that I have been answering the questions…

B.C. Rail and the rail network in this province have wonderful opportunities….

Hon. J. Reid: The rail transportation network in this province has wonderful opportunities. It has been hampered by the debt load. It has been hampered by the inability of the province to put more money into a rail system. We've been looking for an operating partner that will invest in British Columbia, and that will be good news.

P. Nettleton: To the Minister of Transportation: the CIBC market research favoured CN in a biased report, even though CN poses the greatest risk of job losses, has the highest potential for line closures and is reported to be in bed with government in a sweetheart pension fund and benefits deal that outstrips the other bidders. Hanging over all of this is the inquiry into wrongdoing, with the impending December 15 decision by the fairness consultant. Omnitrax, the sole remaining bidder, may be merely waiting in the wings to possibly become a winning bidder by default if these numerous scandals eventually overwhelm the bidding process, which could result in a quick shift to favour them.

My question, then, is to the Minister of Transportation. Due to this botched and discredited bidding process, is the minister now prepared to suspend the bidding process rather than continue to force a questionable and contentious result upon B.C. Rail and the people of British Columbia? I would remind the minister, in considering her response, to remember Coquihalla.

Hon. J. Reid: I appreciate the member's interest, as indeed many people across this province have had a great interest, because we want to see the people and the communities and the industries of this province well served. The process we have engaged in, I believe, has been very thorough, has been full of consultation, has been careful, has been considerate and, above all, has been fair. The fairness adviser is doing a report in two stages, and the first stage…

Hon. J. Reid: …indeed said the process to date had been fair. The second process of that…

Hon. J. Reid: …I'm sure, will show again that the process has been careful, has been well administered and has also been fair.

R. Visser: My question is a public written question from Scott Doherty, the first vice-president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 1123, to the Minister of Education regarding the minister's responsibility for education. Why did this government impose a contract settlement on the teachers of British Columbia and then download the funding of their raises to the individual school boards?

Hon. C. Clark: The approximate cost of the contract over its life is $338 million. Our government funded about the first half of the settlement. Since then we've provided $42 million to school districts in unconditional grants and another $50 million to school districts in unconditional grants in '02-03. Those are both education dividends that come as a result of our government's good management of money. It means that we get a dividend at the end of the year because people who finance our debt look kindly on our management.

We hope that we will also have an education dividend next year. In addition to that, the Premier has already announced that $100 million will be flowing to public schools and the school education budget over the next two years in the face of declining enrolment of over 15,000 students over the last five years.

B. Locke: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. For the last 13 years Maclean's magazine has rated universities across the country, with the most recent review indicating that British Columbia has one of the lowest numbers of university seats per capita across Canada.

As the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, I heard a number of presentations from concerned students and educators, worried that B.C. will not be able to meet the growing demand for post-secondary education. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell this House what is being done to ensure that students will be able to access the post-secondary education they need?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's also important to point out that in the Maclean's survey this year, we would want to say thank you to the institutions in this province who do an outstanding job. Three of the universities that we have were ranked in the top five in their categories in the country. That is absolutely excellent. I want to point out that the University of Northern British Columbia, although not ranked in the top five, did move up one ranking and has an exceptional ranking in this country.

More importantly than that, the Maclean's survey does not include in its statistics the number of seats that are included in this province in colleges and institutes. When you look at the whole picture across the country, British Columbia's numbers actually rank above the Canadian average in terms of the seats per capita. We think the work that colleges and institutes in this province are doing is also excellent and must be considered when we look at the total number of seats.

Let's look at the facts. Since 2001 this government has added almost 6,000 seats to the post-secondary education sector, and from our perspective we will continue to be aggressive in working with institutions to add seats across all of the institutions in the province.

Hon. M. Coell: I rise to present the 2002-03 annual report for the employment and assistance appeal tribunal of the province of British Columbia.

Bill Pr410 does a number of things, but primarily and in essence it changes the name of the Canadian Pentecostal Seminary (West) to the Canadian Pentecostal Seminary. There are a number of other provisions to make sure that the organization continues to operate during this transition. At this point I'll wait to see what direction, if any, members of this House have on this bill.

B. Penner: For a moment I thought maybe debate was about to break out. I was hoping to hear from the Minister of Forests.

I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr410, Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr410; H. Long in the chair.

B. Penner: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr410, Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 93; H. Long in the chair.

J. MacPhail: At second reading the opposition voted against this legislation, Bill 93, the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003. We still have concerns and will reflect those concerns by voting against the bill at third reading. However, I must say that with the incredibly important legislation that's still on the agenda and that needs to be debated, and with the government going to be introducing major legislation tomorrow — two days before the end of session — we are not going to be afforded the time to debate this legislation at committee stage. Our energies must be allocated in other areas, given the legislative agenda that's before us now and about to come.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 12 in the hands of the Table.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name in the hands of the Table.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 41 standing in my name in the hands of the Table.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to the schedule standing in my name with the Table.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 93, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 93, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

This government has committed to putting patients first in our health care system, but as we all know, we can only sustain a high-quality health care system if we operate within our means. Last year this government brought in the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. A key goal of that legislation was to give health employers the flexibility they needed to ensure the most efficient use of public dollars in the delivery of non-clinical services. By achieving greater efficiency in non-clinical services, we are able to free up more dollars to improve patient care and to make sure people get the health care they need when they need it.

We are continuing towards our goal to putting patients first. What Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, does is create opportunities for government and health authorities to partner with the private sector in adding capacity to the health care system. It means that public-private partners who provide non-clinical services in the health care system will be able to operate on a level playing field with other health employers.

This will be good news for the people in the Fraser Valley. Their existing hospital was built in 1953 and saw its last renovation in 1980. Fraser Valley residents have heard talk of a replacement hospital as far back as 1986. Over those 17 years, they've been promised a new facility many times — in fact, at one time, with even a sod-turning. Millions of dollars have been spent on planning, but without an operating budget, the construction on this much-needed hospital never began.

That is why we're bringing in a different model for the new Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre. With Bill 94, this project can proceed. This legislation permits a public-private partner to contract out non-clinical services if that public-private partner makes a capital investment in health care by building a new health facility or upgrading an existing one and negotiates an agreement to provide those non-clinical services in that specific facility. This is the same process that health

authorities have in place now and continues this government's mandate to put patients first.

In the case of the Abbotsford hospital, non-clinical services provided by the private partner to manage the facility will include housekeeping, food preparation and delivery, laundry, security and landscaping. I'd like to make it clear that all clinical services, such as those related to diagnostic procedures, lab work, emergency and non-emergency surgery and medical imaging, will continue to be delivered by government through health authorities.

I also want to stress that all medical services will continue to be provided within the universal, publicly funded health care system according to the principles of the Canada Health Act. This legislation also clarifies the definition of true employer as one whose employees carry out the work under the direct supervision of that employer. Projects will be designated under the act on a case-by-case basis. Each designation will be by way of regulation.

This legislation opens a way to partnerships that will add capacity to our health care system and create new facilities for patients. Public-private partnerships have a proven track record in British Columbia, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain and Australia. In fact, in the U.K. public-private partnerships have been used to construct 40 new hospitals with another 60 on the way, 150 new schools with another 250 underway, and numerous road and rail investment projects.

In fact, all new hospitals in the U.K. are now built through public-private partnerships. The Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre project team looked at other jurisdictions such as the U.K., and they learned what must be done to ensure success of public-private partnerships. Key findings that have been incorporated into B.C.'s hospital project include ensuring that clinical leaders such as doctors, nurses and health care professionals contribute to the specifications for services and clinical design. In addition, these same people will assist with the evaluation of the designs, as outlined in the proposals from the proponent's terms.

In the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre contract, there are provisions for the public sector to step in and take over a service, such as laundry, if the partner or its subcontractors are not performing to the required standard. This allows the health authorities to protect patients and staff and to ensure that quality services can be maintained. The costs of the health authority stepping in will be deducted from the partner's service payment. The contract also provides for incentives for the public-private partner to exceed the already very high levels of service quality required in the agreement. The public-private partner also faces penalties for providing services below the quality demanded or outside the time frames required.

Many members of this House might be surprised to learn that more than half of the long-term care facilities in this province were built and are run by non-government groups. We already have a number of first-rate municipal facilities in B.C. that were built through public-private partnerships: the Port Hardy water treatment facility, where the public-private partner built it at a 30 percent saving over the original budget; the Cranbrook multi-purpose recreation complex, with construction completed six months ahead of schedule; Skyreach Place in Kelowna, where the municipality will buy back the land and building after 30 years for one dollar; and the Chilliwack arena, which is currently under construction utilizing the P3 model. The city expects $8 million of savings over its 25-year term. Chilliwack has used various forms of public-private partnerships for the last eight years and estimates savings of about 25 percent per project.

I want to remind the House that it wasn't long ago that the Vancouver General Hospital tower, now the Jim Pattison Pavilion tower, was built with public funds. Construction of the 19-storey shell began in 1988 and was completed in 1991. In 1999 the trauma special care unit and radiology project were completed, but it wasn't until 2003 that the tower was open for patients. The cost of maintaining the partly completed pavilion for 15 years, and the forgone savings by not moving into the pavilion when scheduled, is estimated to be $170 million.

Hon. G. Bruce: That is just one example of wasting precious taxpayers' dollars. Phase 1(a) of the Royal Jubilee Hospital here in Victoria, constructed by the last administration, saw the final cost of construction rise 33 percent from its original budget. The Surrey Memorial Hospital expansion saw costs rise 11 percent. The Kitimat hospital saw a 38 percent increase.

These cost increases happen for a number of reasons, such as unforeseen scope changes, unanticipated equipment requirements or inadequate costing during the planning stages. Under a public-private partnership, these costs would have been fully scoped out and anticipated early in the project. Construction would have been completed on time and on budget because of due diligence done by the private-public partners in the planning stages.

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to speak.

Hon. G. Bruce: Efficiencies built into the operational phase would have saved even more costs. Equally important, the province would not have borne 100 percent of the risk during design and construction, as the agreement would have placed the risk squarely with the public-private partner. Our government has taken the right steps to ensure success. Partnerships B.C. examined many P3 models, highlighted what was done right and what could be improved upon, and

created a British Columbia public-private partnership process that will succeed.

In the coming months we expect to select the private partner for the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre, and construction should be completed by the end of 2007. It will be an acute care facility built with private dollars but completely owned by the people of B.C. right from day one. It's a win-win situation for patients, health providers and the public in British Columbia. This bill, along with the work of Partnerships B.C., is another step to making the Abbotsford hospital and other projects a reality.

J. MacPhail: I wonder how many government caucus members are going to get up and speak to this. Mr. Speaker, I will be addressing this bill at length, because of course what the minister has just described has absolutely nothing to do with this legislation. The claims he makes, just like all of his cabinet colleagues…. They make great claims about what they can deliver and say it's all there in the legislation. Well, it ain't. It isn't at all. The claims he makes about the success of public-private partnerships are nowhere in the legislation — none whatsoever.

He's not replicating a model that already exists in other areas around public-private partnerships. He's giving, through legislation, by fiat, a guaranteed profit to the private partner of any project at the expense of working people. That's what he's doing. Gee, there's a lot of risk-taking by the private partner, isn't it? This minister just stood up and said: "Oh, it would be the private partner that takes all the risk."

No, this legislation is a giveaway to the private partner to guarantee that the private partner can go to the very bottom in operating costs, and that's how they'll make the profit. That's how they will. They'll assume no risk. They've been given their own cookie jar, which they can reach into day after day after day, of goodies they can pull out at the expense of our health care system and at the expense of working people. This government has legislated the cookie jar for the private employer.

The reason why they're doing this is for the MSA General Hospital in Abbotsford, a hospital that was fully budgeted with public funds when this government took over. This government squandered that money — completely squandered it. They're two and a half years into their mandate, and not a plan has been identified. The people bidding on the hospital are scurrying away.

Let's see. The original plan was about $220 million for MSA Hospital, and we're now at a $300 million hospital. Let's see what $80 million over budget on a $220 million hospital is. Would that be 40 percent over budget? They haven't even got a private partner yet, and they're so desperate that they have to introduce this legislation to help them even more out of their incompetence.

With less than a week left, with four days left in this session, I am speaking today on a bill that will have profound and disturbing consequences for years to come. And isn't it interesting that the Minister of Labour is shepherding this bill through? He's already shepherded through…. He's the only Minister of Labour in the history of British Columbia who has broken more collective agreements than in all of North America. I guess he wasn't satisfied with that record. He wants to add to his score by introducing this legislation that not only completely disregards collective agreements but takes away the basic labour rights of working people. It takes away their protection under the Labour Relations Code. I guess he wasn't satisfied with that great record that he already had.

This is a bill. It's only five pages long, but it rips apart generations of progress in labour relations. It reaches into negotiated contracts with a heavy hand, and it nullifies agreements made in good faith. But agreements made in good faith and this Liberal government are an oxymoron. This bill stands as a testament to this government's willingness to sacrifice fairness, balance and the rights of working people in the service of a narrow and extreme ideology — a narrow and extreme ideology that they've been singularly incompetent in implementing anyway.

The government is going to great pains to minimize the bill's purpose and effect — great pains. I suppose that's to be expected. After all, we are in the waning days of a fall session that's supposed to be about cleaning up legislation held over from the spring — great parliamentary reform brought in by this government. They were not going to ram legislation through the way the previous government did. If I hear that one more time, I'll have a physical reaction. Not only are they ramming this legislation through, tomorrow they're going to introduce legislation ramming the sale of B.C. Rail through. With two days of debate left in this whole session — two days — they're ramming it through.

Here we are with the most draconian legislation, Bill 94, in the area of labour relations. This government introduced it last week and is ramming it through this week — so another broken promise. The Government House Leader likes to say how awful he was treated by the previous government and how much better they are. What's better about this? What possible tenet of democracy is this government daring to purport by introducing draconian legislation like Bill 94 and ramming it through in days, in a fall session, at a time when nobody has had a chance to examine this legislation?

Today, despite this government's promise to do exactly the opposite — to not do this — we are debating fundamental new laws that forever shift the balance of rights between working people and their employers. There's nothing clarifying about this legislation. There's nothing mild about this legislation. It is extreme, and it's ideological. They are ramming through Bill 94, a bill to yet again break their own election commitment to respect negotiated agreements.

They're not trying to find ways to exempt corporations involved. Well, actually, this legislation does exempt corporations involved in private-public partnerships from the most basic provisions of B.C.'s labour laws and labour jurisprudence, and this government says that the private partners are taking all of the risk. No. It will be the taxpayers taking all of the risk, because this is a little gift to the private contractor that they won't have to deliver anything.

I must say that there is absolutely no doubt that this is exactly what this bill does. It breaks an election commitment by the Liberals to respect negotiated agreements, and it exempts corporations from the most basic provisions of B.C.'s labour laws and labour jurisprudence. It's an affront to the basic democratic principles embedded in a free collective bargaining system, and it's an affront to the principles of fairness and balance that are central to good government.

But this government doesn't believe in good government. This government wants people to believe that its health care policies are all about putting patients first. Isn't that interesting? We have a Minister of Labour who's giving goodies away to private contractor employers and breaking contracts, and somehow they think they can justify this as being about good health care policies.

We know that's not true. Besides, the people of Nelson or Kimberley or Port Alberni or New Westminster would not for a moment believe this government puts patients first. Neither would the residents of Ladysmith. I wonder how well that message box flies with Ladysmith residents, for this minister — his own constituency. I wonder if they can keep their lunch down when they hear the Minister of Labour saying he's putting patients first in Ladysmith. Tell that to the seniors who have had their Pharmacare cut, are paying more in MSP fees and are being kicked out of long-term care homes.

I had to laugh when the minister stood up and said: "I wonder if it's news to people in this House that long-term care homes have been privately built and privately run." Duh. Of course everybody knows that. These are the very homes this government is shutting down right now. Those privately managed and privately built homes are still subject to the health authorities. The patients still receive funding out of tax dollars to reside in those nursing homes. The Canada Health Act doesn't protect long-term care services.

But until the introduction of this legislation, the health authorities were responsible for ensuring proper care in those long-term care homes, and this legislation changes that tenet forever. "Putting patients first" — I don't know how the minister can say that with a straight face, under Bill 94. Tell that to all the British Columbians who are disgusted when they see this government breaking another campaign promise and spending thousands of dollars on political advertising, trying to spin the public about its massive changes to health care. That in itself is another broken promise. They just want to get the truth out. I love it — how all of a sudden, now that they're government, it's so hard to get the truth out, they say. So they have to spend hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars on ads — and believe you me, they're partisan — political ads, explaining to people about what they're doing to our health care system.

This government has been tearing the heart out of B.C.'s public health care system, creating chaos and disruption ever since they were elected. With this bill, they are legislating long-term instability that will hurt British Columbians and the care they receive as patients in our health care facilities. Make no mistake about it; that's exactly what Bill 94 is about.

Let's examine the effect of Bill 94. Well, employees who have negotiated a binding collective agreement with their employers have a right to expect that the conditions of that agreement are respected and upheld. That's what collective bargaining is all about. If there's a dispute, as there often is, both employers and employees can resolve their differences through an impartial Labour Relations Board. That process is at the heart of fair and balanced labour relations in this province. Frankly, until this legislation, that's the method of labour relations throughout the country.

This bill tosses all of that aside. An employee working for a company that signs a contract to provide services in our health care system now automatically sees parts of their collective agreement disappear — made illegal.

Imagine that. A freely negotiated legal collective agreement, and this government, through the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, says that a freely negotiated collective agreement is now illegal. The employee has no say. The employee has no resource by legislation, and with no notice, the employee's fundamental right has disappeared.

I recall a current Premier who promised openness and accountability. I recall a Premier who promised not to tear up collective agreements. I recall a Premier who ran and received a mandate on a promise of improved health care, public health care for people, when and where they needed it. Well, what a shameful day today is with the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. I cannot even keep up with the many broken promises this Premier and this government have now accumulated. On every count this bill is a betrayal of those promises. It is a draconian piece of legislation that puts the lie to the new-era promise.

Here's the real new era of health care brought to us by this government. Let me go over that. This B.C. Liberal government has been dismantling B.C.'s health care system piece by piece, and it wants to sell it off to the highest private bidder. We know that. We absolutely know that. The Premier has been talking about doing that for ages, absolutely ages. This government has now opened up B.C.'s public health care system to multinational corporations such as Aramark and Sodexho.

Now, with this legislation, he wants to take the contract-breaking provisions of Bill 29 that it rammed

through on a Sunday in its early days, and he wants to extend those contract-breaking provisions ad infinitum now with this legislation — extend them to any and all possible private companies, to contractors and subcontractors. Even sub-subcontractors now can ignore collective agreements. In fact, this government is allowing, by law, contract-breaking provisions to any company taken on by a health authority as a private partner.

Let's be clear. Despite what the minister said — that this wouldn't apply to physio services, clinical services, emergency services — there is nothing in this legislation that guarantees that — nothing whatsoever. That was made up out of the head of the Minister of Labour because he knows British Columbians will be extremely upset when their emergency room services are privatized, when their day surgeries are privatized, when their physio services are privatized.

The minister likes to say: "Oh, it's about landscaping." If I hear about one more landscaping service being privatized — as if people believe that's all this government is doing — I'm going to break a blood vessel in my head, because there's nothing in this legislation that precludes day surgeries. There's nothing in this legislation that precludes these contract-breaking services and private employer services from our emergency room or physio — nothing.

Mental health clinical services — they're covered by this legislation too. I see the Minister of State for Mental Health there laughing. He probably doesn't even know what's in this legislation. He can't possibly, because mental health services, out-patient mental health services, will now be provided by a private employer. That private employer has the right to break the contract of the nurses who are providing those mental health services, and the Minister of State for Mental Health thinks that's just great, absolutely great.

This legislation doesn't apply just to the proposed Abbotsford hospital, though likely what this minister will try to say is that this bill is just about the privatization of the Abbotsford hospital. We know that this government is so desperate to give away to its biggest political donor, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the single largest donor ever — ever — to the Liberals….

J. MacPhail: You have one. It's the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: The single largest donor ever to the Liberal government is the Independent Contractors and Builders Association. There are dozens of corporations who have given hundreds of thousands of dollars. CN gave $107,000 to the government, but the single largest donor to this government is the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association — absolutely the biggest. Now they're getting their reward.

J. MacPhail: Of course, they've known about their reward for over a year. In a private dinner between the Premier and the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association one year ago, the Premier promised what we're now seeing in legislation. Isn't that terrific? I guess when CN gives you $107,000, you get to buy the only….

J. MacPhail: I love how these Liberals mock their reliance on corporate donors — their wholly complete and unfettered reliance on corporate donors — and they think that's hilarious. They think it's absolutely hilarious that they get 90 percent of their donations…

J. MacPhail: …from corporate donors. They think that's hilarious. Individuals won't donate to the B.C. Liberals. They don't donate to the B.C. Liberals. Not at all. In fact, very few individuals donate to the B.C. Liberals. We do know that the corporations love this government — absolutely love it — because they get an immediate payoff. CN donates $107,000 to this government; they get a profitable rail line. It's wonderful. The independent contractors donate as much as anyone could possibly imagine, and they get a private hospital where they don't have to put up with those silly little collective agreements — the first time ever in our health care system. The first time ever in our health care system, and this government mocks the fact that they're delivering for their single largest donor. They all mock it. In fact….

J. MacPhail: As always, the sterling decorum of the Minister of Labour rises to the top — rises to the top.

I'm sure the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association are gleeful with this legislation — absolutely gleeful.

Let's start with the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre and see what Bill 94 does there. Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. This government that was going to restore the economy and could do things ever so quickly and ever so better…. There's not a shovel anticipated to go into the ground for at least a year for the MSA Hospital. Let's see. That will be after three and a half years of this government, and they haven't built a gosh darn thing in the health care system — not one thing have they built. They've closed down a lot of hospitals, but not one thing have they built. I guess the minister….

J. MacPhail: I guess the minister is still ashamed from his terrible disaster of health care–building back when he was in government in 1988. I know he must still be cringing.

He likes to blame that disaster of the tower at Vancouver Hospital on the NDP. Well really, it was the NDP that had to clean up the mess of his government in 1988 — the mess of his government building a tower that was not needed, that was inappropriately located and that was a huge financial burden on the health care system. Fortunately, they were tossed from office, but he's so interested in repeating his errors of that ill-fated time in the Social…. Oh, by the way, Mr. Speaker, you would of course remember that it was the Social Credit government that messed it up so badly.

For years the health care system had to figure out what to do with a Vancouver Hospital tower that wasn't needed and was not in any way to do with patient care. Well, here we have more legislation that has nothing to do with patient care, and another disaster — the Abbotsford hospital.

The government hasn't built one single thing to add beds — not one — including the MSA Hospital, and here we are. The MSA Hospital has gone so off kilter that they're now having to ram through legislation to give more goodies to the private contractors to see whether they'll actually do anything out there. Bill 94….

J. MacPhail: I love it — the Minister of Labour heckling, saying the private contractors get nothing out of this. What has he been smoking — a big cigar? Has he been smoking a big Cuban cigar that's gone to his head? This is all about what the private contractors get. Bill 94 makes it very clear that the true owner of the proposed Abbotsford hospital will not be the Fraser health authority.

It's the first time ever — breakthrough legislation. In fact, for the first time ever, the real owner of a hospital in British Columbia won't be any part of the public health care system. No, for the very first time, the true owner of the proposed Abbotsford hospital and cancer care centre will be the private partner that wins the contract to build and operate the hospital.

Will they be carrying any risk because of that? No. The Minister of Labour said in his opening remarks that the risk will be carried by the private owner now.

Show us. There is nothing in this legislation or the request for proposals that says that at all, Mr. Speaker. Under Bill 94 the real owner of the hospital will be some private banking or construction consortium, some multinational — I guarantee it — whichever one makes the best pitch to this cash-desperate government as it struggles with the structural deficit it created, the largest deficit in B.C. history.

We've seen with B.C. Rail the kind of boneheaded disastrous business decision this government is prepared to make and ram through in legislation in order to try and compensate for giving away the store on its first day in office, when they gave — on that first glorious day for the rich in this province — the biggest tax cuts to the corporations and the wealthy. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough for those corporations or those wealthy people. They're wanting more, and now they've got Bill 94. Now they've got even more. The wealthiest, those corporations and the rich — they've got Bill 94.

The deals this government envisions making with private consortiums and multinationals will be equally disastrous as the B.C. Rail deal. It does beg the question: since when do construction magnates and bankers know what's best for patients? Well, for the first time ever, British Columbians are going to find out what those American construction companies know about patient care.

This government has tried to pretend to the community of Abbotsford that the new hospital would be part of the public health care system, but Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, shows very clearly that the winning private partner can run the hospital and cancer care clinic and run them as for-profit centres. This is all part of the deal — running the emergency room and just about any other part of the hospital as part of the winning firm's contract to recover their costs.

This from the Premier who promised in the election that he wouldn't privatize health care, because he was going to do such a good job of improving the public system. This was a Premier who went on-air and said: "Oh, private health clinics? They're going to shrivel away and die under us." This is exactly what the Premier said: "They won't be needed, private health clinics, because our government will make the public health care system."

Well, there were fewer private health clinics when this government took over than the fingers on this hand. How many are there now under this government? There are over two dozen private health clinics flourishing in this province since this government took

over. Let's see. That would be a 600 percent increase in the number of private health clinics since this government took over. I wonder how the Premier feels about them not withering away and dying, even though that was what he promised.

This from a Premier who promised in the election that he wasn't going to privatize health care, when according to this government's own policies the only services that must be managed by the public health care system are the services to the sickest patients in acute care beds. That's all that's left now. If you're in an acute care bed, you get to stay in the public health system. Everyone else is part of the private health system.

I know that the Liberals hate to hear this kind of stuff. I know they actually can't stand it. But here's how much the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. donated to this government from '96 to 2002 — our latest figures: $238,000. Wow. Single largest donor. When you put them all together…. You don't just look at what the rail companies gave — CN was the largest donor amongst rail companies — and who's the largest donor among forest companies. The single largest donor of all the thousands of corporations who gave to this government is the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association — $238,000 — and it's paying off.

Here's what we've got left in our public health system according to this government: you better be in an acute care bed, or else you're not part of the public health system. By the way, they're closing down acute care beds like crazy — closing them down. Let's talk about Port Alberni, Nelson, Ladysmith. Gone are those acute care beds, and now we know the reason why. It's because the government wants everything but the acute care beds turned over to the private system. They're achieving it two ways: just straightforward privatizing of the other services and then shutting down acute care beds that remain as part of the public health system.

Well, as Health minister Colin Hansen has already admitted, the definition of non-clinical services is so broad that the private sector could now run the hospital emergency room, its day surgeries, its rehabilitation beds, the out-patient cancer clinic and any other out-patient services for profit. The private partner, through this bill, has the right to employ virtually all the employees in the new hospital defined as non-clinical, including psychiatric nurses in out-patient care clinics, nurses delivering cancer treatment in an out-patient form, physios, emergency room services, counselling services. All those now, because of Bill 94, will be privatized. The employees of the private employer will be employees not of the public health care system but of the private partner, as part of its contract to design, build and operate the facility and recover its costs.

Bill 94 makes it very clear who will be in charge of patient services. The title of a key section of this bill reads — I know this may come as news to the Minister of Labour: "Designated private sector partner is true employer." Bill 94 also makes it very clear, in its definition of health care partner, that the health care partners this government envisions are as broad a group as is possible.

I don't know what the minister was talking about in his second reading remarks that said health services such as emergency room and clinical services, psychiatric services, counselling services and out-patient cancer services won't be affected. He's dead wrong. In fact, through this bill, this government is extending the contract-breaking provisions to all and sundry, not just to the company that provides the capital but to the company that provides equipment as well. Somehow the minister says contractors aren't getting anything out of this. It also provides contract-breaking abilities right into the public health care system, to every contractor and subcontractor, right down the chain.

Given how dismal the economic record of this government is — or this government delivering on anything it promised to their biggest donor — they're now having to give even more away to private partners who want to get involved in health care so that they can make a lot of money. They just have to keep giving more and more to these private partners, who say: "Ooh, it doesn't look like it's a good government to work with." Here's some more candy, Bill 94, for their political donors.

Let's be clear. The only way these private employers are going to make money — and they're in it to make money — is to pay the lowest wage they can get away with, and the patients be damned. This government doesn't care a whit about the conditions of patient care. In fact, we should point out that in this bill, this government is actually having to open up its own previous contract-breaking legislation for health sector workers. As if Bill 29 wasn't enough in terms of breaking contracts, this legislation — Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act —, even amends that contract-breaking legislation to give more away to private employers.

Well, we've actually been down this promise-breaking, contracting-out road before. It's a disgracefully well-worn road for this B.C. Liberal government and for this minister in particular. Bill 94 picks up the job of tearing up contracts that this government started in January of 2002 with Bill 29. Bill 29, as you will no doubt remember, Mr. Speaker, broke one of the Premier's key election promises: the promise that he wouldn't break contracts or tear up contracts. In December of 2000 the Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition, told the Hospital Employees Union's Guardian magazine: "I don't believe in ripping up agreements. I have never said I would tear up agreements. I am not tearing up agreements." I guess that'll go down in history along with the promise saying: "I'm not going to sell B.C. Rail."

Well, thousands of health care workers voted for the Premier because he made that promise to them in the lead-up to the election, only months before the 2001 election. Then this government, a government that campaigned on openness and accountability to the

public — laughably enough — called an emergency session in January of 2002 to bring in a bill specifically to break that election promise, just like they're going to do tomorrow when they bring in legislation with hours left to examine it, to debate it. They'll bring in legislation to break the election promise not to sell off B.C. Rail.

What do people say in this…? Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh. The Liberals say: "Oh, isn't it awful that the new NDP leader won't have a seat in this Legislature." I had to laugh at that, Mr. Speaker. As if there's any debate in this Legislature. As if this government, unlike any previous government in the history of British Columbia, has treated this Legislature — and the promises it made — with respect. Every day it stands up and introduces legislation that's controversial and extreme, and rams it through because they have an overwhelming majority. I had to laugh when the chair of caucus, the member from Chilliwack said: "Oh, it's awful that the new NDP leader is not going to be in this chamber."

Well, this chamber isn't about democracy. This chamber isn't about debate. It's about the tyranny of the majority to break every election promise they made, and Bill 94 is a perfect example of that. In fact, the leader of the NDP will serve the people of B.C. extremely well by being anywhere but here. The people of B.C., even though my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I try desperately every day to hold this government to account…. Not one single constituent who is not represented by the NDP gets a fair hearing inside this Legislature.

The Minister of Labour didn't meet with health care workers on this matter. They met with the private contractors and promised the private contractors, but the Minister of Labour didn't meet on any level except to say: "Here's what we're doing." Oh yeah, there were lots of negotiations with the private contractors, but not with the health care workers affected by this. No.

Even in his own constituency he refuses to meet with health care workers. In fact, he refuses to meet with anybody in his own constituency, from what I've heard. The leader of the NDP will be more properly serving the people of British Columbia by going to the Minister of Labour's constituency and listening to them and bringing their concerns back to this chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order, members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: I hear the minister flopping around over there, Mr. Speaker — flopping around in a braggadocio way.

In December of 2000 the Premier said he wasn't going to tear up agreements. But they brought in the legislation, Bill 29, to rip up a collective agreement that they themselves had imposed. They brought in three contract-breaking bills — three contract-breaking pieces of legislation. Of course they sit down and negotiate with workers, and then they impose settlements on employers and workers. Then they have to bring in legislation to say: "Oh well, we didn't actually mean that contract that we signed. Here's legislation to break it."

This open and accountable — god, I can hardly say that with a straight face…. This supposedly open and accountable government called an emergency session in the Legislature and rammed three bills through in January of 2002, over a weekend, with absolutely no opportunity for members of the public to even review this legislation. Of those, Bill 29, for anyone who may have forgotten, was the contract-breaking legislation that was this government's first all-out assault on health sector workers.

Of course, two years into the B.C. Liberal mandate, we and British Columbians are used to the B.C. Liberal style. They're going to go out with a bang in this session, ramming draconian, controversial legislation through. They're going to just go out with a bang in November 2003. We now know that abusing its legislative majority and ramming through legislation is how this government chooses to do things. They love it. They revel in it. They absolutely revel in it.

The Premier makes an announcement today, saying: "Tomorrow I'm going to bring in legislation on B.C. Rail. Oh, there are only two days of debate left, and the public won't have had a chance to see it? Oh, am I not being democratic?" And the Minister of Transportation thinks it's going to be such good legislation that everybody is going to welcome it with open arms. Well, she's wrong about that, because the details of it have leaked, and she's wrong. She's absolutely wrong.

Even given that, what is the problem with this government actually letting people see the legislation they're ramming through, with letting people actually have a chance to look at it and understand the implications? That is a concept this government refuses to accept. Democracy — thrown out the window. Democracy — gone out the window. I thought they would be proud of their overwhelming majority. I thought they would love the fact. Why aren't these government caucus backbenchers taking home this legislation, Bill 94, and having public debates on it? Not one of them has done it.

The only person who has been to a public forum recently on health care has been the member for New Westminster. She faced 300 angry, angry people over their broken promise, and they're now shutting down St. Mary's Hospital. Her constituents are calling for her resignation, and this Minister of Labour says they're putting patients first?

St. Mary's Hospital will be shut down, with all those acute care beds gone — the only part of our health care system that's still part of the public health system now that we have Bill 94. And this Minister of

Labour says they're putting patients first? Surgical wait-lists are up, absolutely, in the Fraser health authority. Of course, the majority of those surgical wait-lists will be taken care of now with the private health clinics that have flourished under this government.

We know that abusing its legislative majority and ramming through legislation is how this government loves to do things — whether it's through emergency sessions or, like today, at the very end of the legislative session, ramming through draconian legislation so that the public has no time even to review it. Of course, we know now that breaking election promises is actually a hallmark of this B.C. Liberal government, from the promise not to privatize B.C. Rail to the promise that tax cuts would pay for themselves. That's what this government's record has ended up being all about.

Let's just call the B.C. Liberal government "Broken promises are us." Instead of admitting that this government got their tax cut promises completely wrong, instead of admitting that their voodoo economics was way off base and that tax cuts have never paid for themselves, what did this government do? It was such a failure that they had to make up for their failure, and they opened up war on the health sector workers by ripping up their collective agreements. They opened up war on the health sector workers who were delivering services to the most vulnerable.

That's what it did in Bill 29. It did it with mistruths by completely misleading people about what the wages and working conditions were of those workers — a group of mainly women, many of whom are immigrants to this country, who work hard in our health care facilities. Those same workers had been led to believe by the Premier and this government that their jobs were secure, but this Premier broke his commitment to those workers to his everlasting shame, all because of his decision to give away huge tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy and because of the fiscal, financial and economic incompetence of this government.

Now that this government is even further in the hole economically, they are going even further than they did in Bill 29 with this legislation we're debating today, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. They're doing much more than merely maintaining the contracting-out provisions they legislated in Bill 29. While the explanatory notes…. My God, these explanatory notes are getting to be little gems. They're like the misquotes of George Bush. There's going to be a little bible of explanatory notes that had nothing to do with the legislation that's being introduced.

The explanatory note attached to Bill 94 will be front and centre in that book. Here's what the explanatory note of this bill says. It says: "This Bill will facilitate development and implementation of public-private partnerships in the health sector, enabling improved delivery of cost-effective non-clinical services to the public."

What kind of explanatory note is that? It's the only explanatory note. Since when did we stop actually using explanatory notes to explain the legislation? Since when do we start using explanatory notes as political spin-doctoring? Is that what the public affairs bureau does now? Is that what they do — write explanatory notes for legislation?

That explanatory note is completely misleading and doesn't describe the legislation at all. Shame on this government. I have no idea what they've done to the public servants who draft legislation. I have no idea, but it's clear that explanatory notes are now part of the public affairs bureau, the Pravda of this government. Even Pravda wouldn't have the ability to mislead people on legislation.

Bill 94 does not only affect the public-private interface, but it also delves into the private-private interface at the contractor and subcontractor level — absolutely. It limits the ability of private sector employers and unions to negotiate a collective agreement. It limits completely the ability of a union and an employer to negotiate any contracting-out provisions or protection. Even if a private sector employer wanted to, they couldn't under this legislation. By extending the contract-breaking provisions practically ad infinitum, this B.C. Liberal government is attempting to deprive workers of their right to union representation in situations where health authorities contract out services.

In giving private partners carte blanche to subcontract services at will, they are trying to prevent unions from improving wages and working conditions for workers across this province. Despite what this Minister of Labour may try to say, this bill does not apply to the proposed private hospital in Abbotsford; it doesn't even apply to P3 facilities generally. Bill 94 could apply to any contracted, non-clinical service anywhere in the health sector, including community services provided from any designated facility such as a long-term care home, a group home or an assisted-living complex.

Let's consider an example to understand the reach of this legislation, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. If Vancouver Hospital is designated as a health sector partner and Vancouver General Hospital contracts out, say, cleaning to corporation X which provides cleaning equipment, that is capital equipment under section 2(a)(i) of this legislation, and this bill kicks in. If corporation X is unionized, it can shake the union out. It can shake the union right out from its domain under section 4 by subcontracting out to Mutt and Jeff's cleaning services, even if it's a wholly owned subsidiary. If Mutt and Jeff's cleaning services is unionized, then it in turn, under section 5 of this legislation, can get rid of its union by sub-subcontracting to Mutt and Jeff's mother service, and it can shake its union. So on and on it goes.

The pressure downward of this bill means that it threatens the working conditions of British Columbians in many other sectors. Through this bill this government, which campaigned on openness and not breaking contracts, is creating a situation in which not only are they taking away the possibility of health sector workers earning a living wage, but they are threaten-

ing the wages and working conditions of people across the sectors, across the province.

One wonders why they have to do this. Why is it that the government can give huge profits to the private sector through giving away public assets, but they have to attack working people? Why is it? Why is it that they have to tie behind their backs the hands of working people to make the lowest of low wages? I thought that the economy was going to be so great for working people. It turns out not only is the economy failing, but they have to attack working people through the wages they earn — all on behalf of their corporate friends. What a government, and the government caucus members sit back and let this happen.

Here's something that it doesn't say in the explanatory note — the Pravda note. Here's what this bill will mean. Here's the implication of this bill stating that the employer at health care facilities will no longer be the public health authority, that the employer will now be the private investor. Now that completely opens up our B.C. health system to the North American Free Trade Agreement and all the implications of that. Oh yeah, no one's referred to that yet.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the minute a government opens up a previously publicly delivered service to a private operator, all services then have to be opened up for delivery under NAFTA — chapter 11 of NAFTA. Maybe the minister is not familiar with it, but that's exactly what chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement says. It says that once a government goes down the slippery road of privatizing any services, all services are deemed to be privatized, and they have to be opened up to competition. Another great day for British Columbia.

This government legislates the definition of an employer as a private employer, that private employer will come from outside Canada, and our whole health care system is now up for grabs. I bet you this government didn't even read chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. They were so desperate to give away to their friends, I bet you they didn't even read it.

The government likes to talk about opening up B.C. Bill 94 opens up our public health care system in the most disastrous way possible. It doesn't only threaten; it makes legal our prized public health care system being vulnerable to chapter 11 challenges under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Chapter 11, of course, of the North American Free Trade Agreement also allows investors to sue governments for public policies that curb profits, even those that protect public health or the environment. So here we have the government saying to a private employer: "Here you are. Here's legislation. You're the employer. We're going to help you as much as we can through legislation so you can break union contracts and pay the lowest wage possible." That private employer also now, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, can sue the government for not allowing them enough of a profit. Oh, what a glory day for British Columbia.

I note that the Minister of Labour didn't mention that in his opening remarks. I note that the explanatory note doesn't say: "Breakthrough legislation now allowing the North American Free Trade Agreement to apply to our health care system." Gee, I don't see that in the explanatory note. Maybe this government — which would not come as a surprise to me — doesn't actually know what it's doing. Gee, that would be a surprise, wouldn't it? Only a surprise to the government caucus members — everybody else in this province knows that this government doesn't know what it's doing.

So I am moving an amendment, if I may, to the motion for second reading — a copy for the minister. I move the motion for second reading of Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act:

J. MacPhail: I am moving that we hoist this legislation, that we take this legislation and say we're not going to debate it and pass it and ram it through today, but we'll come back in the spring and debate it. After all, that's what the government promised it would do. Any controversial legislation, it was going to just put in for exposure. British Columbians would have a chance to debate and pass or debate in their communities and comment upon it, and they would be allowed to have their input. Well, my motion just to say let's hoist this legislation now and debate it six months hence…. I'm actually making good on the government's promise on that.

Let's examine whether this legislation weakens our public health care system according to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Let's examine that. Let's find out how broad and how deep this legislation is, because you certainly couldn't tell it from anything the government said. You couldn't tell it from their news release. You couldn't tell it from the explanatory notes. You certainly couldn't tell it from the minister's second reading remarks.

There are hundreds of people who want to have a say about Bill 94. This motion, my amendment to the motion at second reading, makes that possible. What's the harm? What's the rush? They haven't even got a private contractor for the MSA Hospital. They haven't even finished the request for proposals. I understand people are dropping out left, right and centre. There's not going to be a shovel in the ground for at least another year. Why not let this legislation be out there in the community? Why not let the people have a chance to look at this?

You know, George Ferguson, the 30-plus-some-years mayor of Abbotsford, who was very narrowly defeated in the last election and still has wide community support, said on the private building of MSA Hos-

pital: "Why don't we put it to a referendum?" There's the mayor, who ain't no friend of ours…. He certainly would be closer, I guess, to the previous party that the Minister of Labour belonged to — the Social Credit Party. He's saying that even the private building of MSA Hospital is so controversial in Abbotsford, it's time to have a referendum.

Well, we're not even asking for that, although it does seem like a fairly good idea. God forbid that this government put anything to popular purview. No. All we're saying is let's not pass this legislation. Let's not ram this legislation through. Let's actually take six months to consider it and then have a debate where the public can be fully engaged and the community of Abbotsford can have its say. Then we can see whether this legislation is the right legislation to pass.

J. Kwan: I rise to support my colleague's amendment to hoist the motion, to delay the passage of this bill for another six months so that the community, the people of British Columbia, would have an opportunity to review in detail the bill and its ramifications. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the bill was just brought into the House last week, last Wednesday. On Monday we're now debating second reading on this bill, and there are only three more days left in the session of this House.

The bill has substantive ramifications for British Columbians. Whether you are a health care worker or a patient, whether you're the person who provides for the services, whether you are a person of senior age, an old person or a young person, or a business person, it doesn't matter. It has significant ramifications for the people of British Columbia. The Government House Leader had promised, had said that this session the government is only going to be dealing with cleanup items, fixing the mistakes they had made from the last session. We saw a lot of legislation that was of that nature.

The House came back. It was recalled with a fixed calendar. We were called back into this House on October 6. The House Leader, the Minister of Finance, has said it was all to deal with minor items, to fix this and that — the errors the government had made in the last session — and that there were no substantive bills to be debated in this House, so not to worry. Not to worry — there will be plenty of opportunities for British Columbians to deal with substantive bills.

But here we are in the final days of the Legislature's fall session, and the government introduces a series of significant bills to be rammed through by this majority government. We have three days left in debate. Three days left in debate, and what do we still have to deal with in this Legislature that is now on the books?

We have a bill in which this government is going to override municipal government authorities, which is yet to be debated in this House in its entirety. We're now in committee stage with that bill, Bill 75. We're not finished with that bill. There's still much more work to be done, questions to be asked and answers to be had from the minister relating to that bill, and this government, I predict, will just ram through debate with that bill.

We have a bill that's yet to be debated in committee stage from the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, where she's allowing holes to be drilled underneath protected areas, a substantive bill that would impact our environment with huge ramifications for the protection of the environment — which, incidentally, has completely escaped the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection's mind. After all, it is her mandate — supposed mandate — to protect the environment. But there's a bill on the books still to be completed in its debate, with only three days left in the House, that allows for industry to drill holes underneath protected parks in British Columbia.

Then, supposedly tomorrow, there's another piece of legislation that this government is going to bring forward dealing with B.C. Rail. Another substantive bill, no doubt, and we have yet to see it. When that gets introduced tomorrow for first reading, Tuesday, then presumably the government will call second reading on Wednesday. On Thursday, the last day of the Legislature, the government will call third reading, committee stage, on that bill. Never mind that the opposition will barely have time to keep pace with all these new bills.

Just today the government introduced, I think, three new bills in the Legislature. In the dying days of the Legislature, the government introduced three new bills. There's another one to come tomorrow. Substantive business is yet to be completed. There is no reason why this piece of legislation, Bill 94, has to go through in this session. There is no reason whatsoever.

There is no hurry for the government to rush through this so-called Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, save and except, perhaps, that this government is embarrassed with what it's putting through. After all, it highlights — it hoists — attention to the fact that this government, this minister, this Premier and this Liberal government have broken yet another promise in the whole long litany of promises they have broken. And there is no end to it. You can't even see the end in sight of the many, many broken promises of this government.

This bill, Bill 94, highlights the fact that this government broke one of its major promises — that they would not break collective agreements — that this Premier had promised to British Columbians during the election campaign. Not only did they break collective agreements, they brought in a bill to override collective agreement rights — Bill 29. Then this Minister of Labour is proud of the fact that this government, this Premier, has misrepresented his election promises by breaking his promises to British Columbians.

We now have Bill 94 before us, breaking those promises to British Columbians in the health care sector, breaking the promises to British Columbians that

they would not violate collective agreement rights. Here we are. This bill extends and goes beyond Bill 29 in the breaking of those rights and those promises.

So save and except, perhaps, that this government is embarrassed and perhaps they don't want it publicized for British Columbians to know that they have misrepresented their election promises — that they have betrayed British Columbians, that they have caused British Columbians to believe during the election that they have nothing to worry about with respect to collective agreement rights in the health care sector — only to turn around to find that it is completely false….

The government turned on a dime, just like that, and ripped up collective agreements and, just like that, tore up collective agreement rights in the health care sector and, just like that, betrayed the thousands of British Columbians who thought that the Premier's word was worth something. As it turns out, it is not even worth the paper that the new-era commitments were printed on. It is not even worth that.

The sad thing is that you'd think it is important for all politicians to have honesty and integrity. You'd think that if you made a promise to the people based on a platform that you would stick to that platform, you would honour that commitment and you would honour that promise — except, of course, if you are a person, as has been demonstrated by the Premier, to whom honour means nothing. You can throw out your own word — tear it apart and throw it out and completely disregard it and break promises to British Columbians.

By doing that, the Premier is saying to British Columbians: "Do not count on what I say to you, because I deem it to mean nothing. I'm not going to honour what I say. It doesn't matter what the issue is, whether it be about collective agreement rights in the health care sector, whether it be about the selling of B.C. Rail, whether it be about protecting education, protecting our environment or protecting our health care. It doesn't matter. Everything I say can be deemed irrelevant when I feel like it and don't honour it. That's completely my own prerogative if I don't want to honour my own words." That is the action that this Premier and all the government bench MLAs have demonstrated with this piece of legislation.

Why is the government rushing through? Why do they want to rush through, with only three days left in the House, with substantive legislation that still needs to be debated? Are they ashamed, or are they trying to expedite the payback to their friends? Are they trying to do that?

It is interesting. As my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings identified, it just so happens that the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. donated during the years from 1996 to 2002…

It just so happens — another coincidence — that the Premier made an official announcement last Tuesday night, while speaking at the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association dinner in Burnaby about this bill. Nice venue — that's just another coincidence. That's the choice of venue that the Premier had chosen to make this big announcement to say, "I'm not going to honour my words. I've broken it, and I'm extending Bill 29 far beyond what exists today," and the reach and the grasp of that extension will go to contractors, subcontractors and sub-sub-subcontractors.

Basically, it's a free-for-all in terms of violation of collective agreement rights and driving of work conditions and wages of the health care sector to the bottom.

J. Kwan: You know, the Minister of Labour is saying: "Well, have you read the bill?" I wonder if the Minister of Labour himself has read the bill, because if you judge by his comments when he introduced the bill, it's a clear demonstration…

Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: …that the minister has no understanding of the bill. Or if he does understand the nature of the bill, he's hiding it from British Columbians. He doesn't want them to know. If you judge the language of what the minister had put out…. I've actually just pulled Hansard so that you can see the minister's comments.

The minister says he is committed to putting patients first in our health care system. Among the first to benefit from this bill will be the residents of the Fraser Valley. How funny that is. He says to protect health care, to benefit the residents and patients and put them first…. When the government, this minister, puts forward a piece of legislation that ignores standards and quality of performance for patients, for health care workers, he is not putting the patients first.

There have been lots of frightening stories about the privatized system in health care in the United States and how the patients do not benefit. In fact, there's a United States example as well as a Canadian example in Toronto, where the privatizing of health care service delivery hurt patients.

You have situations where, in that privatization scheme, food could be out in a hospital. The delivery of water to patients in their bed — those services are gone. You can have the private company providing for a service that could see food services with a private company, Sodexho, that has body parts as part of a food service delivery. Real examples — I'm not making

it up. Somehow this government says: "Oh, but that's good. That's good for the public. It's putting patients first." Your thumb could be in your meal, but that's putting patients first.

J. Kwan: That is exactly what happened. The member who wishes to be a minister, who's dying and doing everything he can to be a minister, is going: "Give it a rest." Well, he can't bear the fact…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: …that this government's putting forward legislation that compromises patient care. Then the government bench doesn't want the opposition talking about it.

J. Kwan: You know, if the member for Vancouver-Kingsway wishes to rise and speak on the floor, he's welcome to do so, and I challenge him to do so.

J. Kwan: If the member for Vancouver-Kingsway wishes to rise to speak on the motion, there are lots of opportunities for him to do so. I challenge him to rise in this House and be on the record with respect to this piece of legislation.

There is no good reason whatsoever for this government to rush through debate for Bill 94. The government needs to examine the issues I've raised. British Columbians have the right to know and understand the ramifications of this bill. They have the right to be consulted. They have the right to have their voices heard. They have the right to have their opinions expressed and represented by the muted MLAs on the government side. They have the right to do that.

The constituents of these muted MLAs on the government side expect their MLAs to rise in this House to represent their best interests and to raise their concerns. The government needs to support the extension of debate. That's all this amendment is asking for: an extension of debate to allow more time for examination, for review and for opinions to be expressed.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard scoffs at the notion, yet they go around campaigning saying: "We're so accountable, and we're so open, and we're so consultative. There's something we want to do." Yet when it comes to real issues that matter to British Columbians, you see the government time and time and time again exercising its bullying tactics to rush through legislation and ram through legislation with this huge majority. Never mind that they promised consultation.

J. Kwan: The arrogance of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He goes: "I wonder how we got the majority." I'll tell you exactly how they got their majority, Mr. Speaker.

J. Kwan: They got that majority because they misrepresented what they were going to do during the election campaign. They have broken their promise. On this bill exactly they have broken their promise. They said they were not going to rip up collective agreements. They said they were not going to rip up collective agreement rights for the health care sector, and they broke that promise.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. Let us stick to the amendment in front of us, please.

All this bill asks for is for this government to honour…. Now, I shouldn't use that word, because they know no honour. They don't know the definition of the word "honour." After all, the Premier has broken his word so many times that I've lost count. To use the word "honour" and to understand that they would honour their word…. That concept has gone — whoop! — above their heads. They have no idea what that means, so let me not use the word "honour." Let me just say that they have an obligation to let dialogue and debate take place for Bill 94.

The delay of passage of this bill by six months would simply allow for dialogue and input in a lopsided Legislature, where the government, displayed by its members' arrogance…. The public's voice must be and should be accounted for and be allowed in a society where we claim there is democracy. If democracy is truly a value that these Liberal MLAs and the government support and hold true to, then let that debate take place. Let the public have the information so that they know what the ramifications are of Bill 94. Let the public send their input into this Legislature. Allow for a hoist motion of six months' delay of this bill to be passed in this Legislature.

There is no reason whatsoever that we are in a big rush to pass this motion or this piece of legislation. You'd think a hoist motion of six months would somehow dismantle the government's schedule, that somehow it would mess up their ability to get the job done.

Well, nothing could be further from the truth. It does none of that. There is plenty of time for debate. There is no need for a rush in the passage of this bill.

This bill should have been done in what the House Leader, the Minister of Finance, had said and committed to doing — that substantive bills would have time for debate, that substantive bills would be allowed exposure. That's why, after all, this government has set fixed times on the legislative calendar. It's supposedly to bring order into government business. Well, what order is that, when the government brings forward a substantive bill in the Legislature with only three days left and wants to ram it through when there's a still a boatload of legislation that is yet to be completed — and we still expect new legislation tomorrow, substantive legislation?

I would challenge the members in this House to be true to their word under their new-era commitment, and that is that they support consultation with British Columbians. Well, let that consultation take place. Let this piece of legislation go out to the community, invite their feedback — have town hall meetings and invite their feedback — before the legislation is rammed through by the majority of this Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we are voting on the amendment to Bill 94 as moved by the Leader of the Opposition, which reads as follows: "I move that the motion for second reading of Bill 94 be amended by deleting the word 'now' and substituting therefor the words 'six months hence.'"

Mr. Speaker: The amendment is defeated. The question is second reading of Bill 94.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak on second reading of Bill 94, entitled Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the Minister of Labour's comments, you actually would never know what the bill is about and what the ramifications of this bill might be. The bill, as I mentioned, was introduced last week. Here we are doing second reading. No doubt, with only three days left in the Legislature, the bill would be rammed through committee stage and passed by this government, and it will be enacted.

The significance of this bill is frightening. If you look at the bill, the bill allows for, under the definitions section, the government to…. The definitions section talks about what health care facilities would be included in this bill. What it allows for is for this government to designate their facility behind closed doors with no public scrutiny. The public will not get to know how the government designates a facility to be included under this bill. It will be done in a secretive way with no scrutiny from the public.

The bill allows for, basically…. It is so wide-open in its definition of what could be deemed to be a designated health care facility that virtually anything could be designated and be included under this bill. It could be that a partner who provides for capital investment or building in a health care facility…. That could allow and would allow for a designation under this bill. It could be an investor who provides for investment in modifying or renovating a health facility, and that would allow for the investor to be included and be designated under this bill. It could be something as simple, I suppose — and we'll canvass these questions more in depth when we get to committee stage — as an investor who is providing renovations to a facility. It could be something as simple as slapping a layer of paint on the walls. The bill, in its broad language, could allow that kind of simple investment in the area of

renovations, for that capital investment to be included in this bill as the designated health care facility or the employer under this act.

The act applies to all non-clinical services under section 6(1) of Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. What does "non-clinical services" mean? It essentially means, as it was debated and defined under Bill 29, anything that is not attached to a hospital bed. Not just laundry services, as the minister might like to imply, although those services — laundry services, cooking services, security services — have ramifications for patient care as well. Those things are intrinsically linked. They're not separate and apart, standing in isolation from the other. They're intrinsically linked; that impacts patient care.

The non-clinical services could include things like counselling services, out-patient care, even emergency care, physiotherapy. All of those things could be contracted out under this legislation, under Bill 29. It allows not only for…. If a private partner provides capital for a building or renovations, if a partner provides equipment to support services delivered in the health care facility, that would render that private partner to be included under this Bill 94.

What does it mean when we say for them to be included? What is the significance of that — for these so-called private partners to be included under Bill 94? Well, the significance of that is that it gives them the authority — the power, if you will — to be deemed as the true employer for that health care facility. Then when you're deemed to be the true employer of that health care facility, the powers that are allowed to you would be (a) to exclude successorship rights and (b) to override collective agreement rights. Essentially, what it does is allow the investor, the private partner, to completely override collective agreement rights in the health care sector. That's what it means, and that's the significance of it.

The government further extends those rights not only directly to the private partner who directly invests in capital or the purchase of equipment and renovations and the like, but the grasp of this bill extends the authority to subcontractors, sub-subcontractors and sub-sub-subcontractors. The effect of that, I predict, is that it would drive the work environment in these health care facilities to the bottom. It is a race to the bottom, because the government would allow for subcontractors to bid, of course, against each other because they could be designated as the employer under this piece of legislation.

The ramifications are enormous — absolutely enormous. It's not just the workers who would be hurt. The patients would be hurt as well, because the quality of service is no longer protected. The thing that drives the quality of service under this piece of legislation, which this government is going to allow for, is the bottom line. That is the thing that will drive the quality of health care service in British Columbia under this bill.

The bill furthers an approach to override decisions that have been made through the Labour Relations Board — in a very sneaky way, I might add — because the legislation, under section 11, allows for the employer to argue that if it is not the intention of the employer for "the employee to be fully integrated with the operations of the health care sector employer and working under its direct supervision and control," then the employer could bypass a Labour Relations Board decision to say: "We're not contravening any collective agreement rights or labour principles. It wasn't my intention to do so. Therefore, we have not violated any collective agreement rights." That section of the bill is a very sneaky way for this government to extend its authority to employers to break collective agreement rights and collective agreement principles.

Now, you might think: what is the big deal? So what? The minister says this is good for British Columbians and it's good for the patients. Why are we making a big deal out of this? Perhaps the Liberal government might care about…. If they care about nothing else, you'd think they might care about this. It is a judgment on their word, whether or not their word means anything.

You will recall that during the election, the Premier said — and he was in opposition then…. When he was campaigning, he said — and he gave his word to British Columbians, to the health care workers and to patients — that he would not break collective agreements. Now the proof is in the pudding. Not only did the Premier show and prove that his word is not worth the paper that the new-era commitment document was written on, but that it has no honour to it. It doesn't mean anything, because he will give you his word, and then tomorrow he can wake up and break his word.

That's what every single one of the Liberal MLAs sitting in this chamber is doing when they rise in this House to support the passage of this bill. It is showing that every single Liberal MLA has no honour, that their word means nothing and is not even worth that of a child making a promise — a five-year-old making a promise, a three-year-old making a promise — because the government will break it just like that.

The people, in their trust of politicians, thought the government was going to go through with this. When they gave them their word, they thought it would be honoured. By this government's actions, this Premier, this Minister of Labour and every single Liberal MLA in this House have just furthered the notion and the concept that politicians cannot be trusted, that there is no honour in their word. Broken promise after broken promise — when and where will it stop? When will it end — when the government stops betraying British Columbians with their broken promises?

I challenge the backbench MLAs if they have principles amongst them to rise up in this House to say: "I will hold true to my word when I campaigned on not breaking collective agreements and contracting out services. I will hold true to that promise." I wonder if

there's any soul in this House who will rise to that challenge, who will say: "I have honour, and I will keep true and stay true to my word." The broader community…. Why I raise this is because people actually believed the Premier, the Liberal back bench and the Minister of Labour when they said they would not break collective agreements. They actually believed that.

Let me put on record an article from the Courier. "Does a 48-year-old hospital housekeeper have anything to worry about in terms of privatization from" — it says the Premier's name, and I'll just substitute — "a Liberal government?" says Stephen Howard, editor of the Guardian, newspaper of the Hospital Employees Union, in an interview published in December 2000. A quote from the Premier in his own words, and I'm not paraphrasing: "I say no. What she's going to find is that people in British Columbia and the government are recognizing the value of the work she does. More importantly, she's going to find the quality of work she's able to do is more rewarding and fulfilling." It's a direct quote from the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier.

The article goes on to say: "Shahida Bains, a 47-year-old housekeeper at Vancouver General Hospital, quips she might still have a job next month if she was a year older. 'I remember reading that interview,' says Bains with a smile. 'After we got our two months' notice, we asked around our floor to see if there was anyone that was 48 — to tell her she would be okay — but there wasn't. 'I'm the closest, and I'll be losing my job.'" Keep in mind this article was written on September 24, 2003. She has already lost her job, by the way.

The article goes on for quite a bit. I won't read all of it. The point I'm trying to make here is this. People actually believed the now Premier when he promised that he would not break collective agreements and that he would not contract out their positions. The Premier betrayed them. He misrepresented them, he misled them, and he broke that contract. He tore it up, and his word counts for nothing.

Now we have Bill 94 further extending the broken promise to a far greater, broader scope of people. It is not just the immediate contractor who will be deemed to be an employer. It'll be the subcontractor, the sub-subcontractor, the sub-sub-subcontractor and down the line. Those people, under this bill, could be deemed to be an employer. By extension of being the employer, they have the right to override successorship rights, and they have the right to tear up collective agreements.

The most frightening thing in that process is that they will, I predict, be driving and racing to the bottom, because what matters to them is the bottom line, not quality service — not at all. They will be trying to figure out how they can make a buck and the highest profit possible in this scheme. The people who will be hurt in that process will be the people who need the services, the people who need the patient care. It would be the people who are lying in the hospital beds, who depend on those services.

You might say perhaps that food services are not an integral part of a health care facility. I would say nothing could be further from the truth. For patients who are in the hospital, you need good-quality food, food that you know is going to be safe for you to consume. You need a standard to be applied. By this process, the standards will be thrown out the window. It would no longer be the thing to ensure that our health care system is at its highest level of quality.

Where is the responsibility in terms of accountability to chase back to? Who's going to be held accountable with a private company that could do anything under this piece of legislation? The lack of accountability is phenomenal.

The government would allow this application, in terms of Bill 94, to apply not only in hospitals but also in long-term care homes where seniors depend on the staff — very much so — in a variety of ways. Instead of making sure that there's quality care there, the overriding principle in long-term care homes would be the cheapest bid. The benefit would be for the private partner to have maximum profit as opposed to the sen-

The government says the legislation is good. Yet this legislation attacks a group of workers who just happen to be, in the majority, immigrant women. They are women who worked hard when they emigrated to a new land, as they learned new skills and got into the workforce so that they wouldn't have to be dependent on income assistance — where the social safety net now is being completely dismantled by the Minister of Human Resources. Come next April, the fiscal year, if you happen to have been on income assistance for two years out of five, you'll be kicked off. There is no more social safety net for you.

For the women and families that come and work hard so that they can be self-sustainable…. In this instance, there is the woman that I read into the record, Ms. Baines, who's been working at her job for some 23 years, I think she said. She's just lost it, just like that. It targets this group of people. I'm sure a lot of these workers will find it very difficult to find new employment. That certainly is the case as you get older. New employers will be looking for younger people, people who have a long time in the workforce before retirement, so that if they invest in training that individual, the return would be maximized likely with the length of stay from that employee.

But these workers would be faced with a double whammy, if you will. They'll be challenged because a lot of them have been here for a long time, have worked in the system for a long time, and all of a sudden they would have lost their jobs and have to find new employment. I bet you they'll be facing new difficulties in that task.

Then you would ask: why would I care? Why should the Legislature care? These are individuals like everybody else. It's their responsibility to find work, not mine. Why should we care as legislators, and why am I going on about that? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, these individuals — many of them, I'm sure — voted in the last election with the understanding that this government would not break their collective agreement and would not rip up their collective agreement. This government betrayed them. This Premier betrayed them. This Minister of Labour betrayed them. That's one reason, and that needs to be put on record.

Secondly, we should be concerned about a significant large group of women losing their employment — immigrant women who have been working for a long time in British Columbia, contributing to our health care system. We should be concerned that many of them would lose their employment. We should be concerned that as a group of people — immigrant women in this case — they're all of a sudden forced into a situation, by the betrayal of this government, where they're extremely vulnerable, where their families could be at extreme risk because of that broken promise.

I thought we lived in a society where we want to advance people's quality of life, people's living conditions — that we want to make sure that people's families have full opportunities to develop and to maximize their potential. But with this government's action under Bill 94, all of that is diminished for these employees in the health care sector.

What a laugh it is when the government says it would put patient care first. What a joke it is for this Minister of Labour to say, in his opening statements in introducing this bill under first reading, that this bill puts patients first when nothing could be further from the truth.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's always interesting to have debate in the House and how one sees a situation and how others see a situation. Just as we were finishing there, listening to the member opposite talk about the different situations that people have found themselves in, I think it's also important to note that the government worked very diligently to try and craft a deal with the health employees union. In fact, the executive director of the health employees union and government officials worked around the clock back in June and July, I think it was, to craft a deal. There was agreement reached. Unfortunately, when it went out to the membership, it was turned down. That's democracy. It's democracy in the workplace and the union movement itself in that respect.

I don't think it should be missed, though, that just recently, as a follow-up of that, as of Friday the government negotiated a deal with the British Columbia Government Employees and Service Union, the largest union that has direct employees of this province. That was put out to ratification. That took a lot of work, again, by government officials and the president of the BCGEU. In that respect, when the vote was done, the BCGEU ratified that vote — 80 percent on the master agreement and 85 percent on the liquor store agreement — for some 25,000 workers in the province. I think that's important to point out.

I think it's also important to point out, in spite of the fact and not to in any way lessen the very dramatic and very difficult situation the forest industry is in right now….

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the year 2000 there were 88 strikes in British Columbia? There were some 400,000 man- and woman-days lost. This year there were 18 strikes and some 75,000 days lost. All I offer is a comment that there's been a lot of work done by a lot of people in how we're trying to bring about change in British Columbia. In fact, with two of the largest unions, both had reached agreement. One was able to ratify, and the other was not.

What are we actually doing here, after we've heard a great dissertation of all that took place? There was some acknowledgment, of course, that the definition of non-clinical services was virtually the same as that in Bill 29, and that's absolutely correct. In essence, what

has been taking place here is that particular definition in the application of Bill 29 allows emergency rooms in Bill 29 because of the definition of non-clinical services.

What you have is a public-private partnership. Let's remember that it's a P3; that's a public and private partnership. It isn't a private-private; it's a public and private. Health authorities throughout the province have the ability to do certain things under Bill 29, which was extended to them by this government because of the fact that we had to make substantive changes in the restructuring of health care in British Columbia.

I want to pause for a moment and remind people of why we have to do that. In 1984 the health care budget in British Columbia, think, as $3.4 billion. In every year from 1984 forward the health care budget has gone up by hundreds of millions of dollars. Regardless of the political party in power, every government has put that up. Indeed, if you look across Canada, you will find that same situation occurring in every province. In the year 2001, in the last budget the NDP administration brought down, they added $1 billion to the health care budget. It had been at $8.3 billion and was now $9.3 billion. That $9.3 billion, that additional billion-dollar increase…

Hon. G. Bruce: …was a very large, more than 10 percent increase to health care — and quite rightly so, if you like, on the one hand.

When we took over as government, some six weeks after assuming the responsibilities of government, the Minister of Health was before Treasury Board looking for an additional $200 million worth of pressures that needed to be funded by government, which government did. That made it $9.5 billion. When our government brought through its first complete budget, we virtually added another $1 billion to health care, which was $10.4 billion.

I think it's very important for people, all taxpayers and all citizens, in British Columbia to understand that at the rate of growth…. The trajectory we are on for health care spending in this province, which the former administration had no intention nor any type of idea how to manage correctly, we would have seen it going from that $10.4 billion…. You should understand this: by the year 2005 that $10.4 billion would be nearly $15 billion.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's very important that the citizens of British Columbia understand that by the year 2010, that expenditure for health care would be nearly $19 billion. That $19 billion, representing this year if you look at the expenditure of government, is some $25 billion — an incredible trajectory of expenditure.

What does it mean? It means we have to do things differently in this province, and in fact in Canada, in how we deliver health care services and health care facilities to the people of British Columbia so that we make sure we can sustain and improve our health care.

What this particular bill does, coming back to it, understanding the need for change….

Hon. G. Bruce: What's important to note is that the changes we are bringing about are very clearly designed to build and sustain a health care system for all citizens in the province of British Columbia. That means, as I was stating earlier, that we have to do things differently than they have been done in the past. In fact, British Columbia is leading the way to change with other provinces. In fact, the federal government is watching us to see how they can take examples from what we've been doing and is bringing about change to their particular delivery of health care in jurisdictions other than British Columbia.

What Bill 94 does is virtually take what was given as provisions to the health authorities under Bill 29, the public health authority. It allows us through Bill 94 to take those same provisions for public-private partnerships and to extend the public-private partnership the same ability to be able to manage. Quite frankly — and this is very important for the member opposite to understand — as we build the Abbotsford hospital, from the moment the foundations are laid, those foundations become the property of the taxpayers of British Columbia. Indeed, from the moment those foundations are laid, those foundations become the property of the taxpayers of British Columbia. As that facility grows and floor by floor is increased and built, all of that returns and becomes part of a facility that's owned by the province of British Columbia.

What we've extended, of course, is the public-private partnership. They have a licence, if you like, to be able to occupy and manage and deliver the non-clinical services to that particular facility. Management of that facility is under the health authority, the clinical services provided just as they would be and paid for under the Canada Health Act.

Yes, it is different. Members, this is a different way of delivery. We have learned by other jurisdictions and

watched what they have done, as I mentioned in my opening comments about what has happened in the U.K., what's happened in Australia, what's happened in other jurisdictions and indeed even here in British Columbia in respect to P3s and municipal innovation.

These are different ways of going about it, and I make no apologies. In fact, I'm quite proud of the aspect that this government is prepared to lead and make change in an area that's very emotional and very difficult to do. The easy part, member, was to sit with one's head in the sand, ignore the signs which were clearly there…

Hon. G. Bruce: …and to ignore what was happening to our health care system and to ignore the fact that if we were to stay the course as you had, after ten years of neglect…. If you were to stay the course, you would have a health care system that would simply fall apart. Yes, we understand that as we go through the province of British Columbia community by community, we are faced with the aspect of….

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise right now. I have just heard something…. It is a point of order.

I have just been informed that this government is going to extend the session, this sitting…. I have just been told by the media that this government is going to extend the sitting of this Legislature into next week, and I rise on a point of order to say: what is going on in this Legislature — the abuse of the Legislature? I had to find out from the media, not from a motion into this House.

With respect, where's the coward that's going to extend this sitting? Where is he? Why isn't he in here telling me and the opposition, face to face, that this government is breaking another promise? It is completely….

J. MacPhail: Point of order. My point of order, Mr. Speaker. How is it possible…?

Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Just on the point of order you make, I don't know how many people here were aware of it.

We are in second reading of Bill 94, and the minister was speaking to it. I think there would be an appropriate time to bring this up with the appropriate people, not necessarily here in the House.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I take your advice. Thank you very much. But frankly, the abuse of this Legislature…. I don't have any other way….

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order, member. Would the member please take her seat.

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. Would the member please take her seat and come to order.

Deputy Speaker: When this member is finished her tirade, the House will then resume.

J. MacPhail: My point of order about running this House by the media out there in the corridor….

Deputy Speaker: Member, order. Will the member please take her seat. The member will take her seat immediately.

Deputy Speaker: The member will take her seat, and the minister will resume.

Deputy Speaker: Members, pursuant to standing order 25, a division was requested this morning….

On Motion 104, as is usual, the division was deferred until 5:30, so we'll call the members to the House on Motion 104.

Hon. members, we are voting on Motion 104, which reads as follows: "Be it resolved that this House condemns the boycott of BC wood in China, and further that this House continues to support the efforts of British Columbia's forest industry, its workers, and their families."

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

Bill 94, Health Sector Partnerships Agreement 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. Bruce: As you know, Mr. Speaker, B.C. Ferry Services Inc. and the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union have been in negotiations for nearly three months now. The last collective agreement expired on October 31. The union has taken a strike vote

Recently I met separately with the parties, and both are telling me that they want to solve their dispute at the bargaining table. I fully support the union and the company in doing this. At the same time, I have to consider the public interest and the impact on the economy that any disruption would have at this important time of the year. Christmas is often the only time of the year when families can be together, and being able to make holiday travel plans is essential to people's well-being. Holiday travel also provides an essential economic boost to the Island that many small and medium-sized businesses depend upon.

This is not new legislation that we're introducing. This is an act that has been in place for nearly 30 years. What I am bringing forward is a set of updates to ensure that references to related acts and to parties involved are accurate and current. For example, we are updating references to B.C. Ferries to ensure that its new name, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., is used.

As Minister of Labour I continue to urge the parties to do their utmost to reach an agreement. I move second reading of Bill 95, the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003.

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

Bill 95, Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 75.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 75; H. Long in the chair.

J. Kwan: Last week my colleague the member from Hastings was asking the minister about the Park Act. The question was whether it was included as a measure or constraint. She was trying to figure out if Bill 75 could apply to the Park Act. The minister had some troubles and eventually said no, because the Park Act has a clause that makes it paramount. The problem is: so does Bill 75. I'm going to further explore that issue here in section 1, because I want to know if Bill 75 can override the Park Act.

Section 1 is where the definitions of "constraint" and "measure" are, and I want to know if the Park Act can be considered a constraint.

Hon. K. Falcon: I attempted to answer that question the last time with the Leader of the Opposition. What I emphasized was that the only non-clarity I had, had to do with what review and process provisions may be contained in the act, because I didn't have it in front of me. This act, as I've stated many times, merely provides the opportunity to ensure that whatever review and process provisions may be found in that act can be expedited in an efficient and reasonable manner. The objective of the act is to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner consistent with the reasonable requirements of the approval authority. I have already stated that this act does not change the province's environmental, health or safety standards, and it doesn't.

J. Kwan: Is the minister then confirming that the Park Act cannot be considered a constraint?

Hon. K. Falcon: I took a while to think about this because I'm trying to think of any review and process provisions that may be contained in the Park Act, and I'm unable to think of any. As I've made very, very clear, this act does not impose or change any standards. A park is a park is a park, and there's nothing at all that would change that designation in this bill.

This bill will only refer to whether there was a review and process provision provided in the act that somehow was engaged and was determined in some hypothetical situation to be a constraint. If in that hypothetical situation it was determined to be a constraint, then there would be some mechanism to address that review and process provision found in that act. Again, member, I do have to say that without having the act in front of me, I don't even know whether it has any review and process provisions.

J. Kwan: Well, I have part of the Park Act in front of me. Section 2 of the Park Act states: "…except as provided in this Act, this Act and the regulations are not subject to any other Act or regulation, whenever made, and a minister, ministry of government or agent

of the Crown must not exercise any power granted under any other Act or regulation except in accordance with this Act and the regulations."

Section 11 of Bill 75 states: "If there is a conflict between this Act and any other enactment, this Act prevails." Then the question is: between these two acts and these two clauses, which one prevails? Can the requirements under the Park Act and its regulations be considered a constraint? Which one prevails?

Hon. K. Falcon: Based on what the member has read to me, it's very clear that the Park Act would prevail. You know, it states very clearly that it's got paramountcy. Under our bill, the section the member is quoting only applies to review and process provisions that would be found in a bill. Again, the provision the member read out correctly states that the Park Act would have paramountcy. I would agree with that definition.

One thing I would point out, when quoting section 11…. To fully quote section 11, it does go on to state that the act does not apply to the Environmental Assessment Act and regulations made under that act. Nor does it apply to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which I think is important to get on the record.

J. Kwan: Well, it's interesting, because I think we have the same bill in front of us. When I look at Bill 75, under section 11, "This Act prevails," it reads: "11 (1) If there is a conflict between this Act and any other enactment, this Act prevails." Then it goes on to say: "(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in the event of a conflict between this Act and (a) the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the regulations made under that Act, or (b) the Environmental Assessment Act and the regulations made under that Act."

Both acts say they have paramountcy. Both acts say they shall prevail. It doesn't say clearly, at least not to me, that the Park Act would have paramountcy over Bill 75. Nor does Bill 75 state that it is only restricted to the process, as the minister claims it is.

First, it doesn't say that in the act itself, so I don't know how the minister can say Bill 75 only applies to process. Second, the minister of state just said — and he repeatedly said it during last week's debate — that Bill 75 does not impact environmental standards. Well, here's an example. On November 20 the minister said: "Again, I want to clarify that nothing in this bill impacts on standards. What we could do is accelerate and expedite the decision- or review-making processes." The minister said that again just now.

The definition of "constraint" is "a measure that…may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or operations of the project." Looking at the definition of "measure," it says: "…an enactment, directive…guideline, plan, program, policy, practice or procedure." My question to the minister is basic. Does he know of any environmental standards that exist in enactments?

Hon. K. Falcon: If there are any enactments that speak to standards, those could only be addressed or changed by this House. What I'm referring to again — which I think is very important and I've emphasized throughout, right from the very beginning, when I began speaking about this bill — is that this bill only speaks to review and process decisions or provisions that may be found in a bill. I'm unaware and have yet to hear which sections there have a review and process provision that could theoretically engage this particular definition.

To answer your question simply: no, any standard having to do with the Park Act would have to be dealt with in this House.

J. Kwan: Sorry. I was anxious to ask the minister questions following that response. Well, here's the problem. The minister says that Bill 75 is only tied to process. The minister says that the Park Act will be paramount with section 2(1). Yet Bill 75 has a section that also says Bill 75 is paramount.

Then on the question around standards, the minister says he's not aware of any standards that might be relevant to Bill 75. Well, here's an example. Section 7(1) of the Wildlife Act states: "A person commits an offence if the person (a) alters, destroys or damages wildlife habitat, or (b) deposits on land or water a substance or manufactured product or by product in a manner that is harmful to (c) wildlife, or (d) wildlife habitat in a wildlife management area." Here's one example.

My question to the minister is: is section 7 of the Wildlife Act not considered a standard?

Hon. K. Falcon: Understanding that I'm at a disadvantage and certainly taking the word of the hon. member on what I heard, if I heard correctly, then the member is absolutely correct. That sounds to me like you're reading a standard from the act. I believe it was the Wildlife Act. Nothing in our legislation could impact on that standard in that act. The only way that could happen is through a change that would have to be done through this House.

J. Kwan: Well, here's the problem with the minister's answer. He asserts that environmental standards are not in Bill 75, but the definitions of this act, notably "constraint" and "measure," include enactments. Therefore, it is entirely possible that a proponent could appeal to the government and complain that section 7 of the Wildlife Act may be a constraint. Where in this legislation does it explicitly say that environmental standards set out in the Wildlife Act, or any other act for that matter, cannot be considered as a constraint?

Hon. K. Falcon: Should a proponent come to us with that kind of suggestion, it will be a very short conversation, because that would require us to change legislation. We're not going to change legislative standards found in the act to deal with a concern of a proponent. We've been very clear that this bill does not speak to environmental standards. It only speaks to the review provisions that may be found in legislation. We will ensure that those review and process provisions, if they become an unreasonable burden in an approval process, will have the ability to accelerate and expedite that approval process.

J. Kwan: Let's just back up for a minute, because the minister keeps on referring to the notion of a process, the issue around process. Nothing in Bill 75, he says, applies to environmental standards. If there is a case where it does contravene, he says it has to be brought back into the House for new legislation to be put forward to override the Park Act, let's just say, or the Wildlife Act. But where does it say that in this legislation?

So let me ask the minister this question first: where does it say in Bill 75 that this bill only applies in the area of process? Can the minister point me to it?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it would be apparent or should be readily apparent to the member that no act can unilaterally change legislation without House approval. You know, I've said it before and I've said it again, from the very beginning when we introduced this bill and as I continue to repeat tonight — that nothing in this bill affects environmental, social or health standards. What it does do is affect the review and process provisions that may be found in particular pieces of legislation.

I can only keep reminding the member that she's talking about issues that are found in an act, and any changes to that act, as that hon. member knows, would have to be undertaken in the Legislature. We will not be bringing legislation into the House…. I cannot conceive of a case where we would bring legislation into the House to change a standard to try to appeal to anybody who had a problem with that standard.

J. Kwan: With the exception that the bill doesn't say that at all. That might be what the minister is thinking, except that's not the language of the bill. I've been around long enough to know that what is considered as the dominant determining factor on these issues is what's written in legislation. The legislation does not say what the minister claims.

The legislation, Bill 75, has a specific provision that says: "This Act prevails." Section 11(1) says: "If there is a conflict between this Act and any other enactment, this Act prevails…." Then it goes on to exempt two acts and its regulations — the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Environmental Assessment Act — and no other act. It doesn't say the Wildlife Act. It doesn't say the Park Act and all the other acts.

Where it is relevant to the definitions section is the operative term "enactment." In the definitions section, if you go to the term "constraint," constraint means, in relation to a project, "a measure that, unless replaced under section 4 or 5, may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or operations of the project."

Then you go to sections 4 and 5, and you also go to the definition of "measure." It states that measure means "an enactment, directive, requirement, guideline, plan, program, policy, practice or procedure…." The term "enactment" is specifically spelled out under "measure." Because it is spelled out and related in section 11, where section 11 gives the overriding powers to Bill 75 above all the other acts except for two, the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, the question has to be asked. The Wildlife Act and the Park Act — are those considered constraints?

The legislation within it, the enactment within it — are they considered to be constraints to Bill 75 when the government is trying to push through a project? Nothing in the legislation says that they won't consider those. If it's the case that the minister says those are not considered as constraints, then the minister should rise in the House and say they're not considered as constraints and then make an amendment to this act to eliminate and be explicit in the language that no environmental standards will be overridden by this bill.

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all — and I know we're trying to stay focused on section 1 — section 11 does state very explicitly that we exempt the Environmental Assessment Act and Agricultural Land Commission Act for that specific reason. I remind the member that this is the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, and being significant projects they will engage, almost certainly, the attention of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Environmental Assessment Act is a very thorough review of all the appropriate environmental assessment review processes which consider all relevant environmental issues, including from stakeholders, etc., and including some of the federal issues under the harmonization agreement.

In terms of section 11 and the use of section 11, I would remind the member that there were actually many bills that contained exactly the same language that her government passed. I have several of them here, but the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in 1996 would be one. Community Financial Services Act, Bill 41 in 1994; Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act, Bill 5 in 1996…. This is not an unprecedented provision to have in legislation.

J. Kwan: With the exception of this, Mr. Chair: this bill allows for the government to override decisions that can impact the environment, override decisions that can have ramifications in communities — environmental standards and the like. The act does not say that it would not override environmental standards. Nowhere does it say that. The act does not say that Bill

75 is only limited to processes. It doesn't say that. If it's meant to be that, then it would say that in the act. It doesn't.

Here's the minister's problem. In section 11 there are two exemptions, Environmental Assessment Act…. And it is an act, clearly stated. The argument the minister has put forward is nonsensical. It doesn't make sense in the context of what the language is in this bill. It doesn't make sense at all. The minister is trying to claim that it would come back to the House if there's a conflict. Tell me: where in this act does it say that if there's a conflict, it will be brought back to the House, and the minister — this government — would be required to bring forward legislation to override that? Where does it say that?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, at the risk of being repetitive, I would remind the member that we are not overriding standards, and I can't imagine how I have been more clear about that from the moment I introduced this legislation and every minute I get the chance to speak about this legislation. What I was suggesting to the member, and she confirmed it correctly, was that were any government wanting to change a standard within an act — a legislative piece — they would be required to come to this House and pass that legislation or amend that legislation.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member would understand how the House works — right?

Hon. K. Falcon: Okay. Well, I don't think I'm supposed to be engaging in a back-and-forth here while I'm answering a question, but I think the member knows how the House works. We all know that if we were to make a change to legislation, we would have to bring that legislation to this House for the approval of members of this House.

We keep speaking about section 11. I'd like to, if I can, remind the member that we're in definitions here on section 1, and I'd like to stay there if possible.

J. Kwan: That's just nonsense — what the minister just said. To say that there's some explicit rule or unwritten rule that somehow this government will bring back legislation to override other legislation when we are debating a piece of legislation that already gives him — a piece of legislation that in its definitions and in section 11 already gives this minister and this government — that authority to override other legislation if there is a conflict.

The definitions section talks about a constraint, Mr. Chair. A constraint in this bill "means, in relation to a project, a measure that, unless replaced under section 4 or 5, may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or operations of the project." Then when you go to the definition of a measure, as it is included under the definition of constraint, you have this definition: "'Measure' means an enactment, directive, requirement, guideline, plan, program, policy, practice or procedure." In it, it says an enactment, and if an enactment becomes a constraint, the government is saying this bill, Bill 75, will override when you read it in conjunction with section 11, which reads: "If there is a conflict between this Act and any other enactment, this Act prevails." These things are all linked. The legislation is written in language such that the definition is linked to section 11. You can't just sort of skip over and say, "Oh well, let's just ignore that," and then move on.

The critical piece that we're debating here is around the definitions. If the government meant that an act would not be overridden by this piece of legislation, then the bill would not have that language in it. But the bill does have that language in it. So the government, when this minister says… When Bill 75 overrides another act or another enactment — or it doesn't have the capacity to do that, and if there's inconsistency, the government would have to bring back a new bill to give it that authority…. It's just complete nonsense. It's nonsense because this bill, if it passes and when it passes, already gives the minister that authority.

I am not at all confident in the answer that the minister has given. The language in which the bill is written does not reflect the answers of the minister. So on the Wildlife Act, on the Park Act — the question of whether or not those would be considered to be constraints — I just want to ask the minister a clear question, and I am asking him to give a clear answer. If he says that the Wildlife Act and the Park Act or any other act of this nature, if they are not to be considered constraints…. Or maybe the minister can tell me: will they be considered constraints under Bill 75 — yes or no?

Hon. K. Falcon: I can provide strong assurance to that member that no ministerial order or, frankly, any order-in-council from cabinet has the ability to override legislation in this House. Any standards found in that legislation cannot be overridden by either ministerial order or OIC. It would require, as you know — you've been here many years….

Hon. K. Falcon: No. You cannot override legislation based on either a ministerial order or an order-in-council from cabinet. That would require coming back to the House and changing that legislation. The member has been here long enough to know that that is, indeed, the case.

The Chair: Member, the questioning on this issue is becoming tedious and repetitious. Possibly, under section 11, this could be brought up again. Do you have a new question on the definitions section, section 1?

J. Kwan: I have a whole bunch of questions, Mr. Chair, under section 1. You know, I heard from behind me…. I think it's the member from the Cariboo who said these questions are not relevant. Well, they are relevant, if he's actually read the act.

We're talking about an authority this government is seeking under Bill 75 that would override other acts. This bill clearly says that it has that authority under its definitions section and under section 11. When the minister says that when this act overrides other acts, they would have to bring it back into this House for debate, it is false, because there's no language in here that says that. If that were the case, then section 11 would read: "This act shall not prevail." Instead, it reads: "This act prevails. " And then, if you look at….

The Chair: Member, we're dealing with definitions on section 1, and if you would like to speak to section 11, we can get through section 1. Then we will get to section 11 so you speak to section 11.

J. Kwan: Let me just make the tie for you, Mr. Chair, because under the definitions section it uses the language in section 11, which is why I illustrate the point, as it's tied to section 11. You can't read a piece of legislation as though it is somehow in isolation from all the other sections.

The definitions define for you how this act is to be applied. The definitions section states clearly that a constraint means, in relation to a project, a measure that, unless replaced under section 4 or 5, may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or operations of the project and that a measure means an enactment, directive, requirement, plan, guideline, program, policy, practice or procedure.

Then section 11 relates to the definitions section because it talks about the enactment. That isn't the only language where it's linked, because in the other language is the word "plan," where it is also linked. Yet in section 7 of the Park Act there is another example where, potentially, this act…. In fact, in the language that Bill 75 is written in, it would override the Park Act.

Section 7 in the Park Act reads: "For the purpose of this section, 'official plan' means a plan that (a) is certified by the Surveyor General, by signature on the plan, to be an official plan, and (b) kept on deposit in the Crown land registry referred to in section 7 of the Land Act."

Sub (2) goes: "All or part of a boundary of a park, nature conservancy area or recreation area may be described by reference to (a) one or more official plans, (b) metes and bounds descriptions, (c) lot or parcel descriptions, or (d) any combination of the means referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c)."

Sub (3) reads: "To the extent of any variance between the marked representation of the boundary on an official plan and the metes and bounds or other written descriptions on the official plan, the metes and bounds or other written descriptions prevail."

Sub (4) goes to read: "Copies of official plans must be available for public inspection in the Crown land registry during regular business hours, and a person may obtain a copy of an official plan on payment of a fee prescribed under section 6(3) of the Land Act."

Then sub (5) reads: "A copy of an official plan, that is certified by the Surveyor General to be a true copy, is admissible as evidence in a court without proof of the signature or official character of the Surveyor General."

Well, here is an example of a plan in the Park Act. Plans are included in the definition of measure. Then it also says that this act prevails, despite what other acts say. So here we have two pieces of legislation, each saying that they shall prevail, and there's no language in Bill 75 that says it is subservient to the Park Act or the Wildlife Act. It only says that it is subservient to the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.

If these other acts — the Park Act and the Wildlife Act — were supposed to have paramountcy over Bill 75, then why isn't it also exempt?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, Mr. Chair, I really think that some question of relevance needs to be drawn into this, because the member keeps referring to pieces of legislation that are not in front of the House. I'm trying to canvass these issues in as appropriate and reasonable a manner as I can. I spent three hours last Thursday with the colleague of the member, and I'm trying to again ask the member….

We're talking about definitions. I believe that if the member will actually allow us to move through this bill, you'll see that it's not just section 11 that is germane to this bill. There are a number of other sections that I think will answer and go to the heart of some of the issues that the member is trying to raise.

To continue to talk about completely unrelated legislation, which I have answered as thoroughly and comprehensively as I am possibly capable of answering…. Mr. Chair, I don't believe we can go any further on that if she continues down that path.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a new line of questioning.

J. Kwan: Well, then tell me this: why is the word "enactment" even defined under "measure"? According to the definition in the Interpretation Act, enactment means "an Act or a regulation or a portion of an Act or regulation." So isn't it safe to say that any standards of any kind in any enactment or regulation or act, except the two exemptions that have been outlined in section 11, can be overridden by Bill 75?

It is outrageous for this minister to get up and accuse me of raising other acts that are not relevant to this bill, except that in the definition section of this bill it allows for — the way in which it's defined — the rest of the bill to apply to it. It just so happens that in a section in the rest of this bill, there's a provision that says it shall prevail over other acts. If it was meant not to be

referred to any other regulation or any other act, then why is the word "enactment" in the definitions section under "measure"?

The Chair: Member, the line of questioning is tedious and repetitious to what you were asking. I would ask that in the future you get on to a new line of questioning.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, this is a new line of questions. The minister just accused me of bringing forward acts that are not relevant to this bill. He did it just now. In this entire debate, since it started at 6:30…. He just accused me of bringing forward acts that are not relevant to this debate, with the exception that under the "measures" definition, it includes the term "enactment." It includes that term. Explain to me why that term is there and what its purpose is.

In this definition under the Interpretation Act, enactment includes other regulations or other acts. That's what it means. If it is not meant to be that, then why is it there? Then the minister should be moving an amendment to delete it so there's clear language in this bill, so there's no funny business that we know this government not only is capable of but will exercise when it pleases them and it's to their advantage and to the advantage of their donors.

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, continuing the answer that I've given for the past four hours or so over the last couple of sessions, I think I've been as clear as I can possibly be to the member that the definitions which we're trying to discuss only refer to review and decision processes that may be found in enactments. It does not in any way apply to standards.

The member keeps talking about some unrelated acts in the effort of making a point, presumably, that it does apply and will override standards contained within those acts. I've been very clear to the member that no ministerial order or even an order-in-council from cabinet can override legislative standards found in an act. That would have to be done by this House, properly brought to this House for a debate and everything else that happens, as this member knows. I cannot imagine how many more times we can go around the ring on this. I've been as clear as I could possibly be.

J. Kwan: We can terminate debate on this issue if the minister can point out to me where in this bill it says that standards would not be overridden. Just point me to the language, the specific language — not some implied language that's happening in the mind of this minister, but the explicitly written language in this bill. Where does it say that?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, as I've said, it only applies to review and process provisions. If the member would actually allow us to move beyond section 1, I think in section 3 she will find that we can have a more thorough discussion which will bring some answers to her questions. To do that, we have to move beyond section 1, definitions.

J. Kwan: Section 3 does not say that if another act is inconsistent with this act, the government has to bring forward legislation to override those acts. Section 3 does not say that. Let me just put on the record what section 3 says, because the minister claims….

J. Kwan: We're not debating section 3, and I'm not going to debate section 3, with the exception that the minister says the answer that I seek is actually outlined in section 3. Then let me just read into the record what section 3 says for the minister to point out to me why we debate…. It is paramount that we debate this matter under the definitions, because it is under the definitions where all the confusion is created. It is under the definitions where the term "enactment" is being used. As we know in this Legislature, enactment means regulations or acts, so let me just put on the record section 3. It reads:

Then subsection (3) goes on to say: "The proponent of a designated project must provide to the responsible minister when and as required by that minister any information relating to the designated project that the responsible minister may request."

That's section 3 in its entirety. Nowhere does it say in section 3 that if there is enactment that is deemed to be a constraint under Bill 75, that enactment would

have to be brought back in this House for the government to have a further piece of legislation to override that. It does not say that, so I don't know what the minister is talking about when he referred me to section 3 and told me: "Don't worry. The government wouldn't override any act."

If you go further on in the bill, there is actually a specific provision that says this act, Bill 75, will override any other act except for the two that are identified. The minister has failed to point out where in this bill it does what the minister says it does.

Hon. K. Falcon: I would love to engage the member to clarify her inaccuracies regarding her understanding of section 3, but regretfully we are still under section 1, definitions. I would again ask the member, as I've answered this at least dozens and dozens of times, to get through section 1 so we can discuss the other relevant sections.

The member herself has been the one who has said that only when you read other sections do you begin to understand the act. Well, let's have the opportunity to actually get to some of those other sections so you can better understand the act, because clearly you don't at this point.

J. Kwan: Let me just put this forward. The minister keeps on saying and telling this House that Bill 75 has nothing to do with standards. Standards exist in all enactments and in all regulations. We know that. We know what enactment means. It means an act or a regulation or a portion of an act or regulation. Standards exist, therefore, in every enactment and in all regulations the government brings forward.

The minister, to be frank, is treading on some very thin ice here. Perhaps he should actually seek some legal expertise and opinion because the inclusion of the word "enactment" in the definition of measure does not allow standards to be overridden by Bill 75. The minister said that nothing in this bill impacts on standards.

From the minister's own comments from the debate on November 20: "We've made it very clear under this bill that nothing in this bill affects standards associated with environmental, health or safety standards." Yet the act itself does not say environmental, health and safety standards will be exempted from its definition as a measure and therefore would be exempted and not be defined as a constraint.

If the minister refuses to acknowledge this fact, and he is refusing to answer my questions about enactments, then let me move an amendment to section 1. Here's a copy of my amendment — one for you, Mr. Chair, and one for the minister. Let me move this amendment.

I move that Bill 75, intituled Significant Projects Streamlining Act, be amended as follows:

J. Kwan: If the government says and if the minister says that what he has been saying is in fact true, then the language of the act must be amended accordingly to reflect that. If other acts, other regulations, would not be relevant to be determined as a constraint under Bill 75 in its definition section, then take the word "enactment" out of the definition under section 1. Take it out. Then it is clear that this bill cannot define, in its definition section, other enactments to be a constraint, as defined under Bill 75.

J. Kwan: Let me ask the minister this question: what about fish farm requirements set out in the regulations on waste and disease control? They are requirements set by the government. Requirements are included in the definition of "measure." Is it possible that Stolt Sea Farm could approach the Minister of Fisheries and say the waste requirements are a constraint?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I will say to the member that regardless of the number of hypotheticals that the member continues to bring forward, the answer will be the same. Nothing in this act will affect the standards laid out — environmental, social or health standards — in legislation. This speaks to any provisions that may have a review or process provision contained within them. Then it could, theoretically, only if we were, of course, to go through all the steps that are contained in section 3 and section 4 of the bill.

J. Kwan: It's strange logic that the minister has employed. He says, "Bill 75 only applies to processes, so

don't worry. There's nothing in the bill that impacts standards" — with the exception that Bill 75 is all about decisions. It overrides other things — other acts, other regulations, other enactments — that this government deems to be constraints to expedite a decision. You can sort of play those games all you want. The bottom line is that this bill allows for the government to override anything that gets in its way, basically, to expedite a decision that the government wants or its donors want.

I would say to the minister that what this bill is doing is allowing for expedited decisions. Whatever decisions need to be made, they have the ability, through a process set out very clearly in section 4, to expedite those decisions. It does not in any way impact on those standards. Oh, but just the decisions that are required to go through can be expedited. Maybe the minister can point to the part of this bill that says that expedited decisions do not apply to standards of any kind.

J. Kwan: Just because the minister doesn't rise to answer the question doesn't mean that the question is not relevant. It is exactly relevant. Those decisions which are the end of a process could override standards. Those things are linked. You can't just sit there and say, "Well, I've made a decision, but it doesn't impact that standard," when that decision can have an overriding power, when that decision reflects the overriding power that is contained in this bill. You can't say that expedited decisions do not apply to standards of any kind.

Let me ask you some questions about local zoning bylaws. Here's another concern from the West Coast Environmental Law — pollution in residential neighbourhoods. Recently the city council in Port Alberni blocked development of a natural gas–fired power generation plant that threatened air quality in a neighbouring residential area. Could Bill 75 be used to interfere and fast-track this process?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I've already stated over and over, repetitively, that nothing in this bill will affect standards, and it only affects review and process provisions that may be contained in legislation.

J. Kwan: With the exception that the language of the bill doesn't say that. With the exception that expedited decisions…. Nothing in the bill says expedited decisions do not apply to standards of any kind. The bill, I would predict, has the ability to override local government zoning bylaws. The bill, I predict, has the authority to allow for the Port Alberni natural gas–fired power generation plant to go ahead, even though local council disapproves of it. That's the whole purpose of Bill 75. Could the cabinet use Bill 75 to fast-track the Abbotsford P3 hospital?

J. Kwan: What about property tax issues? Could they be considered as a constraint under Bill 75?

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, this is outrageous. The minister just sits in his chair and does not answer the questions. You know what? These questions….

J. Kwan: No, they have not. It's a brand-new question around taxes. Does this bill have the power to override taxes from the municipalities? Would taxes be considered as a constraint?

It's a brand-new question. Local governments want to know to what extent Bill 75 would apply. This minister has the responsibility to let British Columbians, local governments, the UBCM know. They — the local governments and UBCM — completely reject this bill. They say that it overrides their power, that this government claims it has just brought in a Community Charter bill that gives them and recognizes them as an independent government. Then, before the ink is even dried, this bill is foisted on local governments, telling them: "We're going to override your decision-making powers. You're not going to be recognized as an independent authority."

Even your own member, the member from Dawson Creek, who has been a mayor knows that this bill stinks, that it has the authority to override local government authority. That's why he voted against it. He has the backbone to do so, and good on him for standing up for his community and remembering where he came from — local governments and their authority.

So it's a brand-new question around taxes and whether or not Bill 75 has the ability to override tax implications. Are taxes considered a constraint?

Hon. K. Falcon: Presumably the member is familiar with the Local Government Act. If she's familiar with the Local Government Act, she will be aware that government has always had that option if they chose to exercise that. The member should also know that this government has made it very clear that we do not believe in business subsidies. We do not believe in any kind of tax advantage for one over another, and we've been very clear about that. We've eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to business. We do not believe in subsidies.

J. Kwan: Save and except that this government as a first act gave a huge tax subsidy to big corporations. It's called a tax break that didn't pay for itself, Madam

Chair. Maybe the minister's forgotten about that, but that is the reality in terms of what it does.

There's nothing in Bill 75 that says it would not override the Community Charter, where there's a tax provision or anything else. The Community Charter is not exempted from its almighty powerful component in this bill that says this act shall prevail.

If the Community Charter, including the tax provisions, were not to be a consideration as a constraint defined under the definitions of the act, then why isn't the Community Charter included in this bill as an act that the government would not override — that this act will not prevail over the Community Charter? Why doesn't it say that?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, again the member is now dodging back to section 11. We're trying to talk on section 1. I would remind the member that under section 4.4 of the Local Government Act and under section 2.2 of the Community Charter, it states very clearly — and I paraphrase — that nothing within these acts shall take away from the duty of the provincial government to act in the interests of citizens generally. That is exactly what this act does. It is provincially significant projects, and it's consistent with the government acting in the interests of citizens generally, upon cabinet making a lengthy determinative factor that a project has provincial significance.

J. Kwan: If there's anybody dodging at all, it would be this minister, who's dodging the questions put to him. The minister knows very well how section 11 relates to the definitions. The minister just voted along with all the government bench MLAs against an amendment that I put forward to exclude the term "enactment" under the definition of measure, which is also included under the definition of constraint.

This government refused to do so. By refusing to do so, this government is saying explicitly that enactments of any kind of any regulations, unless specified in this act, are included in such a way that Bill 75 will prevail over them. There are only two acts in this bill, which says they're exempted and nothing else. If other acts were not meant to be undermined by this bill, then the term "enactment" should not be in the definition section of this bill. It should not be in it, but it is there explicitly.

Do you know what, Madam Chair? Having been in government, having gone through legislation myself, I know that every word counts. When legislative lawyers and the like draft legislation — when they do this work — they consider every single word very carefully. These words exist in these acts for a purpose. It is only this minister who tries to claim that somehow the words chosen in this act are not relevant and not applicable. What nonsense.

The minister keeps saying that this bill will only speed up the approval process. The trouble is that decisions could still be "no." The legislation does not provide any guarantee that government will not interfere and just fast-track the projects they want, regardless of the lead-up processes. This is a complete contradiction, as I said, of everything in the Community Charter and what it was supposed to stand for.

The minister responsible for the Community Charter, no less, voted against the people he's supposed to represent. He supposedly brought in the bill, the Community Charter amendment act, to strengthen their powers and to recognize them. Well, in one fell swoop, the Minister for Community Charter just said to local governments: "We will override you and your powers, and you're irrelevant when we want it that way." That's what Bill 75 does.

The Minister for Community Charter wants to hurry along. Maybe this is embarrassing for him. Maybe he feels like he's a hypocrite for having just brought in this bill, the Community Charter amendment act, this session and for dancing on his feet, saying what a wonderful day it was when he recognized the local government as independent authority. Now he sits here supporting a bill that this government is putting forward and has no backbone whatsoever — unlike his colleague from Dawson Creek — to stand up to his government to say: "I will not override local governments' authority. I just gave it to them, and I'm not going to do that." He has no backbone to do that. He just sort of rolled over and went with the government on that. It is absolutely hypocritical.

Even David Hanley of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says this is a bad idea. He calls it "unpredictable, unfair and potentially costly." Section 1 is missing all the specifics that are needed to have any sense of the government's intent. Without any regulations, it is irresponsible. With the language from the minister, who claims, "Don't worry. This bill will not override any other bill, and it will not impact standards," quite frankly, I don't trust him.

This minister and this government have demonstrated over and over again, as recently as just today when we debated Bill 94, that their word is not worth the paper it's written on — that they have no honour, no intention whatsoever to honour their own commitments. When they say, "I will not break contracts," they turn around and break them just like that. It means that your word is of no consequence. That's what it means. That's why, when the minister says, "Don't worry; this act doesn't say and would not override other enactments," I don't believe him. Just think what the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries could do with this on fish farms, Madam Chair.

So the opposition will not support this section. Let's be very clear. I want to put that on the record — to be very clear about that. We do not support this section. This section explicitly allows for the government to consider other acts and enactments to be constraints which they can override in Bill 75.

The Chair: Members, order. I would ask all members to respect the person who is speaking.

Just to finish what I have been saying about this section of the act and why the opposition is not going to support it, particularly as it relates to the Local Government Act, the Community Charter…. I want to just close by putting this letter on the record. It is a letter written to the Minister for Deregulation from the president of the UBCM, Pat Wallace, April 16, 2003:

This is what local governments think of this bill. This is what local governments think in terms of this broad definition that includes all enactments to be deemed to be a constraint, including the authorities and the powers that are vested under the Community Charter.

This government — make no mistake about it — is bringing this legislation through, and by its definition and the broad nature of its definitions, it's allowing for unbelievable powers — powers that would override virtually every other act, including local government acts, if the government deems that those acts are in the way of getting a project that they want to see approved or, I believe, that their donors or supporters want to see approved.

The opposition does not support this section of the bill or this bill in its entirety.

K. Stewart: I trust this is the appropriate place to ask the questions, as we've done 3 to 11 so far, but we're now on 2. I have a couple of questions with regard to the types of projects that the minister envisions this will encompass. Could the minister provide some examples of the type of projects that may fit this? I was at a meeting of council of councils for the GVRD, and there seemed to be quite a bit of different conjecture as to the type of projects this would relate to. Maybe the minister could help alleviate that.

Hon. K. Falcon: The guidelines we introduced with the bill tried to speak to the kind of parameters we were looking at when thinking about what kind of project would be considered provincially significant. In that consideration, what we had drafted — and we're still looking to some suggestions from UBCM which could perhaps improve upon the guidelines….

The important criterion for us to achieve was twofold. One was that the projects must provide, at a minimum, regional economic, environmental or social benefit. That was important. The other thing that we didn't want to do was be too prescriptive in those guidelines, because we wanted to ensure that, for example, if you set a threshold amount — say, in terms of amount of investment…. While a $20 million investment may not seem like very much in the lower mainland, that could be a huge investment in a rural resource community. So we wanted to allow some

flexibility to ensure that when making that determination, we were in fact reflecting on the reality of British Columbia — which is that it's very diverse and different areas are impacted differently.

K. Stewart: When you talk about the types of projects here…. I know one of the concerns that was brought up was the local zoning issues with property development, etc. In my community there's a lot of residential development, and there are zoning issues that go along with that, so this really brings up two questions.

Is this the type of thing that you envision it being targeted for? Again, this is the major activity that there seems to be concern about. The other thing is: why are you targeting the municipal approval processes with this? This was another question that was raised to me — so those two questions — and I have a few more later.

Hon. K. Falcon: Through the Chair to the member. To your first point, the kind of routine zonings that take place in a municipality are not in any way contemplated. Nor would they fit into the descriptions provided under the guidelines, because as we've been very clear, any potential project designation would have to meet a very high test. The high test would include a broad regional, outside-of-the-project location, meaning that anything that is taking place just within the municipality is very unlikely to meet that test. So the test would have to be that there is a very broad regional benefit, either environmental or social — or, in fact, economic.

To the second part of the member's question, which I think is an important one: why local approval authorities? That's because I actually believe that all of us are in this together, that all of us are trying to build a better British Columbia. All of us recognize that British Columbia has really fallen short, especially over the last decade, in terms of answering the question of whether we're capable of moving projects forward in a timely manner or, better yet, whether we're even capable of giving fast noes to potential proponents.

The question then becomes: should this discipline just be imposed on the province? I've had this discussion with many local mayors, and I think it's interesting — my discussions — because many of the local mayors support the idea laid out in the bill that this is an equal discipline we both share, the local approval authorities and provincial approval authorities. But, candidly, some believe that they would just prefer the discipline to be on provincial and not on local.

As I say, this is a provincial Significant Projects Streamlining Act which speaks to those rare projects, the handful a year. This bill is something that will be used very infrequently, but when it is used, it speaks to the fact that there are broad benefits contained in that bill and that it is in the interests of all British Columbians to ensure that we at least expedite the review and approval processes that both local and provincial approval authorities put into place to ensure that we get timeliness in the review and approval process. That to me is eminently fair and strikes exactly the kind of balance that is undertaken and indicated in section 2 of the Community Charter and section 4 of the Local Government Act.

K. Stewart: With regard to the delegation of power, it's my understanding that the government is always given the delegation of power from federal to provincial, provincial to municipal, and that the government has always had the power to impose for provincial interests first. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, under section 874 of the Local Government Act. One of the ironies of this debate is that we as a province already have these powers. I've said repeatedly to many mayors who believe we're bringing in new powers that, actually, those powers already exist under section 874. There was nothing in the past that could stop this government from overriding any municipal bylaw, zoning, land use plan, OCP or whatever the case may be, but the message there is that it is rarely used.

Why is that? It is rarely used because a province thinks very, very carefully before it would ever use the blunt instrument of override. One of the beauties of this bill is that what we did was specifically draft a bill that said when provincial government is saying this is a provincially significant project, then we wanted to make sure we had a process in place where we could work cooperatively with local governments to move a project through.

That's why, when we get to the following sections, I will be able to enunciate those processes in greater detail. But it will give comfort, I believe, to any reasonable approval authority, both provincial and local, that their interests will be well taken care of.

K. Stewart: I have just one more question in regard to this, Madam Chair, and that is with regard to the rationale. If we've always had this power and have rarely used it, why are we bringing in this bill? In the discussion I had with a number of…. Again, I had about 40 municipal councillors I had an opportunity to discuss this with on Saturday. One of the understandings I had, leading into this, was that part of the rationale for this bill was so that we could clarify what role and conditions this would be used in but also to help expedite an answer — not necessarily dictating an answer but to expedite an answer.

I was in municipal government before, and frankly, as a municipal councillor, I would have preferred to have had more autonomy in the legislation to allow us to do certain things. Unfortunately, the delegation of power, federal to provincial to municipal, said to me that there were certain restrictions and that for the provincial government, that was their area they delegated down and that there was certain autonomy if they chose to use it, and we've had that power.

I understand why municipal councillors may take some offence to us dictating that, but in retrospect I know there were many times — again, putting on my past municipal hat — where we were waiting for decisions to be made. We were waiting for provincial governments to go through a process. I know there are a lot of proponents of projects that would rather have known six months into it that the answer was no than to be dragged out two, three, four or five years, in some cases, with the hope of "possibly."

My question is: is that part of the rationale? Is that part of the rationale I can use to justify to those councillors who question me that this is why we're doing it?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's exactly it. You've hit the nail right on the head that the whole purpose is to expedite a decision back to a proponent so that they can get a fast decision. If that decision is a no, we're doing them a favour, because what we're saying is: "No. For whatever reason, this doesn't make sense to have you do this project. Maybe there's another part of the province where it does or whatever the case may be."

I also think you've touched on another very, very important point and one of the reasons why so many mayors, particularly from rural resource B.C., support the bill. In fact, I met with another whole group of mayors on the Island over the weekend, who also spoke in support of this principle I'm about to lay out. That is that this bill, for the first time, allows local government to be able to go to cabinet, designate a project that could have very important benefits for their region — regional environmental benefits, economic, whatever the case may be — and by bringing forward that designation they would then be able to impose a discipline that heretofore has never been there in the provincial government approval authorities.

Granted, it's an equal discipline, but it's important for local governments to be able to know. I've spoken with many, many local governments that talk about exactly that — the unbelievable delays from the province and provincial approval authorities — in terms of timeliness, so it speaks to that. It deals with that, and that provides a real benefit to local governments.

K. Stewart: The minister's last response has elicited one final question from me, and that's with regard to the….

This is a question about environmental concern and safety. One of the concerns I have is that we ensure that when these projects go through, if we're trying to expedite the process, we're not eliminating the due diligence of the process. My concern is with regard to the environmental concern at the processes that will take place. I want some assurance from the minister that those processes will continue to stay in place and that the overriding concern of a provincial interest would include that of the healthfulness of our communities.

Hon. K. Falcon: Through the Chair. Member, in order to answer this, I am required to direct you to section 11. I apologize, because that's jumping ahead by nine chapters. In section 11 you'll see it states very clearly that this act does not apply in the event of a conflict between the Environmental Assessment Act and the regulations made under that act. I think that's important, because as we know, that act sets up a broad environmental assessment review which covers a process considering all relevant environmental impacts, including the very important input from stakeholders and issues affecting federal government standards under the harmonization agreement that we have under the EAA. So it does exactly that.

B. Penner: I'd also like to ask the minister a question or two regarding section 2. I come from a municipality where the mayor of Chilliwack is very much in support of this bill. The city of Chilliwack for some time now has had an organization known as the Chilliwack Economic Partners, which has been out very aggressively attracting new investment and jobs to our community. The city fathers and other leaders feel that this new legislation will give us another tool to attract more jobs and investment to our community, because of the discipline, I suppose, that the minister says it would place not just on the city but also on the province. It gives the city the opportunity to go out there and market the investment potential of Chilliwack by saying: "Look, there will be firm guidelines in terms of when you'll get an answer to your question about whether you can go ahead."

My question to the minister…. I think I heard him mention this to the member from Maple Ridge, but just to be clear. Under this legislation, then, there is the possibility of a no. The answer isn't necessarily a yes; it's just that it will be an expedited yes or no. Is that correct?

B. Penner: Can the minister give us some guidelines or indications of what kind of time frames we would be looking at if a project were to be designated under section 2, in terms of a yes or a no answer?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is always a very difficult question to answer, because it obviously would be determined largely by the scope and complexity of the proposed project. Actually, it's impossible to be able to do that with any degree of candour and certainty. I think the simple response is that it would depend on the complexity and the scope of the proposed project.

B. Penner: I look forward to seeing how this legislation rolls out — if and when the members of this House see fit to support it, as I'm relatively certain they will.

I do feel frustrated at the lost decade of the 1990s, when the rest of North America enjoyed an unprecedented economic boom. We in British Columbia essentially missed out on one whole round of the economic cycle, and we're now playing catch-up in difficult and turbulent times worldwide.

I look forward to having another tool that we can hold out to investors when we go out and compete in a very competitive marketplace for investment capital — not just here in British Columbia, not just here in Canada, not just here in North America, but truly around the world. I want to see the day come forward when we're once again top of mind in the Pacific Rim, once again top of mind in terms of investors in Europe, Asia, South Asia and Australia.

We have, frankly, fallen off the chart over the decade of the 1990s in terms of a preferred place to invest. I hope that along with other measures that the government has taken, this bill, Bill 75, will help address that.

J. Kwan: It's funny how under the Liberal government's watch, the economy is worse than it was under the previous administration. Funny how that is.

Bill 75, section 2, deals with the recommendation for designation, the issue around what would be a designation for so-called streamlining under this bill for this government. I heard the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows talk about local government and previous actions of local governments. I heard the issue that if previous sections of the Local Government Act were rarely used, why would we do this now?

It was just minutes ago that I read into the record a letter from the former president of the UBCM written to this minister after she met with this minister and the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, who expressed their views on Bill 75, who expressed the view that if the government were to use the Local Government Act, section 874, as its precedent to justify this action, then they say not only that the government is flawed in that process in doing that but that the government is wrong in doing so.

I'm paraphrasing, because I've already read the letter into the record. The UBCM does not support this piece of legislation. It doesn't support the notion that it allows for the government to decide what project should override local government authorities and bylaws. It does not support what this minister is doing in this section.

I also heard that the member from Maple Ridge asked the minister for specifics about what would be deemed as a designated project in this section, designated as a provincially significant project. I heard the minister talk in broad terms. The minister said it's projects that have important socioeconomic aspects. Those are not specifics. Those are very broad generalities. What specific criteria would be used to evaluate a particular project for that to be deemed a designated project as a provincially significant project under this section of the act?

Hon. K. Falcon: There are two stages here that I think are important. The first is, of course, the guidelines that the member did touch upon — guidelines we continue to work with, with the UBCM. I'm looking forward to seeking their input as to how those guidelines can be applied, in a manner that provides some comfort as to when the triggering mechanism is.

Again, that's with the proviso I've always given — that I will be keenly alert to ensure that it does not act unfavourably toward rural resource British Columbia, so long as it's not prescriptive to a point where it would not allow small projects that may have huge impact in rural British Columbia to move forward. So those would apply.

I don't know if the member opposite has a copy of the guidelines we had indicated, in fact, back in March when I had the opportunity to meet with Mayor Wallace, who at that time was president of UBCM. At that time and at that meeting, one thing that came out of it, actually, was two recommendations that Mayor Wallace had suggested. One was to emphasize cooperation, and the second was to ensure we emphasize that it would be used infrequently.

It is one of the reasons why — member, you may be interested to know — the title changed from the economic development streamlining act to the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. It's to really emphasize the fact that we are talking about significant projects. It's also why we asked for their input in the guidelines for designating the projects, because I felt it was very important that we get the input of UBCM on those guidelines.

As you can see from the guidelines, if the member has them — if not, I'll endeavour to get some to her as soon as I can — to be eligible, the project should be important to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the province. It should have impacts and benefits that extend beyond the project's location, which I think is a very, very critical point and speaks very quickly to put down this idea that it affects routine zoning decisions that councils will make on virtually a weekly basis.

It should contribute to the furtherance of the province's key economic development interests; enhance competitiveness; encourage the involvement of the private sector in financial arrangements, including but not limited to joint ventures, joint financing arrangements, cooperative alliances, P3s, hybrid arrangements and power purchase agreements; be supported by cabinet; and be of a scale that would warrant the additional management effort required. Then we had some examples for illustrative purposes.

We continue to work with UBCM, as I say, to elicit their input into that as part of a broader memorandum of understanding that can help us work together to ensure that when we invoke Bill 75, we do so in a way that is as cooperative as possible.

J. Kwan: The minister is basically responding to the letter I read and put on the record — the letter from Pat

Wallace, the former president of the UBCM, dated April 16, 2003 — where she wrote to the minister after the meeting. Even then, after the meeting, the former president deemed it necessary to write this letter. I won't paraphrase, because I don't want to be accused of putting words into people's mouths. I'll quote some pieces of the letter onto the record.

The letter reads: "I would caution you about relying on using Local Government Act section 874 as a precedent for your actions. Section 874 is broad, covering OCPs, zoning, development permits, inspection fees and subdivision and development requirements, but it does not provide a sweeping override of all bylaws." That is what this bill does.

Then the letter from the UBCM past president goes on to say that there is a better way to do this, and that is for the government to work cooperatively and to put forward an intergovernmental cooperation and harmonization approach that would be more productive. So the guidelines which the minister talks about do not replace the bill itself. The guidelines that the minister talks about do not point to specifics either. They are more generalities around economic benefits. That's what they are.

The UBCM president says the minister can claim that he is consulting with the UBCM and seeking their approval, but past president wrote a letter to the minister after the meeting saying that's not good enough. It's not good enough. If you were to do it right, then Bill 75 would not exist, and you would find a way that would build on intergovernmental cooperation and a harmonization approach and scrap Bill 75. The guidelines that the minister talks about (a) don't provide the specifics that the minister claims and (b) do not bring the UBCM on board to support Bill 75. Maybe the minister can explain the inconsistencies in his answer with reality.

Hon. K. Falcon: I again find myself having to remind the member that we are on section 2. She has now read that letter into the record at least half a dozen times in different variations, as has her colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings. In fact, I would refer the member to the letter I read into the record responding to that letter in the last session we had over this.

I would like us to be able to actually have questions that relate to section 2 that I can specifically answer. I think I have fully canvassed this whole question with the member regarding the letter from the former head of the UBCM, Pat Wallace. Again, none of that, though interesting — even the sixth time around — has anything to do with section 2, which we're trying to have a discussion on.

J. Kwan: I explained to the minister already that firstly, the guidelines that he claims are there and that he's consulting with UBCM on are very vague in nature. They talk broadly, primarily around economic benefits or significance, but they are not true guidelines. They do not give specifics, which is what I'm asking for from this minister. Secondly, this minister just tried in this House to say that those guidelines on which he's engaged in consultation with the UBCM somehow make it okay for this government to bring Bill 75 in this Legislature to be rammed through by this government. That is simply not true, which is why the letter was brought up.

The letter says specifically and explicitly that the UBCM…. The past president has written this letter on behalf of the UBCM, saying that the sweeping, overriding powers of all bylaws of local government are an unacceptable approach in 2003, that it would provoke a massive opposition amongst local governments and community representatives, and that for this to be considered in this time and age…. The justification the minister had given them at this meeting was weak, ineffectual and offensive. That's the language that's being used in this letter.

So don't pretend, Madam Chair, through you to the minister, that somehow, when he engages in these discussions about these guidelines, it makes it okay in the minds of the UBCM for the government to bring this bill forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is why the letter is being brought up again.

Specifically related to the guidelines, the guidelines are vague in nature. They do not provide for specifics. I'm asking for specifics under this section of the bill on what projects would be recommended by the minister to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the project to be designated as a provincially significant project.

Hon. K. Falcon: The guidelines will be important for the minister to determine whether the project is even worth consideration. Unless it meets that very high bar, which, frankly, most projects won't…. I think we should be clear about that, because we're only talking about a handful of projects that would likely be able to meet that very high test. But were they to, at least in the opinion of the minister, meet that high test, then the minister may recommend that he may want to get more information on the project from the proponent in terms of the identity, the scope, the description — all the issues which relate to that. Then the minister may recommend to cabinet that this project be considered. Cabinet would naturally consider a whole range of issues, including things like local government support — whether it was actually brought forward by local government, which would obviously make a big

difference — and the whole range of political issues that cabinet would have to think about….

J. Kwan: It's very telling, the last bit of what the minister just said — the whole range of political issues that the cabinet has to consider. That's what the minister said. That is the truth of it, of what will be considered a significant project under this bill — a political decision by the cabinet — and from the minister's own mouth in this debate. Now we know.

The minister is sitting there, and he's going: "Shocking, shocking." It is shocking. The government is bringing forward legislation for political reasons, and he's allowing explicitly in legislation the authority for him to make political decisions that will not be based on any sound criteria. No specifics are being offered. People do not know how this will be considered. It would be considered by the minister in his recommendation to cabinet, and it would be a political decision. That's what he just admitted to and said in this House, and it is shocking indeed.

I thought we were debating this thing, when I heard from the back bench — the member for Chilliwack-Kent got up and said: "We're doing this because it's good for our community." The truth is now obvious and right from the mouth of the minister, who says: "We are doing it for political reasons and political reasons only." Shame on the minister.

My God — no defence. The minister is sitting in his seat, pretending to cry, as though somehow he's ashamed. Well, he isn't. He's mocking what I'm saying with his actions. This minister just admitted that the determining factors for this minister and this government to consider what is a significant project would be political and political reasons only. God, Madam Chair. It is stunning that this minister has no shame. He's overtly admitting that he will use political reasons.

That would be like if a donor has donated significantly to the Liberal Party, then the political decision would be: "We'd better approve that project." Not only approve it, better expedite it and override all other enactments that might stand in his way and be deemed to be a constraint.

That's what's happening here, Madam Chair. My God. If a project — as admitted by this minister — is left to the whim of cabinet, and its decision base is a political one with no standards, then there will be no predictability and stability in the economy and in investors' confidence. There is no way to tell whether or not — or how — that process would be a fair process. There's no way for anyone to tell how the applications of that evaluation process are being applied. No one would be able to tell that, because the minister just admitted that the decision would be a political one. Holy Hannah, as my partner would say. This is incredible indeed.

If the decisions are political, as the minister just admitted, then where's the fairness in this process? How would investors have confidence that there is, in fact, fairness in this process?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, this is certainly an opportunity for me to respond and to enjoy this particular response because the difference, member…. I think you'll find that if you read section 2, one of the things that our government does that's quite unlike your government is that we actually ask for a lot of information, like: who's the proponent? What is their background, business plan, scope?

Now, the member is laughing as I say this. Some of you in this House might recall that that member sat in a cabinet that approved fast ferries without a business plan. In fact, when the board of the B.C. Ferries corporation wanted to not go ahead, they fired the board, replaced them with a new board that would rubber-stamp their idiotic plans, so….

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member opposite was just saying that…. Her decision, as part of a cabinet that made the fast ferries decision, certainly rings to me as a somewhat political decision. I could be wrong, but I imagine British Columbians might have a thought or two about that. I would just remind the member that if the member took the time…

Hon. K. Falcon: …to read the act, she would find that under this government we take care to ensure that we have all the information needed before we even think about taking a recommendation to cabinet. That is the difference between our government and that government.

J. Kwan: Well, what a laugh, for this minister to say that he'll gather the information and then make that determination. When asked the questions for specifics about what he would use as criteria to determine a project that would be designated under this section of the act, he couldn't give the answers. He got up and said it will be a political decision by cabinet.

What would be the determining factors for cabinet to decide that it's political in nature? I would predict, Madam Chair, it would be: how much did the proponent of the project donate to the Liberal Party? That might well be one criterion, and I suspect that is the criterion.

The minister brings up fast ferries. Guess what. Never did the NDP government, in its previous administration, bring forward legislation that would override local governments' authority outright. All of their bylaws would be thrown out the window. Every single enactment that's been brought forward by government would be thrown out the window to facilitate political decisions that this minister and this cabinet

want to ram through in secretive, behind-closed-doors decision-making processes.

That's what this section of the bill is, and that's what this minister just admitted to. He is not providing any specifics or standards that would apply. Investors would have no knowledge of that. They would not know whether or not the process was fair. I don't know how the investors would have confidence in this government, unless they're prepared to write a big, fat cheque for the Liberal Party. It is shocking what this Liberal government and the government bench MLAs are trying to ram through in this Legislature — that kind of decision-making. Unbelievable.

I'll bet you that local governments don't know. The relevance is this: this minister gets to decide what projects he would designate as significant projects under this section, and local government would not know that one of the criteria — in fact, the main criteria, as the minister himself has stated — would be political and political only.

J. Kwan: That's what this minister said. He's sitting there saying I am wrong. Well, check Hansard. A good thing about Dave Barrett as a former Premier was bringing forward Hansard so that it's all recorded — what you say — and people know what you say.

J. Kwan: The member for Cariboo South is going: "Save us; save us." Too late, because you've already doomed yourself, and the minister has already doomed himself by saying that decisions that would be made under this section of the act would be political only.

Loose lips sink ships. Oops. The minister just sunk himself. Oops. No use turning red-faced — too late — because he's already made the mistake, and Hansard has it on record. Thank God for Hansard and the great work they do, so we actually have it on record so that there's no denying and weaselling, as this government is prone to do — to weasel out of what they say and promises that they make and break regularly; turning on a dime, just like that.

Now we know that under section 2, there are no specifics as to what criteria will be used to determine what is a significant project that would be deemed to be necessary and to be designated as a provincially significant project. What we know is that the minister will make his recommendations to cabinet based on political determinations alone. What we know is that the investors' community wouldn't know what would be a fair process or what would not be a fair process. They wouldn't have confidence in this process. I would suggest to investors, if they want a project through, that they'd better write out cheques — big fat cheques for the Liberal Party. Maybe that's the way to guarantee an approval under this section of the act for a project to be deemed significant.

What appeal mechanisms are there if a project has been turned down or if a project's been approved? Are there appeal processes in place for the community, for the municipality, who disagree with the government's decision?

J. Kwan: Oh, isn't this telling? The minister just said that decisions will be political. Then, when asked a question on what appeal process there would be for those who disagree with his decision and cabinet's decision…. There is no appeal process, because the minister just sat in his seat and didn't rise up to answer the question. If I'm wrong and there is an appeal process, then get up and correct me — Madam Chair, through you to the minister.

If he's not responding to that question, then it only means one thing: there is no appeal process. So it's a political decision made behind closed doors in a secretive chamber that nobody will know about, with no standards of criteria being applied and no appeal process. By the minister's own admission, decisions will be made for political reasons only. My God, it is unbelievable. It is absolutely unbelievable.

This is what we have under section 2. And then under section 2(2), it says: "the minister must…(b) obtain…a description of the project that (i) in form and content is satisfactory to the minister, and (ii) sets out the scope, intended operations, anticipated constraints and other details of the project."

Will this description be required in writing? The legislation only says in a form satisfactory to the minister. Would it be required in writing?

Hon. K. Falcon: To be perfectly honest, through all of that circular reasoning and diatribe, I kind of missed the crux of the question. I would ask if the member could succinctly ask me the question so I can answer it for her.

J. Kwan: Jeez, the minister suffers from many ailments, it appears to me. Maybe I should speak slowly for the minister.

He's actually now not red-faced anymore from the embarrassment of his own statement, but let me put the question to him slowly so that he can grasp the question. Will this description, the term as it is being used under section 2, be required in writing?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the easiest thing to do is to try and walk the member through, ever so slowly, to ensure that there's no misunderstanding about how this works.

Under section 2(1), it says: "The minister may" — underline "may" — "recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that a project be designated as a provincially significant project."

Then subsection 2(2) says: "Before the minister recommends a project under subsection (1)" — before — "the minister must (a) determine the identity of the proponent of the project, and (b) obtain from the proponent a description of the project that (i) in form and content is satisfactory to the minister, and (ii) sets out the scope, intended operations, anticipated constraints and other details of the project."

Now, why would we do that? We would do that because we want to see the credible business plan. We want to see what they're asking of government prior to the ministry even thinking of bringing forward that recommendation to cabinet. That is what is commonly called in the business world "due diligence." It's something I encourage the member and her party to study in the future.

Furthermore, I might say this. Prior to all of that happening, we have some guidelines. I've mentioned these before.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm going to read them to the member, because apparently she thinks they're vague. So I will read them slowly: "To be eligible for designation, a project should be important to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the province; have impacts and benefits that extend beyond a project's location…."

Hon. K. Falcon: That's right. The Minister of State for Mental Health clearly recognizes how that's very acceptable.

"Contribute to the furtherance of the province's key economic development interest." Now that is important. For that member to understand, that could include some very important green power energy projects. Under the leadership of our Minister of Energy and Mines, we are taking a leadership role in ensuring that we have green power in this province — not just talking it but doing it.

"Enhance competitiveness" — another one. "Encourage the involvement of the private sector in financial arrangements, including but not limited to joint ventures, joint financing arrangements, cooperative alliances, P3s, hybrid arrangements and power purchase agreements." And the second-to-last bullet: "…be supported by cabinet." That's important too. The member must keep that in mind. Then finally: "…be of a scale that would warrant the additional management effort required."

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member continues to talk…. Unfortunately, she continued to talk while I was reading those very important guidelines. It's a great concern to me that the member may have missed some of those very important guidelines. Shall I read them again for the member's edification?

Hon. K. Falcon: Clearly, the members of the House feel that this is important to be repeated, so what I will do is pick out the important ones here.

Hon. K. Falcon: However, hon. Chair, noting the hour, I move that our committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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


	YEAS — 64

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

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan

	NAYS — 63

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Halsey-Brandt	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Wilson
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter


	YEAS — 50

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	van Dongen	Wilson
Thorpe	Hagen	Plant
Collins	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Belsey	Bell
Long	Mayencourt	Johnston
Bennett	Hayer	McMahon
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Brice
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 4

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan
	Lekstrom


	YEAS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan

	NAYS — 34

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hansen
Bruce	Wilson	Lee
Thorpe	Collins	Clark
Nebbeling	Stephens	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Orr	Harris	Chutter
Trumper	Hayer	McMahon
Bray	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Suffredine	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
	Hunter


	YEAS — 32

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Hansen	Bruce
Wilson	Lee	Thorpe
Murray	Collins	Clark
Nebbeling	Stephens	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Orr	Harris	Long
Chutter	Hayer	McMahon
Bray	Locke	Bhullar
Suffredine	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser		Hunter

	NAYS — 4

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan
	Lekstrom

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY