British Columbia Hansard — Monday, October 4, 2004

h1004pm-02

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, October 4, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 26, Number 2 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Advanced Education .......................................................................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations............................................................................. Hon.

Geoff Plant, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ..........................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Services..............................................................................................Hon. Patrick Wong Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ................................................................................................Hon. Brenda Locke Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Susan Brice Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon. John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development.......................................................................................................... Hon.

Armando (Sandy) Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ............................................................................................................................................................................. Dr. John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ..................................................................................................................................................................Joy K.

MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.............................................................................................................................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................... E.

George MacMinn, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 73; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3; Vacant 1 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Rev. Val (L) .......................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) .............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .........................................................

Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Christy (L) .............................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon.

Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon.

Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon. Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon.

Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ..................................................................................... Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)..............................................................

Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................ Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)....................................................................

Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Hon. Brenda (L) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)......................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy K. (NDP) .......................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L)............................................................. New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind.

L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) ....................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon.

Geoff, QC (L).................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................

Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Armando (Sandy) (L) ........................... West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, Dr. John (L) ................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L)............................................. North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, Dr. John (L)........................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Hon.

Patrick (L).....................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................ Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T.

Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North...............................................................................Dr.

John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country ...........................................................Dr. John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ....................................................................Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ........................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant, QC Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers............................................................Hon.

Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge..............................................................................Vacant Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock..........................................................................

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview ..................................................................... Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings.................................................................... Joy K. MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington ........................................................... Hon. Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................

Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara................................................................. Rev. Val Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon.

Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ...................................Hon. Armando (Sandy) Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Monday, October 4, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 11343 Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 11343 Edward Patrick O'Connor G. Halsey-Brandt Experience of Sons Of Freedom Doukhobor children in New Denver Hon. G.

Plant Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 11344 University Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 60) Hon. S. Bond Range Act (Bill 57) Hon. R. Harris Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 64) Hon. G. Plant Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 62) Hon. G. Plant Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 11346 Food banks in Vancouver J.

Nuraney UBCM meeting and offshore oil and gas exploration B. Belsey Roadkill tax B. Bennett Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 11347 Freight service between Prince George and Vancouver and B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement J. Kwan Hon. K. Falcon Needles bridge construction B. Suffredine Hon. K. Falcon Access to beetle-infested wood for salvage operations W. Cobb Hon. R. Harris Gravel extraction from Fraser River R. Hawes Hon. G.

Abbott Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................. 11350 K. Krueger

Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 11350 Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45) Hon. S. Hagen J. Kwan J. Bray M. Hunter J. Nuraney D. Jarvis G. Halsey-Brandt G. Trumper R. Stewart Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 11367 Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 65) Hon.

M. de Jong Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 11367 Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45) (continued) V. Anderson R. Hawes L. Mayencourt B. Penner

11343 MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 The House met at 2:05 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. R. Harris: Joining us in the House today is Ken Belaski. I am very pleased to be able to welcome him here today. Although he is now retired, Ken pre- viously served the B.C. government as manager of the B.C. Forest Service range program and was instrumen- tal in developing changes to some legislation that I will be introducing today. Would the House please make him feel welcome. B.

Belsey: I have the pleasure of introducing some- one who is here from Prince Rupert, the manager of the chamber in Prince Rupert an d also the manager for the visitors information centre. Not only that, she manages my house and my apartment down here, so if you would all join me in making my wife welcome. Hon. S. Hagen: In the House today is a good friend of mine, Bruce Kehler.

He's from the Comox Valley but also has businesses around British Columbia and is an entrepreneur of note and ve ry active in the building supply business, taking advantage of the growth in the economy in the province and the new houses being built. Would the House please join me in making him welcome. K. Stewart: It is my pleasure to introduce a gentle- man who has a law practice in Maple Ridge, who's been a very good advocate for youth in our commu- nity. He happens to be the past president of our riding association and the brother of the aforementioned guest. Would the House please welcome Mr. Gord Kehler.

Hon. S. Bond: It is my privilege today to welcome a friend to the gallery. He's someone that I worked with for a significant period of time on the school board in Prince George. It's a pleasure to have with us today Mr. Bill Christie. J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today is someone that I've introduced several times before. He is a com- munity mental health advocate, and he is here again to witness the proceedings. I would ask the House to please welcome Terry Colburn to the Legislature. H. Bloy: It is an honour for me to introduce some- one today that's a friend of a colleague of ours from Burnaby-Edmonds.

We have Roy Arjun and his girl- f r i e n d N a f i s s a K h a n w i t h u s t o d a y . R o y h a s w o r k e d very hard for Patty in her riding, and he is quite an entrepreneur himself. I'd like the House to please make them welcome. B. Kerr: I was told by the member's legislative as- sistant that I wouldn't get any birthday cake unless I wished him a happy birthday in the House today. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway is celebrating his birthday today, and I ask the House to wish him a happy birthday. S. Orr: I have three very, very special guests in the House today.

First is a gentleman called Gerald Dirks, and he served with the national board of the Canadian National Institute for the B lind for many years and is currently a member of the board of Blindness Interna- tional. The second person is no stranger in Victoria. He is very well known and very well liked. It's Albert Ruel, and he's been on staff with CNIB since losing his sight 12 years ago. With them, they have a sighted per- son helping them, and her name is Patricia Dirks. Would the House please make these three very special people welcome. Tributes EDWARD PATRICK O'CONNOR G.

Halsey-Brandt: It is with sadness that I report that the founding president of the union that grew into today's B.C. Government and Service Employees Union has died in Richmond at the age of 96. Edward Patrick O'Connor served as the first presi- dent of the B.C. Government Employees Association from 1942 until 1945 and then as its general secretary until 1967, the year he received the Canadian Centen- nial medal. He then retired and, as usual when people retire, worked even harder as he took on an 11-year appointment as labour's repr esentative on the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

We express our thanks for the work he did on behalf of all British Columbians. [1410] Introductions by Members Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House we're joined by members of the B.C. Trucking Association. As mem- bers of this House know full well, truckers play an im- portant role in our econom y, moving important goods and products for small businesses right across the province. I would ask my colleagues to please make them all feel welcome today. Tributes EXPERIENCE OF SONS OF FREEDOM DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN IN NEW DENVER Hon. G.

Plant: I rise in the House with the honour of paying tribute to some very special guests who are joining us here today. They are Irene Popoff, Elsie Erik- sen, William Sherstobitoff, Shirley Sherstobitoff, Joe Sherstobitoff, Fred Konkin, Walter Swetlishoff, Naida Hamoline, Georgina Kootnikoff, Naida Stoochnoff and Grace Worrall. They are representatives of a very special group of British Columbians known as the New Denver Sons of

11344 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Freedom Doukhobor children. I would like to take a few moments to talk about a sad

chapter in B.C. history that concerns them. The provincial ombudsman brought this

chapter to the attention of government and the public in her 1999 report entitled Righting the Wrong: the Confinement of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobor Children . This report details the events that occurred some 50 years ago, when 104 Sons of Freedom Doukhobor children were removed from their parents, who were arrested during a protest in the West Kootenays. In 1953 some 104 children were taken by bus to New Denver, where those of school age were kept in a residential care facility and those who were not of school age were returned to their families.

Over the next six years, from 1953 to 1959, the government en- forced a policy of mandatory school attendance. Ap- proximately 200 children were placed in the New Den- ver institution during this period. Many Sons of Free- dom parents, determined no t to surrender their chil- dren, hid them from the po lice. Initially, the children went to school in the institution, but eventually they were integrated into the local public school in New Denver. No doubt the New Denver experience affected these children and their families in profound ways.

In many cases, these children were kept from their par- ents for extraordinary periods of time. Some children were not allowed to return home during the summer or at Christmas because of uncertainty that their par- ents would return them to New Denver. This was not an easy story to hear, nor is it an easy story to tell. I commend all those who came forward after all these years to talk about what must be ex- tremely personal and painfu l memories.

Many of these people, we have since come to learn, have buried their past, and they even felt it necessary to hide their Sons of Freedom background an d their association with New Denver from their frie nds, their neighbours and their employers. The challenge that we as government today face in understanding what happened half a century ago is not as simple as one might expect. What we do know is that these were frightening times for the residents of the Kootenay and Boundary regions of British Colum- bia. Bombings and burnings had been occurring throughout this part of the province for over three dec- ades.

Fear and anger had escalated among both the Doukhobor and the non-Doukhobor communities. To this end, the government of the day was under tre- mendous pressure to do something to end the violence. We can't fully understand or explain the motives of a government of 50 years ago. We can, though, recog- nize the circumstances under which these events oc- curred and acknowledge how things might be done differently if we were to do them today. I would like to thank those who had the courage to come forward to remind British Columbians about this history.

Many of us were unaware or had forgotten about the conflicting values and political turmoil that involved the government and these communities over half a century ago. In particular, too many of us were unaware that you, as innocent children, were taken from your homes, your families and your communities. [1415] We recognize that as children, you were caught in this conflict through no fault of your own. On behalf of the government of British Columbia, I extend my sin- cere, complete and deep regret for the pain and suffer- ing you experienced during the prolonged separation from your families.

We recognize and regret that you were deprived of the day-to-day contact with your parents and the love and support of your families. We recognize and we regret the anguish that this must have caused. We will continue to offer counselling to former residents and to your relatives — including your siblings, your offspring and your spouses — who wish to access this service. We hope that this acknowledgment will enable you to work with us toward continued reconciliation and healing. Introduction and First Reading of Bills UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. S.

Bond presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled University Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 60 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Bond: On March 17 the Premier announced that the new Okanagan camp us of the University of British Columbia would have a separate senate to gov- ern local affairs. As well, we committed to expanding the university's board of governors to provide repre- sentation from the Okanagan region.

Under the existing Universi ty Act, each university is allowed only one senate, which makes decisions re- garding the academic governance of the institution. As well, the act details the exact composition of the boards. The amendments being made to the University Act by Bill 60 will allow the University of British Co- lumbia to establish an additional autonomous senate for the Okanagan. When government consulted with stakeholders regarding the proposed UB C Okanagan university model, a core concern was the ability for the region to guide the development of th e university to meet its very unique needs.

So with the formation of UBC Okanagan, it was promised th at a distinct senate for the Okanagan region would be a part of the new uni- versity. The amendments being introduced today will also expand the UBC board of governors to guarantee local representation for th e Okanagan campus of the university on the overall UBC board of governors.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11345 Finally, Bill 60 will make two deregulation amend- ments to the University Act. These two changes in- volve reducing the red tape surrounding the disposi- tion of university lands and granting the powers of a natural person to the public universities governed by the act. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 60 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. RANGE ACT Hon. R.

Harris presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Range Act. Hon. R. Harris: I move that Bill 57 be introduced and read for a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. R. Harris: Today I am introducing Bill 57, the Range Act. This bill provid es the first substantial up- date in 25 years to the management of Crown range lands. The bill was developed with government minis- tries and range users and reflects the changes necessary to ensure Crown range land s are managed for the best interest of British Columbians.

This bill brings range use into the twenty-first century and provides govern- ment with the ability to ensure that range land is used efficiently. Under the bill, flexibility for both the district manager and range tenure applicants is improved. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House. [1420] Bill 57 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. JUSTICE MODERNIZATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Justice Moderni- zation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. G. Plant: I m o v e t h a t t h e b i l l b e i n t r o d u c e d and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to intro- duce Bill 64, the Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. This bill amends a number of statutes intended to support our continuing effort as government in ensuring that our justice system is fair, equitable and efficient for all British Columbians.

We're amending the Small Claims Act and the Court Rules Act by introd ucing enabling amendments that will pave the way for future improvements to the civil justice system by making it possible to increase the monetary jurisdiction of the small claims court to as high as $50,000 and to establish simplified procedures for cases under $100,000 in the Supreme Court. These changes will enhance access to justice by supporting work that is already underway to make simpler and more affordable processes available to the public in both courts.

This bill amends the Cr own Proceeding Act to al- low the Crown to be sued in provincial small claims court. This amendment co mplements the amendments I have already described. We are amending the Cla ss Proceedings Act to sus- pend the limitation period during an application for class certification. This should reduce the pressure on judges to certify classes and in turn may decrease the number of class proceedings. We are amending the Evidence Act to provide cer- tainty regarding admissibility in court of electronic court documents and to set standards for electronic documents and signatures .

These amendments are urgently required to enable government to move for- ward with the implementation of court automation projects. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 64 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. ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. G.

Plant: I m o v e t h a t t h e b i l l b e i n t r o d u c e d and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: This bill, the Attorney General Stat- utes Amendment Act, 2004, makes amendments to a number of acts. It makes some housekeeping amend- ments to correct some minor drafting errors and over- sights and to clarify some provisions of the Adminis- trative Tribunals Act, which was passed earlier this year.

These amendments, which have come to light as that act is being implemented, include consequential amendments to the Financial Institutions Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act and a transitional pro- vision to the Mental Health Act. Bill 62 also modernizes the Estate Administration Act by increasing the value of small estates that will be

11346 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 eligible for simpler

summary administration processes from $10,000 up to $25,000. A consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act applies the same threshold to the expedited transfer of vehicle ownership to a benefi- ciary on the death of the vehicle's owner. Bill 62 also makes two amendments to the Libel and Slander Act. First, the act will be amended so that a person sued in defamation for publishing the opinion of another person will not have to agree with that opin- ion in order to have the benefit of the defence of fair comment.

The second amendment will provide that there is no liability for damages in defamation with respect to a publication in the collection of a public or educational library.

This will protect educational librar- ies and their associated local governments and educa- tional institutions from financially onerous litigation, while protecting the rights of plaintiffs by ensuring that they may prevent the distribu tion of publications that have been determined or acknowledged to be defama- tory. [1425] Finally, this bill makes minor amendments to the Offence Act to support something called the Contra- ventions Act agreement between British Columbia and Canada.

That agreement allo ws for the enforcement of minor federal offences under a provincial ticket scheme that provides both French and English language prose- cution and service. I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 62 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) FOOD BANKS IN VANCOUVER J. Nuraney: Some time ago, Pat Tracy, the editor of Burnaby Now , asked the residents of Burnaby to help the food bank. She said that whether it is summertime or winter, there is never a right time for folks to go hungry. I was quite touched by her remarks and took up the challenge to help the food bank. Over the past weeks I have had the privilege of observing food banks' opera- tions and meeting some of the most dedicated indi- viduals who do so much to provide our communities with this invaluable service.

The Greater Vancouver Food Bank operates 18 dis- tribution depots that presently feed up to 9,000 people each week. More than 100 agencies depend on the food bank to provide 16,000 meals every week. Sadly, the most troubling statistic is that 40 percent of the food bank's recipients are children. The bank's Basics for Babies program provides food, formula and diapers to help with the challenges of raising a young infant. Un- der the program, Kids Picks provides healthy snacks and nutritional information to preschoolers aged 18 months to five years.

I'm very happy to say that last weekend, I launched an appeal that was successful in sending six carloads of food to the food bank. We also managed to collect some cash donations — over $2,000. As our govern- ment works through various ministries' initiatives to reduce poverty and hopefully some day to eradicate it, I want to assure the House that the spirit of our com- munity to help achieve this goal is very much alive. UBCM MEETING AND OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION B. Belsey: Last month British Columbians wit- nessed one of the best-attended Union of B.C. Munici- palities meetings ever held.

Municipal governments, regional districts and some first nations communities participated in what is always a great opportunity for MLAs to meet with local re presentatives around their ridings. The business discussed was as diversified as the representation in attendance. One issue near and dear to the hearts of many in attendance was a motion brought forward by the Prince Rupert city council calling on the federal gov- ernment to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration in the Queen Ch arlotte basin.

The motion was carried by a two-thirds majority of delegates rep- resenting hundreds of thousands of British Columbi- ans. It must be noted that it was not, and I repeat not, with reckless abandon that the UBCM delegates ap- proved this motion. It was after months of debate within communities, in the resource sector committee meetings, in the rooms and hallways at the convention and ultimately on the convention floor.

What this means to the Pacific Northwest region in which I live is that we are one step closer to revitaliza- tion — revitalization and seeing more jobs than there are locals to fill them, just like in Alberta, in the north- east corner of this province; revitalization for revenue surpluses to build new hospitals, schools, airports, bridges, roads, highways; revitalization of a sustainable society safety network that provides for early child- hood years, K-to-12, advanc ed education, adults and senior programs, and sustainable solutions to home- lessness for the underprivileged and most vulnerable in our communities.

Imagine the revitalization that could take place in our province if our Premier could hand out $3 billion for infrastructure improvements just like Ralph Klein did last month in Alberta. The NDP says no to oil and gas exploration and development — not now, not ever. That's like saying no to revitalization in my riding. [1430] ROADKILL TAX B. Bennett: For decades, as a matter of course, Brit- ish Columbia trappers made use of dead wildlife found at the side of the road. However, in September 2000 the parsimonious government of the day radically in-

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11347 creased the tariff charged on this benign and functional rural practice. A dead elk or moose cost $71; a deer or black bear, $61; a red-tailed hawk, $65; a dead bison, $116; and any species not li sted, $25. Presumably, if you found a dead or mortally wounded mouse and wanted to feed it to your cat, you would be required to travel to the nearest government office, fill out the forms, pay your $25 and quickly journey home to sati- ate your eagerly waiting carnivorous kitty.

Of course, you might decide to stop at the general store and pick up a $10 bag of cat food, but that would be your choice. Trappers back in the year 2000, not being intimate with the infinite ingenuity of governments in the field of fees and permits, could not quite recognize the gov- ernment's logic. At a Finance Committee meeting in Cranbrook before the last election, a constituent of mine, Carmen Purdy, inquired as to the sanity of this particular regulatory endeavour. One of our distin- guished journalists, Mr.

Leyne, wrote at the time: "Is this proud province in such reduced circumstances that government inspectors have to roam the roadside ditches looking for people who are looking for roadkill in order to levy a tax on them?" I'm exceedingly proud to inform the House today that this government has cast the shackles off our en- terprising and industrious trappers.

Although we do continue to charge fees to British Columbians who wish to utilize roadkill for lunch, a fur coat or living room rug — and I hope we can repeal that tax as well — trappers can now avail themselves, without cost, of the spoils of highway carnage, which no doubt will be compounding as a result of the strengthening economy and increased movement of goods and services.

Now, although this isn't quite on a scale with the Magna Carta, let us rejoice at the democratic spectacle of free trappers all over this heavenly province scooping up dead animals from our roadside ditches, no longer living in fear a tax collector may be lurking in nearby bushes. At long last the roadkill tax, if not completely snuffed out, is at least gimpy and on its last legs. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions FREIGHT SERVICE BETWEEN PRINCE GEORGE AND VANCOUVER AND B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT J.

Kwan: On our first day back I have a question for the Deputy Premier on an i ssue that just isn't going away for this government. Can the Deputy Premier tell this House how much service the new owner of B.C. Rail is providing on the Prince-George-to-North- Vancouver corridor? Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, this is more good news coming out of this partners hip transaction.

One of the things we're very excited about is that under this part- nership arrangement, the private sector will be making the kind of significant capital investments that the gov- ernment, frankly, couldn't divert scarce dollars away from health care and education…. We know, for exam- ple, that they've already ad ded, thus far today, 400 additional centre-beam cars that will be used to move goods and services from Prince George down to Van- couver and to Chicago much more efficiently and effec- tively than we have in the past.

We already know that their transit times have increased so dramatically in the short time they have taken over the line that they have already got some excess capacity in Prince George, and they're already out beating the bushes looking for new shippers. As usual, it is more good news out of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: As usual, this minister has just proven to this House that he doesn't know what he is talking about. This minister needs to take the time to learn his file.

First, the Premier broke his promise not to sell B.C. Rail. Then he sold it to his big campaign donor, CN, for a pittance of what it's worth. The opposition has learned that CN is in fact reducing service on the Prince George corridor by a full two-thirds. After promising that this promise — this broken promise — would benefit communities, how can the Deputy Premier and the Mini ster of Transportation expect northerners to trust this government when we now know that CN is cutting its freight service? [1435] Hon. K.

Falcon: One thing I have learned after long experience listening to questions in this House is that, inevitably, the information that the members have is false, misleading or just not exactly accurate. What I will say to this member — this may be a surprise to the member — is this: actually, CN as a private company generally doesn't spend a billion dollars so they can reduce services and not increase the opportunities for themselves. They ar e actually investing in the rail line. They are investing significant dollars already, as I men- tioned.

Almost 400 of the 600 cars they've committed to, they've already acquired . They are already increas- ing the transit times that are running from Prince George to Vancouver, so that shippers are realizing a benefit. Of course the average shipping rate has been reduced by 7 percent — again, another benefit for in- terline shippers. I have absolutely no doubt in saying this. This is going to be the foundation for the revitalization of northern British Columbia, and that member and that NDP government just do not understand that this is going to be great news for northern British Columbia and the province. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary. J. Kwan: I see the shadows of Martyn Brown's choke chains coming on.

11348 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Let me quote a letter of September 29 from CN's corporate vice-president. Hon. K. Falcon: Is it secret? J. Kwan: Maybe the Minister of Transportation would want to listen up just so that the Minister of Transportation has the facts. "CN plans to reduce freight service on the Prince-George-to-North- Vancouver corridor from the present three trains per day to one train per day." This is a letter from the vice- president of CN dated September 29, 2004. The Deputy Premier told her local newspaper that the fate of employees is her number one priority.

Let me ask the question to the Deputy Premier: will she stand up and explain to her constituents why CN is cutting service to her commu nity and laying off work- ers, when she said she was fighting for them? Hon. K. Falcon: Wel l, a s it a lway s is with t his op- position, they only look at one side of the ledger, and the side of the ledger they l ook on, of course, is full of gloom and doom. There is no thing that could ever go right, and goodness knows, this most successful rail organization in North America somehow is going to screw up their portion here in B.C. That's the way the opposition looks at it.

But what is the reality? Th e reality is that there are going to be enormous new job opportunities opening up — they kind of forget to talk about that side of the ledger, so I will talk about that — for example, the con- tainerization at the port of Prince Rupert. We've al- ready got a private sector port operator that's willing to invest up to half a billion dollars — hundreds of new jobs potentially being created.

We have the restoration of commercially viable passenger tourism services now being recently announced, which is going to create new job opportunities up and down that corridor — again, revitalizing northern commu nities. Of course, we've got jobs in the new regional district head office, the wheel shop, etc. As usual, that member is just looking at one side. There is always another side, and it's very positive. J. Kwan: You know what? This government's schemes have been shrouded in secrecy. Whether it is B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries or ICBC, it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is… Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: …that this government is not telling Brit- ish Columbians what's going on. What we now know is that CN is cutting freight services. The sale of B.C. Rail is a question of trust. How can you trust a Premier who's broken his promise to the north, who sold a profitable company? How can you trust a Premier who said that service will improve on the line, when CN is in fa ct cutting services? The gov- ernment blacked out page after page of the contract with CN to sell B.C. Rail.

Will the Deputy Premier stand up today and release the entire agreement with C N so that we k now how deep this boondo g g le actu - ally is? Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not even sure where to start, so why don't I start with the most recent part…. J. Kwan: Release the documents. Hon. K. Falcon: "Release the documents," the member of the opposition cries. Well, Mr. Speaker, actually, that's exactly what we did. And I will remind the member of the opposition that there was no re- quirement whatsoever for government to release any of that information. In fact we decided… Interjection. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. [1440] Hon. K. Falcon: … t o d o t h a t v o l u n t a r i l y . B o t h o u r - selves and CN released all of the information that wasn't commercially sensitive. I'm sure that member wouldn't want us releasing confidential shipping documents, ar- rangements with shippers and the information that had t o d o w i th p ers o n a l pr i v a cy . O f c o u r s e w e' re n o t g o i ng to release the personal privacy information related to employees, how much they earn and their social insur- ance numbers. Maybe that member would do that kind of thing, but this government won't.

So what we did was release everything. We fol- lowed the strictures of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act even though we didn't need to. We released all of the information that was most relevant to the folks out in the public who needed to know what was happening, and that kept our com- mitment to do exactly that. J. Kwan: That's what we've heard for over a year from this government. Every time another piece of this ripoff puzzle falls into place, the B.C. Liberals spin the same old tired line. This broken promise is why north- erners have had enough of this government.

If the Deputy Premier doesn't trust British Colum- bians with the contract, why won't she hand it over to the auditor general so that British Columbians can get an independent verdict on whether the government is telling the truth? To the Deputy Premier. Hon. K. Falcon: I'm sorry, but it's essentially a re- hashing of exactly the same question she continues to ask, so I continue to share with her the good news that's happening. I recognize that this particular mem- ber feels she knows how to run a railway more effi- ciently than the number one railway operator in North America. Interjection.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11349 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. K. Falcon: That's perhaps not altogether sur- prising, because this is a member whose government oversaw losses of well over a billion dollars in that railway, which they had the opportunity to operate. That's why, Mr. Speaker, what we've done is actually kept the commitment of the Premier. The rail lines and the public rights-of-way all continue to be held in pub- lic hands.

What we've done is brought in the most suc- cessful private sector operator in North America to actually run the railway, be cause they know how to run a railway. That is going to result in lower rates, improved transit times and a revitalization of the northern economies. NEEDLES BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION B. Suffredine: The Minister of Transportation is having such a good day today that I am going to give him another chance. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Please, order. Let us hear the ques- tion. B.

Suffredine: In the 1960s the valleys of the Arrow Lakes region were flooded to enable power dams to be built in the Columbia River and to fulfil the Columbia River Treaty obligations. Now, people in that area were promised a fixed link at Needles, and construction of that bridge actually began in the early 1960s and then was halted when construction estimates came in at double the expected cost. Constituents in this area strongly support the con- struction of the bridge, but they're a little bit cynical about whether it's actually going to happen.

Our gov- ernment took a huge step forward this spring when Buckland and Taylor were selected to complete a de- tailed bridge design, but I still get inquiries on a regu- lar basis by people wondering if it's actually going to happen this time. Could the Minister of Transportation tell my constituents when they can expect to see real evidence of construction of a new bridge at Needles? Hon. K. Falcon: As the member well knows, the Premier made a commitment to the folks in the Kootenays that the Needles bridge would be a priority of this government, something that this government will be doing.

I had the opportunity along with the member to visit with many of the residents from Fau- quier, in the Kootenays, to talk about the Needles bridge. I am pleased to let the member know that de- tailed design work on that bridge should be completed by December of this year, when we will then review all that information. I'm pleased to say that we should have construction starting on the new Needles bridge by the summer of next year. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1445] ACCESS TO BEETLE-INFESTED WOOD FOR SALVAGE OPERATIONS W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of State for Forestry Operations.

We as a provincial government just recently announced an increase in the AAC for salvage and pine beetle–infested trees. However, many of my small operators, like woodlot owners and sal- vage loggers, are concerned about not getting access to this beetle wood. Can the minister explain if there is anything being done to ensure that these sm aller operators actually do have access to the wood as well? Hon. R. Harris: Thank you to the member for the question. I was recently in his riding.

We met with a number of salvagers and sm all operators in the 100 Mile House area, and I know it's a big concern for a lot of his constituents. Back in April of this year we an- nounced a pine beetle plan, and part of that was a process where we went out for expressions of interest. To date we've received over 66 different expressions of interest. They range from ev erything from small sales for a lot of the small operators he represents and is speaking about today, as well as some larger projects. I'm pleased to say that as of last week, we've started to act on some of that information.

While I was in Prince George we announced that we were going into the marketplace to tenure three new tenures. All of them would be for ten years: two of them in the Ques- nel district — one for 50,000 cubic metres annually and one for 25,000 — and one in the Vanderhoof region for 50,000 cubic metres. These si ze tenures are actually aimed specifically at the small operators. Another aspect that we've done in terms of trying to revitalize this industry is the reallocation process.

Through the reallocation process we're moving 8 mil- lion cubic metres from major licensees into, in fact, a whole bunch of avenues for small tenure operators to access timber. Just recently we announced the first community salvage licence in Lumby, as well as a number of community forest licences around this prov- ince. We are working to ensure that those folks do in fact get access, and we'll continue to do that. GRAVEL EXTRACTION FROM FRASER RIVER R. Hawes: My question is to the Minister of Sus- tainable Resource Management.

I'm asking it, actually, on behalf of all of my colleagues in the Fraser Valley and the people in the Fraser Valley. For years a moratorium on the removal of gravel from the Fraser River has caused the bottom of the river to come up, to the point that there is a real danger of flooding. The dikes, in the event of a real heavy downpour, are not likely to able to sustain the river. A historic agreement was reac hed in the last month be- tween DFO and this government to remove a consider-

11350 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 able amount of gravel over the next five years. This is just tremendous news. For that, I would like to con- gratulate the minister and thank the minister and his predecessor for the hard work they did. But my question is this. The people in the valley still remain somewhat cynical because they don't really trust the DFO folks. We want to know when we will begin seeing gravel taken out of the river. Luckily, this government is the one that's working on it — not the previous one, who actually worked on putting the moratorium in place.

Perhap s the minister can tell us: when will we see gravel coming out of the river? Hon. G. Abbott: The agreement we recently signed, I think, is rightly a histor ical agreement. To set the member at ease, we expect that come January we will see something like half a million cubic metres of gravel extracted from the Fraser Ri ver. That's an important step in a number of ways towards better flood protec- tion, better habitat management, safer navigation and better fisheries protection.

There are a lot of benefits that come from a con- structive relationship between our government, through Land and Water B.C. and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I know we have had, at times, a difficult relationship in th e past between provincial and federal authorities, but I think we are into a stage of what could be called cooperative federalism in re- spect of resource management. I do want to thank the member for his advocacy and all of the Fraser Valley members for their advo- cacy, which was a very big part of getting this agree- ment in place.

Local governments, the Fraser Basin Council and first nations have all played a very impor- tant role in putting this ag reement together, so it's a great win-win-win. It provides that five years of cer- tainty for the Fraser River and its management, and I congratulate all who were a part of putting that deal together. [End of question period.] [1450] Petitions K. Krueger: I rise to table a petition signed by ap- proximately 1,100 people concerning the cutback in hours at the liquor distribution store in Barriere, B.C. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Plant: I call second reading of Bill 45.

Second Reading of Bills COMMUNITY LIVING AUTHORITY ACT Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the bill now be read a second time, and I'm pleased to open debate on second reading. This bill, the Community Living Authority Act, represents an important step forward in the way our province delivers services to individuals with devel- opmental disabilities. During the fall and winter of 2001, the Ministry of Children and Family Develop- ment consulted with families, staff and stakeholders. Many of these people said that the old system was rigid, overly bureaucratic and unsustainable over the long term.

We were told that providing community- based services through regional authorities was the preferred option for effective and efficient delivery of supports, and we listened. The community told us they want to create an envi- ronment where adults with developmental disabilities can participate in and contribute to their communities and live a full and valued life.

These communities would be communities where adults with developmen- tal disabilities and their families have access to choice, to shared responsibility and to community-based ser- vices, where families are ce ntral to this vision and would be involved in decision-making. As many adults with developmental disabilities as possible can remain in their families' homes or live semi-independently in their communities. Services are delivered through lo- cally based agencies sensitive to community capacities. [H.

Long in the chair.] Building on the Community Services Interim Authori- ties Act established in October of 2002, this bill responds directly to the needs of people with developmental dis- abilities, their families and advocates by paving the way for community-based delivery of services. As this October has been proclaimed Community Living Month in British Columbia, it is an appropriate occasion for me to present this historic bill for its second reading.

The proposed act provid es the legal framework needed to establish a single permanent authority, the Community Living British Columbia Authority, to plan, develop and oversee the delivery of services for individuals who have developmental disabilities and their families. The passage of this act represents a mo- mentous occasion for thousands of families and care- givers. This means more choice, greater flexibility and ultimately improved services . Our goal with the intro- duction of the act and the development of the authority is that services and supports will increasingly reflect the needs of the community.

Most importantly, these resources will better address the individual needs of those participating in the programs and their families. The creation of a permanent authority has been a dream of people with developmental disabilities and their families, advocates and care providers for more than 20 years.

For most of those 20 years, they have been telling us basically that they know best, that those with the firsthand day-to-day knowledge of their needs and challenges should be the ones guiding the development of commu- nity living in British Columbia, and they're right. [1455] With the introduction of this act we are showing all British Columbians with developmental disabilities

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11351 and their families that we are listening, and what's more, we are responding. We're moving closer to a system of care that families have asked for and another step away from the institutions of the past. The Ministry of Children and Family Development consulted with families, staff and stakeholders. Many of these people said that the old system was rigid, overly bureaucratic and un sustainable over the long term.

Our review found that providing community- based services through regional authorities was the preferred option for effective and efficient delivery of supports. That's what this act provides. The Community Living Au thority Act establishes a new authority, community living British Columbia. The authority will be responsible for delivering some of the community living services currently delivered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

These include a wide variety of services and programs, such as the residential programs which promote inde- pendence while meeting the clients' needs in their communities. Programs like community residences, which vary in size from small family homes to larger residential facilities — they all provide care and sup- port as needed — or semi-independent living, which assists clients to live either alone or in small groups in homes or apartments…. Here people can live as inde- pendently as possible with the help of in-home support staff as required. These services are tailored to the needs of the individual.

We offer respite and relief services. These programs provide emergency or short-term care for adults in community residences and give their families and caregivers periodic relief fr om their responsibilities. Respite provides temporary care outside the home, while relief services provide alternate in-home care. Intensive adult care programs provide short-term, community-based care for ad ults with challenging be- haviours or unique needs that cannot be served by the existing respite or temporary care facilities.

The ministry also offers training programs, like the self-help skills that provide training in personal care, social integration and job readiness. Individuals may receive one-to-one or group assistance under these pro- grams, and they are encouraged to progress towards more demanding or challenging activities as they are able. Our home support progra ms assist individuals to maintain independent or semi-independent living by offering direct homemaking or household management services or by providing training in these skill sets.

The supported work programs provide a combina- tion of work experience, trai ning and support that help individuals find and maintain work experience place- ments and employment. Professional support services provide assessment, support, consultation and plan- ning to individuals or thos e who support them to en- sure continued success in community placements. These professional support services also help service providers, ministry staff and families to plan, imple- ment, monitor and evaluate programs and services related to community living, including training for caregivers.

One of the key pieces of the act is the provision that the governing board of community living British Columbia will be led by a majority of people who have a close connection to people with developmental disabilities. An advisory committee comprising indi- viduals with developmental disabilities who are cur- rently receiving community living support will be established to help guide the board's work. This advi- sory committee of self-advocates will have a regular input into the ongoing operations and strategies of the new authority.

In addition to providing more options for those accessing services, the act clearly outlines the powers and duties of the new authority, including multiple levels of accountability and performance monitoring. Under the legislation, the Ministry of Children and Family Development will continue to protect the public trust by maintaining provincial standards for service delivery and monitoring service delivery. [1500] The legislation also ensures continued protection to all people receiving community living services.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development will provide this protection thro ugh its power to establish provincial standards for the delivery of community living support; approve community living B.C.'s ser- vice, budget and capital plans; monitor and access the authority's performance; an d provide support and as- sistance to community living British Columbia. In addi- tion, the government will have the authority to regu- late conflicts or potential conflicts of interest. Community living British Columbia will have a board of directors appointed by government on the basis of merit.

The board will reflect the authority's provincial scope and its mandate. A majority of direc- tors must be individuals who qualify for services from the new authority or who have a significant connection to those individuals. Board members will also have a demonstrated ability and the expertise to run an or- ganization that will manage a budget of more than $600 million a year and ensu re the continued safety and protection of the more than 9,000 persons currently served through community living services. Just last week we appointed a new assistant deputy minister for community living.

He will become the CEO, or chief executive offi cer, of the authority when it's established, ensuring a smooth transition of services from government to the authority. Community living British Columbia will be guided by its service plan and will be required to meet provincial standards relating to service delivery. The role of the ministry is to ensure that the authority fulfils its obligations to provide im- proved services for British Columbians with develop- mental disabilities and their families.

Over the past several decades, community living advocates have worked hard to make sure that anyone with a developmental disability is able to live as fully and independently as possible in their communities. The proposed Community Living Authority Act allows us to build on that progress, bringing services closer to those who need them the most.

11352 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 J. Kwan: I rise today on the first day of this fall ses- sion to respond to Bill 45. This bill, the Community Liv- ing Authority Act, was introduced in May by the former minister in what is becoming a revolving door of minis- ters responsible for Children and Family Development. Even this past May, the lo ng-promised legislation was way behind the government's own schedule.

The legislation is another victim of this B.C. gov- ernment's cost-cutting agen da and the chaos this gov- ernment has created in the Children and Family Devel- opment ministry through its deep cuts in its budgeting, insider scandals and endle ss bureaucratic restructur- ing. In particular, plans for creating a community liv- ing authority suffered badly from the fallout of the Doug Walls scandal — a faulty, secretive process that was set in motion almost as soon as this government was elected.

In debating this bill, it is useful to review what a twisted, tortured path this long-promised legislation has faced under the mismanagement of this govern- ment. In June 2001, B.C. Liberal insider Doug Walls met with Ken Dobell, the Premier's senior deputy, and this small group laid down the plans for community living and the model of individualized funding long before the core review process for the Ministry of Chil- dren and Family Developmen t was even started.

Then on October 12, 2001, we know, cabinet approved a government model based on Doug Walls's proposal — a full six days before the minister's core review was completed and without the full support of community living stakeholders. The following two years were then earmarked not with progress towards a new authority for community living but instead with scandal, budget cuts and a series of delays and with the resignations of key Community Living Coalition members when the concerns over Doug Walls's roles….

The process was ignored by this government. [1505] As a result of the damaging Doug Walls scandal, the minister in charge had no choice but to resign, and after several months of total chaos, the Premier named a new minister on January 27 of this year. That minis- ter, of course, only lasted nine months, presiding over a series of attempts to get the ministry in general and the community living sector specifically back on to some kind of even keel — from the independent audit into the Doug Walls insider scandal to a series of commu- nity living readiness panels and reports.

On January 31, 2004, the readiness panel missed a self-imposed deadline necessary to meet the target transition deadline of June . The new minister instead stated that the Bert Boyd panel would come up with a revised time line for devolu tion by February 27. But wrong again. Another deadline was missed. Instead, the government chose to hang on to the Bert Boyd re- p o r t s o t h a t i t c o u l d d r o p i t a t t h e s a m e t i m e a s t h e Doug Walls audit, allowing this important develop- ment to get buried in the fallout from the scandal.

The government may not like what I'm saying, so instead of taking my word for it, here's what legislative columnist Paul Willcocks had to say at the time: " B u t t h e D o u g W a l l s a u d i t , u g l y a s i t w a s , w a s n ' t even the worst news released by the ministry. Rather cynically, the government chose the same day to release an assessment of their efforts to restructure the ministry. The readiness report revealed that, after more than two years and tens of millions of dollars, remarkably little progress has been made. "The ministry unveiled its big plans in January 2002.

The government would slash spending on Children and Families and save money by moving to 11 new semi- independent authorities. Ten regional authorities — five aboriginal and five non-aboriginal — would take over children's services. A community living authority with a $600 million budget would provide services to mentally disabled British Columbians and their families. "The transition work was always going great accord- ing to the former minister" — I should say the former, former minister — "ahead of

schedule even. A year ago he said the community living authority and the first two regional child protection authorities would be up and running by last fall. He was wrong. The regional authori- ties won't be ready until 2006. "After the bleak readiness report on the community living authority, the new former minister said the target start date for it now is late 2005 — two years later than the first minister promised. The report reveals that the most basic questions haven't been answered. The minis- ter doesn't know how services will be delivered.

It hasn't developed the organization systems or the management team to make the authority work. It doesn't know how it will cope with transition costs or even rising demands, given this current reduced budget. It hasn't figured out what's going to happen to staff. "It is shocking that so much time and money could have been spent so ineffectually without anyone in gov- ernment noticing — not MLAs, government caucus com- mittees, the Premier, cabinet, the top bureaucrats. It's a grimly incompetent performance. It's also a betrayal.

The Liberals promised an end to endless bureaucratic restruc- turing in the ministry during the campaign. The Premier spoke passionately of the need for more money, but what they have actually been delivered is arbitrary budget cuts and a botched and mismanaged reorganization. "Footnote. The failure is hardly a surprise. The Liber- als were warned repeatedly that the idea of simultane- ously restructuring the ministry while cutting the budget by more than 10 percent was reckless.

They chose to ig- nore the warnings and apparently also chose to ignore the fumbling in the ministry's restructuring plans." That was from a column by Paul Willcocks in the Kelowna Daily Courier, May 18, 2004. Then finally, on May 19, the former minister, or at least the most recent former minister…. I know I've referenced that a couple of times, but as we've noted, the government has changed the ministers — well, actually, more than once — twice over the last few months. The most recent former minister introduced an exposure bill, Bill 45.

That's what we have before us today. [1510] The intent of an exposure bill, the government likes to claim, is to allow public input and consultation. Yet here is an interesting thing. If the consultation is to be real, then surely there is the possibility that the bill might actually change as a re sult of that process and of the public's input. We have in British Columbia dedi-

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11353 cated professionals, volunteers, family members and self-advocates in the community living sector — people who work tirelessly with and on behalf of the devel- opmentally disabled. I know they have important things and important insights and input to offer. Of course, talk of consultation is just talk. A mem- ber of my staff spoke with a key stakeholder group, the B.C. Association for Community Living, and she was told that there was apparently a chance to send input in to the ministry's websit e. But unfortunately, they hadn't been informed of it .

Imagine that. The govern- ment does its consultation by website and then doesn't even inform a stakeholder — a key stakeholder in the sector, the B.C. Association for Community Living — that there was a way to ensure that the input is pro- vided to the government. Perhaps the reason is that the community living sector — including the B.C. Associa- tion for Community Living, which has worked closely with this government towards this legislation — is deeply unhappy with key aspects of the bill.

The community living sector is particularly angry at the government's refusal to include a self-advocate on the board of the author ity and to allow family members to have a 50-percent-plus-one majority on the b o a r d . T h i s i s v i e w e d a s a c o m p l e t e b e t r a y a l b y s e l f - advocates and family members and the community living sector as a whole. Here's what the B.C.

Association for Community Living put on its news release yesterday: "We are pleased that this legislation is finally coming forward, but we are concerned about the lack of consulta- tion on its content and about some of its shortcomings. For example, while it creates a provincial board and en- ables family members to be represented, it does not spe- cifically require any representation by people with de- velopmental disabilities. This has always been one of the pillars of our vision, and we will continue to work to- wards getting that representation. "The B.C.

Association for Community Living also remains concerned about the much-reduced budget for the services that will come under the new community living B.C. We welcome the legislation but remind the government that there are growing numbers of people on wait-lists for services and increasing numbers of chil- dren, youth, adults and families who are experiencing crisis as a result of being unable to access services when they need them. It's not much help to have your child on a wait list for 'early' childhood intervention if it takes three years to get the service.

It is time for this govern- ment to reinvest so that individuals and families can get the supports they need, when they are needed." Lack of consultation, the refusal to provide the fam- ily and self-advocate representation on the board, and the chaos and crisis created by continued budget cuts are, of course, the hallmarks of this Liberal govern- ment. This B.C. Liberal government has tried to balance the budget through deep cuts to two ministries — Children and Family Development, and Human Re- sources — in a very mean-spirited attack on the most vulnerable in this province. Under this B.C.

Liberal government, the percentage of the budget that the B.C. government spends on pro- grams for families and kids has never been lower. When this year's budget kicked in on April 1, $63 mil- lion worth of programs were eliminated from the Min- istry of Children and Family Development, along with 152 full-time employees.

The community living ser- vices for adults with developmental disabilities were cut by $50 million over the la st three years, while ser- vices to children and familie s, including children with special needs and their fam ilies, were cut by $145 mil- lion. [1515] It is in this context that this bill, the Community Living Authority Act, must be debated. It is in this con- text that family members and self-advocates, dedicated professionals and volunteers in the community living sector want to see this bill debated and improved.

They want to see progress, finally, towards the long- promised devolution of se rvices, but not without key changes. We in the NDP opposition will be supporting the community living sector in its goals of finally moving ahead with a community living authority. In committee stage we will be examining the bill closely and will be offering positive suggestions to improve the bill and to make it serve the people it is meant to serve.

We will, as I mentioned, come forward in committee stage with suggestions as to how the bill could be improved and better reflect the true input from the community that has worked on this issue over the last number of years. J. Bray: I rise very happily in support of Bill 45. I have a lot of very positive things to say about this bill and, in fact, the move this government is making on behalf of families with a member who has a develop- mental disability.

I can't go without first acknowledging some of the rather arcane and bizarre comments from the opposi- tion — an opposition who, by the way, for ten years heard the pleas and the crie s from the community liv- ing sector for things like individualized funding, more involvement, more control and a continuation of the movement from institutionalization to community care.

That government did nothing for those families, so I find it kind of odd for the member for Vancouver– Mount Pleasant, who was a cabinet minister for a weekend or two, to actually stand up now and suggest that somehow we haven't done things well, when they had ten years and moved zero on the front of commu- nity living. You know, she made mention that we have had a couple of cabinet ministers in that ministry. It might be interesting for people to note that from '96 to 2001, that government had a revolving door of cabinet ministers. In fact, the Ministry of Labour had nine ministers in four and a half years.

The kind of continuity was abso- lutely bizarre. I worked in the civil service. Every week it was just a decision: who's our minister this week? They moved them around. In fact, the Ministry of Children and Family Devel- o p m e n t … . T h e y g o t s o w e a k i n t h e g e n e p o o l o n t h e NDP caucus that they actually went and appointed someone who wasn't even a member of government to

11354 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 be that minister — an absolutely shocking example of how weak the NDP were. I can tell you that that minis- try went through reorgs not in terms of trying to de- liver service, not in terms of improving protection for children, not in terms of enhanced supports for families with a person with a developmental disability but in- ternal reorganizations about org charts and policy manuals and what services were in this ministry and out of that ministry. It was chaos.

What we brought in when we got elected were ser- vice plans that set out clear objectives, clear performance measures, clear goals, clear lines of responsibility, and for the last four years we've been carrying out that plan. That's the difference between the government that the opposition was a member of and this government.

The other thing I found interesting was that that member talked about our consultation process and had the bizarre criticism that we used the Internet for our consultation — t h a t w e a c t u a l l y w a n t e d t o m a k e s u r e that not just people from the member's home city of Vancouver could be part of the consultation or that members of my community could visit ministry staff here in Victoria, but we actually wanted consultation from Prince George. We wanted consultation from Dawson Creek.

We wanted consultation from large urban centres, but we also wanted the opportunity for smaller towns and rural areas to be able to provide consultation directly to the minister. Guess what, Mr. Speaker. That's what the Internet is for. That's what the technology allows.

It ensures that every British Columbian who has a family member receiving community living services or a concerned individual in the community could actually give direct f e e d b a c k o n t h i s e x p o s u r e b i l l s o t h a t w e c o u l d m a k e sure it was the best piece of legislation and that the supporting regulations met the needs of communities large and small across this province. [1520] I remember that when that member was a member of government, consultation was: if you happen to know somebody in Vancouver or you live in Victoria — great.

If you lived anywhere else in this province, you were shut out. I think it's actually a credit to the Ministry of Children and Family Development to put that opportunity on the Internet for every single British Columbian to have direct feedback. That's why we're coming forth with a bill that's strong, and the policy and regulation framework will actually recognize those consultations and ensure that this act serves communi- ties large and small.

Now, the member did talk about the history of community living, that we've really come a long way in society in general from the days of institutionalization with people and individuals who had developmental disabilities to recognizing that the best place for indi- viduals was in their community, at home or close to home, and providing opportunities for those individu- als to participate as fully as possible in the communi- ties in which they lived. In the eighties that move garnered great steam, and that move made its way from deinstitutionalization.

Although the NDP talks a great game about how they care, they actually were inept at carrying that momen- tum forward. That momentum stalled in the nineties because that government wasn't prepared to think out- side the box.

That government was not prepared to look at something other than "government must do everything for everybody all the time." This government, while in opposition, talked to the community living sector, family caregivers, self- advocates, academics, professionals in the field — in- cluding professionals, by the way, in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, bureaucrats who that member suggested didn't know what they were doing. I find that an insult to our public servants who are a critical part of this new framework.

While in opposition, we listened to that community who said the momentum for us to be in community living is to continue that devolution. We've now gone away from institutions to community care and home care, but we also need to move from government being the driver and the organizer and the deliverer of those services to the community itself taking charge of the services we know our family members and our loved ones need to maximize their independence and their ability to participate in the community. There is no question that we listened when in op- position.

When that member was a member of gov- ernment, she didn't listen at all. When we g ot elected, what did we do? We actual ly laid out the framework that was visionary and that actually looked outside the box, outside the structures of rigid government silos. We moved forward with this new authority that would transfer the responsibility and the accountability from government, from politicians, to the people involved in the community living sector. Now, that was a bold move. It was a move that was noticed not just across Canada but in fact around North America and in Europe.

As we moved to devolve those services away from government and closer to the community that was being served, we were actually looking at a new model. The member mentioned the time it's taken for us to get to this point. Her time lines are correct, but her un- derstanding of how significant a move this is clearly isn't. That government moved forward on things re- gardless of the facts. That's how you got Hydrogate. That's how you got fast ferries. That's how you got the Ministry of Children and Family Development's seven ministers between 1993 and 2001 and three between 1998 and 2001.

They just moved without any considera- tion, without any thought into what was happening. W e ' v e m a d e s u r e t h a t a s w e t a k e t h i s v i s i o n a n d make it implemented on the ground, we've got one thing at the centre of that agenda. We've got our eye on the ball for one thing and one thing only — that those most vulnerable who are receiving these services see no negative impacts from this visionary change and, in fact, see an improvement an d enhancement in the ser- vices. I'm proud that the minister ensures that we're not going to move forward until we've got that in place.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11355 [1525] The NDP just rushed all over the place and made mistakes all over the place. We all remember that the Ministry of Children and Family Development under that government was in the news every week for inept decisions made by the politicians. That ministry under the NDP had nine independent offices reviewing every decision a front-line social worker made — nine. We have the best social workers in North America right here in British Columbia, but they got such mixed mes- sages from the NDP that they were unable to make any decisions.

In fact, the NDP brought in a system that put social workers behind the desk 70 percent of the time, filling out reports, and only 30 percent of the time look- ing after family services or children at risk. Well, we've recognized that we've got professional social workers, so we've removed that kind of bureau- cracy and that kind of conflicting oversight so that front-line social workers can practise to their full scope of practice and serve families. The result is that families get better service.

Social workers are doing the work they're supposed to be doing, and we're now moving to the next phase, which is looking at how we can de- volve services even further. We've done things the right way. That government most certainly did not. Why am I so pleased with Bill 45 and the fact that we're moving forward with the authority for commu- nity living? It is because it continues that devolution.

It ensures that the heroes in our community — those who actually live day to day supporting, nurturing and lov- ing individuals with developmental disabilities — con- tinue to increase the control they deservedly should have over the course of their loved ones' lives, and that communities continue to have more control and struc- ture over the services provided in that community to meet the needs of those in dividuals, whether those individuals live in a larger urban area like greater Vic- toria or a smaller area lik e Prince Rupert.

The commu- nity and those living in the community are the best to make those decisions. This act does some impo rtant things, though. It establishes accountability and responsibility. It cer- tainly doesn't abrogate government's role in that, but it ensures that the community has the structure through the authority to deliver those services in a more timely and effective way for the clients and the loved ones they're involved with.

It removes government from that day-to-day operation — which, by the way, often came out of Victoria, which meant that it was not rele- vant to people living in other parts of the province — and ensures greater relevance. The other thing that's important about this is that this is not done in isolation. It was a vision that this government — the Premier and the ministers — had, but after that, we went directly back into the commu- nity to consult. Exposure b ills, as the member of the opposition criticized, are actually one of the many ways in which we've consulted the community living sector.

The bill, an exposure bill, is just one more way to ensure that over the su mmer, those that will be af- fected by this act — those with developmental disabili- ties and their families and caregivers — had an oppor- tunity to provide the ministry directly with input. That's critical because it ensures that as we move forward, as the authority is named and as it starts to do its work and as the progra ms are transferred over, they've got the benefit of th at information from large and small communities.

I, for one, am absolutely pleased that we've gone through extensive consultation leading up to the exposure bill being introduced in the House in the spring, but then, subsequently, all throughout the summer…. We've provided it in a way that allowed people not to have to spend a lot of money, not to have to travel to Victoria or Vancouver. From their own communities, they could provide de- tailed information and feedback to the minister. It's important to note who we're talking about here in terms of who this authority is going to have over- sight on.

It's for all those with developmental disabili- ties aged six forward. It's a large population; it includes adults. Currently, it has a budget of $600 million. I can tell you that British Columbia is a leader in the types of community services we provide for those with developmental disabilities. There's always more to be done. There are always new enhancements. There are always different ways to do things.

This government is always prepared to look at all of those new options, but by having the authority available, people who live in the community living sector daily, being closer to the people receiving the service and closer to those provid- i n g t h e s e r v i c e , w i l l b e a b l e t o b e m o r e r e s p o n s i v e a s new program ideas emerge and as new literature is published on services for people with developmental disabilities. Do you know who's going to benefit from that? The group we had our eye on to begin with — those most vulnerable in our community, those with developmen- tal disabilities.

That's what this is all about. [1530] You know, it frustrates me that the opposition would take this segment of our population and play politics with it. It's actually reprehensible. For ten years they did nothing with this sector, left them to wither on the vine. Individualized funding? Oh, don't want to talk about that. New ways and new programs to allow participation in the community? Oh, don't want to talk about that. Different setups for group homes that pro- vide greater flexibility for individuals to participate in the community? Oh, don't want to talk about that.

How about contract reform — different outcomes, actually measuring the performance of contractors to make sure that the services are being provided and that the clients are benefiting from the services? "Oh, don't want to talk about that." Now that we're actually moving forward with a vision for community care on behalf of those same in- dividuals with developmental disabilities, the opposi- tion wants to play politics. Well, I can tell you that this government doesn't play poli tics with those individu- als.

We want to make sure that we're providing the kind of care they deserve and the support for their families. We will continue to do that. We will continue

11356 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 to work on behalf of those families and with those families to ensure those services. The NDP used to do things like actually expropri- ate charitable buildings — take them over, take them back from the community. We 're providing back to the community, and we're provid ing them with the sup- ports and the structure to enhance and improve ser- vices for people with disabilities. One of the things we're ensu ring is that most of the services provided to individuals with developmental disabilities are done through service contracts.

One of the things we're working on as a government, and I know the minister is working on, is ensuring that as the authority is up and ru nning and the transfer of those contracts from government to the authority hap- pens, the service providers and the recipients of the service are clear on what's happening so that we have that smooth transition so that on the ground, ulti- mately, initially nothing will look any different. There's a lot of work invo lved with that. You've got electronic systems. You've got contracts.

You've got the type of work involved in administering those on a daily basis that has to make sure that it's all in place so that we don't make any errors. I know that the minister — and he spoke about this in his statements — is en- suring at the ground level that there's no disruption. The benefit of having the community living author- ity is that over time, thos e services can be enhanced. The contracts can be improved — made more specific to the community and to the individual — and ulti- mately the service provided to the individual and the support to the family should be improved.

I don't know why the opposition doesn't think that's a good idea. I think it's a heck of a good idea. I know that the constituents I have been deal ing with for the last three years on this file in community living are eager to see that transition and to work with the authority to im- prove those services and improve those contracts and deliverables so that the bene fit goes to the individuals being served. It's also important to reco gnize that although this is going to be an independent authority, it is still an oper- ating agency of government. It's not like government is off the hook.

Government is still responsible for the services, but what we've recognized is that there's a better way, a more visionary way to deliver those ser- vices. The minister, in his comments, has mentioned that there's a new assistant deputy minister who will be the initial CEO of the authority. I think that is the kind of good thinking that leads to strong transition. You'll have a board that will have someone who understands how government works, unde rstands the goals of the community living authority and can help the board move in that transition so that, again, services are en- hanced as we move forward.

That, to me, makes a lot of sense. The member opposite, the NDP, raised a concern about the makeup of this authority. There are a couple things that are important to remember. When the NDP were government, they would appoint their friends and hacks to boards. That's how you got B.C. Hydro's only generation project being built in Pakistan. They got their buddies on there an d then quietly sold shares back to their buddies. They di dn't actually do anything about enhancing generation in British Columbia, but Pakistan's got a beautiful new dam. Or B.C. Ferries. They put all their buddies on B.C.

Ferries, and when their buddies on B.C. Ferries said, "Jeez, that fast ferry thing is probably not a good idea," they fired all their friends and put on some more friends. We said from day one…. An Hon. Member: T h e y d i d n ' t h a v e t h a t m a n y friends. J. Bray: They didn't have that many friends. That's true. They ran out of them pretty quickly. [1535] What we said was that when we got elected, we would be appointing people to boards based on merit — no different than what we brought in with the merit commissioner for the public service.

We actually want people on boards who understand the business that the board's involved in, not beca use they're friends of ours or friends of the NDP or friends of big labour or friends of big business, but because they're actually competent and they can actually mana ge the business of that board. Why is ICBC actually being able to improve road safety, reduce claims and increase efficiency? It's be- cause we've got a board in ICBC that knows how to run an insurance company. Why is B.C. Hydro able to run more effectively, more efficiently, and put long- range plans forward?

It's because they've got people who understand how to run a utility. And who is go- ing to be on the community living authority? It's peo- ple who understand how to run a service-based or- ganization with a budget of $600 million. I'll tell you this, Mr. Speake r, and I'll tell this to the member of the opposition. It is also going to have peo- ple…. I believe that we're going to have over 50 percent of those people being family members or those signifi- cantly involved in the care of somebody with a devel- opmental disability — over half.

In fact, the member's fear is ill-based, but those people are still going to be based on merit. They actually are going to have to be able to operate and make decisions to run a $600 mil- lion operation. That, to me, is basic common sense. We recognize that it needs to be people who under- stand the community living sector, and nobody knows that better than family members, caregivers and those that are intimately involv ed in the community living sector. That's who is going to make up, in my belief, the m a j o r i t y o f t h a t b o a r d , a n d t h a t i s g o o d n e w s f o r t h e community living sector.

But it's also good news for the taxpayer, because they know they're going to have a board that can competently manage $600 million. Now, we always have to work towards improving services for people with developmental disabilities. We always have to make sure that services fit urban needs and rural needs. We always have to listen to the care-

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11357 givers, the family members, who essentially in many cases put their lives on hold to provide care to their loved one who has a developmental disability. The community living authority provides an ave- n u e t o e f f e c t p o s i t i v e c h a n g e o n b e h a l f o f t h o s e w i t h developmental disabilities. What the general public wants to know is: what's in place to protect those indi- viduals?

Who's got scrutiny over this activity, who has oversight, and how can we have confidence that the services are being provided , that services are being enhanced and that the taxpayer is being protected? Well, this authority falls under all the oversight that other agencies of governme nt fall under. Certainly, requirements of the Budg et Transparency and Ac- countability Act for public disclosure of financial in- formation are all in place. Just like B.C. Hydro, just like ICBC, the financial operations of the community living authority must be made available to the public.

In addition — and it's important for people to know this so that they have a certain level of comfort — the authority is also subject to freedom of information. So in fact, family members an d service providers are go- ing to be governed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Not only does the public have the scrutiny, but also individuals who are in- volved in the community living sector — especially clients — have the protection that's afforded by law.

That's important, because of course there is a lot of personal information that goes into the provision of service for people with developmental disabilities. It's important that people know that from an accountabil- ity standpoint, the Freedom of Information Act applies but also that that personal sensitive information is pro- tected by the same piece of legislation. That's in place, and that's important. The other thing that's rea lly important is that this does not move away from the need for independent oversight. So the child and youth officer is still respon- sible for oversight with resp ect to children.

The differ- ence is that when the opposition, the NDP, were in government, they had nine offices overseeing individ- ual decisions. Of course, they had slightly different perspectives, and all that did was provide conflicting reviews, conflicting policy advice and conflicting deci- sions.

The end result for the front-line social worker, for the resource worker and for the policy-makers was utter paralysis. [1540] We've actually said we need to have individual oversight, but we need to have it in one place so that professional social workers, professional service pro- viders and the contract providers don't get conflicting messages. The child and youth officer is there to ensure that the services that are provided to children and youth are specifically included in their office. That oversight will be there for children, just as it is for child protection.

The other important issue is that community living B.C. will be included under the auspices of the om- budsman. With respect to fairness, integrity and deliv- ery of service in an administratively fair fashion, com- munity living — the authority — and community liv- ing B.C. will be under the auspices of the ombudsman.

We have the independence that the community has asked for, for the delivery of services for people with developmental disabilities, but we have the structure through the Budget Transp arency and Accountability Act, from the ombudsman, from the child and youth officer, and from freedom of information to ensure that both on individual case decisions as well as the larger expenditure decisions, full accountability is there, full public scrutiny is there, and ultimately government will continue to be responsible for that.

But the indi- vidual decisions for families, for caregivers, for service providers, for communities, for the individual living with a developmental disability will continue to be devolved to the community where it rightfully belongs. I think that it's a rather sad day when the NDP has nothing else to do but to play politics with the commu- nity living sector. It has nothing more substantive in their debate than to worry about time lines that they never stuck to when they were in government, but that we actually ensured were making the right decisions….

If that's all they had to criticize, I find that rather shock- ing — and to actually criticize, as I said earlier, the number of ministers when they had a revolving door. You may remember that Ed John from Prince George, a perfectly fine individual bu t not an elected member of this body, became the Minister for Children and Fami- lies for a period of time because they'd gone through the gene pool in the NDP caucus and were left without much to choose from. I'm heartened that several of those NDP bright lights that never made it into cabinet in that revolving door are now seeking nomination and re-election.

We'll see their star talent rise again. There are some here in the capital region and arou nd the province. Some of their bright lights are reappearing. I look forward to the campaign when we have Glen Clark's reunion tour happening around the province. But I certainly think it's unfortunate that the NDP chooses the community living sector as one to play politics. We've never played politics. We've always put the needs of the most vulnerable at the top of the agenda. We've put the families at the top of the agenda and the professionals who prov ide service at the top of the agenda. They can resort to politics.

We're going to continue to resort to good policy, good implementa- tion, and improve lives for those living with develop- mental disabilities. I fully support this bill. M. Hunter: Actually, I was quite enjoying that. I rise to speak in support of the Community Living Authority Act, Bill 45. In doing so, I have to acknowledge that if somebody had asked me three and a half years ago, before I got elected to this place, if I would be standing here to talk about this bill, I would have scratched my head and wondered what on earth we would be talking about.

But I have had the benefit of learning much about this whole subject from dedicated volunteers in the Nanaimo Association of Community Living. I have been able to spend time with that or-

11358 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 ganization, with some of the families whose children, adult children, receive their services. I have worked with that organization to try and understand the chal- lenges that it faces in times of fiscal restraint. I, there- fore, am pleased to be able to stand here with at least a modicum of understanding about what this bill is try- ing to do. I listened, as well, to the comments from the mem- ber of the opposition, the member for Vancouver– Mount Pleasant. I think it was the Hon. John Crosbie who once talked about the nabobs of negativity.

I'm sure he was thinking about that member when he coined that phrase, because all I heard were negative comments about a bill whose objectives, in my mind, are both overdue and honourable. [1545] You know, to listen to that member talk about re- volving doors is just a little bit rich. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill talked about the number of minis- ters for Children and Families that the last NDP gov- ernment had. I also recall that in one year alone, they had three ministers in this one portfolio: Ed John for five months, Gretchen Brewin for a few months and Lois Boone, all in one year.

If we are talking about re- volving ministry doors, then I would agree that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant knows an aw- ful lot more about that subject than do I or other mem- bers on the government side. She also alleges chaos in the ministry and taking time to do this stuff. Yes, this exercise, this bill has taken probably longer to come to fruition than any of us who have spent time on this subject would have liked. I think it's important that we understand that we are talking about changes in the way in which govern- ment provides services to people and families who are in need of those services.

I think that to get it right is more important than to do it quickly. I view this bill as being really one more step in a long process in our so- ciety in which we have come to recognize and tried to deal with people and families who have problems with developmental disabilities. I'd just like you to cast your mind back, Mr. Speaker, because I know you're almost old enough to do it, to think about the changes that have occurred over the past half century or even longer. If you just take as a guideline….

I'm sure that like me you have read many of the novels of Charles Dickens of 150 years ago, talking about the way society treated people who were not perhaps as mentally able or as physically a b l e a s m o s t o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n . I f y o u j u s t s t o p f o r a moment to think about how our society in Canada has progressed from the kind of conditions that Dickens talked about and I'm sure existed in the early years of Canada as a nation. Think about where we were and where we have come.

Think about how these people with developmental disabilities, children and adults both, were isolated from society. They were hidden, in many cases, by their families because of the issues they had. Basically, we removed from our society a whole bunch of individuals, and that was the way it was for a long time. Thankfully, those days ar e past. Over the past few decades we as a society here in Canada, here in British Columbia, have come to understand that people with developmental disabilities have far too much to offer our society to be hidden away.

I have had the pleasure of attending events from my association of community living that I referred to earlier, the Nanaimo associa- tion. I've had the opportunity and the pleasure of at- tending functions of theirs where, with adults with developmental disabilities and their families, I've seen the enjoyment and the sheer joy on the faces of people who are getting attention and receiving the kind of services that we are, as a government, responsible to provide.

I think these folks who have developmental disabilities have an awful lot to offer us in terms of the way they behave and the way they respond to stimuli. We have come to develop both in law and in our day-to-day practice, in the majority of cases, respect for every individual irrespective of their creed, colour, age or in this case their ability. That is a development in our society where I think, without being too dramatic about it, this bill actually moves us forward one more step. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill talked about world leadership in this area .

I think one of the things that has struck me in the discussions I've had with people involved is the move to create an authority — an authority related to government but acting inde- pendently — and disburse a significant budget of tax- payer dollars. We in British Columbia are very much setting new standards and new approaches.

We have exhibited here global leader ship, and exhibiting that global leadership has created some discussion and de- bate which has, in turn, caus ed this very notable event to have been deferred beyond, as I said, the time that many of us would have preferred. [1550] You know, most of us in this chamber are able to go about our daily business. We live independently. Well, at least I live dependent. I'm dependent on my family, but we certainly go abou t our daily tasks and our thought processes in an independent way. We take that for granted.

It's something that I wish everybody could do, but the fact is that they cannot. We have a significant number of people in

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h1004pm-02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h1004pm 02
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	22e5b5aef6eaf755d73021e3773c24a0d58a3277

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).