2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Settlement for victims of abuse at

Jericho Hill School

Hon. G.

Campbell

J. MacPhail

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 50)

Hon. B.

Barisoff

Wildlife Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill

51)

Hon. B.

Barisoff

Electoral Reform Referendum Act (Bill

52)

Hon. G.

Plant

International Financial Activity Act

(Bill 53)

Hon. G.

Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue

syndrome awareness

J. MacPhail

Adoption of children in B.C.

W. McMahon

Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue

syndrome awareness

J. Nuraney

Oral Questions

Release of audit involving Doug Walls

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Collins

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Clark

Changes to B.C. College of Teachers

P. Nettleton

Hon. T.

Christensen

Access to grazing lands

W. Cobb

Hon. M. de

Jong

Tabling Documents

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2002-03

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of

Health Services

Hon. C.

Hansen

J. MacPhail

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2004-2005 (Bill 49)

Hon. G.

Collins

Recommittal of Bills

Cremation, Interment and Funeral

Services Act (Bill 3)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Cremation, Interment and Funeral

Services Act (Bill 3)

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills

Cremation, Interment and Funeral

Services Act (Bill 3)

Third Reading of Bills

Cremation, Interment and Funeral

Services Act (Bill 3)

Committee of the Whole House

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 34)

Mayencourt

Hon. R.

Thorpe

B. Kerr

Reporting of Bills

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 34)

Third Reading of Bills

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 34)

Second Reading of Bills

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 43)

Hon. C.

Hansen

Suffredine

Hon. C.

Hansen

Correction Act (Bill 44)

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. Kwan

Suffredine

Hon. R.

Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 36)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 36)

[ Page 11043 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004

The House

met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Tributes

SETTLEMENT FOR VICTIMS OF ABUSE

AT JERICHO HILL SCHOOL

Hon. G.

Campbell: It's an honour to rise today to pay tribute to some special guests

joining us in this House. Last month the province concluded a settlement that we

hope will provide closure and healing for victims of abuse at Jericho Hill

School. We are joined today by eight members of the negotiating committee that

worked so hard on behalf of the class members in that settlement. To all of them

I say welcome. Welcome to our assembly. Welcome to our chamber.

Words fail

us in attempting to describe the hurt that they and their families have

experienced. The abuse of students at Jericho Hill never should have occurred.

There is no excuse or justification for what happened.

The victims

bear no responsibility for events over which they had no control. I know I speak

for all members of this House in saying how deeply we regret that the victims

were exposed to these terrible experiences. We have a duty as a government, as a

society, to ensure the well-being of children in our care. We have a

responsibility to do better.

I want our

guests to know this important thing. Because of your courage, because of your

leadership, we can learn from the mistakes of the past, and we will learn from

those mistakes. We can work together to heal the hurt, to bring hope and renewal

for victims and their families, and we can do everything in our power to try to

ensure that it never happens again.

Each of you

has made that possible. The settlement is a testament to your courage, to your

spirit, to your strength and to your determination.

On behalf

of all British Columbians, I want to say thank you to each of you for what you

have done to start this healing process and to bring healing about. To Leanne

Rumley: thank you. To Sharon Rumley: thank you. To Robert Gordon: thank you. To

Mark Dunn: thank you. To Ravi Coughlan: thank you. To Susan Birley: thank you.

To Robin Eldridge: thank you. To Douglas Eldridge: thank you.

To all of

you, for your leadership and for your strength of spirit: thank you.

[1410]

MacPhail: I'm sure I speak for all of us who are not members of the

government in joining with the Premier in expressing our sincere regret and

apologizing for the terrible journey upon which so many were forced to enter. I

do join, along with my colleagues, to express hope that there is recovery.

However, sometimes there cannot be any recovery, and all we can hope for is that

the path is cleared enough that people can continue through life in a way that

allows for much clearing away of the pain and promotes healing — understanding

that that may never occur.

We have

been at this process — both the victims and the perpetrators, and those of us

who were responsible for the governance of this — for decades now. All I can

hope is that those who were deeply affected and harmed and injured by this can

complete the rest of their lives with some solace.

Introductions by Members

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 28 special grade 5 students

visiting from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is

their teacher, Ms. Sharon Douglas, as well as several parents and volunteers who

have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would

the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: In the gallery today is one of my staff from the Ministry of

Water, Land and Air Protection, Robin Platts. Would the House please make him

welcome.

Hunter: It's my pleasure to announce in the gallery today a couple of

visitors from the beautiful city of Nanaimo. I would like the House to welcome

Joy Cameron and Julia Saurazas, who is the director of the MBA program at

Malaspina University College and who came to Nanaimo from Dubai in February of

this year. That's how much we're attracting people back to B.C., back to

Vancouver Island. Please help me welcome these folks.

Hon. K.

Falcon: It's my pleasure today to welcome in the House Lynne Cyr and Betty

Ann Cyr, who are joining us today. Betty Ann is joining us from Campbell River.

She is the mother of my ministerial assistant, Dave Cyr, and Lynne is his wife.

On behalf of Dave, I want to thank Lynne for her patience on the many late

evenings I am stealing her husband. I appreciate it. Would the House please make

them welcome.

MacPhail: I would like to welcome to the House today a very special guest

who will probably be the next MLA for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, Mr. Jagrup Brar.

He was nominated last week and will carry the NDP banner in the upcoming

by-election, which we are all anxious to get going on. I know that the

by-election is, of course, dependent on the Premier, but Jagrup is already

campaigning.

Mr. Brar is

the executive director of the Self-Employment and Entrepreneur Development

Society — deep roots in Surrey. He is working for an organization that helps

people launch small business ventures. Please make Jagrup Brar very welcome.

Roddick: After an excellent, fun lunch in the legislative dining room, a

group of exceptional young people are in the gallery today, who are here to

receive

[ Page 11044 ]

various levels of the Duke of Edinburgh special needs awards at Government

House. Accompanied by Judith Watt and also accompanied by the head of the B.C.

and Yukon division and one volunteer from Scotland are Alex Chartrand, 14, and

Christina Chamberlain, 23, from Tsawwassen; Christopher Buckland, 23, from

Vancouver; and all the way from Telkwa in the riding of my colleague from

Bulkley Valley–Stikine are Lisa Beatty, 24, and Kathy Mortenson, 27. Will the

House please make them very welcome.

[1415]

Hon. I.

Chong: Today visiting from my constituency of Oak Bay–Gordon Head is a

very special lady, Margaret Rolston. On Monday Mrs. Rolston celebrated her

eightieth birthday, and she represents just one of the many young and active

seniors in my riding. Mrs. Rolston has served on several boards, such as the

Lodge at Broadmead and Victoria's Single Parent Resource Centre, and she is also

the grandmother of the ministerial assistant for the Minister of Forests. Would

the House please make her very welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to bring to your attention 25 public

servants seated in the galleries who are participating in a full-day

parliamentary procedure workshop. This Legislative Assembly workshop provides a

firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of

the relationship between the work of their ministries and how their work affects

the Legislature. Would you please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. B.

Barisoff presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I move Bill 50 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I am pleased to introduce a bill that makes amendments to both the

Protected Areas of British Columbia Act and the Park Act. These amendments

continue our government's ongoing work toward expanding British Columbia's parks

and protected areas system and improving its management. Last September the

Premier committed to the UBCM that before designating any new provincial parks,

we would deal directly with local councils and the regional districts to see

what they want.

Some local

governments said that adding new parks at this time would create a level of

uncertainty. One example is Okanagan-Similkameen regional district, which may be

home to B.C.'s next national park. The regional district has asked us to wait

until we know how this proposed national park is going to affect their

communities before designating any new provincial parks in that area. We take

the concerns of our local government seriously. While we're expanding our local

park system significantly, where there are local concerns, we have elected to

wait.

Today we

make these amendments with the support of our communities. Amendments to the

Protected Areas of British Columbia Act add more than 150,000 hectares to

British Columbia's protected area system — an area 13 times the size of the

city of Vancouver — by establishing 28 new class A parks and one ecological

reserve and by making additions to four existing ecological reserves and 31

class A parks.

This will

mean more opportunities for visitors and more opportunities for B.C.

communities. This bill also provides map boundaries for a number of existing

parks and ecological reserves — a more accurate, understandable and practical

system than written descriptions previously used. The amendments to the Park Act

allow the minister to enter into collaborative agreements. The Premier has

committed to opening our parks to people. Parks benefit small business and

encourage new investment, recreation and tourism, and they help diversify local

economies. We're bringing out our best in B.C. by preserving these special

areas.

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 50

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.

WILDLIFE AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. B.

Barisoff presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Wildlife Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I move Bill 51 be introduced and read a first time now.

[1420]

Motion

approved.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: This makes amendments to the Wildlife Act to enhance the ability

of the government to designate and protect species that are at risk in British

Columbia. The amendments will provide the authority to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to list and protect any species or population of

animal, bird, fish, plant or other species as require additional protection and

management in British Columbia.

These

amendments — combined with our existing Wildlife Act, our world-renowned parks

and protected-area systems, land use plans, environmental assessment processes

and partnerships with industry

[ Page 11045 ]

and conservation stakeholders — will provide greater certainty regarding

the protection and recovery of species in B.C.

These

amendments reinforce the province's authority with regards to species and give

B.C. the tools to approach the protection and recovery of species in a way that

meets the specific needs. They will help the province to protect its interest as

we work with the federal government as it implements its respective legislation.

developing and implementing this approach, the province will determine its own

principles and standards — a solution made in British Columbia for British

Columbians — defend its jurisdiction, its right to determine its own

management approach, and make species management decisions with the

understanding of the best available science and full consideration of

socioeconomic implications.

The best

way to protect B.C. interests is to make sure we have B.C. legislation to

provide certainty for our species and certainty for our landowners. We need to

protect B.C.'s wildlife resources, but we must also protect B.C.'s families and

the jobs they rely on.

I move the

bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Bill 51

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.

ELECTORAL REFORM REFERENDUM ACT

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Electoral Reform Referendum Act.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am pleased to introduce Bill 52. This bill demonstrates

government's continuing commitment to an independent and transparent process for

examining our electoral system. Specifically, the bill gives legislative

authority for a referendum on a new electoral model that may be required

following the report of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. If the

Citizens' Assembly recommends a new electoral model, a referendum on the

proposed new model will occur in May 2005 in conjunction with the next

provincial general election.

The bill

confirms that if such a referendum occurs, the Referendum Act will apply with

certain exceptions. The primary exception concerns the level of voter approval

necessary for the referendum result to be considered binding. The government

last year determined and announced that because of the fundamentally important

nature of our voting system, the referendum result must show that a substantial

majority of the province's voters approve of the new model. Therefore, the

approval threshold is 60 percent or greater of the popular vote provincewide,

and a simply majority in at least 48 of the province's 79 electoral districts

— 60 percent of the electoral districts. These provisions will help to ensure

that there is significant voter support for the proposed new model in different

regions of the province.

The bill

also provides that if a new model is approved, the government will be required

to make the necessary legislative changes to the Election Act so that the new

model is in place in time for the May 2009 general election, consistent with the

commitments that we have made. This provision is necessary to ensure that there

will be adequate time to make the substantial amendments to the Election Act

that would be required if the referendum succeeds.

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 52

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.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL

ACTIVITY ACT

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

International Financial Activity Act.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[1425]

Hon. G.

Collins: Bill 53 implements the International Financial Activity Act

effective September 1, 2004, and at the same time repeals the existing

International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act and the International

Financial Business Act.

announced in Budget 2004, this new legislation enhances the competitiveness of

British Columbia's international financial sector by expanding the types of

corporations that are eligible to register under the act, expanding the list of

financial activities that qualify under the act to include six new activities

and extending the program to all areas of the province, which will allow

registered corporations to locate anywhere in British Columbia.

The list of

new financial activities that will qualify under the act effective September 1

of this year includes certain treasury functions on behalf of non-residents,

back-office operations as well as backup office operations on behalf of

non-residents, the distribution of film and television rights outside of Canada,

expansion of the range of eligible foreign exchange activities and import

letters of credit. The tax refund for specialists will remain in place and will

be extended

[ Page 11046 ]

to five years from two years. At the same time, the maximum refund amount

will be reduced to 75 percent of B.C. income tax payable.

Effective

January 1, 2005, the employee refund under the international financial business

program will be eliminated. This is because British Columbia's personal income

tax rates are now competitive with other jurisdictions.

These

changes to British Columbia's international business financial legislation will

attract new financial business to British Columbia, encourage the development of

new international financial activities such as film and television distribution,

and create new employment opportunities and well-paid, highly skilled jobs. Bill

53 sets the stage for renewed growth in British Columbia's international

financial sector and reflects our commitment to increase competitiveness and

revitalize the economy.

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 53

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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) FIBROMYALGIA AND CHRONIC

FATIGUE SYNDROME AWARENESS

MacPhail: Today I rise in the House to recognize May 12 as Fibromyalgia and

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Awareness Day.

Imagine

having a chronic disorder for which the causes are not known and for which there

is no cure. This is the reality for those who suffer from fibromyalgia and

chronic fatigue syndrome. Fibromyalgia, or FM, is a chronic disorder

characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue and multiple tender

points. Chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS, is a serious and complex illness that

affects many body systems. The central characteristic of CFS is a debilitating

pathological exhaustion not reversed by rest, no matter how much rest one has.

These

disorders have devastating impacts on people's lives, people's professions and

their families. Moreover, these disorders are surrounded by misconceptions. For

example, just as multiple sclerosis was labelled as hysterical paralysis for

years before people fully understood the disorder, both FM and CFS suffer from

public misunderstanding. Thankfully, Canada is at the international forefront of

attaining clinical

definitions and protocol for treating these disorders in

order to provide a standard for diagnosis, treatment and research.

Understanding

these disorders begins with raising public awareness. Public awareness leads to

calls for action. The reality of living with chronic pain means that not only

are patients impacted, but so are families and our broader communities. With

visionary support from health professionals, patients and researchers, I hope

that we can work towards finding effective treatments for those who suffer from

fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN IN B.C.

McMahon: On Monday my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers stood in this

House and spoke about what it was like to have two adopted daughters. Her

statement struck a very personal chord with me. It made me reflect on my own

childhood and upbringing, as I was adopted when I was just 11 days old.

It made me

remember how wonderful it was to be raised in a strong family environment. My

parents, like parents throughout British Columbia, taught me values and how to

respect and be kind to others. They taught me the importance of a good education

and a strong work ethic. They taught me about the importance of stability in a

child's life and the opportunities that we can realize as adults if our parents

point us in the right direction.

[1430]

However,

there is also an important message that British Columbians need to hear. Right

now there are approximately 1,000 children in our province waiting for a

permanent home. That's 1,000 children who don't have a stable home. The

best-case scenario for these children — to learn the values of a good

education, a strong work ethic, how to be kind to others and how to make the

most of the opportunities given to them — is to have a permanent family. This

by no means takes away from the thousands of foster parents who do a terrific

job in our province. However, children who move from home to home are missing

the consistent love, nurturing and support that will help them through the rest

of their lives.

Saturday is

International Family Day. There is no easy road of life for anyone to travel,

but having a family forever can make a world of difference not only in childhood

but as we become adults and raise our own families.

Today I am

calling on British Columbians who are in a position to have a family, whether

you have your own biological children or not, to consider adoption. You can get

more information by calling 1-877-ADOPT-07. Please remember there are kids who

can't wait to have a family.

FIBROMYALGIA AND CHRONIC

FATIGUE SYNDROME AWARENESS

Nuraney: It is not very often that I would consider standing in this House

and echoing the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition, but today I do stand

up in recognition of May 12, which is the day that Canadians and people around

the globe gather to raise awareness about the devastating effects of chronic

fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.

[ Page 11047 ]

It is

estimated that at least 5 percent of Canadians are affected by this ailment. To

date, there is no known cure or cause of these diseases. Among those is Rosie, a

former drug and alcohol counsellor, who had a very active lifestyle. She was

raising a family, she had an active lifestyle, and she even drove 30 miles a day

to get to work. Unfortunately, things would take an unpleasant turn. She

recently wrote me a letter describing her terrible and unexpected fight with

chronic fatigue syndrome.

In her

letter she writes: "Going from that to not being able to get out of bed for

days at a time was a horrible shock and an adjustment. I think it is very, very

important for people who are newly diagnosed, along with their families and

their employers, to become educated, because this disease affects not only the

person who has it but all those people closest to them."

I can only

begin to imagine her frustration and disappointment. Fortunately for both her

and a friend that I know, they've been able to find some relief from their

symptoms through alternative treatment methods such as aromatherapy,

acupuncture, massage, yoga and meditation. As Rosie said to me in her letter, it

is crucial that we begin to open our minds to these non-traditional healing

methods as tools that can work in tandem with conventional medical science.

I do hope

and pray that at some point in time we will find the cure and realize the cause

of these devastating diseases.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

RELEASE OF AUDIT

INVOLVING DOUG WALLS

MacPhail: This afternoon British Columbians will be treated to the

summary

of the findings of an audit into the Doug Walls fiasco. The public, families and

those who provide community living services are concerned that they will get

only selected details approved by the Premier and his spin doctors — a

whitewash.

Let me

remind the House what this scandal is about. The Premier's friend, political

supporter and relative got a six-figure salary from the B.C. Liberals with no

competition, no notice, no announcement and no scrutiny.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, order. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: He also got a $400,000 government loan written off. To the Deputy

Premier: this afternoon, will she do the right thing and release the entire

audit to the public, not just a spinned-up version of it?

[1435]

Hon. G.

Collins: Given the

summary of the member opposite, you would think there was

no need to do the audit, because she seems to know all the facts. The reality is

that the entire audit will be released this afternoon, except for those small

sections that needed to be severed relative to third-party statutory

requirements under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope the member reads it,

checks her facts and corrects many of the statements that she's made in the

House over the last number of months.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

The Leader

of the Opposition has a further question.

MacPhail: Here's what happened, Mr. Speaker. Not only did Mr. Walls get a

six….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

MacPhail: This is already on the public record.

Not only

did Mr. Walls get a six-figure salary, he was also the beneficiary of B.C.

Liberal government loan write-offs totalling at least $400,000. We'll find out

how that loan was written off. Not only is Mr. Walls a friend, supporter and

relative of the Premier, but he also has close ties to other members of the B.C.

Liberal cabinet, including the former Minister of Children and Family

Development and the Minister of Advanced Education — all admitted on the

record by Mr. Walls. It's a very cozy relationship, a very serious scandal.

To the

Deputy Premier: can she guarantee that every aspect of the audit will be

released in full with no spin whatsoever?

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: I think I already answered the member's questions, probably more

fully than she would have liked. The reality is that the Premier made a

commitment some months ago that the entire audit would be available through

freedom of information. Government has done that. The freedom-of-information

coordinators have gone through the audit to ensure that any release is compliant

with the act.

There are

some third-party requirements under the legislation that need to be complied

with. I think the member will find that she's very pleased with…. Well, she

may not be very pleased with the report, but she'll be pleased to know that

virtually all of it will be made public this afternoon. Certainly, pending a

request by government or a response from those people who have personal

protection privacy rights under the act, if we

[ Page 11048 ]

hear from them to say those additional details can be released, those will be

released as well.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

The Leader

of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: We welcome that, Mr. Speaker. We welcome that commitment. It's a

brand-new commitment, and we welcome it — absolutely. The Premier said he was

going to release the conclusions. Now he's releasing the whole audit, and we….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MacPhail: We'll let the Premier's words stand on their own, Attorney General

— absolutely.

In July

2002 the Minister of Children and Family Development was told that there were

serious concerns related to Mr. Walls's activities in the ministry. The minister

did nothing. He handed it off to staff and turned a blind eye to its contents.

Six months later, in January 2003, Mr. Walls was appointed to act as CEO of the

interim authority on community living, a fact that the minister wouldn't own up

to in the House three months later.

Can the

Deputy Premier and the Premier guarantee that every single recommendation of the

audit…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: …will be delivered by this government as quickly as possible?

Hon. G.

Collins: The fact of the matter is that the Premier's words are on the

record about the release of the report.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Collins: Part of the reason why the member gets her facts wrong is because

she never listens when she asks a question. She never listens to the answer.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: The fact is that the report will be released. I think the member

will find that not only will we commit to implementing all the recommendations,

she may find that the vast majority of them are already in place.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

We certainly will ensure that the Premier's words stand, as do the words of the

Deputy Premier. We can certainly look to the record to see what they said about

the release of the report.

[1440]

Up until

the B.C. Liberals took power, Mr. Walls was helping non-profits get Internet

access. Soon after the election was over, Mr. Walls was invited into the

Premier's office and given enormous influence over the Minister of Children and

Family Development. Finalizing plans for community living and taking control…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Members on the government side of the

House, please extend the member the courtesy of listening to the question.

J. Kwan:

…of a $600 million budget long before the core review was complete, Mr. Walls

was also immediately handed $400,000 in taxpayers' money through a loan

write-off. Also from the government, a special prosecutor was initiated to

review this matter.

Will the

Deputy Premier assure British Columbians that the document the government

releases today will explain how a friend and relative of the Premier was given

control over $600 million in terms of budget for the ministry and handed a $400

million loan write-off as soon as the Liberals took office?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: The report will be released this afternoon. The member will be able

to have her questions answered as soon as it's released. In response to the

other questions the member asked, those have been asked and answered. Perhaps

she wants to move on to plan B for question period.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further

question.

J. Kwan:

The Deputy Premier is correct insofar as this. Questions were asked of her

during the estimates process, but no answers were forthcoming from the

[ Page 11049 ]

Deputy Premier. The Minister of Children and Family Development is….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is in chaos, thanks to the B.C.

Liberal government mismanagement and special deals for a friend and relative of

the Premier. That's the bottom line in the scandal. The government took money

from kids at risk and handed that money over to Liberal friends. The Premier

won't answer questions, and the Deputy Premier won't answer questions. You know

what? When the government releases….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Your colleague is interrupting your question. We'll

just wait a moment, and you can continue, please. Now it's time for the

question.

J. Kwan:

Yes. I was interrupted by many members of the House.

When the

Premier releases his version of the audit this afternoon, will he use the

opportunity to apologize to British Columbians for this gross mismanagement of

tax dollars that were supposed to help kids and the developmentally disabled but

ended up padding the pockets of Liberal insiders? Will the Deputy Premier also

release all correspondence and e-mails between officials…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

J. Kwan:

…and his office and Mr. Walls?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: The member will see the report this afternoon. I suspect that she

will have an opportunity to apologize for all of the misinformation she's put on

the record. As long as we are standing here and talking about the opportunity to

apologize, this member might want to start taking the opportunity to offer

apologies for all of the misrepresentation — all of the facts that she puts on

the table that are proven to be wrong again and again and again. Just for

starters is her suggestion that the ministry is in chaos.

For

example, we have doubled the number of adoptions that have happened in British

Columbia. We have cut court wait times through alternative dispute resolution.

We have, for the first time, made it possible to place children with extended

families instead of taking them from their homes where they're at risk. We have

also made possible the 15 percent drop in the number of children that are coming

into the care of the ministry. And the numbers on recruitment and retention for

our staff in this ministry are excellent.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: We are recruiting and retaining more staff than we have for a long

time in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. C.

Clark: So when the member stands up and makes these statements, she will

very soon, I'm sure, have the chance to retract them…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

[1445]

Hon. C.

Clark: …and offer her apology.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, order, please, so we may continue with

question period.

CHANGES TO B.C. COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Nettleton: On December 10, 2003, the former Education minister promised to

restore democratic governance to the College of Teachers. More than four months

later, elections have not taken place, and the politically appointed councillors

continue making fundamental changes to the bylaws that govern the teaching

profession. My question is to the Minister of Education. Why has the current

minister not lived up to the democratic promise of his predecessor and dismissed

the political appointees on the college council?

Hon. T.

Christensen: This government committed to putting in place a democratically

elected College of Teachers, and that's exactly what we intend to do.

Mr.

Speaker: Prince George–Omineca has a supplementary question.

Nettleton: Yes, I do.

When might

those elections take place, and will these legitimate representatives of the

profession have the mandate to review and reject, if necessary, the sweeping

bylaw changes imposed by the appointed councillors?

[ Page 11050 ]

Hon. T.

Christensen: The member will see the legislation at the same time as the

rest of the House. Certainly, as I said, it's our intent to follow through on

the commitment the government made in December. The newly elected college

council will have the opportunity to act as a college council, just like any

past one.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

ACCESS TO GRAZING LANDS

W. Cobb:

My question is to the Minister of Forests. As we all know, drought and forest

fires have hit my region very hard over the last year. This summer is gearing up

to be as dry as last, and if we don't get some rain soon, we could be in another

crisis. Those events have my ranchers faced with shortages of hay and grazing

for their cattle. Because of the BSE, they couldn't ship their cows and had to

feed them over the winter, which exacerbated the problem. Last September the

Premier requested that the criteria be relaxed to accommodate the ranchers. I

ask the Minister of Forests if he could please tell my constituents: is there

anything being done to expand access to grazing lands for the B.C. ranchers?

Hon. M.

de Jong: To the member: he's right. Between droughts, fire and BSE, it's

been a pretty tough year for the ranching communities. District managers are

exercising their maximum jurisdiction within the bounds of the legislation,

their discretionary authority, to get cattle out onto rangeland at the very

earliest possible moment.

It's a

balancing act. The member and his ranching constituents will know that causing

damage or overgrazing to lands can take upwards of ten years to correct, so

there is a balancing act involved. We're doing some little things. We're lending

water troughs to ranchers. We're doing some larger things, longer-term things,

and those are the negotiations taking place now, discussions with the

Cattlemen's Association, aimed at expanding the amount of land available for

range use in the future.

[End of

question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I beg leave to present the 2002-03 annual report of the

Environmental Appeal Board.

Leave

granted.

Orders of the Day

Supplementary Estimates

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.

Hon. G.

Collins moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the same be

referred to Committee of Supply.

[1450]

MacPhail: Maybe we could have the bill distributed and have a recess, Mr.

Speaker.

Hon. G.

Collins: I think there's a motion on the floor, but I'm prepared once we're

in committee to have the House recess.

Mr.

Speaker: The motion is that we approve the motion and the message and that

the supplementary estimates accompanying the message be referred to a Committee

of Supply.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply and also move that the House stand

recessed for 15 minutes to give the opposition and members, as well, a chance to

look at the supplemental estimate.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered.

The House

recessed from 2:51 p.m. to 3:08 p.m.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:09 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES

On vote

25(S): ministry operations, $147,986,000.

Hon. C.

Hansen: By way of a few very brief opening comments about the supplemental

estimate that's before us today, these supplementary estimates reflect British

Columbians' share of the incremental federal funding for health care which flows

from the first ministers' accord on health care renewal and specifically the

announcements that were made on January 30 of this year by the federal

government. These supplementary estimates also reflect B.C.'s share of the new

2004 public health and immunization trust, which was also announced by the

federal government earlier this year.

[1510]

When the

Ministry of Health Services budget was proposed earlier this spring, government

expected to receive additional federal funding at that time. However, we did not

include these funds in our budget at that time because the federal government

had not yet confirmed details about the health accord funding and exactly how it

would flow to the various jurisdictions. The Ministry of Finance announced at

that time that once details were known, these funds would be added

[ Page 11051 ]

to the health budget. We now know that B.C.'s share of the federal funding

that was announced at that time is $130,961,000 for the fiscal year we're

currently in. In addition, this year we will receive $17,025,000 from the public

health and immunization trust.

These

supplemental estimates follow through on this government's commitment to add all

of the incremental federal funds to the Health Services budget. Specifically, as

members will note in the supplemental estimates that were circulated in the

chamber moments ago, all of these moneys will be allocated to the line item in

the budget referred to as the regional health sector, and these moneys will go

primarily to home care and critical care areas. All of this new money that flows

into this particular sector will go to improving direct patient care and the

health of British Columbians.

Our health

care system is dedicated to providing quality health care services to citizens

in our province. There are a wide range of pressures which we will continue to

see impact on our health care system now and into the future. These additional

funds are not the panacea to all of the health challenges that we are facing in

this province. Clearly, the health sector is one that has the ability to consume

billions of dollars, and while these additional millions of dollars will help,

it certainly does not alleviate all of the pressures that we're facing. But it

will mean that more patients will be able to get access to surgeries. It means

that more seniors will get the supports they need in the communities where they

live. It means that children will get better access to vaccines to keep them

healthy and to prevent them from getting ill in the future. More federal moneys

are welcome.

I would

also like to say in closing that I think all of the provinces and territories

recognize that more is needed in terms of the federal government's role as a

funding partner in health care across Canada. The one thing that concerns me

specifically about this particular allocation of moneys that is before us is

that it has not been annualized by the federal government. In the case of the

latest increment to the health accord funding, it's the $2 billion allocated on

a per-capita basis to all provinces notionally over a three-year period. But in

fact, one of those years has already passed us, so we're now into a two-year

frame in which those additional health moneys will be spent. B.C.'s share of

that is approximately $260 million, which divided into the two years will allow

us to allocate about $130 million this year and $130 million in the subsequent

year. The problem with that particular funding is that we do not have certainty

that there will be any ongoing funding vis-à-vis that particular envelope.

The other

moneys I mentioned are from the public health and immunization trust. Again,

this money will be well received and will be put to some very important

purposes, but that again is to be designated over a three-year period. At the

end of the three years we do not have any certainty that this funding will

continue, which makes great difficulty in trying to plan for long-term stability

and certainty.

We will

continue to work with the federal government and to encourage them not only to

increase their share of federal dollars towards the 25 percent that was proposed

by the Romanow report, but also so that we have certainty with regard to

long-term and stable funding for the province.

MacPhail: What a difference a government makes. Now it's that the federal

government isn't giving enough money and that it's not stable funding. That's

certainly different than what the Premier was saying just a couple of months

ago. The Premier, in fact, said at a Premiers' conference on this very topic

that it's not about the funding; it's about delivering health care in a

different fashion. At the same time, of course, he was saying that, the Minister

of Health Services was saying: "It's about the money. We need more

money."

[1515]

Of course,

this is a new mantra for the B.C. Liberal Party. Before they were in government

their mantra was, "We don't need more money. It's about the incompetence of

the health care system. It's about the government of that day not being able to

deliver the services in a cost-effective way," etc. Now it's about the

money when this government takes over.

It is also

about the money even though they're slashing health care workers' wages,

slashing it for the very people who deliver the patient care and the direct

services. Those wages are being slashed. But, oh, this government needs more

money.

Also, I

find it interesting that this minister is standing up and saying that this

province is committed to delivering every single dollar to direct health care.

Well, duh. That's required under the health accord. That's the legal requirement

by the federal government. The federal government says: "We're going to

give you $130 million, and you have to put it into patient care." That's

what the accord says. Well, aren't we supposed to be grateful that in one

contract, at least, this government isn't breaking its word? How much since 1994

has…? What is the federal transfer payment for health care since 1995?

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: I

have the privilege of having a school from my riding visiting the Legislature.

Today in the gallery are 29 grade 5 students from Holy Cross Elementary School

in Burnaby. They are here to learn about the Legislature and how government

works, and they are accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Moscone, and 14 adults.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. C.

Hansen: I don't have that cumulative number at my fingertips, but I can

advise the member that it is contained in the budget reports that are tabled by

the Finance minister each year.

[ Page 11052 ]

MacPhail: Actually, it isn't. The CHST may be contained, but I'm asking what

allocation this government has made for health care from the federal government.

It is interesting to note that every year since 2001 — the agreement was

reached in August 2000 — there have been substantial increases in the flow of

federal dollars to the provincial government.

Prior to

that, of course, there were actually cuts in transfer payments between the years

1994, '95, '96, '97 and '98 — cuts in transfer payments for the health care

system. That was at the time when the then opposition party, the Liberals, were

berating the former government for not doing a good enough job — that the

money was there, and why couldn't they deliver on a better health care system?

Now, of course, we see that the wait-lists are up and the wait times are up, and

yet ever more money is coming from the federal government.

When the

minister says that the federal funding for $130,961,000 is not guaranteed

funding, what submissions has his government made to ensure stability?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I wouldn't want to leave the impression that the $130.9 million is

not guaranteed. It is. Those are revenues to the province in this year, and we

are assured of those revenues, just as we are assured of the approximately $130

million the following year. It is the year after that where we have not been

given any certainty around that annualization.

To answer

the member's specific questions about the long-term stability, there have been

representations made by the Premier and by Premiers, in terms of their first

ministers' conference, urging the federal government to annualize the additional

moneys that we're showing in this supplemental estimate today.

MacPhail: How does that jibe with the Premier saying that it's not about

money and that it's about doing the business of health care differently? What is

it? Is it about the money or not?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think if the member were to go and check the comments made by the

Premier, she would learn that what the Premier said is that it is not just about

money. We can't continue to throw more and more money at the health care system

in an incremental way, and I think this is the problem we've seen in the past.

What we have had is budgets for health care growing faster than the economy, and

that's simply not sustainable if you start going forward ten, 15 or 20 years

into the future.

[1520]

What the

Premier has been saying — and, in fact, all Premiers of all political stripes

across Canada have been saying — is that we have to also fix the health care

system so that it is sustainable. It's not just about adding more money. All of

those Premiers have been pushing for additional federal funds so that the

federal government can reflect the share of health care funding that most people

are pushing them for. There is also a recognition that there has to be

fundamental change in the system if it's truly going to be sustainable in the

medium to long term.

MacPhail: Actually, I do remember it, because the conference amongst the

Premiers took place here in Vancouver at the same time that the Minister of

Health Services was commenting far differently about the same matter here in

Victoria. I was asked to comment on the differences between what the Premier and

the Minister of Health Services were saying. The Premier said, "It's not

about money," at the same that the Minister of Health Services was saying:

"It's about money." It was an embarrassing moment for the government

upon which I got to comment, as a matter of fact.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair. As always, this government tries to bully the opposition by saying:

"Oh no, you're misrepresenting what the government said." They just

did it completely in question period, saying: "Oh no, we never said we

weren't going to release the PricewaterhouseCoopers report in full." They

just did it. Even though day after day, that's what the Premier said; that's

what the minister said.

The

Chair: Member, can I caution you just to stay on this particular item.

You're getting off track here. Could we refocus, please, on this vote — 25(S).

MacPhail: The Premier did say it wasn't about the money. That was consistent

with his message prior to him becoming government. The minute he became

government, his entire cabinet said: "Oh, the federal government isn't

stepping up to the plate, not doing their job."

How is it

that this government is going to manage? What are their plans for sustainability

and reducing the wait times and the wait-lists for surgery? What are their plans

for eliminating the two-tier health care system that they're promoting day after

day?

Hon. C.

Hansen: What we have before us is a supplemental estimate to increase

funding to the regional health sector by $147.986 million. Those moneys will

primarily flow through the health authorities who have responsibility for

management of the delivery of health services in that sector. They are

developing their programs to make sure that we maximize the amount of surgeries,

the amount of home care support and other services that British Columbians are

counting on.

The

Chair: Could the member take her seat, please. I just want to caution the

member that we're not here to recanvass the estimates of the Ministry of Health

Services. We're here to deal with this particular vote. I just want, as a

caution, to keep focused.

MacPhail: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate your

direction. I actually am canvassing the $130 million, but thank you very much

for your direction.

How much of

that $130 million have the health authorities already taken into account?

[ Page 11053 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: Clearly, when the initial budget was brought down by the Finance

minister, we knew that there would be additional moneys, but we didn't know

exactly how we would be able to allocate that. We were trying to be very careful

in terms of the commitments that we made to the health authorities.

There has

been a notional allocation of about $80 million of that to the health

authorities early on in the fiscal year so that they could at least start some

planning with a bit of certainty. It's only since we have been able to confirm

the exact allocation and how it would flow in each of the fiscal years that

we've been able to now, finally, start sitting down with the health authorities

to determine how the additional moneys would be allocated out of that $130

million.

[1525]

MacPhail: How many health authorities were in deficit at the end of the

fiscal year '03-04?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member's direct question, I think, was: which of the health

authorities were in deficit at the end of the fiscal year? The answer vis-à-vis

the fiscal year that just ended is that all of them were.

The reason

is that the arrangement we had with the health authorities was that they had to

balance their budgets over a two-year cycle, a 24-month cycle. If you look at

it, most of them ran surpluses in the first year and deficits in the second

year. If you look at it over the two-year period, all of them wound up with

surpluses with regard to their operational budgets.

Now, there

are also some adjustments that came in with regard to the health benefits trust

— which we canvassed when we were in main estimates, if I recall correctly.

That does make a difference in terms of their final bottom line, but in terms of

their operations, they were all able to be in the black over that 24-month

period.

MacPhail: What is the black after the 24 months? Could I have it per health

authority, please?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I don't have that breakdown with me at this point, but I can

endeavour to get it for the member.

MacPhail: The minister must have it there. How can he say he knows the

answer to that, then? I don't understand. Is the minister referring to some sort

of generic document that says: "Oh, if the member for Vancouver-Hastings

asks this question, give her this answer"? Or does he actually have some

numbers there that he's looking at?

Hon. C.

Hansen: These numbers are still subject to audit. The table that I have in

front of me is not set up with the kind of information the member is asking for.

I do know that all of the health authorities in terms of their operations for

the '03-04 fiscal year were in deficit and that all of them over the two-year

cycle were, in fact, in surplus. I don't have the specific breakdown with each

health authority, but I will endeavour to get it for the member.

MacPhail: Maybe what the minister can do is give me the global budget for

the regional health authorities — what the estimate was for '03-04 and what it

ends up being, the revised estimates. What is that — just the global one then?

[1530]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I guess the reason we're trying to dig through papers to get answers

to the member's questions is that we came well prepared to talk about the

additional $147 million but not prepared to talk about all of the details of

last year's budget, because I thought we had canvassed that when we did the main

estimates in fair detail.

What's in

the budget for this year that we have before us is a base budget of the regional

health sector funding of $6,495,945,000.

MacPhail: That's $6 billion?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It's $6,495,945,000. What we were adding to that is the $147.986

million. Of that base budget that had I referred to, what was allocated to the

health authorities in the base budget was $6,239,204,000.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm not quite sure why the minister thinks these

questions are inappropriate and he came ill-prepared. I'm trying to figure out

how much of the $130 million, if any, has already been spent — or not. If

there's a deficit from previous years, then the $130 million will have already

been accounted for. If there's a surplus, then it won't. I think it's a pretty

straightforward question. It should be anticipated. I'm not quite sure….

Let me ask

this: can the minister surmise whether we're talking about $10 million overall

surplus on the regional health budget or $1 billion or $5 million? What's the

ballpark figure for the surplus?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, I think I get where the member is coming from, so let me

try this answer to see if I can address her concern. Because we have gone to the

new generally accepted accounting principles, the health authorities can no

longer carry forward their surpluses. The last year that health authorities

could carry forward a surplus was in the '02-03 fiscal year, and that's why they

did wind up with a surplus. That was carried forward into the '03-04 fiscal

year. They all ran surpluses in the first year and deficits in the second year,

and over that two-year period they wound up all being slightly in the black.

They cannot carry those surpluses forward under the new generally accepted

accounting principles, so we start with a new fiscal year with the base budgets

as I mentioned in response to the previous question, and we are now adding the

$148 million to that.

[ Page 11054 ]

MacPhail: So the budget prior to this…. Is it $130 million or $148

million? The immunization fund is distributed to the regional health

authorities. The minister can answer that question in a moment, if he can

remember it. I'm sure he will be able to.

Interjection.

MacPhail: No, I don't mean that facetiously. I don't. I'm sorry if my tone

was…. I apologize.

After we

pass these estimates, the new regional health budget will be $6.496 billion?

Hon. C.

Hansen: First of all, just to clarify on the first question that she asked,

there are two elements to this additional federal money that flows. The first

part is money that flows from the original health accord — that was in

February of 2003, I guess it would have been — that was signed in Halifax.

B.C.'s share of that over a three-year period was, if my memory serves me right,

$10 billion. Sorry; it was $1.3 billion. That was B.C.'s per-capita share of the

overall $10 billion in the health accord.

[1535]

What the

federal government had indicated was that if there was a federal surplus last

year, they would allocate an additional $2 billion of that federal surplus to

the health accord moneys. They confirmed that for us in January of this year, I

believe it was, just immediately prior to the budget. B.C.'s share of that $2

billion was $260 million — again, strictly a per-capita share. We still, at

that point, didn't know whether we would have to allocate it over three years or

whether it would all come in one year. Those are all the details that had to be

worked through with both the federal auditor general and the provincial auditor

general. The federal government had to pass special legislation to facilitate

the establishment of this trust in a way that meant that provinces could draw it

down. B.C.'s share of that for this fiscal year we are now into is $130.961

million.

In addition

to that, the federal government also announced another fund, which is a $300

million public health and immunization trust. B.C.'s share of that is, again,

divided up on a per-capita basis. We can spread that over three years so that we

take equal allotments, or close to equal allotments, in each of the three years.

So the additional moneys that will be put into the budget this year from that

trust are $17.025 million. If you add those two together, you come up with the

roughly $148 million that is being added to the health budget by way of this

supplemental estimate that's before us today.

Just to go

back to what I had indicated earlier, the base budget for the Ministry of Health

Services as it was presented to the House in the original estimates was a total

of $6,495,945,000. That was allocated to the regional health sector, which is

what's before us today. Of that line item in the budget for the regional health

sector, the overwhelming majority of that flows to the health authorities, and

that is $6,239,204,000. In essence, all except about $250 million flows into the

health authorities themselves.

MacPhail: I'm going to round it off to $148 million that the government is

now getting. How much of that goes to the regional health authorities as opposed

to the regional health sector?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, so far we have allocated $80 million to the

health authorities around the province. We are now working with them in the

allocation of the additional moneys — of that base $130 million. We have yet

to sort out all of the final details in terms of how much would go to each

individual health authority, but that work is being done. In addition to that,

the $17 million that is allocated for public health and immunization will flow

into the provincial health services authority, as they are responsible for the

provincial immunization programs.

MacPhail: What I'm trying to get at is…. The minister, in the original

main estimates of '04-05, distinguished between regional health sector funding

and regional health authority funding. There is $200 million, approximately,

that is sectoral funding that doesn't flow to the regional health authorities,

as I understand it.

Separate

and apart from the immunization fund, of the $131 million that we're now

debating, how does that divide between the distinction he made previously in the

main estimates — between sectoral funding and authority funding?

[1540]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I guess first of all, just to outline, the main budget items that

are within this line item of the budget but not specifically with one of the

health authorities are items such as the Canadian Blood Services and the

provincial health office. Also a big item is the out-of-province coverage for

British Columbians who are travelling in other provinces, who have treatment and

then the bills come back to the province. That's paid out of this line item out

of the budget but not specifically out of one of the individual health

authorities.

If you take

the allocation of the $131 million — and as I mentioned, we have already

allocated to the health authorities $80 million of that — the remaining $51

million…. We're still working with the health authorities in terms of exactly

how that would be divided up among the six health authorities in the province.

We have not yet come to certainty with regard to how that will be divided up

among the health authorities, but that's the work that is being done.

MacPhail: I guess the short answer is that the full $130 million is flowing

to health authorities. That's what I understand from what the minister is saying

in answer to my questions.

[ Page 11055 ]

I thought

the funding formula was based on a population formula. Is there something

different happening in this case?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Yes, with the exception of the PHSA. We wind up with big cost

pressures in the PHSA that we are obviously trying to address. Then the other

health authorities are allocated according to the population needs–based

funding.

MacPhail: What are the cost pressures of the PHSA?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Some of the major cost pressures for PHSA would be items such as

some of the new cancer drugs that need to be funded, because those are all

funded through PHSA to the cancer agency; the renal program in the province,

where we have expanded the number of renal dialysis stations in this province

by…. It's over 40 percent. I forget the exact number. There are also increased

cost pressures with regard to the B.C. Transplant Society and also the B.C.

Centre for Disease Control with some of the new challenges they are faced with

— whether it's things like the avian flu monitoring or the West Nile virus

programs that they are embarking upon. Those are all the types of cost pressures

that we're facing within PHSA.

MacPhail: Are these one-time cost pressures, or are they ongoing cost

pressures?

Hon. C.

Hansen: In terms of most of the things I indicated, they're all ongoing —

certainly the new cancer medications, which are extremely expensive but are

really so vitally important to the treatment of cancer in this province. The

renal programs are all ongoing funding. Those are new permanent stations that

have been established in communities all around the province. The B.C.

Transplant Society, again, is all ongoing money.

In the case

of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, I guess we had to fund West Nile virus

programs last year on a one-time basis, and we'll be doing so again this year.

We can certainly hope that's not an ongoing challenge for this province, but we

have no way of knowing that for certain. I'm sure everyone that's involved with

the current avian flu challenges in the Fraser Valley is hoping and praying that

this is a one-time fund and that it's not going to be an ongoing challenge for

the province, but those are all the kinds of unforeseen events that we have to

be prepared to fund.

[1545]

MacPhail: As the minister has already stated, the funding flowing from the

federal government is a one-occurrence funding over two years. If the government

is now going to put the money into programs that require ongoing funding, is his

government committed to ensuring — regardless of federal funding increases —

that his government will continue to fund the programs at the new level?

Hon. C.

Hansen: If the member refers back to the original budget and fiscal plan

that the Finance minister tabled in February, you will see the three-year

funding projections that are there. The determination, if that's the right word,

of these one-time moneys from the federal government was anticipated. She'll see

in the budget plan that we are committed to a significant investment in '06-07,

which would be the first year for which there is not certainty around these

additional federal moneys.

There is an

additional allocation that has been indicated for that year, which would allow

us to meet those challenges if the federal government does not give us ongoing

certainty. Certainly, what we're pushing for and what the Premier is pushing for

is for the federal government to annualize these funds, so that we do have that

kind of stability going forward. But we have built into our ongoing third-year

budget additional moneys to allow for stability in the overall health budget.

MacPhail: We're talking about federal funding that flows from federal taxes,

and of course, this government has written off $250 million of federal taxes

through their deal with CN. If they hadn't given CN a $250 million federal tax

break, that money could have easily flowed to British Columbia for health care.

It is kind

of like this government talking out of both sides of its mouth, saying,

"Oh, we want more money from the federal government for health care. But by

the way, we've just cut a deal with CN that they don't have to pay federal

taxes" — a $255 million deal that CN doesn't have to pay federal taxes, a

complete write-off — that would have more than made up for two more years of

stable funding around federal transfer payments for health care. Isn't it

ironic? On the one hand the government says, "Oh no, it's not about

money" — the Premier says. The Health minister says it is about money,

and then both of them throw away $255 million of federal taxes that should have

been collected by CN — let alone all the other breaks that CN gets.

I don't

have my book here, Mr. Chair. How much in '06-07 is the budget increased over

'03-04?

[1550]

Hon. C.

Hansen: If you look at the base budget at the start of '03-04 to the

projected budget for '06-07, it would be an increase of $1.047 billion. And just

for reference, you can find that on page 17 of the budget and fiscal plan.

MacPhail: How much of the $148 million that flows extra in '04-05 and then

another $148 million in '05-06 will continue in '06-07?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The answer is approximately $17 million, which is the amount that

pertains to the public health and immunization trust.

MacPhail: No. Well, maybe this is the answer. I'm asking how much from the

provincial government funding will continue.

[ Page 11056 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: Of the amount that I indicated earlier, the $1.047 billion increase

in the '06-07 year, $435 million would be from provincial sources — i.e., not

pertaining to increases in federal moneys that have been transferred.

MacPhail: Do the health authorities have autonomy in allocating this extra

federal money?

Hon. C.

Hansen: With regard to the health accord moneys, generally, that are

flowing, some of those are tied to the specific objectives of the reform fund.

The specific $130 million that's before us today is an increase to the CHST, so

it's not an increase to the health reform fund per se. In essence, it doesn't

come with conditions attached to it.

As we, in

turn, then flow it to the health authorities, there are no conditions that flow

from the federal government, but there are expectations that flow from the

provincial government. They're with regard to the performance agreements that

are in place. Also, moneys that flow into the PHSA would be to target specific

cost pressures that they're facing.

The dynamic

as it works is that it's not really a case of the health authorities going out

and doing whatever they want with the money. There is a very healthy dynamic

between the ministry and the health authorities around trying to achieve

specific objectives with regard to home care and dealing with wait-lists and

things like that.

In essence,

the health authorities do have the ability to manage that money, but they manage

it towards specific performance outcomes that we expect of them.

MacPhail: How much of this federal money that we're debating right now will

flow to surgeries?

Hon. C.

Hansen: That's the kind of detail I wouldn't have at this point. The health

authorities, when they see what their allocations will be, will have to

determine where their pressures are. If you look at all of the health

authorities, they have differing needs when it comes to doing surgeries versus

other needs in the health care sector. We rely on them and their expertise to

determine exactly where those priorities should be.

Vote 25(

S) approved.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:55 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee

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

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2004-2005

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2004-2005.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: This bill is similar to other bills of this nature that have been

introduced following the introduction and passage of supplementary estimates.

Its wording is virtually identical to the one that was introduced earlier this

year for the supplemental estimates we had for forest fires as well as the

emergency response from the Solicitor General, etc.

With that,

I would 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 49

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.

Recommittal of Bills

CREMATION, INTERMENT

AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

Hon. R.

Coleman: By leave, I move that the proceedings in regards to third reading

of Bill 3, intituled the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, be

declared null and void and that the bill be recommitted forthwith in respect to

sections 1 and 68.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Committee of the Whole House

CREMATION, INTERMENT

AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 3; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4 p.m.

The

Chair: Minister, you have an amendment on

section 1.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 1 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[ Page 11057 ]

[SECTION 1, in the proposed

section 1 by adding the following

definition:"spouse" means a person who

(

a) is married to another person,

(

b) is united to another person by a marriage that, although not a legal marriage,

is valid at common law, or

(

c) has lived and cohabited with another person in a marriage-like relationship,

including a marriage-like relationship between persons of the same gender,

for a period of at least 2 years immediately before the other person's death;]

On the amendment.

J. MacPhail:

I'll just read the amendment into the record, Mr. Chair. It's an amendment to

section 1 "by adding the following definition: 'spouse' means a person

who (

a) is married to another person, (

b) is united to another person by a marriage

that, although not a legal marriage, is valid at common law, or (

c) has lived

and cohabited with another person in a marriage-like relationship, including

a marriage-like relationship between persons of the same gender, for a period

of at least 2 years immediately before the other person's death."

My colleague

the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be voting in favour of

this amendment.

[1605]

Amendment

approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

Section 1

as amended approved.

section

The Chair:

The Solicitor General has an amendment to

section 68.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 68 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 68, in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting paragraph

(y).]

On the amendment.

J. MacPhail:

I note that

section 68 deletes what was the reference under Bill 3 to propose

that this government put in regulation who could have a say, in what order,

over the disposal of the body of a deceased person. It was an interesting discussion.

Here's what subsection (2)(

y) of

section 68 reads: "prescribing classes

of persons who are spouses, including persons who are not married."

We had quite

a little discussion at the original time of Bill 3, where the minister insisted

that it had to be done behind closed doors. Now, of course, the government has

seen the ways that the opposition promoted and said this should be in legislation.

That's why the deletion of this

section is here — to not allow the government

to make these decisions behind closed doors but to actually have those rights

of people who are same-sex couples confirmed and incorporated into the legislation.

Amendment

approved.

Section 68

as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee

rose at 4:10 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 3, Cremation,

Interment and Funeral Services Act, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr. Speaker:

When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill

3, Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 34.

[1615]

Committee of the Whole House

PROVINCIAL REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee

met at 4:16 p.m.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

L. Mayencourt:

Section 2, which is amending the Corporation Capital Tax Act, refers to the

administrator under sub (4): "Despite subsection (2) (

b) if an assessment

action has occurred in respect of a corporation, the administrator may assess

or reassess the corporation for a tax or make an additional tax assessment

[ Page 11058 ]

against the corporation for a taxation year before the end of the later of…."

Can I get

some clarification? Who is the administrator, and what is the limit on the reassessment?

Is there a time limit on that?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: First of all, I'd like to recognize the staff that are with me today:

Simone Decosse and Jeffrey Krasnick, who are with the Ministry of Provincial

Revenue. I thank them for all their hard work.

The administrator

is the director of the income tax branch. There is a six-year statute on corporate

capital tax. This amendment here is providing us with the flexibility to comply

with changes to the federal law where there is a reassessment and reallocation.

Sections

2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On

section

L. Mayencourt:

The director — when he or she is deciding that a board member is jointly and

severally liable, is it required that the board member in question was aware

of the non-payment and did nothing about it? Is that what's intended there?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: For someone to be liable in this situation, it would have to be

demonstrated that they, in fact, did not do due diligence.

Sections

5 and 6 approved.

On

section

L. Mayencourt:

Under "Deemed board member," it states: "If the director has

reason to believe that a person who was not a member of the board of directors

of a corporation performed some or all of the functions of a member of the board

of directors of the corporation, the director may request the person and the

corporation to provide to the director the records and information required

by the director to confirm or rebut that belief."

In the first

part of that — "if the director" — are we talking about the director

of taxation? The second question that I have is…. The person that's not a

member of the board who comes in and performs some of the duties…. How much

is "some"?

[H.

Long in the chair.]

[1620]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Sorry, I didn't hear the second part of the question, but let me

answer the first part. The director is the director under the Hotel Room Tax

Act.

L. Mayencourt:

Then when we refer to someone who's performing some of the duties of a board

member — I would imagine like a consultant or maybe even a staff member —

how much is "some"?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: In some instances the board members are appointed for profile, things

like that, and are really not involved in the day-to-day operations of an organization.

This would be where, for instance, the chief operating officer was discharging

those responsibilities and was deemed to have not done it properly. That's what

this is intended to capture.

L. Mayencourt:

It's not about a consultant coming in and working and doing some of the work

that a board member would do, and it's not about an employee doing that either.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: No, it is not.

L. Mayencourt:

Okay, thank you.

Sections

7 to 15 inclusive approved.

section

L. Mayencourt:

I'm looking at "notional tax" in the definition of a notional tax.

I'm wondering if you could provide me with a better understanding of that particular

set of words there.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: That would pertain to the royalty and deemed income–related provisions

requiring taxpayers who have mining or oil and gas profits to calculate British

Columbia income tax by adding back a federal resource allowance and deducting

the British Columbia royalties and the British Columbia mineral taxes paid.

I trust that clears that up for the member.

L. Mayencourt:

Now I'm really perplexed, or something like that. Is there a simpler version

of that?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: The federal government has a federal resource allowance, which we

do not allow in British Columbia. We have the actual royalties that are incurred

here in British Columbia. We allow those to be taken into account.

Sections

16 to 21 inclusive approved.

section

[1625]

L. Mayencourt:

Just on the title, "Continuing liability for taxes." Is that open-ended,

or is that within that six-year limit that you spoke of earlier?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: This is a rewrite with the addition of the waiver provision, and

the waiver provision is at the sole discretion of the taxpayer. In other words,

if we're in a situation and the taxpayer wants to waive that limitation so they

can proceed or have additional time to look into some matters, it's at their

sole discretion that that's waived.

Sections

22 to 24 inclusive approved.

[ Page 11059 ]

section

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move the amendment to

section 25 that is in the possession of

the Clerk, a copy of which has been supplied to the opposition.

[SECTION 25 (c), by adding the following definition,

"spouse" means

(

a) a person who is married to another person, or

(

b) a person who

(

i) is living and cohabiting with another person in a marriage-like

relationship, including a marriage-like relationship between persons of the

same gender, and

(ii) has been living and cohabiting in that relationship

for a continuous period of at least two years;]

Amendment

approved.

section

25 as amended.

B. Kerr:

I have a question relating to this for people that are living on leased

land, where they're on Crown land and they're paying a lease fee. I have in

my constituency a number of people that are living in an area where the land

is leased. What has happened as a result of the lease being based on the assessed

value of the property is that the property has skyrocketed in price, as we all

know. Now that the lease payments they're supposed to be making are untenable

for some of the people who are in their mid-seventies, they're concerned they're

going to be evicted from these places although they've been living on them for

30 years. Would this capture those people so that they can get the deferment

on the property tax?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: This section,

section 25, is

definitions. We have put in additional

definitions here to clarify various items. Of course, if those individuals are

encompassed by the

definitions of the act, including these new

definitions that

we're seeking to pass in this House today, then people would qualify. If they're

outside the scope of those

definitions, then, of course, they would not qualify.

B. Kerr:

I guess they're living on an area of land with an improvement on it, so

by my indication, that would make them qualify. I just want to get some assurance

from the minister that that would allow them to qualify.

[1630]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Those that are eligible for this tax deferment are individuals that

are 60 years and older, a surviving spouse of such an individual, or that have

physical and mental disabilities. That's what the Land Tax Deferment Act is

about. It's about those that qualify in there.

I might also

say, because the member is asking a particular thing about individual constituents….

If in fact that member wants to pursue that outside of this debate in further

detail, I and my ministry would be pleased to work with him on such a matter.

B. Kerr:

Thank you for that. I'll take you up on that offer. Although I used my constituents

as an example, I was using them as an example which probably applies — could

apply — to any citizen of British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt:

The surviving spouse. They don't have to be over 60 — right?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: That is correct.

Section 25

as amended approved.

Sections

26 and 27 approved.

section

L. Mayencourt:

Yeah, on

section 28, and it's just at the last bit. It has to do with property

being held in joint tenancy or tenancy in common: "…at least one of the

owners must qualify under this Act."

What happens

if someone goes through the property tax deferment process for ten or 15 years

— all right, five years — and then decides to change from being the single

owner and enters into a joint tenancy agreement with, say, a younger relative?

What happens to the tax deferment that they have already received?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: That member comes up with some very interesting questions. As long

as one of the members is eligible, the eligibility remains in place.

B. Kerr:

I believe this to be in

section 28 when we're talking about who's eligible.

This is a general question, but I'm hoping it's on this section. We have tax

sales, where people don't pay their tax and their property is put up for a tax

sale. The reason they don't pay their taxes is because they're incompetent,

but they might not have a committee. They might not even be aware of what is

happening. If the committee doesn't act accordingly or properly for them, their

property is put up for a tax sale. Is there any way to correct that situation

so that they can then apply for the deferment and not have the property put

up for a tax sale? The debt on the property might be in the neighbourhood of

$20,000 or even $5,000, and the equity might be $250,000. Somebody picks it

up for a song, and it doesn't get corrected.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: This act does not have any impact on forfeiture.

Sections

28 to 33 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move the amendment to

section 34 which is in the possession of

the Clerk. A copy has been supplied to the opposition. Let me just read it for

members who haven't received it.

[SECTION 34, by deleting the proposed paragraph (f).]

[ Page 11060 ]

Amendment

approved.

Section

34 as amended approved.

Sections

35 to 39 inclusive approved.

section

L. Mayencourt:

The question that I have is on

section 21(5)(a)(iii): "any person has made

any misrepresentation or committed any fraud in making a return or in supplying

information under this Act." That means knowingly — does it?

[1635]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Yes.

L. Mayencourt:

The reason I'm asking is that it seems to me that in some parts of taxation,

sometimes someone might have followed the rules under a certain regulation,

or what have you, and then learned at some later time that it's been reinterpreted.

That's the reason why I'm asking that question.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Fraud means fraud, and fraud does mean that people knowingly knew

what they were doing. That's how it's deemed to be fraud.

Not connecting

this answer to that question, but just giving another explanation to the member

in general on tax assessments, the way our system works in British Columbia

is that all taxpayers — no matter what the tax is — have the ability to

appeal their assessment. That appeal is done and handled by a branch of the

ministry that is totally independent from the assessing unit so that there is

independence there. Those appeals, under our government, are reviewed at the

ministerial level. In fact, I personally review all appeals with respect to

taxation and appeals that are made by individual taxpayers in the province.

Sections

40 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 46.

L. Mayencourt:

It has to do with the title here, "Fair market value…." As the minister

notes, we've had some discussions in the last little while around fair market

value. I guess what I'm just trying to find out is: where does that…? You

know, you go out and buy something, and it increases in value, for instance.

Where is that fair market value determined?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Yes, I thank the member for that question. Also, I'd like to recognize

that on a number of individual issues, I have been working with the member when

he is representing the interests of his constituents.

Fair market

value is a value that is established as if a transaction had taken place, a

truly arm's-length situation. Of course, when we are looking at these, we have

to make sure that the fair market value…. The way the law is written with

respect to property transfer tax is that the date of registration of the property

is when the fair market value situation takes place. You know, we look at that.

We review those things. We have had a rising marketplace with respect to real

estate. Generally, there is no impact when a purchase takes place and is closed

in a relatively short time frame. Where we do have issues that are coming up

is in a situation where there is more than just a piece of land that has been

transferred or taken apart from a consolidation. That is one type of issue.

Another issue

is when someone buys a property today but doesn't register it until two or two

and a half years out. That has been an issue. We do look generally at B.C. Assessment

factors and assessments at that time as fair market value, but we also take

into account other information. In fact, if something else has been sold higher

or lower than B.C. Assessment value, we take that into account. If someone has

had an individual appraisal taken for insurance purposes and/or financing purposes,

we take that into account.

[1640]

Again, it

has been an issue that has gained increased attention as the markets have accelerated

in recent months, but it's one that we continue to monitor and work closely

with the members of this House to ensure that the fairness with respect to the

legislation is in place so that the law of the legislation is upheld.

L. Mayencourt:

You banged the nail on the head there, because that's my real problem. I'll

just share it with the House.

In my neighbourhood,

which is downtown Vancouver, the average pre-sell of an apartment or a condo

is 23 months. That means that they buy it before it is even a hole in the ground,

and it can increase in value. We've seen a substantial increase in value of

property over the last couple of years, and it's caused some great hardship

in my community. Some of it's been on some of the more high-priced units. I'll

admit that some of it is around Coal Harbour and Concord, but also in other

neighbourhoods where people are really buying their second…. It's their second

time at buying a house or an apartment, and all of a sudden they get dinged

with a $500 assessment or a $5,000 assessment or in some cases much, much more.

It just occurs

to me that they sat down 20 months ago and decided that they really liked the

place, and they bought it for $180,000. You know, they've been saving their

money, and then they get to the final day and get into the house. They're getting

the furniture moved in, and all of a sudden they realize they have to move some

of the furniture out because they haven't got the money to pay the property

transfer tax. It's a real concern.

I appreciate

the minister taking a look at this. Are there any considerations on where we're

going with this and a way to address it so that it is fair for people who are

legitimately just trying to make an investment?

[ Page 11061 ]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I can tell the member that the issue is not confined just to the

area of the province that he resides in. It happens in others. We're very aware

of this situation. That's why we work very closely with the real estate industry,

with the legal community, to make sure as many people as possible are aware

of the law.

This is legislation

that has been in place since 1987, and we are very aware of the situation. We

are very aware of tax fairness. We are very aware of making sure that we have

a competitive tax regime. That's why our government has reduced taxes 31 times.

It's an issue that we're very aware of, and I look forward to continuing to

work with the members of this House on this issue.

L. Mayencourt:

Just in conclusion on this section, you've said that they're able to appeal

the assessment, and I believe the time frame for that is 90 days. I've got a

little situation in that I might have a little bit more than 90 days. This is

really a new thing. It reared its head in February or March of this year. Assuming

that people have the 90 days, what would they do? How would they be able…?

What action would you recommend they take in terms of appealing?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: The legislation is very clear that the appeal has to take place

within a 90-day time frame. I would recommend strongly that those who have concerns,

or are in disagreement with their assessment within the 90-day time frame, send

it in, address it to me, and we'll make sure those are reviewed.

We take our

review, our appeal process, very seriously. We have staff that are dedicated

to this, and we will address that, but they have to act within the 90-day time

frame. That's very clearly stated on the assessment notice. Again, I would encourage

taxpayers that have concerns in this area to please get their appeal in, and

then we can deal with the details later.

[1645]

L. Mayencourt:

That's all I've got on

section 46. I want to thank you very much, minister,

because I think that's really important. As you say, it's not just my riding.

It just seems to really hurt more when I'm looking at my neighbour doing that.

I'm sure it's happening in Kelowna and other areas as well. I will encourage

my constituents and others to send in an appeal if they feel that they've been

charged a little too much.

Sections

46 to 49 inclusive approved.

section 50.

B. Kerr:

I guess I'm following the lead of my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard. I'm reading

the deemed director section, 102.2. I could have picked this up all the way

through, but this one on the social service tax is a really significant area,

because there are a lot of problems with the social service tax and the regulations

and

interpretations that go on and on.

Now we pierce

the corporate veil to go on to directors, where they'll become joint and severally

liable. But we've taken it one step further. We're going to deem directors.

If a person is considered to have done some of the activities of a director,

they could also be deemed to be joint and severally liable.

My concern

is that nowadays people do recognize the liability of directors, so they won't

go on the board. But they do want to help the company out, and they do get a

fee. They'll go on what could be called an advisory board or fill in, in some

other capacity, for a fee. They do sometimes perform some of the functions that

a director might perform, albeit they're not directors and they don't perform

all the functions. It concerns me here that the director can determine that

a person is a board member if they have performed some of the functions. That's

under

section 102.2(2)(b). That just really concerns me. Under what circumstances

can he see that this would happen?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I understand the member's question. I think it's important, though,

in the reading of this that this is to capture directors that have demonstrated

they have not performed due diligence. Indicators of due diligence are: the

director established corporate policies regarding the collection and remittance

of taxes; the director implemented controls to ensure the policies were followed

by employees; officers were appointed to specifically deal with remittances;

funds were directed to be used to pay remittances; if the corporation is experiencing

financial difficulties, the worker took positive steps to separate remittance

of funds and took steps to ensure that tax amounts were remitted to the government.

Those are where directors and deemed directors would have done due diligence.

What we are

doing here is trying to bring attention to when directors do not do due diligence.

Let me give some examples. The director did not implement controls to ensure

tax was remitted but argues that he or she did not personally benefit from the

amounts not remitted by the corporation. The director chose to continue to carry

on the business knowing that a failure to remit was likely but hoping the corporation's

fortunes would revive and the risk the director took would have been taken by

a reasonable person.

Another one

would be that after the director became aware that officers or employees were

not making the requirements, the director continued to rely on the officers

and employees of the corporation to remit the tax without implementing any other

processes. The director was forced to choose between the competing demands of

creditors, suppliers and the government and directed funds to non-government

debts. A final example would be that the director only implemented policies

and controls for tax remittance after becoming aware of the corporation's failure

to remit taxes.

[1650]

The member

is correct. This is in all of these bills, and if I remember correctly, we are

the last jurisdiction in Canada to implement this, with the exception of Newfoundland.

This amendment to ensure where it

[ Page 11062 ]

can be shown that directors have not executed due diligence — that's what

it's intended to capture.

B. Kerr:

That's my point, and I commend you for trying to do that for directors, because

there is a legal liability when you accept the job of a director going on to

a board. I understand that a director should be doing all that and making sure

that happens.

My concern

is with the

section of the act that deems a person to be a director if they

have performed some of the duties of a director. A person might say: "I

don't want to go on the board of directors because I don't want to do the things

that you've described, but I will go on to an advisory board, or I will attend

some board meetings to help you with marketing or some production or finance

problems in some areas. But don't saddle me with the liabilities and obligations

of a director, because I don't want to take on that liability."

Under this

interpretation here, the director — meaning the Ministry of Provincial Revenue

director — can go in and say: "You have done some of the duties of a

board director. You've attended board meetings. Therefore, I'm deeming you to

be a director and have full joint and several liability." I must admit

that really concerns me, and I'm concerned about the broad-reaching effect of

that particular section.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: This legislation is intended to exclude those very individuals who

do not have control. It is not designed to capture those who do not have control.

B. Kerr:

Thank you to the minister. I'll take your word on that, and that's good. It

gives me some comfort.

Sections

50 to 76 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee

rose at 4:53 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 34,

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr. Speaker:

When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. C.

Hansen: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 34,

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I call second reading of Bill 43.

Second Reading of Bills

VITAL STATISTICSAMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move second reading of Bill 43.

This bill

has two primary areas of focus. The first is a set of amendments that will better

protect the security and integrity of documents related to people's identities.

I am referring here to documents such as your birth certificate, marriage certificate

and death certificate.

We are amending

the legislation in response to a June 2003 decision by the Supreme Court of

Canada that found some of the current provisions, which allowed a woman to register

a child's birth and surname without involving or acknowledging the father, to

be discriminatory.

The bill

also includes minor housekeeping amendments which would improve the administration

of the act.

[1655]

We live in

a world today that is very, very different from the world we lived in prior

to September 11, 2001. Today we are aware more than ever before of the need

to properly protect vital identity-related documents such as birth, marriage

and death certificates. The consequences of these kinds of documents being improperly

used can be dire indeed.

Following

the attacks on the World Trade Center, there were two national bodies in Canada

that examined document security and made recommendations around strengthening

the protection of identity documents in Canada. Those two national bodies are

the federal-provincial-territorial council on identity in Canada and also the

security committee of the Vital Statistics Council for Canada.

Our amendments

to the Vital Statistics Act are in response to recommendations that were made

by these two bodies. These amendments minimize the risk of someone obtaining

a copy of a birth or marriage certificate without permission of the person named

on the certificate. The Vital Statistics Act will ensure security by ensuring

that the spouse, the parent, a lawyer or anyone who acts on behalf of another

person has the written permission of that person before it can be issued. Access

to children's birth certificates by their parents will also be restricted unless

the child is under 19 years of age or is incapable. Previously, parents could

access their adult children's birth certificates without their consent, and

our amendment addresses that particular issue.

The amendments

will also create a regulation-making power to be used if needed, which will

allow

[ Page 11063 ]

restrictions to be established on how birth or marriage certificates can be

used for other identification purposes. The reason for this change is that some

older certificates do not have the same built-in security features that modern

documents have, and as a result, they can be more easily manipulated for illicit

purposes.

As part of

our goal to better protect identity documents, we are also increasing the power

of the chief executive officer of the Vital Statistics Agency to cancel and/or

order the return of certificates that are invalid or incorrect or obtained through

fraudulent use. We are also increasing fines from the current $2,000 up to a

maximum of $50,000 if someone fails to surrender a certificate or fails to supply

more information when asked to do so.

The second

set of amendments to the Vital Statistics Act is aimed at ensuring that our

laws comply with a 2003 Supreme Court of Canada decision that found certain

provisions of our act to be discriminatory. The amendment will allow fathers

to apply to have their child's surname changed at the same time as they apply

for a paternity order in court. This means that if the courts recognize paternity,

the courts may also order that the surname of the child be changed on the birth

certificate.

We are also

taking this opportunity to bring in other housekeeping amendments that will

have a couple of changes. One will recognize the advancements in electronic

technology by allowing for certified electronic extracts of birth, marriage

and death registrations. Secondly, it will improve reporting around sudden and

unexplained deaths by requiring coroners to provide copies of inquiry and post-mortem

reports in addition to the medical certificates. Thirdly, it will expand and

clarify who can obtain certified copies of death registrations.

While our

goal is to restrict illicit and unauthorized access to identity-related documents,

we also want to make sure that those who have a legitimate need to see death

registrations are able to do so. Therefore, these amendments will ensure that

certified copies of death registrations will be made available to next of kin,

to medical professionals who need a certificate to treat a family member of

a deceased, and to federal and provincial government employees who need a certificate

to carry out their official duties.

[1700]

Finally,

we are bringing in amendments which will clarify the release of birth, marriage

and death certificates for use in genealogical research. The provisions we are

adopting are similar to the authority outlined in the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act. They provide for the release of certified copies

of marriage registrations only after both parties have been deceased for more

than 20 years or after more than 75 years have passed since the marriage. We

also provide for the release of certified copies of death registrations only

after 20 years have passed since the death.

We all know

that our population is living longer and that while 100 years or older used

to be a very rare occurrence, in these days we have many people living over

100 years of age who are part of our British Columbia population. One of the

things I saw in one of the original drafts of the legislation was a provision

which said that the birth certificate could, in fact, be released 100 years

after the birth to anybody who wanted to obtain a copy. When I asked the reasons

behind that, it was explained to me that this was a customary provision for

government documents — that they could be available to the public 100 years

after the document was first issued. A birth certificate, in fact, constitutes

a government document that would be subject to this provision.

It occurred

to me that when that provision may have originally been embedded into legislation,

it was probably at a time in our history when there were very few individuals

living past 100. Today I asked for the latest numbers available in terms of

the number of British Columbians living beyond that age. If you go back just

a few years to 2001, there were 465 British Columbians over the age of 100.

As of last year, 2003, that number is up to 520.

I heard of

a long-term care facility in the province that used to have a big celebration,

a big hundredth birthday party for every one of their residents who passed the

age of 100. They would invite family, and they would arrange for cake and festivities.

They finally realized they could no longer afford it in their budget, because

there were so many of their residents reaching that 100-year milestone.

In order

to address this need, I recognize these individuals who are living past 100

deserve the same kind of protections of their birth certificates that anybody

else in this province does. What we have instituted is a change in order to

protect the personal privacy of our centenarians. We are introducing an amendment

to the Vital Statistics Act that will extend the automatic release date of copies

of birth certificate registration forms from the current 100 years to 120 years

after the birth occurred.

I was recently

informed that the fastest-growing age group in this province is not the baby-boomers,

as many people would think. In fact, the age group that is growing faster in

percentage terms than any other age group are those British Columbians over

the age of 90 — expected to grow by 40 percent in the next three and a half

years alone. I have no doubt that even as we change this provision in the Vital

Statistics Act from 100 years to 120 years, there will be a day in the future

when some other group of legislators will be standing in this House to amend

this legislation to protect those British Columbians living beyond 120 years

of age.

I did do

a little bit of research. I checked out what is considered to be the oldest

living resident on earth, and I believe it's now 116 or 117 years of age. I

think the provision we are proposing in this legislation to increase that date

to 120 years after birth will, in fact, serve us for a number of years. Given

the advance-

[ Page 11064 ]

ments in medical science and the longevity of British Columbians, no doubt

the day will come soon that will require yet a further change to this particular

legislation.

This change

protects individuals' privacy while also ensuring that researchers and next

of kin are still able to obtain copies of birth certificates through their vital

statistics office. I look forward to hearing other comments of members of the

House and to the subsequent committee stage.

[1705]

B. Suffredine:

I'd just like to make a few remarks in regards to this. Obviously, the Ministry

of Health has many pressing things to do these days. There might be some that

would wonder why amendments to the Vital Statistics Act would take priority,

and some of our critics might decide it's not important enough. There are those

who view vital statistics as a minor and boring item and, perhaps, some who

might view it as trivial. In fact, there are many very serious family issues

that arise around vital statistics and the records kept by the vital statistics

department.

There are

big issues that come up around access to the documents. It's important to people

that their privacy is kept appropriately. There are always two sides to it in

terms of who gets access to records like marriage, birth or death certificates

and for what purposes they can access those. For example, must a child have

the name of his deadbeat father, who might have been his father but who never

supported him, or perhaps even the name of a father that became his father as

a result of a sexual assault? Those are very important issues that need to be

appropriately dealt with in legislation.

The right

to a surname and the right to change your surname are important matters that

have been raised in the context, for example, of sex offenders who've gone to

prison and changed their name while in prison — and the risk to the public

of the potential that someone might change their name to hide their identity

and assume another one.

There are

a couple of very brief examples that I'd like to allude to in the legislation.

The minister has spoken about them a little bit — fraudulently obtained registrations.

Giving the director the power to act if satisfied that a registration is fraudulent

is not only a necessary but a very appropriate change. It's noteworthy that

it was not there before. The procedure before was very cumbersome. It was an

application to court and a very unusual application at that.

Section 10

in the bill — to give the power of an appeal of an administrative decision.

Now, a lot of people might say: "Well, when is that going to be appropriate?"

If you've ever made an application to — I don't know — the director of motor

vehicles or the director of vital statistics, and you get a letter giving the

decision, and after that there is no possible appeal…. It's just an administrative

thing. No one had you in a room. They let you make your submission by letter.

They sent you their result, and there's no place else to go after that happens.

That's very frustrating for the average individual. When people get a decision

in the mail — they've never had a hearing; they've never had an opportunity

to put in their evidence as they see it, talk about it, debate it — they often

feel very unjustly treated and feel as if the system is just plain unfair to

them. Appeals to the Supreme Court aren't likely to happen very often, but when

they do happen, they'll actually give people the satisfaction that they got

fair treatment.

The other

thing is that in these days of 9/11 and terrorism attacks, security of passport

information is critical to all of our abilities to travel and to cross borders

without extensive delays. Many people don't realize it, but it's very important

that steps be taken to make sure the information we're putting out is accurate

and can only be obtained by appropriate people. Addressing all of these considerations

is something where I congratulate the minister for taking the time, in spite

of the fact that he's got huge pressures in health care and lots of other duties.

To take the time to address very important matters and to bring them forward

in these times is very appropriate, and I thank him for taking that time.

Mr. Speaker:

We're at second reading stage of Bill 43, and the minister closes debate.

[1710]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I appreciate the comments from the member.

I guess one

of the most important things that drive the timing of this legislation is, in

fact, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to the particular

provisions that are considered discriminatory. That was a decision that came

down in June of last year and gave British Columbia one year to correct the

provisions in that particular bill. As the member rightly points out, the issues

around identity theft and the security of identity documents are also ones that

are extremely pressing on all governments, especially subsequent to the September

11, 2001, tragedies in New York and Washington, D.C.

I thank the

member very much for his comments, and with that, I will conclude debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 43,

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I call second reading of Bill 44.

[ Page 11065 ]

CORRECTION ACT

Hon. R.

Coleman: A new Correction Act is proposed to support and strengthen current

public safety policy, accountability and security.

A year ago

there was an issue in and around the policy of searches that were being carried

on in correctional institutes in British Columbia, so last December I took an

amendment with regard to strip searches and some of the policies that existed

within the old Correction Act to caucus committee of the Legislature. When I

did that and looked at the act, it became readily apparent that a piece of legislation

that was 25 years old was not actually workable today for the people we have

working in corrections in the province, so we actually moved from that toward

developing an entire new piece of legislation.

It's important

we do that, because the legislation under consideration today creates a new

and modern Correction Act that enhances public safety and approves accountability.

Today the corrections branch is responsible for the safe custody and control

of over 2,000 inmates and the supervision of almost 20,000 offenders in the

community. That means the Correction Act people have people that are in secured

custody and people that are on probation in the community. They are out there

every day protecting the citizens of British Columbia and doing supervision

with regard to these folks.

This legislation

before you contains new or significantly strengthened provisions to protect

the public and make correctional centres safer for staff, inmates and visitors.

Our probation officers provide information to the courts and supervise offenders

in communities across British Columbia. This legislation enhances their powers

and duties to enforce conditions imposed by the courts and to supervise offenders

serving sentences in the community.

The citizens

of British Columbia will be protected by this legislation from inmates in correctional

institutes who misuse telephone or mail privileges to threaten and criminally

harass victims, spouses, witnesses and others. A very important piece of this

legislation is that the people that are in custody in British Columbia are not

revictimizing or threatening or carrying on crime from within our correctional

institutions.

We have the

ability to record passively all non-privileged telephone calls between inmates

and other persons when corrections officials have reasonable grounds to believe

an inmate is abusing a telephone privilege by engaging in criminal activity

or threatening individuals. Staff will be authorized to listen to recordings

to verify the infraction and take action as appropriate to prevent further abuse.

The act we

are considering today will guarantee that all persons in correctional centres

are subject to fair and appropriate search procedures to make sure illicit substances

and dangerous objects are kept out of our facilities. It is our job to protect

the people in our custody and to protect those people that are working in our

facilities. It is very important that we make sure the substances and weapons

we find at different times in searches do not get into our correctional institutions

and put the lives of either our inmates or the people in our B.C. Government

and Service Employees Union — employees who are in our correctional institutes

— at risk.

Searches

may also require inmates to remove their clothing to enable same-gender staff

to visually confirm that weapons and illicit substances are not concealed on

their person. As with airport security measures, correctional staff, contractors

and visitors suspected of possessing contraband may be asked to consent to a

visual body search. Those who refuse will be denied access.

[1715]

This new

legislation will make it an offence to provide an inmate with an intoxicant.

Some individuals who visit inmates in our correctional centres attempt to smuggle

illegal drugs or weapons to their acquaintances. These visitors will be searched,

and if reasonable grounds exist, they will be detained pending the arrival of

police.

The reasonable

use of force and deployment of restraint devices included in this legislation

will provide correctional officers with specific powers and accountabilities

for controlling dangerous and non-compliant inmates inside and outside our correctional

centres. The legislation will improve the supervision of inmates by enabling

the use of urinalysis to monitor compliance with conditions of release, work

or voluntary treatment programs.

No additional

funding is required to implement the improved security and safety provisions

in this legislation. In fact, costs will be reduced to manage and dispose of

inappropriate, perishable or dangerous items seized from over 25,000 offenders

admitted to our institutions annually.

The people

who supervise offenders, who deliver programs to reduce offending and who monitor

compliance and make correctional centres safe exercise the powers and perform

the duties contained in these provisions. Therefore, this legislation will provide

protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals through the oversight,

control and accountability of officials authorized to discharge their powers

and duties in accordance with regulation. My ministry investigation, inspection

and standards office is responsible for investigating and reporting on the administration

of these powers. This office supports new legislation and is looking forward

to its implementation.

My ministry

has worked closely with the Ministry of Children and Family Development to ensure

this legislation complements the Youth Justice Act and the delivery of youth

justice services in British Columbia. The legislation supports our service plan

and our new-era commitments to safer communities.

There are

a number of key amendm