Hansard -- Thursday, May 6, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 25, No. 5 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		10913

Tributes		10913
	Ken Drushka
	Hon. J. Murray

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10913
	Real Estate Services Act (Bill 41)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Real Estate Development Marketing Act (Bill 42)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 46)
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	Transportation Act (Bill 47)
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	Safe Streets Act (Bill M202)
	L. Mayencourt
	Trespass to Property Act (Bill M203)
	L. Mayencourt

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10915
	Closing of U.S. border to Canadian beef
	J. Wilson
	Inclusion of milk containers in deposit-refund system
	J. Bray
	Transportation infrastructure projects in lower mainland
	D. Hayer

Oral Questions		10916
	B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement and property transfer tax
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	Transfer of senior for long-term care
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Arbitration option in legislation on health support workers
	M. Hunter
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Impact of government policies on B.C. economy
	J. Bray
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	Impact of health support workers' collective agreement on health care funding
	R. Hawes
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Closing of U.S. border to Canadian beef
	W. Cobb
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Skilled trades training in high school
	B. Locke
	Hon. T. Christensen

Tabling Documents		10920
	British Columbia Legislative Library, annual report, 2003

Committee of Supply		10920
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued)
	G. Trumper
	Hon. G. Abbott
	J. Wilson
	D. Jarvis
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	B. Kerr

Second Reading of Bills		10932
	Securities Act (Bill 38) (continued)
	B. Kerr
	K. Stewart
	B. Locke
	M. Hunter

Deputy Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. I have the privilege this afternoon of making the first introduction. Today in the House I would like to acknowledge some special visitors from Ireland. Please join me in welcoming the Irish Committee of Public Accounts. Members joining us today include the Chair, Mr. John Perry; Deputy John Dennehy; Deputy Seán Ardagh; and Mr. Derek Dignam, the Clerk of the Committees.

The committee has just arrived from Ottawa, where they met with federal officials, and we are delighted that they chose British Columbia for meetings with provincial representatives. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Hayer: I rise this afternoon to welcome the parents of Stephen Gammer, one of our dedicated communications officers. His parents, Jim and Sherrill Gammer, are prominent members of our community, always helping out Surrey, and are also neighbours of mine. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today are two prominent individuals from the city of Victoria: Lorne Whyte, who is the CEO of Tourism Victoria; and Doug Potentier, who is the CEO of the greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce — very active in our community and very helpful to providing advice to government. Would the House please make them both very welcome.

Hon. J. Murray: I'd just like to say a few words in acknowledgment of the life of a friend, Ken Drushka, who passed away this morning at 6 o'clock. Ken was B.C.'s foremost forestry author and advocate of Canada's pre-eminence as a forest nation. Ken started off as a journalist, working for the Globe and Mail in Toronto. He later moved west to British Columbia where he spent many years as a logger, a silviculture contractor and the operator of a custom sawmill. He also was a columnist on forestry policy and other issues in B.C. newspapers and magazines.

Ken's probably best known for his penmanship and research, having authored numerous books on forestry, including Stumped: The Forest Industry in Transition; Working in the Woods; Tie Hackers to Timber Harvesters; and HR: A Biography of H.R. MacMillan, which won the 1996 Roderick Haig-Brown regional B.C. book prize.

His most recent work, published just last fall, was Canada's Forests: A History of Use and Conservation, which gives us a historical account of forestry in Canada and focuses on an aspect that Ken was very passionate about — that is, sustainable forest management.

In February 2004, Ken was named an honorary member of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. This award recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to forestry but who are not members of the association. Ken was loved and admired by many, and he will be missed.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature a number of classes from Terry Fox Secondary School in Port Coquitlam. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Real Estate Services Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to introduce the Real Estate Services Act. This act deals with the licensing and conduct of the real estate professionals who buy, sell and manage real estate on behalf of others. Another aspect of the real estate industry, the marketing of new real estate developments, is covered by the Real Estate Development Marketing Act, which is also being introduced this afternoon. These two new acts will replace the Real Estate Act, the current legislation governing the real estate sector.

The new Real Estate Services Act is an important piece of legislation that will enhance consumer confidence in the real estate industry. One way this will be done is by requiring the licensing of strata managers. Another is by establishing a special compensation fund to protect consumers who have suffered loss from theft or fraud. As well, the new act will enable more responsive and effective regulation of the industry by re-creating the Real Estate Council of British Columbia as a self-regulating organization. The council will be directly responsible for the licensing, education and discipline of all real estate licensees and will be equipped with a broad range of new investigation and enforcement tools.

The Real Estate Services Act will also reduce the regulatory burden imposed by government on real

estate licensees by empowering the Real Estate Council to make rules respecting the real estate business standards and the conduct and education of licensees.

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

Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Real Estate Development Marketing Act.

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

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to introduce the Real Estate Development Marketing Act. This act deals with the marketing of real estate developments and complements the new Real Estate Services Act introduced earlier.

The Real Estate Development Marketing Act will reduce the regulatory burden on developers by providing clearer and more consistent marketing rules relative to the current Real Estate Act. The new act will also enable developers to pre-sell more developments and to make better use of deposit moneys and will require the filing of only one form of disclosure agreement document regardless of the nature of development property.

As well, the new act will maintain and enhance consumer protection. Purchasers will continue to have the benefit of full and plain disclosure as well as enhanced rescission rights. All purchasers, regardless of the type of development property they buy, will be given a standardized period in which to rescind their purchase agreements. Deposit moneys from purchasers will have to be placed with regulated professionals who are familiar with trust account responsibilities.

The new act will create a framework for smarter regulation of the real estate development sector in British Columbia. Smarter regulation and the competitive tax environment are two of the ways in which this government is contributing to the growth of the development sector, a key economic driver in British Columbia.

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

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act, 2004.

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

Hon. R. Thorpe: As part of our government's new-era commitment to reduce red tape and regulatory burden, I am pleased to introduce Bill 46.

The current Highway (Industrial) Act provides a framework to ensure the safety of industrial roads and the drivers and traffic that operate on them. The act has not been updated in nearly 50 years. After extensive and thorough consultation with industry, we have decided to modernize the act.

Under these changes, the Highway (Industrial) Act will be renamed the Industrial Roads Act.

This legislation will benefit our vitally important resource industries such as forestry, mining, and oil and gas that use industrial roads. The Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act, 2004, continues our commitment to cut red tape and make it easier for business to do business.

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

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transportation Act.

The Transportation Act consolidates highway legislation into one organized, plain-language document. It replaces the ministry's Highway Act, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, the Highway Scenic Improvement Act and the Build BC Act. It results in a net reduction of approximately 60 regulatory requirements, and it resolves problems in existing legislation by updating the language, eliminating inconsistencies and organizing the legislation in an easily accessible manner.

Moreover, this new act implements a number of changes, including: clarifying the definition of a highway, including rural and municipal highways; clarify-

ing highway responsibilities between provincial and local governments; harmonizing provincial highway legislation with the Community Charter; and facilitating long-term highway and corridor planning between local governments and the province to help balance urban development with future traffic requirements.

Finally, the Transportation Act will improve the ministry's business process and enhance public service as numerous prospective regulations have been replaced by results-based regulation.

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

Bill 47 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.

L. Mayencourt: I move that a bill intituled Safe Streets Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

L. Mayencourt: On many occasions I have stood in this House and spoken about the importance of making our streets safer. I have made a commitment to my constituents that I would bring safer schools and safer streets, and that is what this bill does. It bans aggressive solicitation. It bans solicitation of a captive audience, such as people waiting for public transit or using an ATM machine. This bill is about social responsibility and the contract between us all to live, work and play in a civil society.

As a government we promise safer communities. My constituents and a coalition of groups from across this province have asked that this legislation be passed. It is time for all of us to take a stand and restore the standards of conduct on our streets and in our communities.

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

Bill M202 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.

L. Mayencourt: I move that a bill intituled Trespass to Property Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

L. Mayencourt: Our current Trespass Act was created a long time ago to deal with situations in a rural setting. However, there is a need for trespass legislation that deals with urban settings as well. This bill is something that can be applied to an urban setting.

People who own or rent property in cities need to know that they have the right to ask people to leave if they do not want them to be on their property. Shopkeepers and residents should not have to put up with unwanted guests on their property. Currently, owners have to seek a court injunction to deal with this situation. This is not a practical solution. This bill allows the owner, tenant or manager to contact police and have these unwanted guests removed. This bill articulates something that society already believes to be true — that individuals should be allowed to control who is and who is not allowed access to their private property.

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

Bill M203 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.

J. Wilson: Where's the beef? Well, it's right here in British Columbia, and almost everywhere you go, you'll see the ranching industry and beef production. It dates back almost as far as British Columbia itself.

A year ago a case of BSE was diagnosed, and the borders were closed. The United States border was shut to Canadian beef and British Columbia beef. American protectionism continues to freeze out our beef industry in spite of the science that proves that B.C. beef and Canadian beef are among the safest in the world.

The United States Department of Agriculture itself was prepared to announce that Canadian cattle present minimal threat to their industry. The USDA is impressed with our strong surveillance system, our stringent import control measures across Canada, the ban on feeds that pass BSE, plus other safeguards. The Canadian industry is ever increasing the screening process from 3,000 to 30,000 head per year.

This week the USDA was cowed by an American cattlemen's lobby group called R-CALF. This group is set on keeping Canadian beef out of the United States as long as possible, and they sued their own government to get their way. Sadly, their protectionism antics worked. A settlement was reached yesterday that

keeps the borders from opening for an indefinite time. The United States is playing politics, not listening to science. With presidential elections underway it seems impossible to get the attention of a government more concerned with lobby groups than with Canadian families and communities.

Canadians are suffering, British Columbians are suffering, and my neighbours are suffering — all because of protectionism. I will work any way I can to keep that dialogue open with the United States Department of Agriculture and to urge them to install B.C. beef and Canadian beef back into North American supermarkets.

We have a strong and resilient group of cattle producers in this province, and we also have a strong political voice in this province. We will not be silent.

J. Bray: Recently the capital regional district wrote government to reiterate the CRD board's continued support for the inclusion of milk containers as part of the deposit refund system under the provincial beverage container stewardship program regulation. I agree with the CRD that the government should explore this issue. I believe this would be consistent with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's industry product stewardship business plan and principles of placing responsibility for waste management with product producers and users rather than the general taxpayer — and a level playing field where all brand owners for a particular product category are subject to the same stewardship responsibilities.

I note that although the dairy industry has advocated municipal curbside collection and offered local government partial funding for the containers collected, it is estimated that the proposed funding would represent only about 25 percent of the total cost of collecting and recycling milk containers in the capital region. Milk containers should be included in the deposit refund system because the deposit refund system has proven effective, capturing approximately 75 percent of all used beverage containers with a deposit.

Milk is predominantly packaged in either plastic jugs or gable-top cartons, both of which are readily recyclable. The 2001 CRD waste composition study indicated that approximately 1,000 tonnes of gable-top and plastic containers are being disposed of at Hartland landfill annually. Future CRD collection and processing costs will be reduced if plastic milk containers are not collected in the blue box program, and space to collect other materials in the blue box program would be available.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's B.C. industry products stewardship business plan states that the following principles will guide the process of reviewing existing and new product stewardship programs: producer-user responsibility, level playing field, results-based, and transparency and accountability.

I believe that my constituents would support the move from the blue box curbside handling of milk containers to paying the deposit and then returning the containers for reimbursement, like they do for pop, juice and liquor containers. I support the ministry working with the CRD to look at including milk containers in the deposit refund system.

D. Hayer: Surrey-Tynehead constituents are pleased by the progress we are making in improving the traffic flow in the Surrey area. Thank you to the Minister of Transportation for allocating funding to a project that's been long overdue, the widening of the Fraser Highway east and west of 160th Street. The Surrey Chamber of Commerce, my constituents and I eagerly await an announcement to four-lane more of this route from 168th Street to Langley.

Another project that has funding in the bank, Mr. Speaker, is the widening of Highway 10, an important link between the ferry terminal and Highway 1, the Trans-Canada Highway. We are also widening 176th Street from the Pacific Highway border crossing to the No.1 Trans-Canada freeway. This is vital to improving cross-border traffic. Part of the improvements will be the installation of full traffic lights at 176th Street and 80th Avenue, a dangerous intersection. I have personally experienced the hazard of trying to cross 176th Street, which has a heavy traffic flow.

Also welcoming the completion of this project are my constituents from Port Kells, Guildford, Tynehead, Fleetwood and Fraser Heights, and local businesses and their employees, such as Burnaby Lake Greenhouses and the owners of well-known Northview Golf and Country Club, Chick and Marilyn Stewart. A new crossing over the Fraser River is also good news for commuters and businesses and is expected to get underway this December or the beginning of next year.

In all, we are investing more than $200 million in Surrey, but as one of the fastest-growing cities in B.C., there is still much more work to do: the twinning of Port Mann Bridge; the completion of South Fraser perimeter road; adding extra lanes to the freeway from Vancouver to 200th Street in Langley; adding a new crossing on Highway 1 at 156th Street; and improving interchanges at 152nd Street, 160th Street and 176th Street.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Transportation continues to have trouble with his answers to questions

about the cost of the B.C. Rail deal. Yesterday he ran away from the House after refusing to disclose the tax break his government gave to CN. The B.C. Liberals say they are against business subsidies.

Can the Minister of Provincial Revenue explain why he's giving CN Rail, a company that made more than $200 million in the last quarter, a taxpayer-funded subsidy worth over $20 million to buy B.C. Rail?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Once again, the NDP have their facts wrong. To date, no property transfer tax has been paid as no property has been transferred.

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? What a ridiculous answer, Mr. Speaker.

The government yesterday admitted that CN is not paying the property transfer tax when the deal is closed and that B.C. Rail Company itself will pay the property transfer tax, thereby ripping off the shippers for $24 million — and the taxpayers of B.C.

The minister may blow off the taxpayers with an answer like that. Let me remind him, though, that right now it's costing taxpayers $120 million more to fill up their gas tanks because this government jacked up gas taxes by 3.5 cents per litre at a time when gas prices are going through the roof. The direct tax subsidy to CN alone would eliminate the B.C. Liberal gas tax grab for every driver along the B.C. Rail corridor.

Again to the Minister of Provincial Revenue: stop giving stupid answers, and tell….

Stop giving answers that make absolutely no sense to anybody with a brain, and tell us why he's forcing average taxpayers to subsidize CN when they're paying through the nose to fill up their cars and trucks.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me once again say to this House that the NDP have their facts wrong, as usual. As I said earlier, no property transfer tax has been paid, as no property transfer has taken place. All applicable property transfer tax will be paid as part of the restructuring of the British Columbia Rail Company. I am actually….

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm absolutely shocked that a former Minister of Finance of this House, who understands the privacy rules that a Minister of Finance and a Minister of Revenue have, would want anyone to break the privacy law. That member stands over there day after day talking from her high horse about protecting privacy, and now she wants members in this House to break the privacy laws. As the Minister of Revenue I will respect the privacy laws of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: It's obvious from the answer from this minister that either he's completely incompetent or he's completely out to lunch. He doesn't even know what's going on with his own government's action on the sale of CN.

Yesterday the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke presented a petition that, to quote the member, is "signed by 899 of my constituents from Golden and area requesting that Casey Phillips receive care in his home community." An 88-year-old man with no close family has had to call on the support of his friends and neighbours to plead his case. Those friends and neighbours had to petition this chamber just to get their MLA's attention to this man's plight.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have in place for the first time assessment tools that were actually started to be developed under the previous government. We're expanding them across the province to make sure that our seniors can get access to appropriate care in a timely way. I know that the interior health authority will be looking at each of these individual cases and making sure that individuals get access to appropriate care.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental question.

J. Kwan: The petition clearly has fallen on the deaf ears of a Health minister who couldn't care less about the plight of seniors in this province. Health care when you need it and where you need it was the promise from this government — a promise that's turned into deception.

Ninety minutes after the petition was tabled yesterday afternoon, Mr. Phillips was transported by air ambulance to Fairmont and then flown to Vancouver. He is now in a care facility in Burnaby, 700 kilometres away from the only home he's ever known.

Can the Minister of Health tell us how he can justify this treatment of Mr. Phillips by the interior health authority? Can he commit today to ensuring that Mr.

Phillips is returned home to the only community he's ever known and receives the care he needs so that he can be close to friends and family?

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the great tragedies in this province is that during the whole decade of the 1990s while the NDP were in office, there were only 1,000 new, additional long-term care beds built in this entire province. Yes, today we do have a shortage, and we are working on that.

The other thing that we inherited as a government is wait-lists of two to three years for individuals to get placed in appropriate long-term care settings. We have developed…

Hon. C. Hansen: …new assessment tools now that allow us to identify who needs care on a priority basis. The wait-list for placement is now down to three months and, in most cases, actually less than two months. The commitment that we make and that the health authorities make is that when an individual needs care, he's going to get care. If it's not in the closest facility, then he will get access to care, and he will be transferred back to his facility of choice as soon as an opening becomes available.

M. Hunter: I hope Hansard caught that, because I was not able to hear the minister's answer.

I do have a question for the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. It's a week since Bill 37 was passed and four days since, thankfully, the strike was settled. Bill 37 included a 14-day period within which the HEU could ask for an arbitrator. Can the minister indicate whether or not the HEU has asked for that arbitration process to be begun?

Hon. G. Bruce: No. At this point I've not had any official word from the HEU. I would hope that I'll hear from them shortly. It can make quite a difference in respect to the impact as to how the actual reductions are made. In fact, if it's done through the process and the offices of an arbitrator, it's quite likely that the impact on wages would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 percent to 4 percent. Quite frankly, I need to hear from the union, and I would hope that during the course of the next several days, I'll get some official word from them as to the determination in respect to appointment of an arbitrator.

J. Bray: Once again the NDP's economic think tank, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, recently released a report dismissing the economic gains achieved by policy decisions of this government and suggesting that any economic gains have been merely a result of external factors. Naturally, having Marc Lee on the radio today in Victoria created a lot of calls to my constituency office wanting to actually know what the facts are.

Can the Minister of Provincial Revenue please tell me what real economists who do not have a political agenda have to say about government policy and its impact on the economy?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, as we all know, is part of the NDP misinformation system and machine. Let us see what the Conference Board of Canada is saying. They're saying our growth will go from 3.1 percent to 3.5 percent in 2005. The TD Bank is saying we'll go from 3.1 percent this year to 3.3 percent next year. Scotiabank is saying we'll go from 2.9 percent this year to 3.2 percent next year. The Economic Forecast Council is saying we'll go from 2.9 percent to 3.2 percent. The Credit Union Central of British Columbia says our growth will go from 2.8 percent to 3.3 percent.

More important than all that, Mr. Speaker, is what's really happening in all parts of British Columbia: leading Canada in employment by 130,000 new jobs; record earnings, boosted by the economy by B.C. credit unions; B.C. exports outpace national growth; Housing starts at a ten-year high; business, small business, more optimistic in British Columbia than any jurisdiction in Canada. British Columbia has turned the corner, British Columbia is growing, and in British Columbia the best is yet to come.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We've got a question here from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission.

R. Hawes: Over the past few days my office has been called by a number of my constituents and, in fact, some members of the HEU with respect to the $200 million in savings achieved under Bill 37. These folks are asking if this money is going to disappear into a black hole of administration or exactly where will this money be spent.

To the Minister of Health Services: can he assure my constituents and members of the HEU that this money is not going to go to expand the health care administration and perhaps tell them exactly where will this money be directed?

Hon. C. Hansen: The good news is that all of the money that is saved as a result of Bill 37 will get directed into direct patient care throughout the province to meet real needs of real patients, including the 6,000 patients that had their surgeries cancelled.

In addition, I'd like to assure the member that we have given targets to each of the health authorities around the reduction in administration costs in the health authorities throughout the province, and I am pleased to advise the House that to date they have been able to save $97 million at the health authority level each year in administrative and support costs. All of that is being redirected into patient care.

In addition, I would also like to tell the House that within the Ministry of Health Services itself we have achieved savings of $43 million a year in administrative costs. Again, all of that money is being directed into direct patient care.

W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. It's interesting that it ties in with what the member for Cariboo North indicated.

I read the headline: "Cattlemen's Group, USDA Reach Agreement on Beef Import Case." Last August, as the member stated, the import ban of Canadian beef in the U.S. Department of Agriculture was adjusted to allow for some imports of our beef. It seems that as we are waiting for a complete lift of the ban, a group from the United States has sued the USDA, forcing them to reach an agreement that will not permit expanded exports of beef from British Columbia.

To the minister: does this agreement actually mean that my ranchers are going to see further delays in reopening the border for Canadian beef?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We are disappointed in the most recent decision of the USDA and the agreement that's been reached. It was a proposal based on science.

It is not the major decision that is under consideration right now by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The major issue that's under consideration is a declaration that Canada is a minimal-risk country. It also involves a proposed set of rules for the movement of live cattle and an expanded range of beef products. The comment period on this bigger issue closed on April 7. Canada, supported by the provinces — all of the provinces — made a submission before April 7. That issue is still under consideration by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We expect a decision shortly, and we are optimistic about the decision.

This is the bigger issue that's under consideration. Our government will continue to push to get the U.S. border fully opened and get back to a North American integrated beef market.

B. Locke: My question is to the Minister of Education. Even with the increased demands for trades, apprenticeship programs in high schools in my riding are still having a difficult time attracting students. We want to encourage parents and students to look at the viable career path that trades offer them, but unfortunately, some students still see trades as inferior to a university education.

B. Locke: Can the minister please tell the students and parents what options are available for students who would like to enter the trades and what we are doing to promote trades in the K-to-12 system?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers raises an important point. It's clear that the development of skills in trades programs in our public schools is an integral part of preparing our students for life after high school.

There are many good things going on in school districts around the province, whether it's the Career Technical Centre in Abbotsford, whether it's a number of trades programs in Surrey, or whether it's Project Heavy Duty up in the Nechako Lakes school district or in the Peace River South school district. All of these programs are providing opportunities for students to pursue their interests in trade-related programs.

We do face a continual challenge in that parents are often wary of encouraging their children to pursue trades.

Deputy Speaker: Member…. Leader of the Opposition, would you please come to order. Let's listen to the answer.

Hon. T. Christensen: Students, as well, don't necessarily recognize the opportunities that are available for them in trades. With the introduction of our new graduation requirements next fall that include a Planning 10 course, we're hoping that school districts will have an opportunity to better expose their students to the many opportunities that are arising in respect of the trades.

We certainly know in this province that as our economy expands, moving forward, the demand for those jobs is going to increase even more. Particularly as we head to 2010 and the Olympics there are going to be great opportunities for all of our students if they choose to pursue skills development.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the 2003 annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call estimates debate on the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

G. Trumper: Minister, I have some questions regarding a particular development that is being proposed in part of my constituency. It concerns a proposal by BCAL for a golf resort between Qualicum Bay and Bowser that is causing some concerns. The process is unclear, I think, to many people, regarding a project being proposed such as this. I wonder if you could possibly outline the process that takes place when a proposal like this is being proposed by British Columbia lands.

Hon. G. Abbott: The area in question that the member references is about 1,900 hectares. As a very large tract of undeveloped Crown land, Land and Water B.C. has, of course, been looking at it, particularly given the growth in terms of both population and economic development on Vancouver Island. They have been looking at that area, along with the regional district.

One of the ideas being assessed and discussed currently with the regional district of Nanaimo is the possibility of a phased resort and residential development. I emphasize "phased" because it is probably something being envisioned over approximately a 20-year time horizon. It's not necessarily an immediate sort of development. It certainly will be phased.

The staff at Land and Water B.C. have been in discussion with the regional district for, I think, well over a year now with respect to this. The regional district requested that there not be public consultations by Land and Water B.C. until they had concluded their official community plan review for that area, and Land and Water B.C. had acquiesced to that request.

They did have one opportunity to meet the public in conjunction with the regional district, but they're hoping in the weeks and months ahead to have more opportunities to meet with the public to discuss the suggestions that are contained in the current plan. It's a plan that we fully expect will evolve in some measure in response to public concerns and public ideas, so we'll look forward to hearing more from the public in the weeks and months ahead.

We are also hoping to continue the dialogue with the regional district. The regional district at this point has requested additional information in relation to the proposal. I think it will probably be something that is concluded over a matter of months, and we'll be looking forward to the finalization of the details required by the regional district of Nanaimo.

At some point, of course, the issue of whether the OCP would be revised and all of the issues around the precise details of the development — how it will move forward, how it will be serviced, how that servicing might coincide with the need for improved water and sewer servicing in adjacent areas…. All of these questions are ones that will be answered in consultation with both the regional district and the public in the months ahead.

G. Trumper: I wonder if the minister could outline what the process is when a site is being chosen by Water, Land and Air Protection as a possibility for use of Crown land for a proposal such as this — why that site would have been chosen and whether or not an assessment has been done on the value of that land.

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a number of reasons why this parcel is being considered for the proposed uses. Among them, and I guess it's an obvious one, is that it is a very large area of Crown land. Of course, if it wasn't Crown land, Land and Water B.C. would not be involved in this issue. So it's a very large block of Crown land, and it's in a very key location in terms of development possibilities. Clearly, that part of Vancouver Island is enjoying considerable growth.

It is a centre for tourism, a centre for new economic development and, certainly, an area where people look to retire. There are all kinds of factors in terms of the market character of the property that make it very attractive from a development perspective. A market and economic assessment of the property has been done, and that assessment concluded there was a need for at least an additional golf course and others in the future as well. The precise content of what will finally be agreed to with the regional district remains to be seen, but it is strategically a very important area.

In terms of the member's final question about appraisal, there will be at least one appraisal done. I suspect that with a property of this size and character and

importance, there is apt to be more than one appraisal, but there will be at least one appraisal done. That will be an appraisal that is done far closer to the end of this process than we are now. There is still a lot of work to be done with the regional district before the regional district ever actually formally considers the development plan, the OCP amendment and that sort of stuff. To do an appraisal now when it might be two, three, five or even ten years out before we see development occur…. It would probably not be a good expenditure of their dollars to do an appraisal now, but I guarantee you that at least one will be done.

G. Trumper: One of the issues that has been raised in this proposal is…. I ask whether or not, because although this proposal would be phased in, there are a large number of residences that would be involved with a proposal. When a proposal like this is put forward by Water, Land, and Air Protection, do they do any investigation as to what water is available — obviously, water has to be available for golf courses — for the consumer, those that will be moving in? The issue of water is a big issue on the east side of Vancouver Island, so with the number of people or families who would be moving in and the services that go with that, the question has been raised as to whether or not the amount of water that would be required is available.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's right. The issue of the availability, volume and quality of water is a very important issue in relation to this proposal. One of the issues that has been raised locally is whether the siting of the potential golf courses would be above the aquifer which some draw their water from. Some testing has been done there, and the results have been — I'll try to phrase this carefully — positive from the perspective of not being on top of that aquifer. The waters would not be affected, in short, by the current siting proposal for the golf courses.

The issue of how the area would find a water supply is also being looked at very carefully. Clearly, golf courses and residences and so on do require a great quantity of safe drinking water. We are going to ensure that that's in place as well. It's the hope, I think, of Land and Water B.C. that by working with the regional district and adjacent communities that what appears to be some deficiency now in terms of the infrastructure around water and sewer in that area…. By tying in with new development, there is some potential that a problem area in terms of infrastructure deficit might actually be turned around. The development could be a very positive addition to the area from that perspective as well.

G. Trumper: The area is forest land. Obviously the concern around this issue is the growth of settlement in that area. In the discussions that I have heard publicly and from individuals, they are not…. Because there has not been a great deal of public discussion with the various ministries present, etc., it's unclear how much of that land would be taken up by the development. Is it possible to give a ballpark figure on that?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's unfortunate in a lot of ways that in acquiescing to the regional district's request that no additional public interaction be undertaken until after they had completed their official community plan review, there's been a number of concerns arise. I think Land and Water B.C., now that they are able to do more in terms of public consultation, will be able to put some of the concerns — for example, the water concern — to rest very quickly.

I think one of the reasons why people on closer examination might find this to be attractive is that about only one-third of the 1,700 hectares will be fully developed. The balance will be green area, much of it remaining in trees and so on. It's anticipated that along with the golf courses or whatever ultimately is agreed to with the regional district and the public, we're looking at about 1,250 residences there. Those are included within the one-third development area as well.

There are going to be lots of opportunities in this proposal for the development of, I guess, what might be called local parks as well as green areas, buffer areas. Again, I think as we move forward with this and have an opportunity to hear the public's ideas and suggestions, this could become quite a remarkable win for both the existing community and for the future of British Columbia.

G. Trumper: I would thank the minister for his comments. I have one last question that I would like to ask.

I do hope sincerely that we will be having some more public meetings and consultations with the residents so they can make an informed decision on the direction that their community takes. I do believe that at the moment there's not enough information out there for people to make an informed decision whether they're in favour of the proposal or whether they're not. Certainly, I think you're aware that many people are very concerned about it.

The last question I would ask is: has there been any interest shown in this proposal by outside investors?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is yes. There is a good deal of interest by investors in Vancouver Island generally. There is, beyond that, significant interest in southern Vancouver Island and in this particular part of southern Vancouver Island, which is emerging as a tourism, recreation and retirement area. There is a great deal of interest in this property and in this area.

We do look forward to working with the public and the regional district, because again, I think a big part of the LWBC mandate is to ensure that as we strategically use Crown lands to further economic development in this province, we do it in a way that people feel they have been well served as well as seeing the economy well served. I thank you for that.

I just want to note to the Leader of the Opposition, if I may, hon. Chair, that one of our members has a

flight to catch. Would it be all right from her perspective if he had his questions, and then we can move on? Or is that a problem?

J. Wilson: I have a few questions for the minister around the grazing lease programs. It is my understanding that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management now is in charge of all grazing leases in the province.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. The management of grazing leases now…. The responsibility rests entirely with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. There are about 500 of those grazing leases in the province. However, one distinction that might be noted is that range permits continue to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests.

J. Wilson: My understanding of the grazing leases was that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management had a number under their control that had been permitted through Land and Water B.C. — or BCAL, as it was known before that — and that there were a number that were established under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests. Now they have all been put into one ministry. If I'm correct, do they all fall under the same set of guidelines or regulations as to the activities that go on out there?

G. Hogg: Joining us in the House at this very moment are 32 grade 5 students from Delta South. I am pleased to, on behalf of their member, introduce their teacher, Ms. Gonzalez; six parents; and these exciting students from Hawthorne Elementary School. They tell me Hawthorne is named after the tree. They've got all kinds of exciting comments that they've made. I'm sure the House will want to give them a robust, wholesome and exciting welcome to this Legislature and the wonderful debates that they're going to be able to watch for the next few minutes. Please welcome Hawthorne Elementary.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to explain this in a way that is useful for the member, because I can see how one could quickly get some confusion around the terminology here.

The grazing leases have, in fact, been in place since the early 1980s. That is the program that we now have exclusive responsibility for managing. There continues to be in place, as well, grazing permits and grazing licences, but those are distinct, and those are managed by the Ministry of Forests. The primary distinction, I'm advised by staff, between the leases which we manage and the permits and licences which remain with the Ministry of Forests is that the leases provide the right to exclusive use of the area. For example, the holder of the permit might fence an area in order to enjoy that exclusive use.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for his answer. I'm aware of the grazing licences and grazing permits. I understood that the Ministry of Forests had handed over a number of grazing leases that they had jurisdiction or control over to his ministry in the last little while here.

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is: there has not been a change with respect to the management of grazing leases since the early 1980s when they became the responsibility of BCAL, the predecessor to Land and Water B.C. There's been no change in respect of that. No leases have changed hands from the Ministry of Forests to LWBC. That piece has remained consistent. What has changed is that the responsibility for range management plans now rests exclusively with Land and Water B.C. within the ambit of MSRM, and it is no longer a mixed responsibility with the Ministry of Forests.

J. Wilson: On that note, since the grazing leases are now under the authority of MSRM or Land and Water B.C., does the monitoring of these fall under any of the regulations that we find in the Forest and Range Practices Act? Does the management out there coincide with the Forest and Range Practices Act, or does Land and Water B.C. have their own management plan designed for these leases?

Hon. G. Abbott: The mechanism that is principally used by Land and Water B.C. in managing the grazing leases is the range management plans. Those are the principal instrument for that. There are discussions that are currently on and are continuing with the Ministry of Forests and with Water, Land and Air Protection in respect of that intersection which the member asks about — with the FRPA, or Forest and Range Practices Act. We are still working through how that intersection will precisely occur, and that is the subject of continuing discussions between the ministries and the agencies.

J. Wilson: If the ministry is using a range management plan to run these leases, is that the same range management plan that is required under the old Forest Act or under the new Forest and Range Practices Act? A range management plan is filed there; it's required. Does the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management use that plan, or do they have their own range management plan or guidelines that the leaseholder can use?

Hon. G. Abbott: The management plans previously referenced have always been and continue to be a con-

tractual obligation on the part of the holders of those leases. What we are aiming for in our discussions, as I mentioned in the last question from the member, is that we're working with MOF and Water, Land and Air Protection to produce plans which will be consistent with the letter and objectives of the Forest and Range Practices Act.

J. Wilson: If we proceed down that road to make them consistent with the management plans of the Forest and Range Practices Act, which is designed for Crown land, not the…. These leases are not fee simple, but they do have a certain degree of autonomy over them. You can fence them. You can have more exclusive rights to them. If we take that approach, then we are in fact bringing all of the regulations around use on Crown land onto land that is closer to fee simple land.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I'll correct one thing. It is not Water, Land and Air Protection that's a part of the discussions with MOF and LWBC; it's the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. We erred there. That's the other party that is key in working through the process we're currently in.

The range leases certainly are on Crown land. One of the things that they enjoy as a part of the lease on Crown land, though, as I noted in my earliest answer, is the right of exclusive possession. They can fence it, etc., to ensure that right of exclusive protection. One of the elements that is key in terms of the discussions is that there is no expectation on anyone's part that that right of exclusive possession will be given up by the leaseholder. That's one of the reasons why it's not a simple task providing for that intersection between the range leases and FRPA and one of the reasons why, obviously, there has to be a different management regime with respect to those leases than there would be for most other instances on Crown land.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for that. On the same issue, a little different angle here on leases. I understand that Land and Water B.C. was attempting to devolve themselves of these leases. What is in place at present as to options further down the road — whether they have put in place purchase options or continued lease options? What have they arrived at in that area?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can advise the member that while there have been some very preliminary discussions with respect to those possibilities, the discussions have been exclusively focused around just what the options are in respect to that. There are a range of issues that would slow that down, including first nations issues, potentially environmental issues that might be identified by Water, Land and Air Protection, the issue of affordability to leaseholders in the agricultural community and any sort of purchase option. While Land and Water B.C. is certainly happy to continue preliminary discussions of that character, we are some distance from any sort of agreement that might lead to the change the member suggested.

J. Wilson: I have another question here. It's got to do with, I guess, the assessment authority, which is under the minister's control. This came up when we were dealing with a grazing lease attached to some private land that was purchased by an environmental organization. The ministry was of the mind that they should sell the environmental organization the grazing lease. When we looked into it, we found out something that….

Some of the producers in the area were a little upset that we would let them buy land this way and just set it aside for no real purpose other than to go back to nature. What we discovered was that environmental organizations can purchase land and then get tax exemptions on it. They are tax-free on it. They are classified as providing good for the community and these sorts of things, so they fall into a tax-exempt group according to the regulations or the policy we've designed.

A lot of our rural and interior communities have been finding it rather difficult to make ends meet for some time. Every time you take a piece of private property out of their tax base, you erode their tax base. It makes it harder to keep our schools open. It makes it harder to maintain our infrastructure, because that tax base starts to dwindle.

We found that in the Cariboo region there were 36 properties owned by conservation groups. I know a few of these, and some of them are large places. For instance, Ducks Unlimited bought Randolph Mulvahill out up at Chezacut. Randolph used to run 300 mother cows.

These people sell out. They're going to sell out. They retire That's their investment, so they sell to the highest bidder. When an organization comes along with lots of money, they end up buying it. If you take that production out of the system, it's not there, and it becomes more difficult to maintain a rural infrastructure.

We find we've got 36 of these, and any that pay property taxes only do it when they lease it back to a commercial operation. Say a neighbour wants to lease part of that land for agriculture production or grazing, they could do that.

A number of people — I won't say everyone — have expressed the opinion that this doesn't seem quite right and that there should be a review done of this practice. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of it or if he is considering maybe looking at some of the non-profits and their tax exemptions. I know Revenue Canada has done that. They've said to Greenpeace, not too long ago, I believe: "You are no longer considered to be a non-profit, tax-exempt organization."

Has the minister considered looking at these policies and maybe changing them to help those communities maintain some of their tax base?

Hon. G. Abbott: I understand from staff that there have been a few, but actually very few, sales of these

kinds of leases to environmental organizations for conservation purposes. The sale is contemplated only in instances where, arguably, there are unique or unusual environmental values that need to be protected. In terms of the exemption, it is probable that any exemption they enjoyed would come under the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. In that case, the issue about whether they would receive an exemption is established through the regulations and statutory provisions associated with that act.

In terms of the concern raised by the member on the diminution of agricultural capability in the region as a consequence of these leases moving out of active agricultural production, I think that's a very legitimate concern. It's a concern that I recognize, that our government recognizes, and it is very unlikely that we will see more sales of this character in the future. I guess we can't say definitively that there never will be, because we may be confronted by some unique or highly unusual circumstance that might suggest that that was a good idea. But we acknowledge the member's concern, and generally speaking, we won't be seeing more of this type of sale of agricultural leases for conservation purposes.

D. Jarvis: I would like to ask the minister a question. I'll yield later if the member of the opposition comes in, because she wants to continue some discussions.

An important issue in the Fraser Valley with regards to the gravel in the rivers and the Fraser Valley gravel removal…. Has there been a risk assessment done on that? If so, what were the results, and what is the strategy for dealing with the federal DFO on that? I wonder if you could answer me those questions at the moment.

Hon. G. Abbott: We certainly would welcome any questions in respect of that. The issue of gravel extraction from watercourses…. Fraser is probably the most notable one, but certainly it is not the only one where gravel extraction is an ongoing issue.

In its broadest sense, the issue is about gravel deposition as well as gravel extraction. Every year in watercourses right across the province, streams and creeks and rivers move into freshet as the winter snows melt. When those winter snows move from the mountains down into the valleys and as the watercourses slow down, the gravel, sand, and so on that are picked up during freshet are deposited into the base of the watercourse.

What we see over time — and I'll get the precise figures, certainly for the Fraser and perhaps for some of the other watercourses as well — is a huge volume of material that is deposited every year. Unless we take some actions on an ongoing basis to see gravel extraction, the base of the river builds up and the exposure to flooding is magnified every year. While we have been fortunate in recent years in British Columbia, generally speaking — we haven't been with fire, but in terms of flood, water has come off in a way that has not produced floods — we can't necessarily hope that that condition is going to continue in our favour into the foreseeable future.

As a consequence, what we have been working on and I think making some good progress on…. I'm certainly looking forward to any questions members may have with respect to this. We are, for the first time in some time, making some very good progress with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans in trying to move towards a management regime for rivers in British Columbia that would see gravel extraction permits available on an annual basis. It's so that, optimally, we are taking in gravel extraction something akin to what is deposited on an annual basis, thereby hopefully keeping down or perhaps even lowering the threat of floods from year to year in the Fraser and other important rivers in British Columbia.

I will get the detail for the member as his questions come forward. Generally, I think we are not there yet, but we are getting closer. There was a reasonably good agreement for this year. We're hoping for better agreements in the future. What I would very much like to see as a minister is that in the future we have something like the cutting-permit system in our forests where there is always, in hand, a volume of extraction permits. It's so that, depending on the circumstances year to year, we're still going to be able to get in and extract a volume of material to help prevent the risk of flood.

D. Jarvis: Thank you to the minister, who is never short of words anyway. You pretty well answered all the questions that were necessary. In actual fact, I was asking that question specifically for the benefit of the member from Chilliwack, who has shown me pictures of those areas where there are growing problems in regards to the fact that they won't allow them to remove the gravel.

Fortunately, I guess our saving grace at this point is…. Perhaps if you are aware — if you've got the figures on the lack of water, probably, or the snowpack behind us — that we're not going to be faced with…. Is there any evidence to show — these rivers where the problems arise, especially up in the Chilliwack area — if there is any potential damage coming from the spring freshets, I guess?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his questions. I never realized that I could answer so many questions with just one answer. I'll try not to be so thorough in the future.

The issue of volumes is, I think, an important one. The technical experts reckon that there's probably something — and it'll vary from year to year — in the neighbourhood of 500,000 cubic metres deposited annually in the Fraser. Because there has not been a good management regime in place up to recent years — and really up to today, I guess, in truth — to have annual extraction of anything like that volume, I think we have some backlog we need to deal with as well.

Last year Land and Water B.C. sought 785,000 cubic metres in gravel extraction permits. We were not able to secure that much. It was less than that, but at least there was some gravel extraction undertaken in strategic areas last year. As I've said, we do hope to build on that. We hope to secure, through our renewed cooperation with DFO, a five-year agreement to see further comprehensive gravel extraction in the Fraser area. Again, it's not the only area of concern, but it's a very important one.

The issue moving forward, I think…. One of the reasons why I can be relatively optimistic today is that we are enjoying a level of cooperation among the parties that has simply not been there in the past. It's not only the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Local governments are very much engaged around the issues with respect to gravel extraction. They realize the importance of this for their communities. Many of them have dike systems that are expensive to maintain, and having an ongoing gravel extraction process is important to them for preserving that dam and diking infrastructure.

As well, first nations are now very much aware and very much a part of the efforts to put together the five-year plans. Again, occasionally in the past there was, from some first nations, resistance to gravel extraction, but that is changing, and changing in a very positive way. They are certainly a very important part of moving forward and getting that five-year program of gravel extraction. Of course, it's going to be a rolling five-year program, so it's really ongoing into the future. We are looking very much forward to securing that kind of working basis with all of the partners that come into play with respect to gravel extraction.

The member asks a very important question with respect to flood risk in the year 2004. The responsibility for monitoring this rests with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and with the water comptroller in Land and Water B.C., so we have a pretty good idea of where we sit in terms of that important issue.

The good news is that we don't anticipate that there is going to be high flood risk in 2004. As of this point — I guess we're in early May — it is unlikely that we would see major flooding events in the province this year.

That having been said, because I've had a few of them in my own constituency unexpectedly at times like July and so on, the risk of a flash or localized flood is always there. Sometimes there are circumstances which give rise to those localized events. Based on the snowpack, we don't anticipate…. With the amount of melt we have seen already and the very warm weather in April, it is unlikely, with the residual snowpack, that we face a large danger of flood from the remaining snowpack.

While there's variation across the province, coastal areas are, I guess, about average in terms of the winter snowpack in the most recent measurement. There are large areas of the province where we are well below what is the normal snowpack. In some places, in fact — I think actually in many places — the snowpack is now at 60 percent of normal. That is not a concern from a flood perspective but actually a great concern from the opposite perspective. That is: are we going to have sufficient flows in our creeks and rivers in June, July, August, September and October of 2004 to manage the many diversified water needs that exist in this province?

We are very much concerned as a ministry — and I think that's shared across government at this point — about our water management for 2004-05 and onward. Perhaps one of these days the skies will open up, and we'll have a month-long rain. From our perspective in terms of drought management, that would be a very welcome thing. We don't expect it.

Again, this goes to the importance of all communities, all water system purveyors, etc., marshalling their water resources very carefully — and if they haven't already begun, beginning it very soon. There is a very real danger of a protracted drought in 2004. If that occurs, we — those purveyors, those municipalities, our province — are all going to have to make some extremely difficult decisions around the allocation of water resources.

This is not a hysterical or alarmist cry here. What we saw in 2003 in some communities, particularly in the southern Okanagan but elsewhere in the interior as well, was something that should give us pause in terms of moving forward in the future.

I'll use the example of Summerland. Summerland, in August, came very close to running out of water. The first difficult decision they had to make was how much they would give for irrigation purposes for the farm community. I think ultimately the water supply was so low that that had to be cut off. The next very difficult decision they had to make was: how much do they continue to let flow through the stream system below the dam to preserve fish stocks? I think there's some concern about that from DFO and others, that insufficient water flowed through, but the city had to make a very difficult call, a very difficult decision, about protecting domestic water supplies. People need to drink; they didn't want to lose that. That became a very difficult situation. Again, we have to marshal our resources in 2005 very carefully to prevent that kind of scenario from occurring again.

I know of a second example. In 100 Mile House there was a loss of water. Again, it was a very difficult situation for them. They came to government looking for assistance to find a new water source.

These are issues which we're going to have to continue to work on with communities. Hopefully, we are going to be able to assist in ensuring that water management plans and drought management plans are in place so that we can continue to make the best use of water and ensure people in British Columbia have adequate drinking water supplies.

G. Cheema: I'm pleased to introduce 50 grade 4 students, their parents and their teachers, Ms. Petersen and Ms. Anderson, who are visiting us from W.E. Kinvig Elementary School from my riding. These are very bright students, and they were asking me a number of questions. I want to wish them all the best, and I would like the House to please make them very welcome in this building.

D. Jarvis: I assume from that answer that you gave me last — you put a little fright in us — that we can expect a raise in the water rentals in this province. In any event, my actual question to you is…. Basically, your ministry is in charge of the gravel extraction and prevention of flooding and all the rest of it but is having problems getting down to a system or — how would you put it? — a compliance that would be agreeable to you and the DFO. Who in the end takes the responsibility, in the event of that failure to remove the gravel in an area that you have been advised about by a municipality or individuals, if there is a flood?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. It is a good one, and I will try to be relatively brief this time in terms of….

When a flood event occurs, it triggers the resources of the provincial emergency program. The PEP officials and the crews which they hire would go in and attempt to control and, to the best of their ability, do an immediate remediation in terms of the situation that faced them. In short, they try to manage the immediate crisis.

Depending on the size and severity of the event, the resources of the federal government may be triggered. I don't have the precise threshold point with me, but at some point when it becomes a larger event, the federal aid is triggered. I believe the province at that point might be able to access some considerable federal resources to deal with the matter.

In terms of the allocation of responsibilities around floods, while PEP responds, Water Land and Air Protection has responsibility with respect to monitoring flood levels and issuing warnings should they become an alarming level. Our responsibility through Land and Water B.C. is to provide tenure for gravel removal. Again, this is more on the preventive side of things rather than the reacting-to-the-event kind of approach.

So we have to work, as I noted, in the first instance with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans but also with local governments, first nations and so on and private property owners, in some instances, to try to arrange a suitable tenuring regime so that we can get a good ongoing management of gravel deposition and gravel extraction.

The final point I'll make, though, is that the federal jurisdiction is very clear with respect to gravel extraction. The province cannot proceed on its own with respect to this. We have to work with the federal jurisdiction, primarily through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Their approvals must be secured. It's our view that by working proactively with DFO, we are going to be able to get the permitting regime that we need.

When the system fails — and I think this was the member's final question — when there is a flood and people have anticipated it for some time, who is responsible? That is a question that can't be answered on a global basis. I think the question of liability, responsibility, is one that would have to be looked at on a site-specific basis. It's really impossible to make generalizations with respect to the allocation of responsibility in that sort of event.

D. Jarvis: Earlier I said I was asking some of these questions on behalf of the member from Chilliwack. Actually it was Chilliwack-Kent, who is watching us now and who just advised me so. He is not here due to an operation, as we all know. He is probably there watching us now, lying on his stomach, I presume. In any event, as you know, that member is quite involved in the hydro aspect or water licences, and he was asking if you could give him an update as to the number of water licences being applied for — you know, for potential small hydro projects — if you were aware of that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to respond to the member's question, which I understand was posed on behalf of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who I hope is recovering very quickly from his back surgery. I'm sure that it's entirely unpleasant and that he'd love to be in the chamber here asking the question directly, but I will certainly do my best to answer it.

First of all, I do know that the member for Chilliwack-Kent, the member from Chilliwack and, indeed, members up and down the Fraser Valley have all been very forceful with me in terms of the importance of putting flood protection in place. I know that in the case of green energy proposals, the member for Chilliwack-Kent is certainly a leader and advocate there, so I'm very pleased to provide some information to him with respect to this. I know he sees this as very much a part of a viable future for British Columbia.

In terms of the water licences for the specific purpose that the member was asking — and if we are incorrect in this, I will certainly welcome him asking another question and getting additional information — we understand that the interest is in the area of small independent power projects. There have been 264 applications tendered to Land and Water B.C. to date

under that program area; 52 of those 264 are currently under active consideration by the corporation, and to this point, some 50 licences have actually been issued.

D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could tell us…. He's got quite a backlog there, I guess. How are you progressing, or are we making any progress on these applications?

Hon. G. Abbott: The number of interested proponents is, as the member notes, very considerable at this point in time. In order to manage these files in an appropriate way, the corporation has prioritized the applications. The principal way in which they prioritize them is to separate out those projects or proposed projects that have B.C. Hydro purchase agreements in place. That is probably the best indicator from our perspective of what is likely to succeed and what is not.

In order to move forward with as many projects and as quickly as we can, Land and Water B.C. has formed a team with B.C. Hydro to work on these applications and to ensure that the most viable of the applications move forward in a timely way. LWBC now has a director for independent power projects, who, again, plays a very important role in working with Hydro to ensure that sound decisions are made in respect of those applications.

We estimate the value of the projects that have been approved to date at about $250 million, but we are just in the early stages, I think, of recognizing the real potential for those small green energy projects. Again, we estimate that in the years ahead, there will be several billion in new investment as a consequence of investment in those small hydro-based projects.

A final point — because I think it reflects both our government's commitment to economic development and to working with first nations to ensure that they become a growing part of our provincial economy: it is more than satisfactory to note that there are a number of partnerships between first nations and private companies on these IPPs. Certainly, we hope that's a pattern that will be strengthened in the future, because it's important not only to work to ensure that first nations concerns are resolved but, where we can, we certainly welcome those kinds of partnerships between first nations and independent power producers.

D. Jarvis: With this method of technology we have now, the member for Chilliwack-Kent would like permission to make an introduction, and I would like to make it on his behalf.

D. Jarvis: On behalf of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, in the balcony today is the Highroad Academy from the Chilliwack area — from Chilliwack-Kent, I assume. There are 48 grade 10 and 11 students. They're with their teachers Ms. Julie Lade, Ms. Kristi Caruthers, Mr. Andy King and Mr. John Munro. Would everyone please make them welcome.

D. Jarvis: What kind of environmental review is done on these applications? There's such a backlog that I assume the environmental review is on the premise that those who have licences first, etc….

Hon. G. Abbott: Like the member from North Vancouver, I also want to welcome the school group. I've been in the House for a while, but I think it's the first time I have ever seen an introduction in absentia, which is quite exceptional. The member broke some new ground today, and one always welcomes that.

In terms of the member's question with respect to the approval processes, the environmental testing and so on around IPPs, it's important to note, first of all, depending on the size of the project that, for example, if the plant is beyond 50 megawatts — and I think the threshold is 50 megawatts — it triggers an environmental assessment office review.

Actually, many proponents very much like the EAO process. It is now a very efficient process, a maximum 180-day turnaround. And all of the issues, environmental and others, are very well researched and analyzed through the EAO process. One of the most notable examples is the Forrest Kerr project up in northern British Columbia, which is certainly going to be an effective independent power producer for that part of the world.

For smaller IPPs — those under 50 megawatts, generally speaking — the application is reviewed by Land and Water B.C. staff. They look at issues like the availability of water. It's certainly important that we not create a difficult situation through a new project, so we look at availability of water. We look at the impact on fish supplies in the water body — again, an important issue. We look at the aquatic biology of the stream or the river to ensure that the aquatic biology will not be upset as a consequence of the installation of the facility.

We would look at adjacent land uses — again, attempting to ensure as well as we might that the addition of the IPP did not in any way diminish the interests or resources that some other user of the water system enjoyed currently. So that's important. A final note is that in every instance, consideration of an IPP project always, importantly, involves consideration, discussion and consultation with first nations in the province, recognizing our constitutional responsibilities in that respect.

D. Jarvis: Just so that the visitors to the galleries realize what I'm doing, I'm the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, asking questions on behalf of their hard-working MLA in Chilliwack, who is laid up

at home with a back injury. He's communicating with us through a little bit of a technology situation.

On behalf of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister a question in regard to wind power and his recent changes in policy to the Crown land leases for potential wind projects. Could he maybe elaborate somewhat about the differences between the new policy versus the old one? I'll ask another question later.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises a good question for the member for Chilliwack-Kent. I'll try, at least, to give a good initial response here, because I suspect it will probably produce additional questions. The area of wind-generated power is a new area of public policy. It is, I think, during the tenure of our government that we are first seeing some of the real possibilities around the generation of wind power for power production for domestic and other uses in the province being initially realized.

It's a new area, and there are at least two parts of government that are working on fleshing out public policy around the generation of wind power. The Ministry of Energy and Mines has the lead with respect to the overall energy plan. Of course, wind power was one of the areas identified in that energy plan that was brought forward by Energy and Mines. They have the lead. Our responsibility in terms of Land and Water B.C. and to a lesser extent, I guess, MSRM is operational policy and tenuring — tenuring being, obviously, a very important component of this.

What's going to be happening in the weeks ahead? Both MEM and LWBC are working on policy in their respective areas. We expect that within a few weeks the ministers of both ministries of government will be coming together and that we will be integrating those elements into an overall wind power policy for British Columbia.

We have been, and MEM has been, very engaged with industry proponents in developing that policy. Obviously, the industry interest in this area has grown enormously in recent years, and this is not typical. It is certainly atypical, but I think it does give the member an indication of the growing volume of interest in this area.

In one month at the Smithers office of Land and Water B.C. we had 27 separate applications for wind power projects. Again, while not every office had 27 applications in one month, Smithers is one of the areas that wind power is of particular interest. I guess because of the climatic conditions there, there's a lot of interest. I know there's a lot of interest on northern Vancouver Island and in the Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii area as well.

We'll be pulling that more detailed public policy together in the weeks ahead. We do look forward to seeing this unique form of new green energy — wind power — becoming an important component in providing the power needs for a growing British Columbia in the years ahead.

D. Jarvis: In view of all these many expressions of interest that have come forward, can you tell us: is that since the rules have been changed? Or is it…?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the question in absentia from the member for Chilliwack-Kent, the answer is that prior to current days there had not been a lot of rules around wind power. Wind power was largely an ignored area of public energy policy in British Columbia until very recently, so there were not a lot of rules. Frankly, there was not a lot of interest until recent years with respect to that.

I think one of the important trigger points in terms of the now very substantial interest in wind power as a new green energy source was the release of the new energy policy by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the government of British Columbia. That was key. Similarly, the commitment by Land and Water B.C. and the Ministry of Energy and Mines to providing certainty around rules and providing a favourable investment climate — those are key pieces in terms of making wind power now very much a viable part of our future for energy in British Columbia.

There have been — again, in fairness in terms of fleshing out the entire picture here — remarkable changes in the technology in very recent years for wind power. We believe that wind power represents a great opportunity for us not only to fulfill our domestic needs, but we have an opportunity, as well, to see a new cluster industry around wind power. We also have the opportunity to see export volumes generated through wind power.

Again, the best indication that this area of energy production has a future is that there is a lot of capital and investment that's interested in it. If it didn't have a real and viable future, I don't believe we'd be seeing the kind of interest that we are, particularly in those areas of the province where wind exists as a resource to generate power.

I know I invariably go on too long here, but I do want to mention a little story of going up to Quatsino. We were going up to actually meet with the first nations and the community and so on around the Quatsino subregional plan. When I was up there, I met with the chief of the Quatsino Indian band and the mayor and so on of the community. They are all very excited about the future of wind power generation on the northern end of Vancouver Island. In fact, the first nation in that case is investing in an enterprise that will, hopefully, in the future see the generation of wind-produced power for that part of the world.

It's just a great opportunity here for communities, particularly rural communities, and for first nations to invest with entrepreneurs in this area to produce a product that will meet our energy needs and also, hopefully, produce profits, opportunities and jobs for them. This can be a great win-win for British Columbia, and we are very much looking forward to seeing all of the opportunities here realized in the future.

I just got a little note on this. There are now two major wind power projects in the environmental assessment office review process. That indicates, first of all, that they're substantial projects. They are also making an investment to ensure that wind power is undertaken in a way that will fit very well into the social and environmental sustainability framework that is necessary in this province.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for his short answer on that one. That's good. The public is well aware, and so is the member for Chilliwack-Kent.

One other question, minister. There's been a lot of talk around lately about the Site C dam and B.C. Hydro considering building the Site C dam. I was wondering if the minister could confirm whether this project would have…. What environmental concerns would they have to go through, or will they have to go through?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to be careful in my response to this particular question in relation to Site C. We don't have carriage as a ministry with any future potential of that area of the world that is often referred to as Site C. The only thing I could note, because they are in relation to my ministry, is that it's obviously a large and complex project that's likely — I can't imagine it not — to trigger a review from the environmental assessment office.

There are issues with respect to agricultural land reserve lands. There are issues around a range of areas. I, though, can't even advise the member of what level of consideration is underway. It is a question, in fairness, which is probably best addressed by the Minister of Energy and Mines. My ignorance is largely unblemished in this area, and I intend to keep it that way.

D. Jarvis: I assume, then, that they don't wish to talk at all about any thoughts of future Hydro exploring of Site C and that it's going to be left in abeyance to a point. I was concerned, because I know that the Alberta government was concerned about it. A lot of people were concerned about it in regards to the question of a thorough environmental search on it.

Following the minister after that, I'm going to ask the member for Surrey–Green Timbers.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sure the Minister of Energy and Mines would be delighted to respond at length to any question the member may have in question period or elsewhere or in future estimates with respect to this project. I would just note that none of the agencies or the ministry itself is engaged on issues around Site C at this point in time.

Just let me conclude by thanking the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for the insightful, thoughtful questions that he was posing — I would gather with some BlackBerry assistance from the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who I wish a speedy recovery to.

G. Halsey-Brandt: I just have a few brief questions this afternoon dealing with the B.C. Assessment Authority and the assessment of property. My questions cover two areas. One is the annual assessment of property, and the second one is more around the policy of setting classifications of property.

On the first area, as I understand it, since the evolution of the B.C. Assessment Authority when it was divided up around the province — I think it was done municipally — the assessment authority, in a sense, carries out those assessments on behalf of the municipalities, the regional districts and other taxing powers of British Columbia. The cost of those assessments is paid for through property tax by property owners. It's passed on directly to them, and it's not part of your budget.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope I've captured the member's question correctly. I understand the question to relate to how the assessment authority covers the costs of its operations. That is done by the application of a levy, which is approved on an annual basis by cabinet. The levy is collected by local governments and by the surveyor of taxes. That is thereafter remitted to the B.C. Assessment Authority, and the costs of the operations are covered in that way.

G. Halsey-Brandt: My questions really relate to a couple of areas of concern that have been expressed to me this year by some of the residents in my constituency. One is over the number of assessors. They believe they haven't got the time and probably not the number of assessors they should have.

My question is that if that's passed on, it's just a flow-through to the taxpayers. If we need more assessors, that's not a direct expense out of your estimates. In a sense it is, but the money flows through from the taxpayers, so the assessment authority can add more assessors or fewer assessors, depending on the demand, the number of properties and the complications of doing each assessment. They should be able to be flexible. It's not related to the provincial budget, if you will, and the constraints we're under.

Hon. S. Brice: We are joined in the House today by a grade 6 class from Langley Meadows Elementary School, along with their teacher, Ms. Copley, and parents, Ms. Crockart, Ms. Hope, Mr. Mathew, Ms. Toth and Mr. Harris. On behalf of the member from Langley I welcome them to this Legislature and ask all members to show our appreciation for their interest in the work of the Legislature.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. We have enjoyed, as I think the member knows

and the House knows, some quite unprecedented growth in British Columbia in the last couple of years, in relation to both the number of folios and the value of those folios and so on. One of the consequences of dramatic growth through new construction and a large number of sales is that it does create challenges for B.C. Assessment in terms of keeping up with all the changes in the marketplace and additions to the marketplace. I don't have the figure in front of me with respect to the value of that, but it's substantial. Perhaps I can get it for the member as we move forward here today. I know it's very, very substantial — the growth in values and number of folios and so on in this province.

That does, as I noted, create challenges for B.C. Assessment. They are able to meet those challenges by, at the peak periods, hiring on temporary staff so that they don't fall behind in terms of the management of their responsibilities. They have been able to, at this point, manage through the upswing in the demand area, and they'll continue to move forward in that way to meet demand and ensure that we have fair, balanced and equitable assessments notwithstanding any demand curve upwards in the months and years ahead.

G. Halsey-Brandt: To the minister: I have two others in that area. Thank you for that answer. I appreciate it. We really have had a growth spurt, particularly in the lower mainland and greater Vancouver. I'm sure the number of folios has increased, plus the complexity of those appraisals.

My questions. One is on residential appraisals, and the next one is on farms. On the residential one, I've had a number of, I guess, concerns from residents over whether a residence is assessed on the finished floor area, let's say, of a residential building or whether it's, in fact, the whole building and property.

The concerns that I have had expressed to me are that a number of houses have been completed where perhaps they left the basement or the bottom unfinished, and we got a square footage through the building permit process — perhaps through to the assessment authority. There may be some inspections done. Certainly, the upstairs or a portion of it is finished. That's what the appraisal is made on — a square footage basis in terms of the value of that home. Then the homeowners, as they would normally do, finish them off in subsequent years. Because, I assume, we don't actually go into houses very often, if ever, some of those assessments stay at the square footage they were first assessed at in terms of the finished area of those homes, when in fact, over the years, they have finished the houses off, and the value is much higher because it's all finished.

We run into problems with that when a property is sold in the neighbourhood and it comes in at a much higher price. We find that's because the whole house was finished. In fact, others have been finished over the years in the neighbourhood, but their assessment is much lower because they have records going back to 1975 or 1980, when only a portion of the house was recorded as being finished. Now, of course, today, the whole house has been finished. We have an inequity side by each from houses that are on the same street or the same cul de sac, and it appears to be related to the problem of finished area.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises some very good points with respect to the challenges that are faced by the assessment authority as it attempts to keep itself as current as it can in relation to real values of residential properties. The member is right. As the properties are remodelled, changed, finished and so on, those all can add to the challenge of keeping the valuation accurate and current.

There are a number of strategies, though, that are undertaken by staff at the assessment authority to achieve just that. Every year, they look at the value of the whole house, at the condition as it exists as of October 31 of every year. There is also a periodic review of properties to ensure that the inventory remains as accurate as possible. Again, there are always going to be some marginal areas where it may not be entirely accurate, but they do periodic reviews, including on-sites, to ensure that the inventory remains accurate. They also, of course, follow property sales very closely, as that's a good indicator of real values of property in areas. Also, they follow the permits that are generated so that they have a pretty good idea of what areas changes are being made in and stock is being upgraded.

The combination of all of those things…. Again, recognizing that it's never going to be entirely faultless or a completely precise science, they do get as close as they can to ensuring that we have fair and equitable values assigned to those properties.

G. Halsey-Brandt: My next question, as I mentioned, is on farm status. As I understand the system…. I had a meeting this year with the chair of the assessment appeal board — or the assessment appeal panel. I don't know the exact title. She was retiring, and she said to me that one of the major problems they have in dealing with farms is…. I think the way the system works is that every year, the assessment authority, whether it's random selection or whatever, sends out some letters to a certain number of farms in our community. The letter, I guess, states that the property owner must either come in or somehow communicate to the assessment authority that, yes, they are still in the farming business and therefore not a small holding or some other sort of classification.

I guess a lot of the farmers are either down south for the winter or busy or something like that. Not all of them appear to open the letter. Then they're taken off the roll as farm and reclassified as something else. Even when they find out and come back to appeal, they can't do anything. They miss that whole year, and they have to come back and get back on the farm roll the next year, which, if that process is correct, creates a lot of frustration for the farmers and, I'm sure, for our employees in the assessment authority, as well, who have to go through all this work.

I'm just wondering, is that the correct process? Is that where the problem lies? If so, is there another way that we can do this, in terms of following up with phone calls or whatever with the farmers to make sure that they did in fact open the correspondence — at least to understand the question they have been asked and the seriousness of not responding to the notification?

Hon. G. Abbott: Those who are engaged in active farming in British Columbia can, if they have applied and been accepted, enjoy quite a considerable tax benefit from being recognized as active farmers in the assessment process. But the tax benefit is aimed at active farmers. It is not aimed at those who are, for example, just enjoying living on a large acreage but not actively farming it and producing agricultural products. In order for it to be fair, to ensure that those who are actually farming are the ones that enjoy the benefit, there does need to be a process of some sort whereby, on an ongoing basis — sometimes annually, sometimes less frequently than that — the authority can be assured that, in fact, people continue to be active farmers and thereby continue to enjoy that significant beneficial tax rate from the province.

The member does, though, raise a good point. Is the present system we have — where people are advised by mail that they should respond before October 31 to ensure that their beneficial rate continues — the best way? That's a question, actually, that we're asking ourselves. At this point we haven't been apprised of a better way of doing it, but we are reviewing the process at this very time. We certainly would welcome any suggestions that farmers or others might have as to how we could do this better.

B. Kerr: I would just like to reinforce what my colleague from Richmond Centre has said and possibly put a real live example to this. There was a farmer, and he was asked by way of letter to respond. He was to respond by October 31. He was away. He got back and was asked to respond by October 31. They claimed they had sent the letter in time. Apparently, the response wasn't received until November 7. That essentially doubled their tax. It was an extra $10,000 penalty for this one-week delay.

I phoned up the assessment authority. I spoke to them and said: "Was it in fact a farm?" They said yes. "Was it a farm this year?" "Yes." "Was it a farm last year?" "Yes it was, but he didn't give his letter to us on time." There is no recourse for that, and that is one of the problems. For that seven-day delay, that person received a $10,000 fine, and there was no recourse. The assessment authority told me that that is very common. That happens quite frequently — not infrequently. It's very common.

I really think we should be addressing this in the light of fairness for my particular constituent and certainly for all the constituents in B.C. As the minister said, the idea is not to allow people who are living on a large property to get away without paying fair tax. But if they truly are acting as a farm, then I think the process shouldn't be so punitive for missing the reporting deadline by what could be just a few days.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising his constituent's issue here. I think the example he cites is a very good one in underlining the importance of the review that we are currently undertaking with respect to this matter. I think the object of the exercise here is not to be punitive. It is not to have bona fide farmers lose their exemption — but, again, recognizing the challenge that the authorities have in managing the issue of who is a legitimate farmer and who is not.

The current difficulty is — this goes to why we're having the review — that the assessor under current law has little or no flexibility in respect to the issue. The Assessment Act and other related statutes come into play with respect to the time and so on. I appreciate the member bringing the case forward, because I think it strengthens the importance of, in fact, us moving forward and identifying some ways that we can put…. I don't know whether it's an issue of the time frame or if it's an issue of the format or what it might be, but we would certainly very much welcome…. If the member wants to contact me or the assessment authority with any ideas he might have — I know he has some expertise in this area — we'd certainly welcome any suggestions he might make about how we can do this better. I think the last thing we want to do is be bound by a statute in a way that produces an unfairness.

G. Halsey-Brandt: My question to the minister is — and I have talked with him briefly about this some time ago: what, really, is the process? I want to talk a bit about the policy changes now in terms of classifications and concerns and issues.

If we have a group of taxpayers, whether it's things around the strata issue, which I've been dealing with in my community and some other communities around, or whether it's hotels or whatever…. If there is a concern with the classification system that we have…. We're talking about policy now. I understand, obviously, your ministry looks after the policy part for the government. We also have the board of the B.C. Assessment Authority, and perhaps you could help me on this one in terms of what their role is in this whole system. Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services has a role in the sense of dealing with municipalities. The Ministry of Finance, I'm sure, has an interest in this process.

The reason I raise this with you…. Obviously, it's a real concern for me. I know that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, as well, and a number of others have concerns over hotels and shopping centres and this sort of thing — trying to direct our taxpayers as to how they work through the system. Their first stop is usually the municipality. Of course, they send them to the province and things get more and more complicated for them. I wondered if you could just spend a

minute and outline in terms of your ministry what the process is that these people should go through to get a resolution to their problem.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises a number of important questions there. I want to provide him with as thorough a response as I can. Unfortunately, at this point in time I know we have some additional House business which we have to deal with. If I can get the forgiveness of the member, I'll address his very good question in some detail on Monday at the next sitting of the House, Mr. Chair.

At this point, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

B. Kerr: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the new Securities Act. I can't remember the last time the Securities Act has been changed. I know it's a number of years ago, and we've certainly seen a tremendous number of changes in the business world since the last securities act came out. It's good to see we're coming out with a new act that takes into account today's era as opposed to something that was happening 30 or 40 years ago.

Not quite 40 years ago, but certainly 20 and 15 years ago, in the 1970s and '80s, I was a chartered accountant. I was acting in public practice and had a lot to do with the Securities Commission and the Securities Act, as a number of my clients were small-cap public companies, as we called it around the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

There was a lot of work that had to be done in that regard. It was working closely with lawyers. There was a tremendous amount of disclosure that had to be done. It was very time-consuming and very costly, but you know, it was great for lawyers and accountants. A lot of the underwritings were quite small, but regardless of the size of the underwriting, you still had to go through the prospectus or, as the case may be, if it was a re-issue of stocks, a statement of material facts. The statement of material facts was almost identical to going through a prospectus. It was pages and pages of documents. You had to have the financial statements done. You had to have disclosure in every aspect of the company. You had to have disclaimers. You had to have technical reports for the business. Even for mining, doing exploration, there were technical reports that were required. Of course, a lawyer would put all this together.

When all was said and done, by the time the securities agents got their commission, the lawyers got their fees, the accountants got their fees and the people that wrote the technical report got their fees, that probably took up about 40 percent of the underwriting. For the investors that put their money into it — it might have been an exploration project — the money wasn't being directed into the field, which might have been up in northern B.C. or in Alberta or the Northwest Territories. It was being put into the field on Howe Street and Georgia Street and the law firms down there. That was my experience then.

The other problem that happened was that to get that information, to prepare a document that would be maybe four times the size of this document, it would take a long time to do that. I know from one personal experience I had. We spent, I think, 15 different revisions of the document…. By the time we reached the final revision that could be sent out, the original information was then stale-dated. You had to have the information filed…. It could only be six months old, I think, at that time. It was stale-dated, and there we were, having to start over again to put new information in. This document, B.C.'s new Securities Act, is moving away from that aspect.

I guess I'd like to go into why we even need a securities act. What is this about? The Securities Act is clearly to protect investors. The idea is to make sure that the investors have — what words can I use? — true, full and open disclosure of all aspects of the company so that they can invest in the company with full knowledge about the company. With the companies that are issuing the securities and the Securities Act of British Columbia, the idea is that we'd like the securities to be issued here, not in another jurisdiction, because we'd like the head offices here.

Head offices in British Columbia are a huge advantage. They not only contribute to wages and head office costs and rent and everything that goes on with the corporation, but they also usually contribute socially to the community in which they are doing business, because the people that make the decisions are more connected to the community. If a company is going to spend money, if it does have extra money to spend on community affairs or advertising or promotion, the people that are close to that community are going to say: "Let's spend the money here."

For the arts and culture and sponsoring sporting events, having head offices in the community is far better than just the money that is being spent there on wages, so it's really important. We'd like to not only have head offices in British Columbia, to not only keep the head offices here — and we have been losing them

— but we want to attract more head offices here. Hopefully, this new securities act will do that.

Now, I have to say this securities act is considerably different than the trend of any other securities act happening in either Canada or North America or, for that matter, in the world. We are making a departure here. We're at a crossroads, and we are making a departure because this securities act, as I like to say, is results driven, where the other securities acts are being driven by problems that we've had with…. Let's use the WorldCom and the Enrons of the world. We could mention some companies in Canada. They're being driven by that, and they're trying to close the door so that those types of things won't happen again.

Essentially, you can't account for anything that might happen. You can't provide for anything that might happen. Every time something happens, you put in a new regulation. Then you become burdened with regulation upon regulation upon regulation. Essentially, that's great for the lawyers, it's great for the accountants, and it's great for the people that are guiding an issuer through the maze, but it's not necessarily good for the investor. It doesn't necessarily help the investor or give the investor any more protection. It's not good for the company that has to file their reports, because they spend more of their time worrying about getting the issuance out and filing the proper documents and getting through the maze than they do about getting the money and managing the money correctly to direct it to what they need the money for.

This is exactly what this securities thing does. We should have no illusions. This is a departure from what's happening in the rest of Canada. We are sort of going it alone in B.C., but I really, truly think this is the direction to go. I think we're making the right decision, and hopefully, by making this decision, we can attract more investment here and not only keep the companies that are in British Columbia to stay in British Columbia but attract new companies to come here because they will be less overburdened — I'll use that word — by regulation.

I've got a few notes here. If you just bear with me while I look at these notes. One of the things I mentioned before is the principle of fair practice and applying principles to fair practice as opposed to making regulations and rules upon rules upon rules. In doing that, you also have to give some teeth to the Securities Commission that's enforcing these rules. If we're going to be open-ended, we don't want the Wild West show that we've had in the past.

As you know, what was at one time the Vancouver Stock Exchange got a reputation for being the Wild West show, although the biggest scandal or scam that ever occurred in the history of the venture exchanges was out of the Alberta Stock Exchange with Bre-X. We wore it in British Columbia, but it wasn't British Columbia at all: it was Alberta, and most of the shares, I believe, were sold in Ontario. Nevertheless, people look to the west as if it was a Wild West show out here because of the venture capital that retracted and the type of personalities that came out here to work in that environment. Even with all the rules and regulations, that didn't necessarily protect the investor.

We have the principles — I call them the principles of fair practice — and rules that relate to fair practice, and we also have the ability of the Securities Commission to enforce these fair rules. They can look and determine whether the issuer has given the full, plain and true disclosure that's required under the rules. They have so much broader powers of investigation now, and they also have tremendous teeth into what they're doing. For instance, the penalties that the Securities Commission can impose upon an issuer are up to $1 million — I think before, it was $200,000, but now they can go as high as $1 million — so they can impose penalties on the issuer plus costs of the hearings.

More importantly, and an even greater factor in this, is that they can take…. I want to call it ill-gotten gains because there hasn't been true, full disclosure or there's been, indeed, even misrepresentation. If somebody, or an issuer, has received ill-gotten gains or profited because of this misrepresentation or lack of proper disclosure, they can order that those profits be paid back into the commission.

That's a huge departure from the past and a real big club that the commission has on the issuers. In the past, in order to get that type of return, to get a payback from the person that's misrepresented, they would have had to go through the courts, and that could have taken years. Now they can just issue the order, and that has to be done, and it's up to the issuer or the person — I shouldn't use the word issuer all the time — who effected the misrepresentation, who didn't provide the true disclosure, to essentially prove in that case that they shouldn't have to pay back their gains.

We've got two things. One, we're not being as prescriptive as we used to be. We're results-oriented. We're trying to provide issuers the opportunity to issue shares and securities in British Columbia to obtain funds, and we're doing it without having all the regulations upon regulations upon regulations and the prescriptions, but we're offsetting that with protection to the investor through the Securities Commission by increasing the powers of the Securities Commission to not only investigate but also to fine. I think we've created in this particular act a very good balance between the two.

The other thing we're doing is that if you were already an issuer and you had done — you've heard the word IPO — an initial public offering and you needed to go back to the market for more money…. In the past, I remember, it used to be called a statement of material facts. I think it's now called a short-form prospectus, but the effect is the same. You had to go and almost do the same information as you had to do with a prospectus, with just a few minor things left out. Again you were saddled with a tremendous amount of legal fees, accounting fees, technical reports, to get this out. Then the information was probably stale-dated. If it took you a long time to get it out for whatever reasons — the

technical report might have been difficult to get — you're back to square one again, and you wouldn't receive your receipt of having filed the disclosure.

What we have now is called continuous disclosure. If you are an issuer, you are going to be required to give information on a continuous basis. It's going to be in the regulations, I hope — the continuous basis. Right now you have to file quarterly reports. I would like to see information be given even more frequently, but nonetheless, you will have to maintain this continuous flow of information.

If you do provide that continuous flow of information and have to go back to the market for more money, all you do is file with the Securities Commission that you want to do that, and you get a receipt. You can go to the market for more money and issue your securities, because the public will have access to all the information about your company.

For those people that aren't aware of it, there's an area where any public company listed in Canada has to have all its information. It's called SEDAR. It's the system for electronic document analysis and retrieval, and it is done for Canadian securities administrators. Every single company that is a public issuer files on SEDAR. It is sedar.ca, if you want to go in there. It's in French and in English, and every company is listed. You can find all the documents filed by the company. The one thing you don't find there is insider reports. You have to go through another system, I guess, to file insider reports. I think you can get it through the Toronto Stock Exchange, or TSX, and you can find your way through there to get insider reports.

Of course, that's another issue I want to talk about — insider reports. It's that, again, insiders are going to have to file on a timely basis if they trade in the securities of the company to which they're an insider. I think that's only fair. In the past, they were required to file within 30 days after having made a trade as an insider, and I'm not sure if that is going to change or not.

I'll be curious to see what the regulations say to that, but I would certainly like to see insiders having to file at the time they make the trade. We've heard a lot of stories about…. Certainly, I wouldn't like to say that all insider trades are for reasons of misrepresentation, for reasons to get profits or get a head start on the general public that might be trading in shares, because I'm sure that's not the case.

But we can look at cases where that has happened and where insiders of the company have dumped their stock and then information is disclosed. Had the general public known that insiders were selling large blocks of the company stock or even selling on a daily basis, they would be able to go in and look at what's happening. They'd be able to analyze and say, "Gee, what's happening here?" and ask the appropriate questions, then make some decisions on whether they should be getting out at the same time or buying in and making any investment decision they might have to.

I think insider-trading disclosure is very important. We're talking about continuous disclosure. We all know that auditors come in after the fact. A company is required to file its annual financial statements, and then the auditors come in and audit the records of the company on an annual basis. Somebody said — it's a joke — that auditors come in after the war to bayonet the wounded. If there is any damage, the damage would have been done by the time the auditors get in there.

With the length of time it takes the auditor to finish these financial statements of the company, the information that the auditors are bringing out might be too late. The auditors sometimes take a bad rap for that because of the timing. If the auditor comes in, in January to audit the books and the company's year-end is December, and if the improper disclosure or improper representation of the company has happened the previous August, the public won't know that.

I'll just throw something out here to the audit profession as a challenge. When we talk in terms of full, plain and true disclosure and continuous disclosure — and now with electronic systems where things can be filed automatically on SEDAR — maybe auditors should look at this. I'll throw this out to my profession, although I haven't been in auditing for 15 years: maybe auditors should be reviewing the systems of a company. Maybe they should be looking at how the company is reporting and the internal controls of that company to ensure that the information provided to the public on a continual basis meets the test of full, true and plain disclosure — as opposed to waiting until the year-end to come in and give their opinion whether the information is true and fair.

If they did that and the auditors went in on a continual basis to some of these large companies and could attest to the fact that the information and the internal controls of that company would provide true and fair disclosure, then people would have the information right away and would know that it is right. If you wanted to do an issue, you could do that issuance right away and the public would have confidence that the information they're getting from the issue would be full, plain and true.

I'll throw that out as a challenge to my auditing profession to look at that. It might create extra work; I don't know. It might create extra fees; I don't know. But it would certainly add more benefit to the public in knowing that when they're looking at quarterly reports, those quarterly reports are fair. As it is right now, quarterly reports are not audited.

Having spoken about the Securities Act, the divergent way we're going and the fact that we're looking at a results-based securities act…. As a result, I believe we're cutting something like 7,000 regulations out of the Securities Act, but we're making it principle-based and results-based and then giving the teeth to the B.C. Securities Commission.

Only time will tell whether our method is right or the method, let's say, that the national securities or the Ontario Securities Commission want to take us is the right way. I tend to think we're doing it the right way. I tend to think it's balanced in its approach. I hope that

this sensible regime will encourage head offices not only to stay in B.C. but to come to B.C.

Who knows? Maybe sometime in the future I'll be involved in this again, but for now it should be an easier act to work with once we get used to it. I can only hope that lawyers and people dealing with the securities acts will recognize this and encourage people to come to British Columbia and invest in British Columbia.

K. Stewart: I'm here to stand in support of the B.C. securities legislation, Bill 38.

Although this is not a sea that I usually swim in, one of the reasons I have been able to look at this and make some sense out of it is simply because of the plain language of this act. The legislation and guidance are written in plain language so that the market participants will know what's expected of them. Also, the people of British Columbia will know what's expected of this act.

When we look at British Columbia and talk about the opportunities in British Columbia — the great opportunities we have in our future here with many of our natural resources and some of the other attributes like the intelligence of our students that are graduating from our universities, the initiatives that are being put forward by people as progressive as our Minister of Advanced Education and in other areas…. So that we can see a future for British Columbia, we have to have a method of investing in British Columbia and allowing people to invest in British Columbia. Obviously, the Securities Act is a tool by which people can have that opportunity to invest.

One of the difficulties, when we look at the history of stock markets and securities and other ways that people have generated funds over the years…. We have to look at the past, and there have been a few warts. Obviously, in the United States there are some fairly major issues that have come up with corporations where things were fraudulently represented. Those have been duly covered by the member speaking prior to me.

When I'm up speaking, one of the things I always like to talk about is the issue of crime and punishment, because it's where more of my background is, certainly, than in securities and the Securities Act. There's a basic premise there. I think one of the things that this act does is make stronger sanctions and penalties on people who choose to abuse the powers that are given to them to misrepresent themselves, to look for the easy way to make the fast buck. Again, those were documented very well by previous speakers.

I think it's very crucial that in this particular act we look at these penalties and how clearly they are laid out so that you can't hide behind a Philadelphia lawyer in your defence as they go through weeks and weeks of trying to define what was meant by this and what was meant by that. Hopefully, this new act will be much clearer, not only in its principles but in its punishment. The plain-language aspect of this act certainly is something that should be there and is there.

I talked about the opportunities in British Columbia, the opportunities to raise funds. We all know that by putting your money in the bank, you do not get much return on it. There are many seniors in our province and those looking to become seniors and retire and have a future in this province, a future of retirement and leisure — although many seniors I know are extremely active participants in our communities in many other ways, so it's not always an act of leisure. But they are looking towards their future, their time of retirement, their time in the sun. They want to have some opportunities and tools in place so that they can generate a nest egg for that future.

Again, as I said earlier, at 2 or 3 percent, the banks aren't really doing that — especially when many seniors and those looking at retirement were looking at a pretty standard return of 10 percent on their money. If you just had cash, you could leave it in the bank and you'd be looking at 10 percent.

K. Stewart: As the member from Malahat indicated, that's not necessarily the case anymore. Those opportunities aren't there, so we have to create new opportunities. Why not do an opportunity through an act that's made in British Columbia? Consideration of other jurisdictions has to be there, because we are living in a global economy and we are always dealing with other jurisdictions.

It's really important, though, that this commission, the B.C. Securities Commission, in developing this, did consult with more than 2,000 people in British Columbia and across Canada who would be affected by this law. Those people, those public companies — directors, dealers, advisers, lawyers, accountants and other groups — joined together through seminars and other areas where they could pass along the information and share information. They came together with a made-in-B.C. act, one that's going to work for us and for the other people that wish to come here and invest and register their securities through the Securities Act.

Again, I mentioned that this isn't really an area that I have a lot of experience in, but we do have to look at how it does play to everyone in British Columbia. We need to not only attract the industry but attract the investment dollars — those dollars that can be put out and allow a new mine to go in, those investment dollars that come in to allow a new technological company to grow, those dollars that can take a small business…. It might even have started out as something as simple as a home-based business and has grown now, has got a niche market, is in the local industrial centre in a small building and has an idea. It's ready to expand; it's ready to grow. They need the support of funding, and through a Securities Act and the raising of funds, these opportunities are available to them.

I just want to say how important it is for us to make sure that when we do something in British Columbia,

we want to make sure it works for British Columbians. We want to make sure it's simple and it reduces the unnecessary red tape. Certainly, we're talking about regulations here, and we do need to have some control, some security, some regulations in place to protect the people of British Columbia. I believe this act does that. It does it in simple language. For those few who choose to try and manipulate the act, manipulate the securities, there is punishment there. Hopefully, the way it's written, those that do step aside early in the game will get penalized. It will be back to the issue that the crime does not benefit them and that the act is there for the betterment and the protection of British Columbians.

I see nothing but a positive future for investment in British Columbia when we have the minds that put together something like this available to us and they get together, working with all the people in all the areas that contribute to this area of securities, and come up with an act that works for all of us. I certainly support this and look forward to continued debate on this subject.

B. Locke: You know, it's always great for me to listen to the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca talk about accounting issues, because he's probably one of the few people that can show a sense of humour and passion. It's quite refreshing. I have two accountants in my family, and I never see that kind of jovial spirit around issues that, for some, are quite dry.

I rise in support of Bill 38, the new British Columbia Securities Act. I commend the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development and all his talented staff who worked on this very complex piece of legislation. This is cutting-edge legislation, and cutting-edge legislation is what this government, through the leadership of the Premier, is known for. Other provinces, and indeed the federal government, are looking to the B.C. government to show them the way, and this bill does exactly that. This bill will provide a streamlined, simplified, plain-language approach for business to follow. Reducing time-consuming paperwork and bureaucracy and getting rid of outdated, ineffective, stale legislation are just part of what this legislation accomplishes.

This is important for small businesses, like so many in my community of Surrey, which are always time and often resource challenged. This bill allows small companies to focus on growing their businesses, not on understanding all the bureaucratic regulations.

As well, this bill gives stronger enforcement powers to the Securities Commission. This bill protects investors, and we should all remember who those investors are. Yes, sometimes they are large faceless institutions, but many investors are simply ordinary people who invest through their pension funds or through their savings. Sometimes those are seniors. We can all remember the sad stories of people losing their entire life savings through the shady business practices of some companies in the U.S. This bill demands that B.C. companies are held accountable to their investors. Importantly, the bill provides a clear code of conduct for security dealers, advisers and their representatives. The new code essentially raises the bar and calls for higher standards for those in the securities business.

This bill is so timely and responsive to the new British Columbia economy by saving companies money and by speeding up their access to the capital markets. Our government is and has been a leader in expanding business opportunity. This bill speaks to our government's new attitude about the economy. This bill is ethical and innovative and promotes transparency in the private sector.

I commend the minister for his leadership and forward-thinking. There is no doubt that the two-year review process that consulted with over 2,000 market participants addressed this very complex industry. Indeed, this legislation will be leading the provinces and will act as a template for the rest of the country. The legislation will build confidence for investors, growth for business and certainty. This will serve B.C. well in its drive towards new economic prosperity.

M. Hunter: I want to just add my few words this afternoon in support of Bill 38, the Securities Act. Like the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows I do not normally swim in this sea, nor can I speak with the passion that the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca did a few moments ago about the accounting and audit profession. Anybody who gets excited about double-entry accounting I have a lot of admiration for, but it is not something you will hear from me. Nor can I speak with the expertise and seniority of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who earlier today expounded his views.

M. Hunter: Nor, as the House Leader says, am I going to emulate the length of his speech. I do want to say that I think that this bill represents one more plank in our government's economic development plans for British Columbia.

The member for Surrey–Green Timbers just referred to the disturbing sights that we all too often have seen during our lifetimes of our fellow citizens who have seen their investments crumble, seen them disappear at the hands of promoters, stock promoters, managers, accountants, even what we thought were reputable companies. I'm sure the members have spoken of the Enrons and the WorldComs of the world and what they have done to the confidence of people, perhaps like you and me, who occasionally dabble in buying shares in publicly held companies.

You know, caveat emptor, the Latin phrase "buyer beware," is always a wise piece of advice. The fact is that in this complicated business of raising capital in the business world, there are some people in that business — fortunately, a minority — who have had a habit of preying on well-meaning, innocent but perhaps naïve investors. I think that we need to always, as gov-

ernment, be vigilant that those tendencies amongst some people to prey on those less fortunate — perhaps sometimes seniors, perhaps people with less knowledge… We need to be always aware that those people need protection.

At the same time, the securities market, whether it be in British Columbia, whether it be in Canada, whether it be, actually, around the world…. We have to recognize and acknowledge that the securities market is an important keystone of our economic system. It is the place where you and I can invest our dollars. We can help companies grow and receive dividends from those investments. The securities market is an important place, where money is circulated, where capital is raised and where wealth is generated. It's finding that balance between the need to aggressively seek out investment opportunities that build our wealth and build our economy and balancing that against, as I've said, the unfortunate tendencies of a minority to abuse the position in which they sometimes find themselves.

One of the important and attractive features of Bill 38, the Securities Act, from my perspective as a consumer and not as an expert, is that for the first time in this whole area we are looking at plain language, clear rules that pretty well anybody can understand. I think that is hugely important. You remember the days, I'm sure, when you tried to open a bank account and were faced with pages and pages of very obscure language, including "notwithstanding this" and heretofores and wheretofores and whytofores, that really needed a lawyer to figure out whether or not you could put a dollar in a savings account.

The securities market has suffered from that too — all the prescriptive rules about what has to be done, what the prospectus has to say. I won't go on ad nauseam, but I think we can all relate to what I'm saying. To kind of clear away all the underbrush and say, "Here's some clear language; if you understand English, you can make sense of this," is, I think, a very important move that will pay us huge dividends in the broadest sense in fairly short period of time.

What I see in Bill 38 is an aggressive attempt to move British Columbia forward, to clear away some of the concerns that have existed or used to exist. Other members have spoken about the reputation of the old Vancouver Stock Exchange. What this bill does is give people like me and you and other investors a way in which we can build trust. We can understand what our responsibilities are. It will build confidence because it builds that kind of trust. When you build trust and build confidence in the securities market, then you start to build growth.

I view this bill, as I say, as an important attempt to present a balance and to set out the responsibilities of buyer and seller, everybody who's present in the market, in plain and clear language. I'm also pleased that the bill's provisions have been extensively canvassed with people in the securities industry.

I've made remarks about some people who have been in the securities industry who probably shouldn't have been there. I suspect that we will see them again, but by and large, in a vast majority, the people who work in the securities industry in this province and indeed in this country are people who are there trying to do a good job, to make the markets work, to build wealth for Canada. I would certainly include amongst those people the B.C. Securities Commission and others who have worked hard to help the minister draft the provisions of this bill.

I think if you look at the highlights…. I spoke a moment ago about building trust and building confidence. One of the important features of this bill is the stronger enforcement powers that it brings to securities legislation — prohibitions against misrepresentation, fraud, manipulation in the market, unfair practices, insider trading information, frontrunning. Contraventions of those kinds of prohibitions will be exposed to both administrative and criminal sanctions that are significant.

The Securities Commission will be able to levy administrative penalties of up to $1 million per contravention of this legislation. The Securities Commission will be authorized for the first time to order as an administrative penalty the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains — again, always looking at balancing legislation.

The interests of the investor are also protected, because investors are going to have broader rights than they have today. They will be able to sue market participants for misrepresentation in offering in bid documents, in news releases, in other disclosure documents and, indeed, in oral statements of company officers. That is an improvement, I think, in investor protection. That is also important as we try to build trust and build a capital market in British Columbia that is going to be of benefit to both B.C. investors and British Columbia companies and, perhaps, to companies from outside the province that will try to raise capital in our province.

As well, I just wanted to spend a couple of moments talking about the fact that we are moving toward a results-based regime. Other members have spoken of this too. I know this is a little different approach in British Columbia from what's going on in other parts of the country on this same issue, but this government, in much of the legislation that has been introduced, has been pretty clear that we need to look, as a government, at what the results are from a particular project — whether it's a forestry project or an environmental project or, in this case, securities regulation legislation affecting the securities market.

Let's look at what actually happens rather than having a bunch of process-based rules designed by legislators and bureaucrats that really cannot, in advance of particular circumstances, describe all possible eventualities. That is the problem with the prescriptive system that exists in many parts of many human endeavours. I think we are going to see a real change in approach as a result of putting a results-based system into our securities legislation in this province.

The increased administrative criminal sanctions, the full public disclosure, to me are not points of argument;

they are just points that we need to stress as this legislation moves through. They are going to be significant improvements to what we've seen before. I personally believe that the reforms this bill represents are reforms that are leading the country. I think the rest of the country is going to be looking very carefully at these changes that British Columbia is making.

The requirements that this bill introduces are modern. They're up-to-date. They do address issues in today's market. They replace a lot of words, language, rules that have been in place since the 1930s, and I think this legislation is probably overdue. I think it is very important as British Columbia moves forward and as we try to grow the economy. I seriously look forward to this bill helping us to attract more capital to British Columbia, and I do believe that's one of the objectives of the minister in bringing this bill forward.

I want to close off by saying I am very supportive of what we're doing. I look forward to further debate and to the committee stage.

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

Bill 38, Securities 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.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY