2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th 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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006

(Bill 29)

Hon. G. Abbott

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Holocaust remembrance

R. Chouhan

J. Rustad

Day of Mourning for workers

C. Puchmayr

Breast cancer and mammography services

S. Hawkins

Japanese Community Volunteers

Association

J. Kwan

Richmond Hospital Auxiliary

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Emergency services at Royal Columbian

Hospital

C. Puchmayr

Hon. G. Abbott

Availability of beds in Fraser Health

Authority facilities

B. Ralston

Hon. G. Abbott

M. Farnworth

Availability of beds in health care

facilities

D. Cubberley

Hon. G.

Campbell

Hon. G. Abbott

Death of patient at Nanaimo Regional

General Hospital

L. Krog

Hon. G. Abbott

Worker safety at service stations

M. Sather

Hon. M. de

Jong

Investigation into death of Grant

DePatie

J. Brar

Hon. J. Les

Petitions

L. Mayencourt

K. Conroy

Committee of the Whole House

Securities Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill

20) (continued)

L. Krog

Hon. W. Oppal

J. Kwan

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Securities Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill

20)

Committee of the Whole House

Supplements Repeal Act (Bill 26)

L. Krog

Hon. W. Oppal

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supplements Repeal Act (Bill 26)

Committee of the Whole House

Apology Act (Bill 16)

L. Krog

Hon. W. Oppal

N. Simons

Reporting of Bills

Apology Act (Bill 16)

Third Reading of Bills

Apology Act (Bill 16)

Committee of the Whole House

Provincial Symbols and Honours

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 22)

M. Sather

Hon. J. van

Dongen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Provincial Symbols and Honours

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 22)

Committee of the Whole House

Resort Timber Administration Act (Bill

24)

N. Simons

Hon. O. Ilich

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology

(continued)

G. Robertson

Hon. M. Coell

[ Page 3981 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: Earlier today members of the Legislature joined as we had a ceremony to honour the 90 Holocaust survivors who mark Holocaust Memorial Day here in British Columbia. On this day we remember the six million victims of the Holocaust between 1933 and 1945.

It's hard for us to fully comprehend the horror that stands in such stark contrast to what we have lived through here in Canada and what we aspire to as right and just and human. The Holocaust was a violation of the kind of world we all wish for and we all work for today. There are enduring and painful lessons that we must continue to learn from that Holocaust and the stories of those who survived.

[1405]

It is our humble honour here in the Legislature to be joined in this House today by 50 survivors: Boris Borodow, Holocaust survivor; Rachel Sheryaev, Holocaust survivor; Robert Rubenfeld, Holocaust survivor; Jack Chivo, Holocaust survivor; Marion Chivo, Holocaust survivor; Rita Akselrod, Holocaust survivor; Ben Akselrod, Holocaust survivor; Mariette Doduck, Holocaust survivor; Inge Manes, Holocaust survivor; Esfira Golger, Holocaust survivor; Anna Maria Alpar, Holocaust survivor; Vladimir Hopner, Holocaust survivor; Katy Hughes, Holocaust survivor; Lillian Boraks Nemetz, Holocaust survivor; Malka Pishanitskaya, Holocaust survivor; David Schaffer, Holocaust survivor; Sidi Schaffer, Holocaust survivor; Louise Sorensen, Holocaust survivor; Joseph Polinsky, Holocaust survivor; Alla Polinski, Holocaust survivor; Rose Jordon, Holocaust survivor; Margaret Fraeme, Holocaust survivor; Jack Fraeme, Holocaust survivor; Izzy Fraeme, Holocaust survivor; Lola Apfelbaum, Holocaust survivor; Frances Hoyd, Holocaust survivor; Pola Hister, Holocaust survivor; George Wertman, Holocaust survivor; Frida Wertman, Holocaust survivor; Shalom Lichtman, Holocaust survivor; Mary Knopp, Holocaust survivor; Mark Elster, Holocaust survivor; Saul Cohn, Holocaust survivor; Elizabeth Stern, Holocaust survivor; Bernice Neuwirth, Holocaust survivor; Myer Grinshpan, Holocaust survivor; Nikki Basuk, Holocaust survivor; Bob Boekbinder, Holocaust survivor; Peter Gary, Holocaust survivor; Steffi Porzacanski, Holocaust survivor; Horst Rothfels, Holocaust survivor; Gerald Stanford, Holocaust survivor; Leo Vogel, Holocaust survivor; Henry Theilheimer, Holocaust survivor; Avi Deston, Holocaust survivor; Benji and Katerina Gorodnitsky, Holocaust survivors; Carl Charles, Holocaust survivor; Joe Radman, Holocaust survivor; and Rita Shapiro, Holocaust survivor.

We are all touched by the Holocaust. It leaves an indelible mark on all

of us and on the history of humankind in the world. Today in this House we're joined by the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Her mother, Paula Verhoeven, is a Holocaust survivor from Holland.

Together we grieve for the suffering that all of you have endured. We're humbled by your courage, by your strength and by the tenacity of your memories. We thank each of you for joining us today and hope that the work done in this House is a just reflection of your legacy and the lessons of the Holocaust.

I ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming each of these remarkable people here to our Legislature today.

[Applause.]

L. Krog: Visiting us in the gallery today is my older sister, Sheila Dietrich from Burnaby, the oldest of my mother's four children — mercifully not the oldest-looking. Accompanying her is Margaret Eagleson, a former resident of Burnaby, now resident of Victoria, and her sister, Frances Turner, likewise a resident of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bloy: It's a pleasure to introduce in the House today Clement Apaak. Clement is a foreign student, and he attends Simon Fraser University. He's the longest-serving president of the student society up there and also the longest-serving student senator. Also, you notice your green tags today — Darfur. Clement was a founding member of the Canadian Students for Darfur. If the House would please give him a warm welcome.

[1410]

N. Simons: In the gallery today I'd like to welcome two residents of my constituency. From the upper Sunshine Coast is Warren Behan, who is a member of the Powell River Real Estate Board. I would like to make him welcome along with Mike Davis, who's working hard to make sure that we remember the importance of protecting workers and that regulations are in place to make sure they're protected. Every day he does that, he honours the memory of his father. I'd like to make him welcome as well.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today with us are several members of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, a volunteer organization dedicated to the fight against breast cancer. I know that plenty of members from both sides of the House this morning had the pleasure of enjoying breakfast with the foundation and its members.

This morning as well, in partnership with the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, B.C.-Yukon chapter, the Premier launched an interactive exhibit promoting breast health and screening. The Tour for the Cure will travel to 34 different communities over the next seven months, educating women and their families on the importance of the prevention and early detection of breast cancer.

We want, as a Legislature, to express our support for all of those involved in the Tour for the Cure as

[ Page 3982 ]

they carry forward the message that finding breast cancer early saves lives. I would ask the House to not only welcome these distinguished guests but salute their marvellous efforts on behalf of the people of British Columbia and Canada.

D. Thorne: I'd like the House to welcome today Mr. Stephen Lysyk, who is visiting in the House today with the B.C. Federation of Labour health and safety committee. Mr. Lysyk is here helping to promote health and safety in the labour force in British Columbia. He lives in my riding, and I'd like the House to make him welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce two members of the B.C. Real Estate Association from your riding of Penticton–Okanagan Valley. Visiting us today to discuss the opportunities of the South Okanagan Real Estate Association from Penticton are Bea Smith, president, and from Oliver, past president Ann Hayes. Would the House please make Mr. Speaker's constituents welcome to the House.

K. Conroy: I would also like to welcome the realtors. I'd like to welcome Liz Haskins, who is a realtor based out of Trail, but she lives in Rossland. It was indeed a pleasure to meet with her and her colleagues this morning. Please help me make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: I have four guests here in the gallery that I'd like us all to make very welcome. They're all members of the Save St. Paul's Coalition. Aaron Jasper, Brent Granby, Kevin O'Neil and Galen Brewer have come over today to deliver a petition. Please make them welcome.

C. Wyse: Today I'd like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming Willy Berger, a realtor from my riding of Cariboo South.

G. Robertson: I'd like to welcome Mark Weintraub, chair of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific region, and his great staff: Mira Oreck, regional director, and Jeff Bradshaw, education director. I'd like the House to recognize their exceptional job for organizing today's lunch event with the Holocaust survivors and make them truly welcome in this House.

D. Hayer: We also have members from the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, government relations committee, here today discussing some issues about housing. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.

[1415]

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 29 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce this bill today. The proposed changes amend the Health Act and the Medicare Protection Act to strengthen the legislative framework for electronic health records in B.C. while maintaining our patient privacy commitment. The changes also make some minor changes to the Health Professions Act.

When a person visits their family doctor or requires hospitalization in their own community, in another community or even in another province, they want to have the best care possible. To do this, key health providers need to know a patient's health care history as soon as possible.

This province, along with provincial stakeholders and national partners, is developing a secure network of electronic health records that will eventually contain information from doctors' offices, laboratories, radiology clinics, hospitals, pharmacies and other places where people access health care. Bill 29 will help make this possible.

Changes to the Health Act will permit the Ministry of Health to create databases or health information banks that contain personal health information. Amendments ensure that the personal health information is collected, used and disclosed by key health care providers for health-related purposes only.

The process for establishing health information banks will ensure transparency, accountability and, most importantly, the protection of privacy. The Information and Privacy Commissioner will review all ministerial orders and information-sharing agreements. In fact, the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner and the office of the chief information officer reviewed and accepted the draft amendments.

The use of electronic health records technology is part of the transformative change to the health care system to ensure that decisions are based on the best patient information available, that information is better managed and that the best decisions are made in the care of the patient. The legislation also supports the first ministers' commitment to accelerate the development and implementation of the electronic health record.

The Health Statutes Amendment Act also makes minor changes to the Health Professions Act and re-

[ Page 3983 ]

lated legislation. This will allow us to complete the work we began in 2003 to reform and modernize health profession regulations. These changes, while minor and technical, are important to ensure that transition to the Health Professions Act is completed with minimal financial impact to the regulatory colleges and individual professionals.

I move that Bill 29 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, 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) HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE

R. Chouhan: I rise today to speak in remembrance of those who suffered, fought and died in the Holocaust, one of the greatest acts of collective evil in history. It is important to remember not only to respect those who perished in the past but also to inspire those who live today. It is important to reaffirm triumph over evil, but it was a struggle, and that struggle remains, because we are still capable of such evil.

We must learn from the Holocaust that evil takes many shapes and comes in many sizes. We must confront racism from the moment it appears and wherever it appears. We must ensure that our desire to belong does not become an excuse to exclude. We may value our particular community, our own country and our chosen religion, but we must be aware and careful not to let the love of our own prevent us from the respect and acceptance of others.

Let us celebrate our diversity while recognizing that, above all, we are of equal worth as members of the human race. Let not one life sacrificed in the Holocaust be in vain. Let each death lodge in our minds as a monument to our capacity for evil and our desire to do good.

Let us recommit ourselves to the kind of society in which we all believe — a democratic, just and tolerant society; a society of freedoms and rights; a society where everyone is respected, regardless of race, religion or skin colour; and a society where we demonstrate our compassion for humanity with not only our words but also our actions.

We must act to defeat prejudice and persecution. This kind of society is our hope, and that is why the Holocaust deserves this permanent place in our collective memory. We shall not forget.

[1420]

J. Rustad: I also rise today to mark a day of remembrance of one of the darkest chapters in human existence, the Holocaust. Words can hardly express the depth of evil that led to the calculated murder of six million men, women and children during World War II. This is a tragedy on a scale so enormous that it's almost impossible to fully comprehend. It's difficult for us now to imagine the suffering and horrors that the victims, survivors and their families must have experienced. It's an atrocity that has left a deep and permanent scar on the collective conscience of our society.

It might be tempting to try and bury our heads in the sand and pretend that such evil no longer exists in our world or to dismiss it as something that happened long ago and could never be repeated. Sadly, we know that this is not the case. We have seen the flames of ethnic hatred fanned in Rwanda, Bosnia and more recently in Darfur, where hundreds of thousands have been killed as a result of ethnic cleansing. It's sombre proof that this horror could happen again.

The victims of the Holocaust taught us a lesson that we can never forget. The legacy is the lesson that we can never assume that the evil that killed six million people is gone. We must be forever vigilant; we must never forget.

I ask the House to join me today on Yom ha-Shoah, Holocaust Memorial Day, in pledging to never forget the victims of the Holocaust. I also call on the House to pledge to stand united against atrocities against humanity, wherever and whenever they may occur in the world.

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS

C. Puchmayr: This Friday, April 28, is the International Day of Mourning for workers killed and injured on the job. It is a day that families, workers, employers, employees, employee associations, union and non-union get together and remember the victims of workplace accidents. The day of mourning was initiated by the Canadian Labour Congress in 1984 and was first recognized by this provincial government in 1987.

Today over 100 countries in the world will stop to pay tribute to workers killed and injured on the job. Throughout B.C. numerous communities will hold events this Friday. I encourage all members to attend. The day of mourning provides us an opportunity to honour both those who have died and those who are trying to commit to a better, safer place to work for workers.

No one wants to see even one death, yet in B.C. last year alone an unprecedented 188 workers died on the job — 43 in the forest sector alone. This is unacceptable. We have a responsibility as a society to ensure that workers are safe. I encourage each member of this House to take a moment on Friday to honour the memory of a fallen worker and to consider what we, together as legislators, can do to make a better place for workers in British Columbia.

BREAST CANCER AND

MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICES

S. Hawkins: The pink ribbon is an internationally recognized symbol that represents hope and awareness

[ Page 3984 ]

for those affected by breast cancer. In British Columbia this symbol embodies the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation's agenda of aiming all their programs in addressing four priority areas: prevention, detection, treatment and cure. Breast cancer is the most common life-threatening cancer among women in British Columbia and the second most common cause of cancer deaths.

We have made progress on saving the lives of women diagnosed with breast cancer, but much more can be done. Today, this morning, the Premier, along with the Health Minister, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society — in partnership with Telus — kicked off the Telus Tour for the Cure.

The message is simple: mammography saves lives. If you are a woman 40 years or older, you need to have a regular mammogram. There are some really good reasons for women like me to have one. Mammography finds tumours earlier. It saves lives. It takes only minutes, and it can add years of survival. No doctor's referral is required for a mammogram. Mammograms are free. You know what? Most abnormalities are not cancerous, but it sure is worth it to find out.

[1425]

Last October we invested a million dollars to continue an awareness campaign to increase mammography screening for women. We were the first province in Canada with $8 million a year to fund Herceptin, which is a breakthrough drug for breast cancer, and yesterday the Premier announced $4 million to establish a research chair at UBC for primary prevention of cancer.

I am so proud and grateful to live in a province that has the highest cancer survival rates in Canada. Prevention is a key to a cancer-free future, but early detection is still one of the best tools for survival. The Telus Tour for the Cure is coming to 34 communities with information on breast cancer prevention, detection and treatment. Wouldn't you take ten minutes out of your busy day if you knew you could extend your life by years? I would. Go and get a screening mammography. I had mine last Friday, and I encourage all women over 40 in our province to do so.

JAPANESE COMMUNITY

VOLUNTEERS ASSOCIATION

J. Kwan: Like other members in this House, I take pleasure in acknowledging the non-profit organizations in my constituency and the contributions that they make to the social and cultural vibrancy of our communities.

The Japanese Community Volunteers Association, Tonari Gumi, has its office on East Broadway in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. For over 30 years the association has sought to provide a community living room to many Japanese Canadians of all ages and backgrounds. In 2005 the association served almost 8,000 people. It did this with a board of directors of 14 volunteers, a small staff, a shoestring budget and an extraordinary number of supporters who helped run programs ranging from cultural and leisure pursuits to exercise and health promotion.

The association provides advice to people with a variety of concerns and offers outreach to those who are housebound and those in hospital. It offers support services for seniors by helping them with transportation, escort services to medical appointments and translation. These services are integral to our community.

Another group has been working to develop a book chronicling the association's development. That includes the narratives of people who have been actively involved and photographs of people and events. The proposed title is Tonari Gumi: The Heart of a Community. Tonari Gumi means service, volunteer spirit and friendship. It is the tradition that has been fundamental to the organization's success in being a grassroots non-profit organization and creating a place where people can help each other and build relations to respond to the changing needs of our community. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, it is exactly this spirit that makes Vancouver–Mount Pleasant such a wonderful community in a province that is so rich and diverse.

I invite all of the members in this House to join with me in congratulating and thanking the Japanese Community Volunteers Association, Tonari Gumi, on its many wonderful achievements over the years.

RICHMOND HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

J. Yap: This is Volunteer Recognition Week, and I rise today to talk about a dedicated group of individuals who make a difference to people who use the services of the Richmond Hospital — the volunteers of the Richmond Hospital Auxiliary.

Founded 44 years ago, the auxiliary raises funds to enhance the services provided to patients at Richmond Hospital. Four hundred members strong, the auxiliary deploys its volunteers at four locations in Richmond, including the main hospital building, where they maintain the gift store, and the information and lottery centre. The auxiliary also operates the gift store at Minoru Residence and a thrift store in the village of Steveston, which does a thriving trade in used goods.

All funds raised go to the Richmond Hospital Foundation for the purchase of hospital equipment and supplies — things like geriatric chairs, portable aspirators, walkers, automatic door openers, cots for parents and new blood pressure equipment.

The auxiliary also looks after other aspects of patient life. They recently gave $65,000 to the recreation and music therapy program at Minoru Residence, $2,000 to music therapy for palliative care and oncology as well as $40,000 to music therapy at Lions Manor. Since its inception, the auxiliary has raised over $4 million for the community.

I recently attended the annual general meeting of the auxiliary and was impressed with the enthusiasm and commitment of these dedicated volunteers who bring care and compassion to our community. So if you're ever at any of the four locations of the Rich-

[ Page 3985 ]

mond Hospital Auxiliary, tip your hat to the people wearing the red aprons. They are the auxiliary volunteers that make life better for all Richmond residents.

[1430]

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT

ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

C. Puchmayr: I'm going to start with a quote: "The current setting of severe bed shortage and lack of resources means patients will continue to suffer from our inability to see them safely in a timely fashion." Those are the words of nine ER doctors at New Westminster's Royal Columbian Hospital. This morning my constituents and many in British Columbia woke up to those headlines in a startling news story.

Will the minister explain when he first knew of the deplorable situation and what steps he has taken to increase the capacity in the Fraser health region to ensure patients are not put at further risk at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising the question. The issue of congestion in the emergency at Royal Columbian Hospital is not a new issue. I'd be pleased to share with the member plenty of headlines from the 1990s that reflected similar concerns in respect of congestion at ER.

What is new is an excellent number of initiatives that have been undertaken by the Ministry of Health and the Fraser Health Authority to actually find some long-term solutions to the congestion in the ER at Royal Columbian Hospital.

What we are dealing with there is a combination of population increase plus an aging population. We are seeing in that ER and in other ERs a tripling of the demand in ER versus population growth. Our government, I'm pleased to say, is supporting capital investments which will help to alleviate those situations. Plus, we have increased the operational funding to Royal Columbian by $66 million — from $162 million to $228 million annually.

Mr. Speaker: The member for New Westminster has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: It's interesting to hear that the minister was aware of this problem in the '90s, and yet on May 20 of 2004, this government closed St. Mary's Hospital. The building and all of its acute care services, long-term care and surgical capacity was torn down and never replaced. St. Mary's dealt with 35,000 patients and 11,000 surgical cases a year. All of this capacity was downloaded onto Royal Columbian Hospital and other hospitals.

Will the minister admit that it was a mistake to close St. Mary's Hospital and take that capacity out of the system and off-load it, download it to other hospitals in the region?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know that the members opposite like to live in the past. They like to live in some fanciful golden age that apparently existed in the 1990s. Regrettably, not many British Columbians share that view of the 1990s and in fact should not.

Not even the authors of the report which the member, I think, is referencing want to return to the past, unlike the members opposite. In fact, the report rightly notes: "In an attempt to improve emergency department outflow, there are a number of initiatives in progress, including opening of the convalescence and subacute beds at Queen's Park Hospital" — which I think is in the member's constituency — "opening of additional beds at Eagle Ridge Hospital, reorganization of flow into the emergency department at Royal Columbian Hospital."

I would note, in concluding, that we have also invested some $6 million in modernizing the intensive care unit at Royal Columbian Hospital. All of these are very important steps in getting this complete.

Mr. Speaker: The member for New Westminster has a further supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: It's interesting how the minister can go back in time as far as he pleases, but when we mention a hospital that was demolished a year ago, he chastises us for bringing that information forward.

Here are some other interesting quotes: "I can't do my job. People have been dying waiting on ambulance stretchers in our emergency room, and here is a document that actually confirms it." "I have seen the system deteriorate to such a point that I'm considering quitting." Those are the words of Dr. Sheldon Glazer.

[1435]

It's time for the minister to stop listening to his own bluster and start listening to the doctors and the health care providers in the field. The minister has an obligation to all patients and residents in New Westminster and the region. Will the minister hold a full public inquiry, an investigation into the crisis, so that we can find solutions to deal with this problem now?

Hon. G. Abbott: I do want to say that the report or plan, which we learned about last evening…. I had an opportunity to look at it this morning. There are actually some very good, constructive suggestions that are contained in the report, and I'm sure Fraser Health and the ministry will review those suggestions with care. We welcome those suggestions. We certainly will see if they can add incrementally to the initiatives that we have already undertaken.

If the member wants to trade quotes, I'll just try to put this in perspective for him. This is from the Vancouver Province, March 13, 1997. "At Royal Columbian Hospital patients may stay in emergency for three or four days, sometimes being sent home without ever being properly admitted."

The Vancouver Sun from February 28, 1998: "At one hospital, New Westminster's Royal Columbian, the patient load has steadily increased since last summer. It

[ Page 3986 ]

is not uncommon for patients to wait three days before beds become available."

AVAILABILITY OF BEDS IN

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY FACILITIES

B. Ralston: Try as he might, the Minister of Health can't slough this off. People want answers as to what's happening in the health care system in 2006 — right now, while he's the minister.

Let's return to what Dr. Sheldon Glazer said. "Emergency patients are assessed and treated on ambulance stretchers in hallways. They wait interminably long hours for care, often resulting in poor outcomes or worse." Between April 1, 2002, and April 1, 2005, New Westminster residents lost 85 acute care beds. That's 20 percent of the total bed capacity.

What evidence does the minister have to suggest that these cuts have not affected the ability of the emergency departments to treat patients effectively in the Fraser Health region?

Hon. G. Abbott: As is typical of this opposition, they always advance the inflammatory without doing their homework to back it up. In fact, Fraser Health advises me that they have increased the number of acute care beds in Fraser Health by 2 percent since they were created in late 2001. That, in fact, is so.

As I noted earlier, there's a $66 million increase in the operational budget for Royal Columbian. I know the member is from Surrey, and he says: "Tell us what's happening in 2006." Well, one of the things I haven't heard him criticize is our investment of $200 million in Surrey Memorial's ER. I haven't heard him criticize the $200 million investment in the ER, in the ambulatory care centre, in the expansion of the range of services in Surrey.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I can attempt to lead the minister out of his self-imposed labyrinth of bluster. Of course something had to be done in Surrey, because nothing happened from 2001 to 2005. It was only after the election and with the prospect of the 2009 election looming in the future that the minister decided to take some action to correct the longstanding problems in the emergency department in Surrey Memorial.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: According to Fraser Health's own documents, this government single-handedly shut down 197 acute care beds in the Fraser region. The doctors have said the problems are the result of a severe bed shortage. When is the minister going to start listening and replace the beds he cut and start adding more capacity to the Fraser Health Authority?

[1440]

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the challenges of debating with the members opposite, frequently, is that either they live in some mythical past where these problems didn't exist — because clearly they did — or else they're debating some socialist nirvana of the future that never will exist in this province.

The member says: "Why not invest in Surrey Memorial?" Well, guess what. After a decade of hearing the members opposite talk about it, we are investing over $200 million in Surrey Memorial Hospital. After waiting over a decade, after over a decade of hollow promises from the members opposite, we are investing $355 million in the Abbotsford hospital and cancer care centre. We're investing $95 million in the academic ambulatory care centre in Vancouver. Best of all, we have opened what was known for a decade as the dark tower at Vancouver General Hospital — the Pattison tower today.

M. Farnworth: I think the Minister of Health needs to decide whether he wants to be an amateur historian, comedian or Minister of Health, because right now he is not doing any of those roles particularly well.

In February of 2005, over a year ago, Dr. Vertesi — the former ER director at Royal Columbian and the Premier's brother-in-law — identified the problem as not enough funded hospital beds to move patients out of ER. He said that patients pile up and consume all the space the emergency ward has to do its work. To the minister: is Dr. Vertesi wrong?

Hon. G. Abbott: Dr. Vertesi has much to add to this debate, based on his experience. One of the things I'm sure he would tell us, were he speaking in the Legislature today, would be that the absolute betrayal of the need for new health care professionals during the 1990s was very much central to the crisis that we have today. It was during the 1990s that we actually saw no increase, through that period, in the number of nurses who were being trained in this province.

Today 62 percent more nurses are being educated in this province than ever before — 2,511 nursing spaces that were never considered by this government. We're doubling the number of doctors in this province. We're tripling the number of international medical graduates. We have introduced something that is going to be very useful in the ERs of our province, something that was ignored by this government for a decade — nurse practitioners.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: This is not about the 1990s. This is not about 1995 or 1996 or 1997….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: This is about today. This is not about yesterday. This member is the Minister of

[ Page 3987 ]

Health. He needs to look in the mirror and realize it. It's on his responsibility. There is a crisis at Royal Columbian today — not yesterday. Today. Physicians and the public are asking: what is this minister going to do about it? When will he take action, and when will he resolve the problems?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's remarkable that the member who has just expounded here was the Minister of Health in British Columbia. He was the Minister of Health when people were begging for more nursing spaces in this province. He was the Minister of Health when people in this province were begging for more medical doctor spaces in this province, when they were begging for nurse practitioners in this province.

[1445]

All this minister and this former NDP government over here did was, between 1993 and 2000, bring about a 16-percent decline — 3,334 hospital beds lost under that former government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, I want to remind you: we want to listen to the question and listen to the answer.

AVAILABILITY OF BEDS

IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

D. Cubberley: I have to say the minister sure is blowing smoke if he thinks that nurse practitioners are going to solve the problem at the hospitals.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Cubberley: The minister repeatedly….

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, will you take your seat for a second till we get some quiet.

D. Cubberley: The problems in the emergency room. I know the minister doesn't want to talk about it, but we're going to help him talk about it. The minister is out of touch on the issue. Whether it's a crisis in Kelowna or Kamloops or Trail or now in Vancouver, he doesn't answer questions on the issue. He just gives us bluster and sarcasm and goes back to the '90s.

Doctors in New Westminster are now saying the problem with the hospital is so severe that patient safety has been compromised to the point that some are dying. This government shut down hundreds and hundreds of acute care beds — 19 percent of the acute care beds across B.C. in its first mandate. It drastically reduced the system's capacity. That's this government's record. Will the minister finally admit that the crisis in emergency rooms is a direct result of this government's bed cuts?

Hon. G. Campbell: This government is proud of its record in health care. What this government has done in just five years is turn around a decade of neglect and disappointment…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …every day in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Campbell: What this government has done is put in place a health plan that doubles the number of doctors. It increases the number of nurses by 62 percent. In spite of the fact that the member opposite doesn't seem to understand the importance of nurse practitioners, this government for the first time in the history of the province is graduating nurse practitioners in British Columbia.

Every initiative this government has undertaken has led to more procedures being performed for patients across this province, to provide more specialists in more regions of this province than the previous government ever thought of, has ended up with this government being told by the Conference Board of Canada and British Columbians being told by the Conference Board of Canada that we have the best health care system in the country. And we're going to keep building on that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member for Saanich South has the floor. You have a supplemental?

D. Cubberley: And told by the Conference Board of Canada that you have the lowest level of patient satisfaction in the country. You refuse to acknowledge the crisis in emergency rooms.

Every time, this minister tries to deny the realities contradicted by health professionals working on the ground. Dr. Mike Ertel, Kelowna: "We're very concerned that we're going to have somebody die in the waiting room. It's quite a dangerous situation." Duncan Laidlow from Interior Health: "Our hospitals are too full, and we need to do something about it." Dr. Todd Ring, Kamloops: "This is an emergency room on the verge of collapse."

There's another one from Kamloops: "We seem to be lurching from one crisis to another. Every week there's another one and another one." Now, that wasn't a doctor; that was the Minister of Income Assistance.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 3988 ]

D. Cubberley: So the question really is: are all of the doctors wrong, or is the Minister of Health finally going to leave the land of denial and acknowledge that his government's bed cuts are damaging emergency care in this province?

[1450]

Hon. G. Abbott: Actually, it's simpler than that. It's just the opposition that's wrong, as is typical. What the opposition never is able to recognize is that because of the strong economy that this government has created in British Columbia….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: The members opposite laugh because they're unfamiliar with the concept of a strong economy that might be supported by government measures.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Minister. We've got to listen to the answer and listen to the question.

Minister continues.

Hon. G. Abbott: Conceptually — and I'm glad to inform them of this — a strong economy actually can backstop stronger social programs in the province, and that's exactly what this government has done. Since we took office, we have invested over $100 million in emergency rooms alone in this province.

I don't know what the member opposite dislikes about the $50 million investment at Prince George Regional Hospital. I don't know what he dislikes about the $39 million investment at Nanaimo regional hospital. I don't know what he dislikes about the $26 million investment at Kamloops regional hospital. Clearly, there must be something wrong with it. He's against it.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Does the member want to take his seat?

Okay. Member for Nanaimo.

DEATH OF PATIENT AT

NANAIMO REGIONAL GENERAL HOSPITAL

L. Krog: Well, I'm delighted the government is so pleased with itself and the Minister of Health is so pleased with his performance. He's had five years to correct serious problems across this province.

Cheryle Cook of Nanaimo is not so pleased. On April 13 at about 11 a.m. her father George Cook, suffering with pneumonia, was admitted to the emergency room at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. She went there as quickly as she could and arrived at about 2:40. At about 5 p.m. two ambulance attendants stopped to help her and assist her with her father. A short while after that, a doctor noticed something was wrong and called out for Mr. Cook to receive some privacy. He was moved behind a curtain and, shivering, died there at 6 p.m.

Will the minister commit to this House today to a full public investigation of this incident and the serious problems at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital and commit to this House to make all of those findings public so that the public will hear the recommendations that should be made so that this situation will not happen again?

Hon. G. Abbott: I have been briefed in respect of the tragic case of George Cook. I thank the member for bringing this very serious issue forward. I am deeply concerned about Mr. Cook's case. I am always concerned when I hear that British Columbians have less than satisfactory experience with their health care system. Certainly, there is much to be concerned about in the case of George Cook.

First of all, I want to express my concern and sympathy for the Cook family in what is undoubtedly a very difficult time for them. I know that the Vancouver Island Health Authority also shares that serious concern with Mr. Cook's end-of-life-experience in the ER at Nanaimo general hospital. They are undertaking a full review with respect to this matter. They expect that review will be completed within the week, and I will look forward to seeing that review.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nanaimo has a supplemental.

L. Krog: This did not happen on an unusual day at Nanaimo. This happened on what the president and chief executive officer of the Vancouver Island Health Authority referred to as a typical day. Again, I ask the minister: will he commit to making the results of any investigation public and assuring the members of this House that all of the recommendations that may arise out of that inquiry be implemented across this province?

[1455]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his additional question. I understand the circumstance to be as the member described — that it was not a particularly busy day or even an unusually busy day in the Nanaimo ER, that there were circumstances around this case which appear to be unfortunate and contrary to protocols.

However, I think, again — in fairness to the deceased, to his family, to the caregivers — that we do want to see the review fully completed and have an opportunity to have a look at the conclusions formed by that review. As the member knows, to the extent that we can make public the information around that review under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we will do so.

[ Page 3989 ]

WORKER SAFETY AT SERVICE STATIONS

M. Sather: The Minister of Health is aware of the tragic death of Grant DePatie in Maple Ridge over a year ago. Mr. DePatie was working at a gas station late at night, and he attempted to prevent a theft of gas. He was run over and dragged more than seven kilometres to his death.

As unbelievable as it may seem, over a year later this gas station has still not complied with the recommendations of WorkSafe B.C. Repeated visits by WorkSafe B.C. have found that the station remains in non-compliance. This is an affront to the memory of Mr. DePatie, to his family and to all those workers who are required to work at gas stations where there are inadequate training and safety procedures in place.

Will the minister commit to act today to ensure that this gas station comes into immediate compliance with the requirements of WorkSafe B.C.?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising the question. Our expectation in this case, as it is in every case, is that employers will comply absolutely with the requirements imposed upon them under the occupational health and safety regulations of WorkSafe B.C.

I can advise the member — and he may already know this — that I have met with the DePatie family, and to their credit, they have taken what is an incredibly tragic set of circumstances and offered a range of suggestions about how others might be spared a similar tragic result. To that extent, I think the member knows that the DePatie family is trying to take a very bad and tragic set of circumstances and ensure that something good can come of it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Action needs to be taken to ensure that the tragedy that happened to Mr. DePatie does not happen to other workers. Will the minister follow the suggestions and the wishes of the family and of others, and will he work with his government to ensure that a policy is put in place for late-night pay-before-you-pump regulations at gas stations across this province?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I can assure him and all members of the House that I have received, about a week and a half ago at a meeting with the DePaties, a series of suggestions that we're now working through. They relate to a variety of options like prepay, pay-at-the-pump — circumstances or options, some of them, that exist in other jurisdictions. Yes, we're going to look at them and see which, if any, of them can be properly and effectively applied to minimize the risk that workers in B.C. face at gas stations and convenience stores.

INVESTIGATION INTO DEATH

OF GRANT DEPATIE

J. Brar: The DePatie family has requested a coroner's inquest into the death of their son and grandson. It was denied by the coroner's office with little explanation. The DePatie family wants the inquest to go beyond the judgment of inquiry. There are serious law and policy issues in this case that must be looked at.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Will the Solicitor General step in and ask for this inquest to be done?

[1500]

Hon. J. Les: I understand that the member opposite actually is going to be getting a briefing later on this afternoon from the chief coroner. Frankly, I am pleased that he is doing so, because obviously he has a lot to learn.

One of the things that he's going to learn this afternoon is that the coroner never intervenes until criminal proceedings are complete. They are not complete in this case. So what the member opposite actually is asking me to do, for the second time this month, is intervene inappropriately in criminal proceedings.

[End of question period.]

L. Mayencourt: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Member presents petition.

Petitions

L. Mayencourt: I am pleased to present a petition from the Save St. Paul's Coalition. It includes 8,148 signatures from residents of the downtown peninsula in Vancouver and 1,361 individual letters.

K. Conroy: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

K. Conroy: I present a petition from 412 Selkirk College students who are all graduating this weekend, and they're all very concerned about whether they can really afford to graduate.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 20 and in

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, continued debate on the Ministry of Advanced Education in Committee of Supply, for the information of members.

Committee of the Whole House

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:04 p.m.

section 16 (continued) .

[ Page 3990 ]

L. Krog: We had not quite concluded this prior to lunch, and I'm just wondering if the minister can explain the effect of

section 16 as proposed. Will it, in fact, broaden the impact of the ability — the ability, I should say, of the commission — to prosecute or, alternatively, to sue individuals who breach the section, in comparison to the old section?

[1505]

Hon. W. Oppal: What this

section really does is expand the definition of "dishonesty." It goes beyond mere lying. The current

section prohibits only lying about being registered and many other types of misleading statements, but many other types of misleading statements can be made, and they may not be actual lying.

What this does is protect investors by characterizing other forms of misconduct and other forms of dishonest conduct. It's not unlike the

section in the Criminal Code relating to fraud, which made unlawful other fraudulent means — other than falsehood, deceit. Other fraudulent means. It's similar to that, if I can draw an analogy.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 17, it enacts a number of new prohibitions and refers specifically to insider trading, tipping and recommending. Does this represent any significant change from the previous sections? It's treated as an addition. But is this a definition of further crime specifically, or is it simply an expansion of an existing section?

Hon. W. Oppal: What this

section does is broaden the scope of insider trading so that it applies to any publicly traded issuer and not just reporting issuers as currently stipulated under

section 86. So what it does is prohibit recommending or encouraging others to trade. This means that the

section prohibits the giving of information to others about trading, even if the inside information itself is not passed on. It's an expansion of prohibited action.

L. Krog: Will this in fact mean that it applies both in terms of what I will call the criminal sanction and the civil liability as well?

Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is yes.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

section 19.

J. Kwan:

Section 19 repeals the old

section 77 in the act, which basically does not require the commission to publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers. This was an issue which I raised along with my colleague the critic during second reading debate, and I had a conversation with the Attorney General thereafter. I think the Attorney General also shared the view that there is merit to the points that we had raised.

I wonder whether or not at this point in time the Attorney General would care to actually stand down

section 19 of this amendment and therefore not enact this

section by not requiring the commission to publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers.

Hon. W. Oppal: The new

section permits but does not require the commission to publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers. It is necessary to harmonize with other provinces and to allow the creation of a national defaulting issuer list so that other investors would know and would have notice.

[1510]

The new

section drops the certificate provisions, which are a relic of the old regulatory regime. Although some issuers still apply for them, they are of very limited value and raise the difficult issues of

interpretation and administration. All jurisdictions plan to drop them. It's a part of the harmonization scheme.

J. Kwan: If I understood the Attorney General correctly, in the attempt to harmonize, the issue here is to make sure that the list of defaulting reporting issuers would be a consistent list across the country. That has nothing to do with requiring the commission to publish it or not.

What this provision says is that the amendment says the commission may publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers. Whoever goes on that list could be harmonized through the process. That's fine. But the issue that I have a concern with is whether or not there's a requirement that the list be published after the list is available. Perhaps the Attorney General could clarify that.

Hon. W. Oppal: I just get enthusiastic sometimes, you know. I think the best way to explain it is as follows. Under the current system, an investor can find out in which province an issuer is reporting and check the lists in those provinces to see if there is a default. As a part of the passport system — that's an integral part of this amending legislation — the regulators intend to develop common standards for putting issuers on the lists and, ultimately, to develop a single list so that investors have to look in only one place.

Under the passport, we will move towards a system wherein each commission keeps a list of defaulting issuers from its own jurisdiction. The current mandatory provision would not allow this because we have to keep a list of all defaulting issuers. As a result, there is an agreement to make the amendments to make the provision enabling to provide the flexibility necessary for joint lists.

J. Kwan: Is the Attorney General saying that there will be a list, a national list of defaulting reporting issuers, and that it will be kept in one place across all jurisdictions? So all that a person, an investor, needs to do is look at one place to get that list, and it would be

[ Page 3991 ]

listed publicly. Am I correct in understanding that? If that's the case, where does it say that in this legislation — that, in fact, one list would be published publicly for the public to access to get the information around defaulting reporting issuers?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's the intent of the amendment — to have one list from which an investor may obtain the necessary information. At present they may be on the individual province's websites, but the intent is to have a common list.

J. Kwan: It's all very well for the Attorney General to say that's the intent. However, I look at the legislation and the amendment before us, which reads — and I put on the record: "List of defaulting reporting issuers,

Section 77: The commission may publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers." It does not say that there will be one national list of defaulting reporting issuers that would be published and accessible to the public. It doesn't say that. It just says that the commission may publish it. Then again, the commission may not publish it.

Formerly, the language was that the commission was required…. It must publish this information. I have no reason to doubt the intent of the legislation from the Attorney General. He says that the intent is to have one national list of defaulting reporting issuers.

Where does it say that, then, in this legislation? Where does it say that there would be one list that would be published?

[1515]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we can't regulate what other provinces will do. The intent is to harmonize our legislation with the passport system so as to have a single list. This is a step towards that. We have to do our

part in that.

J. Kwan: Well, okay. The Attorney General says we can't make what the other provinces do…. This whole amendment was centred round the notion of harmonization. Stand back for a moment and say: "Okay, in spite of the fact that this is supposed to be an amendment for harmonization, notwithstanding, though, that we can't make the other provinces do what all the other provinces are going to do collectively…." Set that aside for a moment.

If that's the case, why wouldn't this amendment read that the commission must publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers? The issue here is around publication of the defaulting reporting issuers, so that investors — the public — could get access to that information, and that we make sure that the commission in fact does publish that information.

The content of the information would be a harmonized list of defaulting issuers. I'm fine with that. That's not my issue. It's around the publication and not requiring publication of the commission that I have an issue with.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I can clarify it this way. We, in the province, cannot legislate extraterritorially. So we can pass our legislation, which of course is restricted to this province, but all the provinces who are a part of this scheme agree that we should make the defaulting issuers list available to investors in the most useful way possible. So that's what will happen. It's to have a regulatory scheme that promotes harmonization through a passport system and that will make the information available to investors in other provinces.

J. Kwan: How does the requirement of publication of the defaulting reporting issuers by the commission here in British Columbia somehow contravene the notion of harmonization? How does that impede harmonization?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the best way I can explain it is this. We can regulate our own lists. Other provinces will regulate their lists. We will then, under the harmonization scheme, share the lists so that people have access to the information.

[1520]

J. Kwan: Okay. It's fine for us to share our list. I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with us harmonizing a list with the other jurisdictions.

What I am having a problem with is that we're no longer requiring the publication of this list. Why aren't we requiring that? Isn't that in the best interests of investors, so when the commission publishes this list, the public can then access that information? Wouldn't that enhance accountability? Wouldn't that enhance investor protection?

We want to make sure that the commission does in fact publish this defaulting reporting issuers list. I just don't understand why we would not require that anymore. I don't see how that enhances harmonization, nor do I see that the requirement of publication impedes harmonization.

Hon. W. Oppal: It's our view that this is a useful tool to protect the investing public by having a list, and that list is available to investors. That's all I can say.

J. Kwan: If the commission is not required to publish it, how will they access this list?

Hon. W. Oppal: The intention of the commission is to continue publishing the list. The commission does that. It will continue to do so.

J. Kwan: Yes, and then that's at the discretion of the commission, because the legislation no longer requires it to do so. My point is this. Why wouldn't the government put in legislation that requires the commission to do so? If the intent here is to make sure there's access to this list, the best way is to make sure that the commission publishes the list.

But if the government takes away that requirement by legislation, which is what we're doing here under this

section of the bill,

section 19, then the government potentially would allow for a situation where the pub-

[ Page 3992 ]

lic would have a difficult time in accessing this information. The commission one day — I'm not saying today, but one day — may, and they would be allowed to because there's no requirement that makes them publish this list.

How is that in the best interest of investors? That's where I'm confused. If we want to protect investors, if we want to make sure there's access to this information, then the best way to do it is to say to the commission: "You are required to publish this list."

[1525]

Hon. W. Oppal: This is a first step towards harmonization. The government will take the necessary step after the first step has been completed. It would be involved in a broad policy measure of putting together the list. This is only the first step. I don't know if I can explain it any better than that.

L. Krog: My understanding of the responses of the Attorney General around this bill today has been that the province has been engaged in negotiations and discussions with, presumably, Attorneys General across the country and that this bill represents the work of that process. Obviously, one would have expected that the legislation arising out of that process, which is the bill before the House today, would have taken into consideration the very questions that have been raised by my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I have to ask: surely, wasn't that part of the discussions that led to this particular section?

Hon. W. Oppal: The first step has to be to create a list of defaulting reporting issuers. Once that is done, the next step will have to be a mandatory reporting provision, but this is the best way of introducing the measure.

L. Krog: Surely if British Columbia, as the Attorney General indicated previously, and Alberta are somewhat on the cutting edge in leading this process of harmonization across the country and are getting their legislation before their respective houses more quickly than others, why not be on the cutting edge?

I mean, "must" obviously includes "may" — if the Attorney General gets my drift — in this circumstance. Clearly, that still leaves it open to other provinces to change theirs to only say "may." If British Columbia includes it as a must, a requirement, then we're simply somewhat ahead of the game. We're certainly better off than the other provinces. Why not do it that way?

Hon. W. Oppal: The difficulty at this stage is that we don't know who a defaulting issuer is. We have legislation here, but before we look at this on a national basis, we have to know what a defaulting issuer is so that we can have some kind of a common definition. That won't happen until we have a harmonization process in place. This is a first step in formulating and defining what a defaulting reporting issuer is.

L. Krog: It strikes me that the government is asking for an awful lot of good faith from the opposition and the public of British Columbia around this, saying, "Well, we're just getting started. It's baby steps. This is the initial thing. There will be further discussions, and this will be decided by subordinate legislation," and on and on it goes.

[1530]

I can't say that if I were an investor listening to this debate — and, I suspect, a similar debate in the province of Alberta — I'd be much inspired by how little progress this legislation, on the face of it, seems to make with respect to the whole issue of harmonization and ensuring the so-called regulatory passport system.

I do note that the

section as proposed reads simply: "The commission may publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers." I'm wondering: why not include non-reporting issuers? Obviously, if you're including reporting issuers, what's the point of not including non-reporting issuers? Why not simply say issuers — period?

Hon. W. Oppal: We have to create a system first, before it becomes mandatory, before it goes national. You can't create a mandatory system and then expect other provinces to buy into it. This is a first step, and you can't do it any other way. Short of having a mandatory system, we have to have a permissive system. That is the first step in establishing a mandatory system.

L. Krog: Again, I guess I have to say that if British Columbia's system is mandatory with respect to the publishing of the list of defaulting reporting issuers, that surely takes into account both linguistically and legally the concept that the commission may publish. So again — and perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse today or not making my questions perfectly clear — I cannot understand, and I look to the Attorney General to correct and advise me and respond as to why.

If a mandatory reporting requirement obviously includes and gives the power and doesn't derogate from the authority of the commission to publish if it so wishes, why not simply make it "must" now? That surely puts us on the cutting edge in British Columbia as opposed to leaving us behind.

Hon. W. Oppal: It would mean that we would not be in harmony with other jurisdictions. We cannot create a system that is not in some ways in harmony with other jurisdictions. We can't do that — except if we're going to have a national scheme. We're not there yet.

L. Krog: With great respect to the Attorney General, if we have a national highway system and in British Columbia we happen to have the money to cover the whole system with a nice roof to keep the roads clean and safe, that doesn't derogate from the passport nature of the system. You can still drive across the country safely; it is just that in British Columbia you are

[ Page 3993 ]

going to be even more safe. I mean, I think it's a fairly simple proposition that I'm advancing here.

Again, why not make it a mandatory system? It will be an improvement on the harmonized system that the Attorney General is talking about. It will not force the other provinces to do it. It will still be a harmonized system, and it will advance the protection of the public interest, which is what this

section should be driving at.

Hon. W. Oppal: In the circumstances, our lists would be different. This issue has been thought out very carefully by the regulators across the country. It's impossible to adopt the scheme suggested by the hon. member and still have our harmonization process. It can't be done.

[1535]

L. Krog: If I'm a defaulting reporting issuer and this is a system that's harmonized across the country, if I default in Manitoba, I'm defaulting in British Columbia. This is merely the publication of the list. It doesn't affect who's on the list; I'm a defaulting reporting issuer. If that's the case, why not make it mandatory in British Columbia and give the public the assurance that it should legitimately have?

My understanding is that if you are a defaulting reporting issuer…. That means something as simple as you're failing to file your annual reports as a corporation, which, as I said yesterday in the second reading debate in this House, is the first and most basic thing that a company has to do in this province — year in, year out — in order to survive. It is, if you will, the oxygen for the corporate body. If you don't file your report, you get dissolved — terminated, to use common language.

In these circumstances, if a company can't even meet the legal bill to file its annual report to maintain its existence, surely that is a matter of significant public interest and concern. Therefore, in order to protect British Columbia investors, this

section should require that the commission publish that list of defaulting reporting issuers.

I cannot understand why British Columbia being a step ahead, which includes it, would somehow be out of harmony with the rest of the country. If there's a minimum test to get into law school at 70 percent, and you've got ten people who get 70 percent and seven people who get 77 percent, they still all get into law school. Some of them are a little better; some are a little brighter. But they're all in the system, and it all works. So why doesn't it work here?

If the Attorney General can explain this to me, I will really be pleased. So far I haven't heard an explanation that says why you can't have a mandatory reporting system.

[1540]

Hon. W. Oppal: If we're going to have a national system, you have to, in the circumstances, give up some mode of control.

J. Kwan: Well, so far in this debate I've failed to hear an explanation from the Attorney General to justify why we're now going to do away with a requirement of the commission to publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers.

The Attorney General says we need to do this to support the harmonization process, but the issue we have here is this. What I heard from the Attorney General is that there will be a national list of defaulting reporting issuers that will be established. We're not disputing the content of that list. The national group can go and do this work, and we're very happy about that.

What we're saying, though, is that once you get that list, it needs to be published. There needs to be a requirement to ensure that that list is published. That is in the best interest of investors, so that they can easily access this information. That's an open, accountable and transparent way of doing things. If you don't make that a requirement, the commission…. As I understand, at this moment they are given the flexibility to decide whether or not they want to publish this list. They may. Then again, they may not.

I think that, in the best interests of public accountability and investor protection, we should require that the list be published — not to change the content of the list, but to say that there simply should be a public publication of this list for ease of access for investors.

To that end, I rise to move an amendment to

section 19 of this bill.

[

a) striking out "may" and substituting "must"]

So it would read: "The commission must publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers." The proposed amendment is standing in my name, a copy of which is for the Clerk and a copy of which is for the Attorney General.

On the amendment.

J. Kwan: Just to reiterate, the purpose of the amendment

and the intent of the amendment…. So that everybody in the House is clear, the

amendment will replace the word "may" in

section 19 of Bill 20 with the word

"must," so that

section 19 of the Securities Amendment Act, 2006, will read as

follows: "List of defaulting reporting issuers; 77, the commission must publish a list of defaulting reporting issuers."

The whole purpose and intent of this amendment is not to get in the way of harmonization, is not to get in the way of the content of the list itself in terms of the defaulting reporting issuers, but rather to say that the commission is required to publish that list so that investors, the public, can access that information easily and for the purposes of investor protection.

[1545-1550]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 3994 ]

YEAS — 32

S. Simpson

Evans

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Brar

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Ralston

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 42

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Chong

Les

Richmond

Bell

Bennett

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Campbell

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Hogg

Sultan

Hawkins

Krueger

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

Section 19 approved on division.

section 20.

[1555]

L. Krog: Delighted to see the members so well awake and cheerful in the chamber.

With respect to

section 20, I take it that essentially, again, this is part of this whole concept that all of the meat of this legislation will be addressed by regulation that will not end up in front of this Legislature at some future date. Can the Attorney General confirm that my understanding is correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

L. Krog: This requires that, "A reporting issuer must, in accordance with the regulations, (

a) provide prescribed periodic disclosure…" etc. Is there any reason that a non-reporting issuer shouldn't provide periodic disclosure, etc., about its affairs? If so, why not?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's why they call them non-reporting. They don't have to report.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

section 25.

L. Krog: Again, just so I'm clear, in this

section is the same issue that I have pointed out in various sections of this bill: that ultimately, the specifics are going to be addressed in what is referred to as subordinate legislation in the explanatory note, which is, in fact, not even regulation by the government but will be, if I can call it, law made by the Securities Commission in the future; and that none of this will come back to this Legislature for review by the members of this House.

Hon. W. Oppal: In the usual way, it will be subject to ministerial approval, like all regulations.

L. Krog: Just so that I'm clear, we're not talking about orders-in-council. We're talking about something that the minister will see with his or her own eyes, but the other members of this House will be, quite frankly, kept in the dark. Is that, in fact, the case?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes, but after a public consultation period.

L. Krog: What is happening here is that a commission that will be able to enforce both what is tantamount to criminal and civil regulation of the conduct of securities and their transfers in this province…. The law relating to that is going to be created by the commission, approved by the minister — yes, after public consultation — but will never get back before the members of this Legislature duly elected to make the law of the province of British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: Those circumstances have existed since 1995. That's always been the procedure.

Sections 25 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

[1600]

L. Krog: Again, as with the previous sections, this will all be done outside of this Legislature. The regulations, etc., will be covered by subordinate legislation. If that's the case, my question to the Attorney General is simply: why are we almost bothering to bring this bill before the House if the whole thing is going to be accomplished outside of its purview? What am I being paid to do here today if, in fact, the Legislature is never going to have a chance to see what will only come before the minister's eyes? As much as I appreciate the brilliance of the minister and his abilities, nevertheless, the last time I checked, we still elected members to this chamber to actually do their job.

[ Page 3995 ]

It strikes me that what is happening with this bill,

section after section, is we are being asked to simply say: "Trust me." Well, in a democratic society my understanding was that the people don't necessarily trust government. They expect a full and open debate.

Once again, and I'm almost getting tired of asking the question: none of this as referred to will, in fact, come back to this House for its purview.

Hon. W. Oppal: Regulations don't come back to the House under any act as the member knows. The current requirements are not harmonized across jurisdictions. The general requirement is already, or in some cases will be, provided in the legislation. Detailed requirements will be proscribed through a rule adopted by securities regulators in all the participating jurisdictions.

The rules are made by the Securities Commission under the authority of the Securities Act after a full public consultation process and period and only with the formal approval of the minister after that period of consultation.

J. Kwan: The minister refers consistently to a process of consultation. He relies on that as justification for not bringing whatever changes that would impact the Securities Act to the House. Maybe, then, the minister can outline for this House and for the public: what is the process of consultation?

Hon. W. Oppal:

Section 184 is the governing section, but the rule states that the notice that a "public comment on the proposed rule may be provided in written form to the commission for a specified period of (

i) at least 30 days if the commission is republishing the proposed rule under

section 4 (b), or (ii) at least 60 days in all other cases."

The regulations make it clear as to the process that must be followed.

J. Kwan: So the process is such that there would be publication with proposed changes with the Securities Act, and that it must be posted for a period of 60 days in which, I guess, the public can have the opportunity to respond to it. By responding to it, then I presume those comments are collected and compiled, then evaluated and recommendations put to the minister for change.

[1605]

Once the changes are adopted by the minister, by regulation, then the changes would be published again, I take it? Is there a process in terms of periodic review with respect to these changes? Or if someone had a concern around the regulatory changes, who would they register that with?

Hon. W. Oppal: The government can always change the rule by regulation.

J. Kwan: If the public is concerned about the changes, then I guess the public should be phoning the Attorney General, and that would be the process. Okay.

Sections 30 to 41 inclusive approved.

section 42.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear from the Attorney General, the new sections as set out, which replace

section 136 of the existing statute, provide for civil liability for illegal insider trading and similar contraventions of the act detailed in provisions previously enacted by

section 17. That's my understanding, and I guess my question is: is this in fact a tightening up? Is this a broadening of the scope of activities that would in fact constitute a breach of the act?

Hon. W. Oppal: This provision will enhance investor protection by making the remedy more effective in that the

section provides a remedy to any person who enters into a transaction between the time of the insider trading and the time that the material fact or material change is disclosed. So it covers that period of time. What it will do is provide a deterrence to persons who might be inclined to get involved in like-minded insider trading.

The new

section 136(1) also requires a person who contravenes the insider trading or front-running prohibition to account for the benefits received as a result of the contravention.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear. This provides for civil liability, is my understanding of the explanatory note, and again, it is an enhancement in terms of civil liability, but does it require that if a person…? Is the civil liability a civil liability owed to the Securities Commission that will, so to speak, sue on behalf of the general public, or is it an individual right that they'll be entitled to, and if so, will that be required to be brought in Supreme Court?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's a civil remedy that will be under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

[1610]

L. Krog: So that I'm clear to the Attorney General: I take it, then, that even if the amount of money involved is below $25,000, it will still require that a party sue in Supreme Court.

Hon. W. Oppal: While the legislation itself is silent on that, I would assume that because the Provincial Court has jurisdiction in any matter of $25,000 or under, it would be in the Provincial Court.

L. Krog: In light of earlier comments made today around the jurisdictional issues involving Supreme Court matters and Provincial Court matters, if in fact that is the case, then my suggestion to the Attorney General would be that he consider what I had suggested earlier today, which is a provision that allows investors of small amounts to make their claims in Pro-

[ Page 3996 ]

vincial Court, which they can pursue without the necessity of pursuing it in Supreme Court where almost inevitably everyone requires the assistance of legal counsel.

If the Attorney General's answer to my last question is correct, then my question is: does there not appear to be some disconnect between the previous provisions that seem to require enforcement in Supreme Court only and his answer that suggests that, in fact, one could sue in Provincial Court with respect to these sections?

The safe course of action is to have matters go into the Supreme Court where the amount involved is more than $25,000. If it's $25,000 or less, it ought to go to the Provincial Court.

Sections 42 to 47 inclusive approved.

section 48.

L. Krog:

Section 48 is a very positive step, and I compliment the government on increasing the maximum penalty for an offence from $1 million to $3 million. I suppose my obvious question is: how did the government arrive at the choice of that particular figure as opposed to $10 million or $2.5 million?

Hon. W. Oppal: The fine needs to be significant and substantial if it's going to be a meaningful general deterrent rather than being characterized as a cost of doing business. Several years ago Ontario adopted a maximum fine of $5 million and a prison term of five years less a day or both. But the $3 million fine and the three-year maximums in

section 155(2) are sufficient to deter conduct of a similar nature.

As the hon. member mentioned, it's a significant move upward. In our view, it ought to be a meaningful deterrent.

[1615]

L. Krog: Surprisingly, I'm not being critical of the government picking $3 million. I don't think it's significant enough. The Eron Mortgage Corp. scandal in this province, and similar schemes that have deprived investors of their life savings, destroyed people's lives in a province that — as the Attorney General is well aware — has more millionaires per capita than any other province in Canada.

If you take away a dollar from a man who has no money, it's a big sum. If you take away a million dollars from a man who has $100 million, it's not much of a penalty. It strikes me that if you are going to seriously attack the growing problem of white-collar crime, which has been far more devastating to so many people than having a bicycle stolen, then surely the penalties involved where the profits can be so great should be much, much higher.

My question to the Attorney General is: because this is a harmonization approach, does this maximum fine, at $3 million for a penalty, represent the agreed-upon harmonized amount from jurisdictions across the country? If it does, does the Attorney General feel constrained to restrict British Columbians — the criminals, if you will, who do this — to only $3 million in terms of a penalty?

Hon. W. Oppal: It ought to be noted that the $3 million is a figure on a per-contravention basis. If there are four offences or four counts, or five charges or counts, then the maximum would obviously be higher. I'd also point out that these provisions do not constrain the Criminal Code from imposing other sentences that may be more severe.

My recollection of the fraud

section is…. I think it was 14 years as a maximum for fraud. The Criminal Code provisions are still applicable for certain types of activity.

Sections 48 to 51 inclusive approved.

section 52.

L. Krog: I take it that this is the administrative penalty that can be imposed, which is only $1 million. My question to the Attorney General is: in terms of consistency, is there any reason that the penalty not be $3 million as will be set out in the new

section 48, which amends

section 155?

Hon. W. Oppal: This is a penalty imposed by an administrative tribunal as opposed to a penalty imposed by a court. That's the distinction.

L. Krog: As the Attorney General is well aware, one of the difficulties from the public perspective is that one can be acquitted in a criminal proceeding quite legitimately, according to the criminal law of this country — receive no fine or penalty, obviously, because you have been acquitted — but nevertheless be found civilly liable in a suit brought in our courts.

[1620]

It strikes me that it is entirely inconsistent when one is assured, certainly on the balance of probabilities, that an enormous fraud has taken place. When you provide for penalties of $3 million in one section, again, there does not seem to be any logic in not providing for a far more significant and indeed at least a $3 million administrative penalty. If the commission is to have credibility and to ensure public confidence, then surely it must have the power to impose a fine that is significant.

According to the latest edition of the Sun , I believe there is something like 22,000 homes in British Columbia that are worth over a million dollars. To paraphrase something that C.D. Howe never actually said: a million ain't what it used to be.

[ Page 3997 ]

So my question to the Attorney General is: again, what is the logic for not allowing for a significant administrative penalty so that the kind of white-collar abuse, if you will, of the public will be genuinely discouraged by this amendment?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I would assume, since the matter does not result in a conviction in the criminal courts, that it is less egregious than it otherwise would be, and that would allow for the administrative law to come into play. That's one explanation.

The more salient and relevant explanation is that these monetary sanctions here would bring our legislation in with the equivalent sections in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. As well, I reiterate what I said earlier about per contravention, per incident. If there's more than one incident, this conceivably would result in a higher penalty.

Sections 52 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

J. Kwan: I thought my colleague was going to ask questions around this, but that's okay, because we're sharing the file.

section 58, the freedom-of-information commissioner had actually written a letter to the Attorney General around this with his concerns. Particularly, the freedom-of-information commissioner states that

section 58 of the act does not clarify that the privacy rights of the individuals and corporations will be protected by FIPPA should an FOI request be made. The commissioner and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are of the view that: "In order to ensure that both the access and the privacy rights of the public are appropriately protected, I believe the principles of FIPPA should apply to disclosures of information wherever possible, with only very limited exceptions."

Is that the minister's understanding of the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, relative to this authority in this amendment?

Hon. W. Oppal: As of this morning the Information and Privacy Commissioner advised the government that he does not object to the new

section 169(4) of the Securities Act being passed, as introduced in the bill, on the basis that a commitment in the Securities Commission's policy to guide its

section 169(4) discretion will be consistent with the principles underlying in sections 21(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

J. Kwan: Has the minister provided that assurance to the freedom-of-information commissioner in writing in terms of the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

[1625]

Hon. W. Oppal: That hasn't been done, but it will be done.

J. Kwan: Madam Chair, I wonder, when the minister does that, if he could also provide a copy to the critic so that we can have that on record as well.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll undertake to do that.

Sections 58 to 67 inclusive approved.

section 68.

L. Krog: I want to declare, I suppose, a conflict here to some extent in that I'm a member of the Mid-Island Consumer Services Cooperative in Nanaimo, but I will plead ignorance. Can the Attorney General explain what the import of this

section is and what its purpose is?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is no policy change. This amendment considers the definition change or the change from "mutual fund in British Columbia" to "British Columbia investment fund" so as to comply with the change in terminology.

Sections 68 to 71 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Bill 20, Securities Amendment Act, 2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate on Bill 26.

[1630]

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLEMENTS REPEAL ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 26; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 4:32 p.m.

section 1.

[ Page 3998 ]

L. Krog: My question is to the Attorney General — more curiosity than anything.

Section 1 is set out with two subsections, and I'm wondering why the supplements to be repealed, as set out in those sections, are set out in two separate subsections.

Hon. W. Oppal: It's a drafting convention, and the general rule is that the practice is not to use double letters such as "aa" and "bb" and "cc."

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 3 — just so I'm clear in my understanding of it — I take it that this is essentially saying that if, through some other provision, any of these supplements are not in fact repealed by virtue of the proclamation of this bill when it's enacted, then the previous repeal, through other act or supplement, will take priority, so to speak.

Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is yes.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Krog: I'm not going to try and delay the passage of this bill too much, but it is incumbent upon the opposition to inquire of the government as to why it's passing

section 4 and what the point of it is.

Hon. W. Oppal: This legislation is being reviewed, and the intent is to retain the present legislation as is.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

[1635]

section 10.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 10, what impact will this have on the law relating to guardianship of children in the province, and what change does it represent?

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no change taking place. What is happening is that the findings of the Justice Review Task Force are being considered. This legislation is kept in place pending the results and the findings of that task force.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

L. Krog: I need to ask, obviously: why is the government sort of re-enacting provisions of the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, which is not currently in force? In other words, is there some plan to enact these provisions in the future?

Hon. W. Oppal: All of the provisions of the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act are under review. As a result, the government intends to do nothing until the review is complete.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

L. Krog:

Section 13 adds a significant series of sections to the admission-to-a-care-facility act. I'm just wondering: can the Attorney General explain the purpose of

section 13? In other words, what change will it make to existing practices, if any?

Hon. W. Oppal: This

section makes no change to any existing legislation, which is all under review.

L. Krog: Perhaps it's the number of hours that I've been in this chamber today that explains my question. But is the Attorney General telling the House that, in fact, these sections effect no change? And if they effect no change, why are we proposing to pass these sections in this House today — if it's no change?

Hon. W. Oppal: At the moment there is uncertainty as to which of the provisions will be brought into force. That's the reason why we are where we are.

[1640]

L. Krog: He obviously operates in the stratosphere of a complete understanding of this, which I obviously don't, because I'm not sure that I actually heard an answer in his response to my question.

These sections, which the following part…. It's an addition of a whole part to a statute, which is sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. I mean, if this is an addition to the statute, it's a change. If it's not been proclaimed and it doesn't exist, it's a change.

Again, my question to the Attorney General is: what is the effect of

section 13?

Hon. W. Oppal: The purpose is to give the Ministry of Health the necessary authority to bring these provisions into effect if and when they need them.

L. Krog: If I understand it correctly, the intention of the government is to have

section 13 passed and to leave it in abeyance with no particular intention to, in fact, proclaim it in the near future.

Hon. W. Oppal: Part of that is correct, except pending further consultation and review.

L. Krog: So I'm clear, I take it these are the sections that have been the subject of much concern and comment by the B.C. Association for Community Living and other organizations. In fact, they were — if I'm not

[ Page 3999 ]

mistaken, and the Attorney General can correct me — the proposals that were made sometime in December with the response date of January that caused them great consternation. Am I, in fact, correct in my understanding?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I might need the hon. member to clarify the question. If he's talking about discussion and controversy, he may be talking about other proposed legislation.

L. Krog: So I can make myself clear to the Attorney General: my understanding was that the Association for Community Living had some serious concerns around adult guardianship legislation, which I suspect may or may not relate to this

section with respect to the admission of adults who live in facilities. Can the Attorney General respond, now having, I think, a better understanding?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's a different issue. That is different proposed legislation.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

The Chair: Will

section 15 pass? So ordered.

L. Krog: I was trying to rise on

section 15, hon. Chair.

section 15.

L. Krog: This provision indicates that if an applicant for registration fails to authorize a criminal-record check, etc., "the board must take the failure or the determination into account when deciding whether to register the applicant or whether to set limits or conditions."

Is this a significant change to the legislation, and if so, what is the current practice?

[1645]

Hon. W. Oppal: The Ministry of Health wishes to have paramedics have criminal-record checks. For reasons that are unexplained, that hasn't been done heretofore.

L. Krog: When the Attorney General says "for reasons that have not been explained," does he mean reasons it's not been explained by the applicant for registration or reasons that haven't been explained to the Attorney General by health providers?

Hon. W. Oppal: For reasons that have not been explained by the providers. My understanding is that there's a void here and there's considerable concern raised about the lack of legislation compelling paramedics to undergo criminal-record checks.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SUPPLEMENTS REPEAL ACT

Bill 26, Supplements Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: In keeping with the Attorney General theme we have going this afternoon, I call committee stage debate on Bill 16.

Committee of the Whole House

APOLOGY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 4:49 p.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: My question is to the Attorney General around the definition of "apology." It reads: "means an expression of sympathy or regret, a statement that one is sorry or any other words or actions indicating contrition or commiseration, whether or not the words or actions admit or imply an admission of fault in connection with the matter to which the words or actions relate."

Just so I'm clear, I take it…. It may seem rather silly and obvious. Would that definition, in the Attorney General's understanding, include a written document?

[1650]

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can explain — I think it is somewhat implicit in it, but given that this is a significant change to what has been the law in British Columbia — why doesn't the

section contain a specific provision that says, you know, an expression in writing or on videotape or in some other form of communication?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is that it's not necessary. The words "a statement" may mean an oral statement or a written statement.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[ Page 4000 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment of

section 2 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 2 , by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Effect of apology on liability

2(1) An apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter

(

a) does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the person in connection with that matter,

(

b) does not constitute a confirmation

of a cause of action in relation to that matter for the purposes of

section 5 of the

Limitation Act ,

(

c) does not, despite any wording to

the contrary in any contract of insurance and despite any other enactment, void, impair or otherwise affect any insurance coverage that is available, or that would, but for the apology, be available, to the person in connection with that matter, and

(

d) must not be taken into account in

any determination of fault or liability in connection with that matter.

(2) Despite any other enactment, evidence of an

apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter is not admissible in any

proceeding and must not be referred to or disclosed to a court in any proceeding

court as evidence of the fault or liability of the person in connection with that matter.]

On the amendment.

Hon. W. Oppal: The amendment to the wording of

section 2 clarifies that it is the intent of the act that an apology is only inadmissible in court as evidence of fault or liability. The law continues with respect to the admissibility of an apology in the determination of damages. For example, the Libel and Slander Act specifically allows for an apology made before the commencement of the action or at the earliest opportunity afterwards to be considered by a court in assessing the quantum of damages.

The Apology Act is not intended to change the current law with respect to the admissibility of apologies for the purpose other than liability. The law is clear. It is well known that in cases of libel and slander, the evidence of an apology is a relevant factor to consider in the assessment of damages.

L. Krog: With respect to the amendment, can I take it, then, from the Attorney General's comments that this relates only to the issue of libel, and he's satisfied that it only relates to that — the laws relating to libel and slander, defamation generally?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is no. There may be other acts and other laws wherein an apology may be relevant to assess damages.

L. Krog: I assume that legislative counsel has certainly provided the Attorney General with some specific examples of why this

section needs to be amended in the form in which the amendment is proposed. I'm just wondering if he can outline to the House what some of those specific examples are so that we on this side can have some greater understanding of the necessity of this particular amendment.

Hon. W. Oppal: I must say that I'm at a loss to come up with other examples, but I would think that's a factor that any trial judge would be free to consider in the individual circumstances of any given case wherein it may be that in the interests of justice a judge may determine that the admissibility of an apology would be relevant in assessing damages.

[1655]

The specific example, of course, that comes to mind is the one that we've advanced so far, but there may well be other circumstances where a judge might consider evidence of an apology to be relevant.

N. Simons: My question had to do with, perhaps, the situation in which an apology would be issued during a criminal proceeding or a proceeding. I'm just wondering if the minister can clarify as to whether or not evidence of an apology would be considered by a judge in those situations.

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is no. This legislation would be only applicable to civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings, so an apology might well be relevant in the finding of guilt in a criminal case.

N. Simons: I was thinking in terms of the sentencing process and how that sometimes does play a factor. I'm just wondering if — perhaps not in a criminal case, but in a subsequent or concurrent civil case — that would be considered.

Hon. W. Oppal: The rendering of an apology in a sentencing matter is a good issue. Obviously, probation officers and judges consider apologies to be evidence of remorse, and that would no doubt be relevant in sentencing. But I just want to make it clear that the legislation intended to be passed in this House is only for the purposes of the civil proceedings, and they have no effect at all on the criminal law.

L. Krog: The law of evidence, as I generally understand it, is really a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I'm getting lots of legal advice today. Just so I'm clear and satisfied, when the term "fault" is used in

section 2(1)(a), it strikes me that it might have some impact in a criminal proceeding. If the Attorney General can illuminate — I don't practise any criminal law, so I'm really at a loss here today.

Hon. W. Oppal: As the hon. member knows, in this House we cannot pass legislation relating to the criminal law on constitutional grounds. As well, there is a provincial Evidence Act as well as a federal evidence act. There are two evidence acts. One is applicable in criminal proceedings, and the other is applicable in civil proceedings.

[ Page 4001 ]

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

L. Krog: I appreciate that subsection 14(1) of the

Interpretation Act says: "Unless it specifically provides otherwise, an enactment is binding on the government." Appreciating that this is a significant change and a very positive change — the passage of the Apology Act — I'm wondering why the

section does not specifically refer to government. The

section as it reads now is: "An apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter." Now, that obviously includes "person" as defined in the

Interpretation Act, which includes a corporation. One would argue, I suppose, from a legal perspective, that

section 14(1) of the

Interpretation Act says that unless it says otherwise, it applies to government.

[1700]

I'm wondering why

section 2 doesn't specifically refer to government in particular or government agencies, boards, commissions, institutes created by government, Crown corporations, etc. In other words, it strikes me that this

section would not suffer if in fact it is the government's intent to include all of those agencies, boards, commissions that I've mentioned, etc. Why not include it? Why not make a positive and bold statement? If the Attorney General is satisfied that the law is clear and that it will apply, why not say so? Or is the case, in fact, the opposite — that the government intends or hopes it won't have that wide-ranging or far-reaching effect?

Hon. W. Oppal: By virtue of the

Interpretation Act, the act would apply to government unless specifically excluded. It does not exclude government, so government is subject to this legislation as well as anyone else.

L. Krog: Again to the Attorney General. As an example, a Crown corporation that, you know, flooded somebody's farmland or had a dam burst and destroy and drown all their cattle somewhere in the Peace River, something like that…. Is the Attorney General satisfied that this legislation, by virtue of

section 14(1) of the

Interpretation Act, would extend to B.C. Hydro?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

APOLOGY ACT

Bill 16, Apology Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. W. Oppal: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

APOLOGY ACT

Bill 16, Apology Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call now Bill 22, a topic that generated considerable excited debate yesterday afternoon.

Committee of the Whole House

PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND HONOURS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 5:05 p.m.

section 1.

M. Sather:

Section 1 eliminates the position of provincial secretary and replaces that position with the minister. The note to the bill says that this is an outdated reference. This position that is outdated, then — this is in reference to the Order of British Columbia. Is that correct?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question, the change that's proposed in

section 1 doesn't actually eliminate the position. The position was eliminated from use within the provincial government in about 1990-1991. What this amendment does is update this act to reflect the change in practice that was made within the provincial government then, and this amendment does apply throughout the whole of this act.

M. Sather: Then the last provincial secretary in that position was back in 1991. Is that correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that the term was last used in 1991 to describe the minister responsible for this act.

[ Page 4002 ]

M. Sather: I take it from that, then, that this would have been the last time, or before that, that there would have been a person with that title in that position.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Sather: This is the

section that caused all the excitement, as the Minister of Environment said yesterday, on the designation of the spirit bear as the provincial animal, or mammal. Whew. I just about blew that, since I made a big to-do about it being a mammal versus an animal.

Simon Jackson, who is the founder and executive director of the Spirit Bear Youth Coalition, has said that while he is pleased with the initiative, he wants the province to protect another 80,000 hectares to provide an adequate buffer zone for protection of the spirit bear. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on whether there has been discussion that he is aware of, if he can give us any information about…. Does the government feel there is any need for a buffer zone to protect this — I think, probably, fairly vulnerable — species or subspecies?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The response to the member's question is really three points. One is that first of all, the staff of the Ministry of Environment, the biodiversity branch, say that the spirit bear gene pool is not at risk. So that is the advice that government has from the biologists in the Ministry of Environment.

Secondly, given the number of existing and proposed protected areas within the range of the spirit bear, the improvements that have been made to the management of timber harvesting impacts and the adaptability of black bears to human disturbance, the long-term conservation of these animals is considered to be secure.

[1710]

That is really the result of the decisions of a lot of the extensive work that had been done by the government working with first nations, working with environmentalists, working with the forest industry, the mining industry, parks interests and a whole range of interests that culminated in the announcement on February 7 of this year of the central coast and the north coast land and resource management plans that involved a total of 1.8 million hectares.

That protected area included more than 200,000 hectares of the spirit bear's habitat, including the more than 103,000 hectare Kitasoo spirit bear conservancy on Princess Royal Island, which is home to the greatest concentration of spirit bears in British Columbia.

M. Sather: Is it the case that trophy hunting of black bear is still allowed in the spirit bear conservancy?

Hon. J. van Dongen: It is illegal to hunt the spirit bear in British Columbia for any purpose. That's my understanding.

M. Sather: That's good news, and I did believe that was the case. The question, though, I had was…. I did want to encompass the black-phase of the black bear as well. Is the black-phase of the black bear…? Is trophy hunting of that animal allowed in the spirit bear conservancy?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The information I have at hand doesn't allow me to give the member a definitive answer on that, but we will undertake to get the answer for him.

M. Sather: Well, there have been a number of environmental groups, I understand, that have expressed concern about the continuation of trophy hunting in the new conservancy areas — one of those organizations being the rain forest conservation society. I was wondering, then, if the government has any concerns that if trophy hunting is allowed in that area for the black-phase of the bear…. Is there any concern that there might be what we could charitably call, I guess, incidental kill of the spirit bear as a result?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said in answer to the previous question, we will undertake to get the definitive answer. I think the overall response is that the government has taken the advice of biologists, as I'd indicated earlier. Certainly, it is our intention that the spirit bear is in no way going to be endangered. This government is not going to, in any way, knowingly be party to a management regime that is not going to protect a mammal that we are naming as an emblem for British Columbia.

[1715]

M. Sather: Thank you to the minister for the commitment to get further information on that. I wanted to ask the minister, also, with regard to this designation, what sorts of consultation had taken place.

Hon. J. van Dongen: There are many different variations of process whereby an emblem can be named and has been named in this legislation. In this particular case there was some general discussion with people involved in the LRMP process and our Ministry of Environment, but we did not go through a comprehensive, formalized process where there was public discussion and a specific vote on whether or not a particular animal or plant should be the emblem for British Columbia. It was felt that the case was very clear that the spirit bear was an appropriate mammal emblem, and the government is putting it forward in legislation.

M. Sather: Well, I wanted to talk to the minister for a moment about a concern that was raised by the Gitga'at first nation at Hartley Bay. The minister will be aware that the Premier received a letter from Mary Mackie of the band. She makes note, or it is to be made note of, that the Premier had discussed the possibility, or his interest, at least, in the spirit bear being made the mascot for the 2010 Olympic Games.

[ Page 4003 ]

He had said at the time: "I think it reflects the symbol of B.C. that everyone can embrace, of not just our natural history but our aboriginal history. I think it would be a great symbol for the Olympics." In the letter that was sent by Mary Mackie, she makes reference to the fact that the spirit bear is very important to their culture.

[1720]

I understand that the bear is symbolized throughout their village. She says that it was her understanding that they have been negotiating with the province on the use of the spirit bear as a symbol for the 2010 Olympic Games. She feels that this news report about the designation suggests that the Kitkatla-Gitga'at have been left out of the equation. She asks: "Please let me know what arrangements have been made with the people of Hartley Bay for the use of this symbol which is so central to their traditions." I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to express my appreciation to the member for flagging this issue with us earlier today. The province is not involved in negotiations with respect to — and the province has no role in determining — the symbols for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. That role falls to VANOC. So that's a partial response.

This amendment to the Symbols and Honours Act making the spirit bear the mammal emblem does not in any way prevent or interfere with the role of the Gitga'at First Nation and their ability to negotiate the use of the spirit bear as a symbol for the Olympic Games. The amendment proposed here making an emblem does not in any way impair their ability to do that. This legislation simply celebrates the spirit bear as an emblem representative of British Columbia.

M. Sather: While I appreciate the minister's remarks, it is unfortunate, I think, that there hadn't been a discussion with the band. There has been a lot of opportunity for interaction, as we know, over the recent unfortunate incident of the sinking of the ferry and the heroic efforts and successful efforts that band members made to save those on board the ferry. I know the Minister of Environment was there. It would have just been preferable, I think, if government had discussed that with the band.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I appreciate the member's comment. I have asked my staff this afternoon to consult with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to see if there are any actions we need to take with respect to the band on this matter. I want to assure the member and the writer of the letter that we want to support them in any way that the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation will advise us to do.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Sather: Sections 3 and 4 establish the positions of chancellor and secretary. Can the minister advise the House as to how these positions will work functionally and how this would be different than under the current legislation?

[1725]

Hon. J. van Dongen: The current practice is that the Lieutenant-Governor is an honorary chair of the advisory council of the order, but they are not named to the order upon becoming Lieutenant-Governor. The current Lieutenant-Governor happens to be a member of the order, but the proposal now is that upon being named Lieutenant-Governor, they would become a member of the order automatically by the legislation and they would hold the title of chancellor, which is still essentially an honorary position.

There is a provision in the order for a chair of the advisory council, which is someone other than the Lieutenant-Governor.

The amendment with respect to the position of secretary is intended to formalize in the legislation what has been happening informally in terms of the practice whereby a staff member of the protocol branch provided a secretarial function. It simply formalizes it in the legislation.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

M. Sather:

Section 5 changes the membership of the Order of B.C. Advisory Council. Can the minister advise: what was the basis for these changes?

[1730]

Hon. J. van Dongen: If we look at the three amendments that are being proposed in

section 5 of the bill, referring first of all to

section 14(

a) of the proposed new act dealing with the chancellor, we've already spoken about that in an earlier answer.

Section 14(

d) in the new proposed act simply is a change of title referring to current terminology — the deputy minister for Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat as opposed to the deputy provincial secretary previously in the act.

The amendment dealing with the naming of a representative from a university is intended to expand the wording of the act in such a way that the president of any of the new universities that have been established since the act was first written in 1989 will have a turn in rotation at being involved on the advisory council.

So where in the original act we had the presidents of the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser and the University of Victoria rotating through the council, it's now expanded in such a way that any president of a university under the University Act or the Thompson Rivers University Act or the Royal Roads University Act would also have an opportunity to participate in rotation on the council.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

[ Page 4004 ]

M. Sather:

Section 6 adds a new position: the secretary of the advisory council. Is that position, then, to be held by the deputy minister of the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is no. It is a separate position. The deputy minister of the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat would be a member of the council and is a member of the council. This

section simply sets out formally the role of the secretary who is serving the council. It sets out what the function of the secretary is, and it will be an individual staff person from Intergovernmental Relations — someone other than the deputy minister.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

M. Sather:

Section 7. What is the purpose of this

section specifying the designation of insignia, and why was that needed?

Hon. J. van Dongen: At the time that the act was originally passed in 1989, the design of the insignia had not been completed. Up until this proposed amendment, it was really up to cabinet. They could describe what they thought the insignia should be. In an effort to provide some level of permanence to this, we feel it is appropriate to add it in the legislation and actually describe the insignia in the legislation. So this is doing what had been intended earlier when the act was first proposed but the design work hadn't been completed.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

[1735]

M. Sather: The proposed amendment under

section 8 adds a new

section to provide for an Order of B.C. member's voluntary resignation or his or her termination by the chancellor. Can the minister explain to the House what the reasons are behind this change?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This

section is being added as a result of one particular experience with the Order of Canada. Out of concern for the possibility that a member of the order might conduct themselves in a manner unbecoming to the order, we decided to add this

section because it provides a formal mechanism for both a resignation and a termination of a member. The purpose of it is to protect the integrity of the order.

M. Sather: So does that mean that there was an incident where a member was thought to be acting in a manner that was not appropriate?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, there was one incident involving the Order of Canada. There has never been an issue in British Columbia involving the Order of British Columbia, but we thought that it would be appropriate to add this

section just in case there ever might be. Then it would be very clear what the procedure would be. It sets out that it has to be on the recommendation of the advisory council, and it has to be approved by the executive council. So it involves the same elements and the same steps that are involved — the same players, really — in naming someone to the order.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:38 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND HONOURS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Bill 22, Provincial Symbols and Honours Amendment Act, 2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate of Bill 24.

[1740]

Committee of the Whole House

RESORT TIMBER ADMINISTRATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 5:41 p.m.

section 1.

N. Simons: