2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Research and development in wood products industry

D. Routley

Al Etmanski

S. Cadieux

History of South Asians in North America

R. Chouhan

North Shore Youth Safe House

J. Thornthwaite

Day of action on climate change

M. Mungall

Communities in Bloom award for White Rock

G. Hogg

Oral Questions

Emergency services at Mission Memorial Hospital

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Emergency services in Fraser Health Authority

S. Hammell

Hon. K. Falcon

Emergency services at Mission Memorial Hospital

S. Hammell

Hon. K. Falcon

Speech pathology services in Invermere area

N. Macdonald

Hon. K. Falcon

Funding for seniors services in Surrey and White Rock

H. Bains

Hon. K. Falcon

Medical laboratory services in northern B.C.

D. Donaldson

Hon. K. Falcon

Government procurement of transportation signage

K. Conroy

Hon. S. Bond

Funding for Vancouver Island children's festival

L. Krog

Hon. R. Coleman

Motions Without Notice

Powers and role of Children and Youth Committee

Hon. M. de Jong

Petitions

M. Mungall

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009

K. Conroy

Committee of the Whole House

Bill P r 401 — Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 402 — Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009

R. Howard

Committee of the Whole House

Bill P r 402 — Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 402 — Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 403 — Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009

R. Sultan

Committee of the Whole House

Bill P r 403 — Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009

R. Sultan

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 403 — Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009 (continued)

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Reporting of Bills

Bill 7 — Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. I. Chong

J. Brar

M. Karagianis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Social Development

(continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

R. Chouhan

B. Routley

G. Coons

J. Kwan

V. Huntington

M. Karagianis

R. Austin

K. Corrigan

M. Mungall

K. Conroy

S. Fraser

[ Page 1613 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: We have about 16 members from BCGEU. These are the folks that represent workers who provide us the road and highway maintenance all around British Columbia. Here today: Mike Nuyens, Local 1007; Mike Prystae, Local 1009; Lloyd Gibberley, a staff member; Rory Smith, Local 1004; Kelly McDonald, 1006; Fred Street, 1005; Don Danroth, 1011; and Keith Jansons, Local 1007.

I ask the House to please join with me and provide a very warm welcome. My colleague from the north will be introducing the rest of them.

Hon. R. Hawes: In the gallery today are Gavin Dirom from the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. and Allen Wright from the Canadian Coal Association. They're here to take

part in the minister's council on mining. Could the House please make them both welcome.

G. Coons: To continue the list of the BCGEU members who work hard on our highways: Gordon Hollingsworth, Local 1001; Ted Olsen, 1012; Jim Manson, 1008; Dave Cumming, 1003; Kevin Staneland, 1008; Sandy Fellers, 1010; Daniel Cross, 1002; and Maureen Leclaire.

My colleague from Surrey-Newton and I had some very productive meetings with these members of the BCGEU. With winter season coming up, we plowed through quite a few issues and sanded the way for productive communications. Please make them welcome.

[1335]

Hon. S. Bond: All of us are always delighted when we have the opportunity to have our family and friends join us here in Victoria. I'm very pleased to tell you that I'm lucky enough to have my husband of 30 years here with me today, so I'd ask that you please make Bill very welcome to the precinct and to the gallery.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome Gaylene Winchester and Roseanne Shuey. Earlier this year a young man from Ladysmith, Tyler Mackie, was hit by a car in Nanaimo. He was severely injured and lost a leg. A fundraiser was held, and I offered as an auction item lunch in the Legislature and gallery seats here for two so that we could support the fundraiser for that young man.

Young Sonny Brisky, nephew to Ms. Gaylene Winchester, bought the auction item and gave it to his Aunt Gaylene for her 65th birthday, which was October 2. I'd like the House to help me make them welcome and thank them for supporting the effort to help Tyler Mackie.

N. Macdonald: I want to join with my colleagues in recognizing, in particular, Jim Manson from Revelstoke. Anybody who knows Revelstoke…. If you can keep the highways clear in Revelstoke, you can do it pretty well anywhere in the world. I just want to say hello and salute him and ask you to join me in making him welcome.

D. Hayer: I would like to announce the birth of Marcelo Santos, whose proud parents are Manuel Santos, my CA, and my financial agent, Marilena Santos. Marcelo was born yesterday, October 27, at 7:40 p.m. He weighed 8.4 pounds and measured 52 centimetres. Would the House please make them — the parents and grandparents and the rest of the family — very welcome and congratulate them on behalf of the House.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Lobbyists Registration

Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2009.

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Unanticipated excitement, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 19 makes significant amendments to the existing Lobbyists Registration Act. They are the first major reforms to the act since it was introduced in October of 2002. The bill will significantly strengthen the lobbyist registration regime in B.C., and it will bring it in close alignment with the existing Alberta legislation.

The changes being proposed include the following: harmonizing an expanded definition of lobbying with Alberta; providing for only two streams of lobbyists in B.C., with parallel, strengthened reporting requirements;

[ Page 1614 ]

prohibiting contracting with government and lobbying on the same subject matter; providing the registrar with specific powers to conduct investigations and a requirement to report the results of those investigations to this Legislative Assembly; introducing administrative penalties of up to $25,000 and, in some cases, $100,000 for a second or subsequent offence; and extending the limitation period to two years.

It's proposed that the legislation will come into force on April 1, 2010.

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

[1340]

Bill 19, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2009, 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 25B)

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

IN WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about FPInnovations, and Forintek, their division for research and development. With offices in Ladysmith and labs in Vancouver at UBC and in Quebec City, they do R and D in the forest sector. We all want a green economy. What could be more green than an industry whose products sequester carbon and whose raw material absorbs it and creates oxygen in growing?

FPInnovations creates solutions from forest to market. Their main obstacle to innovation and entrepreneurialism in the forest industry is fibre access. FP is working with first nations to utilize 40 million cubic metres of wood to create high-value products in new markets. Efforts result in better quality, higher-value products, lower production costs, improved productivity and enhanced competitiveness in the marketplace.

Since April 1, 1979, Forintek has operated as a non-profit corporation conducting focused research and development, touching every key element of the wood-product-sector value chain. Forintek is a powerful, highly responsive team of professionals with high quality and high capacity to guide the wood industry towards higher value.

We all, as British Columbians, have a sense that we need to conserve our forests, even while we enjoy the benefits of a thriving wood products industry. We know that we must add value to our resources in order to create jobs and maximize the benefit to British Columbians from the resources that we do harvest.

We ask ourselves: why Ikea? Why not B.C.ea? The answer to that question is being offered by many entrepreneurs throughout this province. The ideas are out there. The energy resides in British Columbia. The obstacles are many and varied, from fibre access to technological development, product research, market research and development, finance, and commercial advice.

FPInnovations and Forintek lead the way in providing those answers to our entrepreneurs. We as legislators should support the research and development of products and marketplaces that will revitalize our industry for the benefit of all British Columbians.

AL ETMANSKI

S. Cadieux: Just as entrepreneurs change the face of business, social entrepreneurs act as the agents of change for society, seizing opportunities other miss for improving systems, inventing new approaches and creating solutions that change society for the better.

I'd like today to take a moment to pay tribute to one such social entrepreneur. He's president and co-founder of Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, PLAN, a non-profit social enterprise assisting families by addressing financial and social well-being for their relatives with disabilities. He's proposed and led the successful campaign to establish the registered disability savings plan, RDSP, the world's first savings plan for people with disabilities.

He's authored two books:

A Good Life — For You and Your Relative with a Disability and

Safe and Secure . He admits to having played air guitar with Randy Bachman of Bachman-Turner Overdrive in a rock video.

He's the founding member of the J.W. McConnell Family Foundations Social Innovation Generation collaboration, which is an initiative to explore new methods of financing for the social sector. He's one of the first two Canadians accepted into Ashoka's prestigious global fellowship of social entrepreneurs.

This month, in honour of Community Living Month, Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion hosted a celebration in his honour. His name is Al Etmanski. He's a source of inspiration, conceiving of new and innovative concepts yet remaining grounded and practical, inspiring us to understand what is possible.

I'm honoured to represent Al Etmanski here in the Legislature, and I look forward to many more years of remarkable contribution.

HISTORY OF SOUTH ASIANS

IN NORTH AMERICA

R. Chouhan: Earlier this month, on October 12, a very important event took place in the South Asian community. Mr. Sohan Pooni launched his book called

[ Page 1615 ]

this case, 1,000 people participated in a two-hour-long ceremony.

The book is about the history of South Asians in North America in the first half of the 20th century. There were several hundred active members of the Ghadar movement, but due to the time constraints or other challenges, Mr. Pooni was able to write only about 41 Ghadarites. I'm sure Mr. Pooni will write about all of them in the near future.

[1345]

Most people have heard about the

Komagata Maru incident that occurred in 1914, but not too many know about the leaders and the members of the community who fought against the racist policies of the provincial and the Canadian governments of that time.

The first South Asian arrived in British Columbia around 1895. Despite the fact that Indians were British subjects, they were treated as second-class citizens upon their arrival in Canada. Every possible step was taken by those governments to stop immigration from India.

These men realized that the main reason for the discrimination against them was that India was not a free country, thus they decided to start the Ghadar movement and to participate in the struggle to free India from British rule.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I remind members not to use props.

NORTH SHORE YOUTH SAFE HOUSE

J. Thornthwaite: On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the 8th annual North Shore Rotary Wine and Food Festival benefiting a very important cause: the North Shore Youth Safe House.

I'm told that they made approximately $34,000. It was great to see so many people come together to raise money and awareness for a place that inevitably saves and reshapes lives.

The North Shore Youth Safe House is a place where youth between the ages of 13 and 18 can go to find a warm, comfortable and, most of all, secure place to stay. Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the safe house provides youth in need with warm meals and a clean place to sleep.

What makes the safe house so special is that it offers support, mediation and advocacy to meet the needs of high-risk youth in a safe environment by discouraging violence or discrimination of any kind and encouraging respect, solution-seeking and structured meal and sleep times.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development contracts Hollyburn Family Services to provide the safe house with workers specialized in family support as well as transitional youth. Support is also there for youth with drug and alcohol issues, and there is ongoing aftercare assistance from the community outreach workers.

Without organizations like the North Shore Youth Safe House, teens at risk on the North Shore would have very little to turn to. Offering both emergency and long-term help, the safe house truly is a great asset to our community. I would like to thank the North Shore Rotary for their continued support of the North Shore Safe House, giving at-risk teens a chance at creating successful and fulfilling lives.

DAY OF ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

M. Mungall: This past Saturday, on October 24, I participated in the international day of climate action by attending a 350 event.

This event was organized by a powerful group of youth from LV Rogers high school in Nelson. Hanna Okidan, Olivia Mansfield, Asia Lamb-Hartley, Sarea Carmichael, Amanda Chouinard, Shandrea Lavoie, Emily Newbury, Isolde deMontignay, Neufeld Cummings, Sheena Young and Hanna Astall all decided that Nelson couldn't be left out of this global day of action and so banded together to get their community together to say that we are going to be a part of a global change for sustainability.

And 350 people turned up in Nelson for 350. For 350 — 350 parts per million of CO 2 in our atmosphere. That's the magic number: 350.

Nelson wasn't alone this Saturday when we said that 350 is achievable. From Addis Ababa to Afghanistan, from Cape Town to Cebu in the Philippines, from the base of the pyramids in Giza to the tops of ice peaks in Antarctica and the bottoms of the oceans in the Maldives, all across Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa and, of course, down under in Australia — 5,248 events in 181 countries made for the most widespread day of political action in human history, and Nelson was a part of it.

To know that we are a part of a global movement for a global change is truly awesome. With that much energy and that much passion, we can achieve anything, including reducing our carbon emissions to 350. This is only the beginning.

[1350]

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM AWARD

FOR WHITE ROCK

G. Hogg: The White Rock Communities in Bloom committee, after winning the national award in 2008, competed this year internationally with and against England, Ireland, Scotland, Japan and the rest of Canada. They received a five-bloom rating, the highest rating to be awarded.

The two judges, Lorna McIlroy and Jack Clasen, made special mention of White Rock's sparkling waterfront,

[ Page 1616 ]

its promenade, its beautiful Marine Drive and, of course, the rock. They added that the entire area is "splashed with colour by luxurious planters and vivid hanging flower baskets." They noted the participation of volunteers who keep the area litter-free, the environmental guides who offer interpretative walks and the artists who have created public art sites.

At night LED lights twinkle in the waterfront trees, further enhancing the natural beauty of the area. With the city, they have been responsible for foreshore restoration planting, native plant demonstration gardens and many other creative beautification programs.

This has happened under the dynamic leadership of their chairperson, Mr. Moti Bali, and his devoted committee. They have been supported by the White Rock Business Improvement Association and the Semiahmoo First Nation.

I ask this Legislature to join me in congratulating and thanking these people for their commitment and for their accomplishments.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY SERVICES

AT MISSION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

A. Dix: Contrary to what the B.C. Liberals said in the election campaign and contrary to what the minister himself said a few months ago, the Fraser Health Authority is proceeding to downgrade the emergency room at Mission Memorial Hospital.

However, last night the Mission council unanimously rejected the minister's plan for the hospital. Instead, the council passed a motion that the hospital and the ER stay intact.

Will the minister listen to Mission city council and abandon his plan to slash basic health care services in Mission?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, even with a record budget increase of 20 percent over the next three years, the health authorities are still challenged to deal with the record utilization and use of the health system. One of the things that the public demands and expects is that the health authorities utilize their dollars — the massive dollars that we put into health care — as appropriately as possible.

When I met with Mayor Atebe from Mission, one of the discussions we had was to make sure that the community was fully involved in the consultative process before decisions got made. That's exactly what's happened — to make sure that before a decision gets made, all of the facts are on the table.

There are a couple of facts that might interest the member. The first is that during the overnight period between 11 p.m. at night and 8 a.m. in the morning, the Mission community hospital receives, on average, one ambulance visit in the overnight period.

If you consider the fact that we've just opened a new $355 million Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre with a quadrupled emergency department, 20 minutes away in one direction, and that the Ridge Meadows Hospital with a tripled emergency department just opened in the last twelve months, that is the foundation on which they make a decision.

A. Dix: Perhaps if the minister had actually read the report, he wouldn't be so quick to downgrade the work being done by the nurses and doctors at Mission Memorial Hospital. The night shift gets 3,500 visits a year. So when you're downgrading it, when you're telling people inaccurate facts, as the minister just did…. Perhaps he could include that one.

He might also include the words of his own chair of the board, who says that they're getting a 2.8 percent lift this year — well under the utilization and population increases. The minister said in July: "This is not a decision driven by saving money."

Yesterday he told Mission that if they wanted to save their ER, they'd have to find $400,000 in savings in patient services elsewhere in the hospital. Will he give up on this outrageous shakedown and protect services in Mission?

Hon. K. Falcon: I tried to explain the facts to the member — the facts that are a part of the consultative process that is going on with the community right now.

[1355]

I know that the member doesn't believe anything should ever change in the health system, and I understand that. Even with record funding increases, according to the NDP, nothing should ever change.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: Perhaps I'll try another tack that might work with this member. The member has a community hospital that serves people in his own constituency, called the Mount St. Joseph community hospital. In the entire ten years that the NDP were in government — in fact, that member was the chief of staff to the Premier at the time, Glen Clark — at not one time did they decide that that emergency department should be open 24 hours. Why? Because it's got VGH on one side and St. Paul's on the other.

That was appropriate for them. It's appropriate in this case that the Fraser Health Authority look at the facts and make sure they make a decision based on the facts in front of them — recognizing the $355 million investment in a brand-new state-of-the-art regional hospital and cancer centre with a quadrupled emergency department

[ Page 1617 ]

on one side, 20 minutes away, and another expanded, tripled, emergency department at Ridge Meadows, 20 minutes on the other side. It is appropriate that they do that, given the facts that they have available.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: The people of Mission know change, B.C. Liberal–style. It's the sixth major downgrade of that hospital since the B.C. Liberals came to office. Acute to sub-acute. They closed the ICU. They cut one set of beds. Then they cut another set of beds — 60 percent of the beds in the entire hospital. They cut the emerg, the maternity ward. They downgraded acute care beds just a month ago, residential care beds.

Interjection.

A. Dix: Yeah, I'd say the hon. member from Mission…. He finally speaks. On the sixth downgrade, the member from Mission finally speaks. During the election, where was he?

Why doesn't the Minister of Health take account of the risks made clear in his own report, listen to the community and abandon this hammer blow to health care in Mission?

Hon. K. Falcon: We hear all the hysterics and the theatrical performance of the member opposite, but they conveniently ignore rather important facts. One of those important facts, actually, is that the community of Abbotsford, for ten years, was clamouring for a new facility. They never dealt with that at all — nothing.

What we did was constructed and built a $355 million state-of-the-art facility with a quadrupled emergency department. That's on one end. At the other end, with Ridge Meadows Hospital, a tripled emergency department.

I recognize that this is never an easy thing for a community. But actually, when you've got an emergency department that receives, on average, one ambulance visit per night during the overnight hours and, on average, eight to nine walk-in visits that are not high-acute visits, it is not inappropriate, given the facilities that have just been constructed and expanded, that that decision could be made.

We still deliver first-class, exceptional health care for all the folks in the Fraser region.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

IN FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

S. Hammell: Here are some other facts. Fraser Health's own data confirms that emergency services need to be improved, not decreased, in the region. This spring the health authority reported that both the ER in Mission and the ER in Abbotsford, which the minister keeps insisting can take patients from Mission, are not meeting the benchmark to admit 80 percent of their patients within ten hours.

They are not reaching that benchmark of 80 percent within ten hours. At the Abbotsford ER, only 43 percent of patients are being admitted within that time frame. Will the minister start basing his decisions on sound policy that improves, not worsens, access to emergency care in the Fraser Valley?

[1400]

Hon. K. Falcon: That's exactly what's happening, because actually we have a health system. It is a system; it is not an individual, isolated emergency department that works on its own without any connection to the other regional facilities.

I can tell the member — the member's from Surrey; she should know — that the $239 million being invested in the new out-patient hospital, which I recently visited — a major milestone…. That hospital is part of the system of care for folks in the Fraser region. So when the $355 million Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre was built, that actually helps the Surrey Memorial emergency department. That's why we've been making those investments — to ensure that the entire system works in tandem with each other.

But where we have a situation that, in spite of 20 percent health funding increases, we still have pressures in the system, it is appropriate that an emergency department that sees on average one ambulance visit per night between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m…. It is appropriate that they recommend those kinds of changes to ensure that dollars go towards patient care — exactly where it should go.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

AT MISSION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: The minister's own report presented to Mission council last night details the risks of cutting emergency services to the community of Mission. The risks include — and this is detailed in the report presented — a lack of physician coverage for emergencies during the night shift, sustaining other services within the hospital such as labs and pharmacies, delay in care of trauma patients and increased congestion in other sites. These are the problems that the minister's own report identifies.

Will the minister reconsider this ill-thought-out plan and agree with Mission council that reducing hours in the emergency ward at Mission Memorial Hospital is unacceptable?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll go back to what I said earlier to the Health critic. You know, there is a hospital that serves many of that Health critic's constituents called Mount St. Joseph's.

[ Page 1618 ]

It also has an emergency department with no overnight hours. That doesn't mean that health care is compromised in Vancouver. It is not. They've got the St. Paul's facility and the VGH facility also there. It is no different in this case.

In this case, we have opened a brand-new, state-of-the-art $355 million Abbotsford Regional Hospital. When you've opened up a $355 million state-of-the-art hospital 20 minutes away from a community hospital emergency department, with an emergency department that is quadrupled in size and 20 minutes in the other direction, you've tripled the emergency department for Ridge Meadows.

It actually begs the health authority to make sure they utilize all of these brand-new, expanded assets appropriately. That's what they're doing. I know those members oppose every change ever contemplated, thought about or made, but we are going to make the right decisions for the folks in the Fraser Valley. That's what we're doing.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY SERVICES

IN INVERMERE AREA

N. Macdonald: In July of 2008 Norm Gagatek, a 39-year-old firefighter from Invermere, suffered a devastating brain stem stroke. He had a family depending on him and a child on the way, and since the day of his stroke, he has struggled to make some kind of recovery.

It was when a speech therapist in Invermere started to work directly with Norm that he started to regain the ability to swallow and the possibility of saying his new son's name. But the speech-language pathologist who was providing Norm and others with direct therapy on a consistent

schedule is now being cut by the IHA.

The question for the Minister of Health is: will the minister restore the speech therapy services that Norm and his family desperately need?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, the member is characterizing this wrongly. He's trying to say that speech pathology has been cut for the individual in question. That's not the case.

The fact of the matter is that there was a speech pathologist that served in Invermere three days per month. What has changed is that it is operating out of East Kootenay Regional Hospital on an out-patient basis, just as it has in the Elk Valley for many years very successfully. They will continue to go to Invermere and go to Golden to provide the services for the folks that need it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, what the minister describes as a change, he's not describing accurately. It is a suggestion that there's going to be some television linkup. The fact is that this change, as the minister describes it, is actually driven not by good practice or innovation or anything other than a $40 million deficit that the Interior Health is struggling to find ways of making up for.

This is a cut, and a cut that the minister talks about. It's a cut to direct, hands-on therapy delivered on a regular basis that has allowed progress for Norm. That's the fact of the matter. To quote Norm's spouse, Kim: "Being able to say Quinn's name and his son Braeden's name is huge for Norm and their family."

Now this cut that the minister is making is taking away the chance for that family. That is what is at stake here, and the question is: will the minister do the right thing and reverse that cut?

Hon. K. Falcon: We've covered territory like this before. I've tried to explain to the members that a 20 percent increase in the Health budget, an additional $2.4 billion, is not a cut. It's a dramatic, record increase. That's what we've done. I've said very publicly — I've been very clear to the members opposite — that even with a 20 percent Health budget increase over the next three years, there are still pressures.

All of the health authorities are challenged to make sure that they look at how they deliver services and do it in a manner that is most efficient and most respectful of the massive record dollars, taxpayer dollars, that go into that service.

In this case, I can tell you that the speech pathologist that served three days a month in Invermere will continue to serve Invermere out of East Kootenay Regional Hospital on an out-patient basis.

Now, he keeps saying that the person is gone. No, the person will continue to serve from East Kootenay Regional Hospital. The service will continue to be provided by a speech pathologist, just as it has been, very successfully, in the Elk Valley for a number of years.

FUNDING FOR SENIORS SERVICES

IN SURREY AND WHITE ROCK

H. Bains: White Rock/Surrey Come Share Society serves thousands of seniors every year, providing critical services like outreach, meal programs, driving seniors to medical appointments, weekly phone checkups and services for seniors in crisis. Now this government and this minister hit them with $161,000 funding cut, eliminating most of those services. It means that some of the most vulnerable seniors no longer have the support that they desperately need, and it will cost the system more through higher acute care costs.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister stop running roughshod over our seniors in Surrey and White Rock? Will he reverse those cuts?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I know that the members opposite want to create a situation where they can talk about: "Oh, every change is a cut." Even though the budget

[ Page 1619 ]

is going up 20 percent, even though they can look and see the additional $2.4 billion going into the system, in the NDP world nothing can ever change. It's a good lesson for the students that may be listening here today, because in their world nothing ever changes, no matter what the facts tell you, no matter what the situation is.

The fact of the matter is that for the Come Share Society, Fraser Health will continue to fund them a million dollars a year to deliver important medical supports like a meal program and adult day care. Where there are changes being made and services no longer being provided, it is typically in the socialization area for many senior services.

[1410]

They are important programs, but they are focusing their dollars on direct medical care at a time when even a 20 percent budget increase is never enough. That's an appropriate decision to make.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: You know what hasn't changed? This minister's and this government's refusal to be respectful and to stop showing contempt to the very people that built this province. That's what you're doing.

Here are some of the recent examples of how Come Share serves seniors in our community: helping an elderly couple find a care facility where they could live together, helping a senior find a donated bed he couldn't otherwise afford, helping a senior access her finances after she was forced to move out of assisted living, connecting seniors to basic services like baths and delivering groceries. Thanks to this minister and thanks to these Liberals, they are now forced to turn seniors away with no place to go.

Again to this minister: on behalf of those seniors, will he show some respect to the seniors in my community, and will he promise to restore the funding for the White Rock/Surrey Come Share Society today?

Hon. K. Falcon: That member's comments are just ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that it was this government that actually delivered over 6,000 new assisted-living and residential care beds for seniors right across the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: You can sense the sensitivity over there, because they also had a record. It was a disastrous record when it came to actually doing more than talking about what they want to do.

What we are doing is delivering change that's of real benefit to seniors. I get, I understand and recognize, that some socialization programs that provided referrals to handyDART service or to socialization and get-together programs are important for seniors.

I understand that. But I also recognize, as does Fraser Health, that the most important thing for them to invest in — at a time when even a 20 percent budget increase cannot fulfil every demand out there — is to focus on direct medical care, bathing programs, food programs. That's what they're doing. I support that they're doing that.

MEDICAL LABORATORY SERVICES

IN NORTHERN B.C.

D. Donaldson: What we can sense is the nonsense coming from this side from the Minister of Health. The Northern Health Authority just cut microbiology lab services at the Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers. The same funding cut was done at Wrinch Memorial Hospital in Hazelton.

Medical professionals in Smithers and Hazelton say these cuts in services will increase risk to patients. NHA says they'll send samples by bus elsewhere — by bus. Important samples to be sent on the Greyhound. Road conditions can be treacherous. Delays will result. Cold weather can destroy microbes, giving inaccurate results.

Why will the minister not provide adequate funding to the Northern Health Authority for the important microbiology lab services in these communities, instead of putting patients at higher risk?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, classic NDP. The world as we know it is coming to an end. There are, apparently, cuts everywhere, in spite of the fact that we've actually seen the health budget double. I know math has never been their strong point, so I'll try this with the member.

In 2001 when I first got elected, the health budget was $8.4 billion. Today the member might be interested to know that the total health spending in the province of British Columbia is $15.7 billion.

[1415]

Only in the NDP world is a doubling of the health budget a cut. Only in the NDP world do you somehow take a doubling and talk about a cut.

Lab services are being consolidated. There is actually lots of medical efficacy that will demonstrate that you can get better results for the public. It's safer when they're doing more volume. You've got the people that are doing that service getting the experience of volume and delivering better service. That's what they're doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: What the minister doesn't seem to understand is that when operating costs go up more than funding, it's called a funding deficit. This govern-

[ Page 1620 ]

ment should know something about that, because this minister helped increase the funding deficit, the deficit in this province, to the highest level in history.

Let's talk about change. These government cuts to lab services…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: …take what is working well now and introduce a more convoluted testing process where more things can go wrong. It's needlessly increasing risk to patients. That's the kind of change they're doing on that side of the House.

Will the minister reinstate these lab services instead of destroying something that is working?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thought that the member's question at the beginning was quite instructive of the NDP mentality. Really, what it is suggesting is that you shouldn't even think about trying to do anything different in the health system. God, no. We should never even dream of that. Hit the spending accelerator and just spend and keep doing whatever you've been doing. Don't even think about doing things differently. That's the NDP response.

That's not our response. We recognize that with a 20 percent funding increase, there is still a responsibility on government, recognizing that taxpayer dollars are not unlimited. It is hard-working folks that contribute those dollars. We have a responsibility to deliver the services he pretends to care about as efficiently and effectively as we possibly can. That is what they are doing.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION SIGNAGE

K. Conroy: Can the Minister of Transportation explain why she feels it is appropriate to buy signs from companies outside of B.C., while we have excellent companies right here in B.C. that produce exactly the same signs?

Hon. S. Bond: We do have a very extensive sign program in British Columbia. We make every effort to utilize British Columbia's services and British Columbia's products. In fact, we're proud of the program that we have in this province that makes sure that we emphasize the use of British Columbia products wherever possible.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Proud? Well, in the last four years, Zumar Industries in Tacoma, Washington, has received over a million dollars in contracts from the B.C. government — over a million dollars of B.C. taxpayers' dollars.

We know that sign companies here in B.C. can produce exactly the same signs as the minister has contracted with them. So how can the…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Conroy: …minister condone this?

When the ministry staff was asked why, we were told that an answer would be forthcoming from the minister. Well, how about it, Minister? Why is this government's policy Buy Washington, not Buy B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this government's policy is that we're going to get the absolute best value for every taxpayer dollar we spend.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1420]

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, the NDP doesn't bother to do any homework. They simply walk into the Legislature. In fact, we have our own sign shop. Wherever possible and whenever possible we look at the best competitive advantage, and the vast majority of what we do is British Columbia products and British Columbia workmanship.

FUNDING FOR

VANCOUVER ISLAND CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL

L. Krog: The Vancouver Island International Children's Festival celebrated its tenth anniversary this year. More than a hundred thousand students, teachers and families have attended that event over those years. Indeed, some schools travelled over two days to attend that festival.

The cutting of B.C. gaming funds has left the society now with no option but to wind up its affairs. So my question to the Minister of Tourism, the person responsible for arts and culture at the cabinet table: is he prepared to let this happen, and if so, why?

Interjections.

[ Page 1621 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: We've canvassed this in this House before with regards to tough decisions that had to be made about grant programs within the gaming grants and charitable grants of B.C. this year.

We actually focused with regards to children and meals in schools and services there. We focused on search and rescue and the importance of public safety with regards to that. We focused on issues in and around food banks and on the issue of the social development side, because we felt that at this time, during difficult times, the priority dollars should be going to those people who need it the most.

[End of question period.]

Hon. K. Heed: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Heed: Joining us today in the gallery is a longtime-serving police officer from the Vancouver police department. He's served over 31 years in the community of Vancouver, and matter of fact, he took over my command when I left the Vancouver police department. I ask that all of us welcome Supt. Andy Hobbs.

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the B.C. child welfare system.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF

children and youth COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: I have provided a copy of the motion to the Opposition House Leader. It includes the same powers that accrued to the committee last year.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the BC child welfare system, and in particular to:

1. Be the committee that receives and reviews the annual service plan from the Representative for Children and Youth (the "Representative") that includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and performance measures that will be required to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the Representative during the fiscal year;

2. Be the committee to which the Representative reports, at least annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the critical injury or death of a child; and

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans delivered by the Representative (if any during the time period of these terms of reference) to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

M. Mungall: I seek leave to introduce a petition to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Mungall: This petition was signed by 276 people last week at a rally to reinstate the funding cuts to arts and culture. These are artists and arts lovers. The funding represents not only their enjoyment in this community and throughout British Columbia, but also, of course, their very lifeline, their jobs. They want that funding reinstated, and so they signed this petition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill Pr401, Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development.

[1425]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — Verigin Memorial

Park Amendment Act, 2009

K. Conroy: I move that the bill be now read a second time. This private bill was initiated by the Union of Spirit-

[ Page 1622 ]

ual Communities of Christ, the Doukhobor community, more commonly known as the USCC. The Doukhobors' original spiritual leader was Peter V. Verigin, Peter the Lordly. When he succumbed to an untimely death on October 1924, he was interred at Verigin's tomb in Brilliant, just outside of Castlegar.

Over the years other family members have also been laid to rest in this beautiful and spiritual site. It has come to the attention of the community that there needed to be an amendment to the original act, allowing for the interment of these descendents. This amendment simply ensures all who rest there now and in future do so with the proper authorization.

The Doukhobors' history spans over a hundred years in this province. I welcome the opportunity to sponsor this bill that will allow the suitable interment of the leadership of these industrious people who truly lived their philosophy of toil and peaceful living.

It has been one year since John J. Verigin Sr., the former honorary chairman of the USCC, passed away and was also interred at the Brilliant site. I want to take this moment to remember him and the incredible contribution he made to our community, our province and, indeed, our country.

The USCC and the Verigin family have established the John J. Verigin memorial fund to advance the principles and values he championed during his life. I join with the many constituents who joined with his family to remember John one year after his passing, and all who hope that this bill passes.

Mr. Speaker: Move second reading.

K. Conroy: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House….

Mr. Speaker: Member, first we have to move second reading.

Seeing no further speakers, does the member move second reading?

K. Conroy: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

K. Conroy: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll P r 401 — Verigin Memorial

Park Amendment Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:29 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — Verigin Memorial

Park Amendment Act, 2009

Bill Pr401, Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate on Bill Pr402, Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009.

[1430]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 402 — Trustee Board of the

Church of God, Richmond

Municipality, B.C. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2009

R. Howard: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Inadvertently, more than ten years ago reports were not filed, which caused the society to be stricken from the register. Having discovered this, they now seek to be restored to the register. Because it was ten years ago, it requires legislation, which is before us now.

I move second reading.

[ Page 1623 ]

Motion approved.

R. Howard: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll P r 402 — Trustee Board of the

Church of God, Richmond

Municipality, B.C. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr402; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

R. Howard: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:32 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BIll P r 402 — Trustee Board of the

Church of God, Richmond

Municipality, B.C. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2009

Bill Pr402, Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: Continuing this furious pace of passing legislation, I call second reading debate on Pr403, intituled Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 403 — Victoria Foundation

Amendment Act, 2009

R. Sultan: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, Pr403, the Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, pertains to the wonderful institution of the Victoria Foundation, the second-oldest foundation in British Columbia and a key building block in the philanthropic institutions of this part of British Columbia.

The directors of the Victoria Foundation have requested amendments to their act, principally to do with two issues which have arisen — namely, the flexibility with which they can make bequests and grants in difficult financial circumstances, both from capital and income, and, secondly, to clarify any possible ambiguity in the

interpretation by the Canadian Revenue Agency of enduring property under their statutes. This bill will clarify these matters and allow the Victoria Foundation to carry on.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member closes debate.

Move second reading, Member.

R. Sultan: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr403, Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill P r 403 — Victoria Foundation

Amendment Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr403; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

[ Page 1624 ]

Title approved.

R. Sultan: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 403 — Victoria Foundation

Amendment Act, 2009

Bill Pr403, Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 7, Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Police (Misconduct,

Complaints, Investigations,

Discipline and Proceedings)

Amendment Act, 2009

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

section 10,

section 101.

M. Farnworth: This

section is about the member's duty to cooperate with the investigating officer, answer questions and provide written statements, and it seems a pretty straightforward thing. I just want to confirm and ensure that if there are new provisions in this particular section, how much is new, and how much is out of the report?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just cross-checking the old act. My best information is that the positive statutory obligation that this creates is new.

Section 10, sections 101 and 102 approved.

section 10,

section 103.

[1440]

M. Farnworth: I understand the member from Prince George's enthusiasm. However, we still have a few questions left.

"Investigation powers in relation to other premises." If the minister can confirm that this is a new

section in the act…. I think it's also important in the sense that what this

section is saying is that in relation to an investigation in regard to a complaint, it's not just the working environments that the commissioner is allowed to conduct the investigation, but if there is a sense that there may be evidence in premises outside the working environment, then the commissioner or the person doing the investigation has the ability to go to those premises or to that place and to either seek or obtain evidence. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: With the single exception that it would be the investigating officer as opposed to the commissioner himself or herself, I think everything the member pointed out in description is correct.

It is new, and the final comment I would make is that the ability to obtain the kind of authorization, court-ordered authorization or warrant, contemplated here would also be subject to the usual tests around establishing reasonable and probable grounds for the expectation that relevant evidence would be found.

Section 10, sections 103 and 104 approved.

section 10,

section 105.

M. Farnworth:

Section 105 deals with copies admissible in evidence. Just to clarify this section, then, that in the case of the investigation, a copy of a record is something that will be admissible, and the fact that it is a copy is not going to impede in any way an investigation from taking place.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is, I believe, an accurate description. It is new with respect to this part of the act, and it finally, I think, follows a trend that we see emerging around the assumed reliability, where properly attested to, of photocopies of documents.

M. Farnworth: I'll just make one observation. It would be nice if we could have this particular piece of policy in other areas of our day-to-day existence — where a copy of a certificate would suffice in order to obtain a licence or something like that.

Section 10, sections 105 and 106 approved.

section 10,

section 107.

M. Farnworth: Again, this one appears to be fairly self-evident, but I just want to…. "Duty of investigating officer

[ Page 1625 ]

to keep records and produce them." That is a requirement from the moment the complaint is received, or from the moment the complaint is starting to be investigated?

Hon. M. de Jong: It wouldn't be upon receipt of the complaint, necessarily. It would be from the appointment of the investigating officer, because only at that point would the individual know that they are the investigating officer and, therefore, have the obligation set out in

section 107.

[1445]

Section 10, sections 107 to 109 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 110.

M. Farnworth: The member from Richmond shouldn't look quite so surprised that I stood up on this one.

This

section is an important section. It deals with the member's reassignment or suspension pending investigation and hearing. The discipline authority has the power to reassign, transfer or suspend the member if they feel that not doing so will cause harm to others, discredit the department or that the member is not able to carry out his or her regular duties.

The board can decide whether the suspension is with or without pay. Prior to making a decision, the member must be given the opportunity to speak to the board. At any time the board may reconsider its decision.

This section, then, is in essence saying that it's the police board that will make that decision. Is that correct? Or does the commissioner have the ability — or the person doing the investigation — to say it's appropriate or that they feel that the individual under investigation should either be reassigned or suspended? I just want to make sure, to clarify exactly who makes that decision.

Hon. M. de Jong: The two individuals or agencies that are assigned the authority the member speaks of are the discipline authority or the board. The sections do not contemplate the Police Complaint Commissioner rendering the decision around suspension with pay or without pay.

Section 10,

section 110 approved.

section 10,

section 111.

M. Farnworth:

Section 111, "If police complaint commissioner considers that member or former member has committed offence." My reading of this relates back to the issue I raised earlier — that if, during the course of an investigation, something else is uncovered, then this is the

section that would deal with that. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry. That took longer than necessary for me to say yes.

Section 10,

section 111 approved.

section 10,

section 112.

M. Farnworth:

Section 112, "Discipline authority to review final investigation report and give early notice of next steps." This section, then, would deal with…. Once the report is done, the discipline authority has the ability to review the report before it goes up to….

The investigator has done the report. The report goes to the disciplining authority, or does it go to the commissioner first? What is being anticipated with this particular section?

[1450]

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer with respect to

section 112 is that it goes to the discipline authority first. But I am reminded that pursuant to a

section we already covered,

section 98, the Police Complaint Commissioner will have a copy of the report.

M. Farnworth: That's what I want to confirm — that the complaint commissioner has the report basically at the same time that it goes to the disciplinary authority. I assume, then, that when it also goes to the disciplinary authority, that's also the time in which it goes to the complainant but also to the individual against whom the complaint is lodged. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: Within the ten-day period that is listed there, both the member who is the subject of the complaint and the complainant would also receive the report.

Section 10,

section 112 approved.

section 10,

section 113.

M. Farnworth: Under this

section once the report is in the hands of the disciplining authority, the commissioner will have a report, the complainant has a report and the member against whom the complaint is made has a report. The complainant then, upon the receipt of that report and reviewing that report, in this particular section, within ten days has the ability to make further submissions to that report.

Would that be, for example, if they feel that certain issues were not addressed or if there is further information? Is that the intent of this particular section? Or if they take issue with what they are seeing in the report at this particular point?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct. It does contemplate further submissions following the receipt of

[ Page 1626 ]

the final investigation report, broadly speaking, in three areas: in respect of the complaint itself, the adequacy of the investigation or the appropriate range of discipline that would be available. So broadly speaking, additional submissions in those three categories.

M. Farnworth: How would this

section work either in the context where a number of complaints have been condensed into one or in the context of a third party? Would they have the same ability to make comment and submissions? How do you deal with the issue where the individual complaints have been condensed into one? Would those individuals all have the same opportunity?

[1455]

Hon. M. de Jong: It all sort of hinges on what the status is of the individual involved. The right accrues to the complainant, so in the case of a consolidation, those complaints consolidated may still each have a complainant within the meaning of the act.

In a circumstance where there is a third-party complaint and subsequently someone more directly involved brings a complaint and the action of the third party is discontinued, then whilst the third party may continue to receive updates on the progress of the complaint, they wouldn't necessarily be a complainant any longer. Therefore, the right that exists here would not accrue to that individual.

M. Farnworth: But there would potentially or possibly be circumstances where they would have that right, even though in the general sense they wouldn't. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: If they remained a complainant. That would be the key.

Section 10,

section 113 approved.

section 10,

section 114.

M. Farnworth: This

section is basically the opposite of the preceding

section in the sense that in this particular case it's the member who is being investigated who has got a copy of the report and then is saying: "Okay, I think there are issues here that haven't been addressed properly or need to be addressed." So if the minister could clarify how this

section is intended to work — in the same way that the last one is, is my understanding.

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. This is new. It does flow from the recommendations of Mr. Justice Wood. It is built, I think, around the principle of fairness, because for the member involved, the disposition of these matters can have huge ramifications — career ramifications, in many cases.

The objective — as the member of this House fairly pointed out — is to ensure that a member who is the subject of a complaint would have an opportunity to examine the record and, if he or she felt necessary, say: "Hold on. Before this is ultimately dealt with, my view is that there is an incomplete record or that the examination didn't properly consider or look at evidence that I am aware of and want to make sure is before the investigating officer."

It is an attempt flowing from the recommendations of Mr. Justice Wood to recognize the serious ramifications that can follow and that a member have an opportunity to make input to ensure that the investigation is as complete as possible.

Section 10,

section 114 approved.

section 10,

section 115.

M. Farnworth: Again, this

section follows on from that in the sense that if that is taken…. The minister is right. One of the key things about this particular piece of legislation is that it needs to be deemed fair from the point of view of the complainant but also fair from the individual who is being investigated. One of the key issues in the Joe Wood report was that that, in fact, take place.

If the member who's being investigated gets the report and says, "Okay, there are issues here," then the next step is how that's dealt with. So if the minister can just indicate how this

section is intended to work, particularly in terms of….

If a member introduces or gets a report and says, "I don't think this is complete. I don't think this particular issue has been considered" or "I think this piece of evidence has been ignored or not looked at," and the member puts that forward, then I would presume that the complainant then has the opportunity and the investigator also has the opportunity to investigate thoroughly those new facts or the issues that have been raised.

If that's not correct, please tell me.

[1500]

Hon. M. de Jong: That is the intention, with this added caveat. It is not intended to represent a mechanism by which investigations go on forever. That is why there is the 15-day period within which that additional examination and investigation must be completed.

Section 10, sections 115 and 116 approved.

section 10,

section 117.

M. Farnworth: "Appointment of new discipline authority if conclusion of no misconduct is incorrect." So the discipline authority says that no misconduct occurred.

[ Page 1627 ]

Subsequent investigation reveals, in fact, that that is not the case.

What this

section is saying is: "Okay, there will be a new disciplining authority in place that will deal with the facts in the final report." That is to ensure two things: fairness and that everything is aboveboard in regard to the complaint itself, but also that the disciplining authority is not biased in any way and is making a decision based on the actual facts of the final report before it as opposed to the issue around the disciplining authority that was incorrect in its no-misconduct assumption in the first place.

Is my understanding of that the right one?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's an important section, not just with respect to extended examinations. It can go to the heart of the decision about whether or not there has been misconduct.

In his report Mr. Justice Wood spoke of his preference that the Police Complaint Commissioner have an ability to look at the record, look at the report and take action if he or she profoundly disagreed with the finding.

I should say this to the member and the House. My recollection is that his report suggested that the Police Complaint Commissioner be able to substitute his or her decision for that of the investigating officer. The act does not quite chronicle that, because the notion is that the complaint commissioner, as the overseer of the process — an independent officer — not simply step in and substitute his or her view.

What the

section is designed to do is provide the complaint commissioner with the ability to appoint, as I recall, a retired judge. It specifies the nature of the individual. I'm trying to find the subsection — subsection (4) of 114 — where the Police Complaint Commissioner would say: "Look, I've got some problems here, and I am going to appoint a retired judge to conduct an examination of this within a further ten business days."

In those circumstances it is the retired judge who, in effect, becomes the new discipline authority. It's a slight variation on what Mr. Justice Wood recommended, but it is for that reason that it has been crafted in this way.

[1505]

M. Farnworth: In essence then, if the finding comes out and there's an issue, a problem here, or there's a feeling that there was a problem with the disciplining body in the final report…. If the commissioner takes issue with that, rather than….

In the initial report, the Joe Wood report, the Police Complaint Commissioner would be the individual who could step in. He has the authority then, under this act, to say: "Okay, I've got a problem with this. I think there's an issue here that has not been addressed." Then it is a judicial individual who will sit and adjudicate, and it will not be anybody other than a judicial individual. Okay.

Who will make that appointment? Who will decide who the judge is?

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: The clarification to the thing…. It says: "…consult with retired judges of…the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, and (

b) recommend one or more retired judges…." When I read that, it's like, okay, you're going to get the judge recommending one or two or three.

Is the commissioner the one who will choose which of those judges, or does the commissioner have to consult with anybody else, such as the ministry, to determine which judge is going to be chosen?

Hon. M. de Jong: Pursuant to these provisions, the discussion takes place exclusively between the Police Complaint Commissioner and the associate chief justice.

Section 10, sections 117 and 118 approved.

section 10,

section 119.

M. Farnworth:

Section 119 is also an important section. "Member or former member may request permission to question witnesses at discipline proceeding."

If the minister could outline the intent of this section. Is this an opportunity for the complainant to question…? Is it the issue around the discipline itself or the review of evidence provided by the complainant, for example? Exactly how is this intended to work and function?

Hon. M. de Jong: Inadvertently, perhaps, I think the member referred to "the complainant." This provision refers specifically to the ability of the member who is the subject of the complaint to engage in certain activities.

M. Farnworth: I guess I'm talking in the context of witnesses. If someone is a witness at the discipline proceeding, that means only those people involved in the discipline itself — not those who have been a witness in the investigation itself. That's what I'm trying to establish here.

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, it's an important

section because it relates to the procedural fairness of the proceedings, and these are newly specified and enumerated.

The member who is the subject of the complaint, by virtue of

section 119, is provided with the ability to conduct cross-examinations. There are, I am advised, certain expectations around how that would take place, especially when it relates to the complainant themselves — for example, not at the police station. There are means by which the procedural fairness for the complainant

[ Page 1628 ]

is also protected. This

section refers to the rights of the member.

Whilst the complainant achieves, by virtue of this act, important participatory rights, I don't want to leave an incomplete answer. I am advised that those rights do not include the ability to cross-examine witnesses. In fact, an officer will be appointed to ensure that those activities…. It won't be left to the complainant to run the proceedings from the point of view of the complaint itself.

While the member has the ability to cross-examine and call and examine witnesses, the participatory rights of the complainant are slightly different than they are for the member who is the subject of the complaint.

M. Farnworth: I think it's important, so that we fully understand how this is going to work. The issue of natural justice and fairness — I think that's understood.

The question then becomes if I as the member who is the subject of the disciplinary action…. I've got the report, I see this, and I'm not happy, or I think there are some issues that have not been addressed or need to be addressed. I have the ability to question people who were deemed to be witnesses or provided evidence against me, as the member. That may be another police officer, it may be the person who's done the investigation, or it may be the complainant themselves. Is that correct?

[1515]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the way, in practice, that these sections operate is that — following through on the member's example — the member who is the subject of the complaint shall have the right to cross-examine anyone who is bringing evidence against that member in the proceedings. That would include the complainant.

A complaint that moves forward and is relying upon information or evidence being presented by the complainant…. A necessary part of that will be that the complainant in those circumstances will be subject to cross-examination, under a certain set of conditions, by the member whose conduct is being complained of.

M. Farnworth: Then how would that work with regards to situations where, again, you had a series of complaints condensed into one or by third-party information that the commissioner deems to have merit of investigation, but where the information is provided anonymously? How is that situation dealt with in regard to this?

Hon. M. de Jong: The procedural protection that is created here is designed with respect to evidence that is called. So the member is correct. There could be any number of original complainants and then consolidations, but the procedural protection is that the member who is the subject of the complaint shall have the right to cross-examine the source of evidence that is being heard in those proceedings.

M. Farnworth: In essence, if it is third-party information that's provided anonymously and the Police Complaint Commissioner deems that to be a valid reason to do the investigation, would the member then be able to cross-examine the Police Complaint Commissioner as the individual who received the information? Is that how that would work? Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's, I think, the important distinction. An original complaint is not evidence. It is, as I am reminded, what appears in the investigation report that goes to a disciplinary proceeding. That lies at the heart of the matter. So in that sense, it becomes less relevant with respect to the original complaint. That is not evidence per se. It may evolve to that as part of the investigative report.

Section 10,

section 119 approved.

section 10,

section 120.

M. Farnworth: The pre-hearing conference is the initial stage in terms of how it takes place. It sets out the guidelines and the methodology and the steps and the procedures to be followed. Can the minister explain how much of this is new, as compared to existing? Are there any significant changes compared to the current practice of pre-hearing conferences?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll answer that question right after I alert the member to a very technical amendment that exists. I'll send over the amendment that I'm presenting.

[SECTION 10, in the proposed

section 120 (4), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(4) Despite subsection (3) (b) (ii) (i) , the discipline authority may offer a prehearing conference to a member or former member if, in the police complaint commissioner’s opinion, it would not be contrary to the public interest.]

[1520]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: It relates to

section 120(4). As the member can now see, there is an incorrect reference to 3(b)(ii). That reference should be 3(b)(i).

I wonder if we can deal with that amendment first.

M. Farnworth: The amendment is an appropriate one for that section.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 1629 ]

section 10,

section 120 as amended.

M. Farnworth: I just want to ask the minister: in terms of the

section on the pre-hearing conference, what are the key objectives in terms of that? What does the

section anticipate being able to accomplish?

Hon. M. de Jong: The notion of a pre-hearing conference, I'm reminded, is not entirely new, but there are some new elements being introduced here.

Broadly speaking, the idea is that, except in very serious cases, there would be an opportunity to consider — outside of the discipline proceeding — what the appropriate sanction might be. But as the member will see from the lengthy provisions of the section, there are some procedural protections for the complainant as well. First and foremost, there must be a statement from the complainant, and there must be an awareness on the part of the complainant about the proceeding.

Mr. Justice Wood also made clear his thoughts that a pre-hearing conference and a discipline proceeding should not be presided over by the same individual. So there is an attempt to provide an outlet through which a matter can be resolved — except, I should say, in the most serious types of cases — but at the same time to ensure that that does not become a shortcut for discounting the views of the complainant who initiated the process in the first place.

M. Farnworth: What I hear the minister saying is that under this

section on the pre-hearing conference, you have the…. It is designed so that the issues around witnesses by the member are addressed. The procedures and protections are in place for the complainant and in terms of how that's going to take place and how those issues are dealt with at that particular point.

[1525]

It's also a point in the complaint process, in essence, where an issue can be resolved at that particular point as opposed to moving further down the path. In essence, you would have gone through the possibility of mediation prior to this to see if that resolves the complaint. The complaint continues along down this particular path.

Excepting the very serious complaints — let's just for the sake of argument say either physical abuse, assault or what have you — at this particular point, at the pre-hearing, you can still use that as an opportunity to resolve the complaint before it goes further down the track. Would that be the right assessment of the way in which this

section is going to work?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think probably my explanation varies slightly from what the member has suggested. I don't want to leave the impression that this is some manner of mediation that is available at every step along the way. In fact, what triggers this, primarily, is a finding by the DA or the investigating officer that there is sufficient evidence to warrant going to a full disciplinary hearing. I think that's probably an important step along the way.

At that point the discipline authority has the option of saying to the member involved that there is an opportunity to have a pre-hearing conference to consider things like an admission of misconduct or an alternate means of resolving the matter. It's an option. It won't happen in the most serious cases, and it doesn't need to happen in every case.

My understanding is that it's not an entitlement on the part of the member, but there is that important step where the discipline authority has said: "I think there's enough evidence here to go to a discipline hearing. Are you interested in pursuing another path to try and resolve this?"

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that explanation. Assuming that takes place — and assume for a moment that there is a resolution at this particular point — how is that dealt with in terms of being communicated to the public if in fact it is communicated to the public? In terms of the complaint process, a lot of times at the end of the outcome there is an issue publicly or an acknowledgment of some sort, either written or oral.

In a process that anticipates or may anticipate it going to the full length, and at this particular point there is an admission, how is that communicated out to the public? Or is it?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: Two points. First, before it becomes final and binding, the nature of the disposition we've been discussing as part of a one-session pre-hearing conference would need to be approved by the Police Complaint Commissioner. That's one component.

Secondly, that settlement arrived at during a pre-hearing conference must be communicated to the complainant; obviously, the Police Complaint Commissioner; and the member involved.

M. Farnworth: The follow-up question to that would be…. I understand all those individuals. How about the public? How are they notified, or are they not?

Then a second question would be…. Under section (16), the resolution is "final and conclusive and not open to question or review by a court on any ground." Is there any concern by the ministry around issues such as a legal challenge or a court challenge to that? Because that is a pretty definitive statement.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've been alerted to a

section we haven't come to yet, which is 177(d), which imposes a posi-

[ Page 1630 ]

tive obligation on the Police Complaint Commissioner to establish and maintain a record of each complaint, investigation and disposition.

But I also want to say this, in fairness to the member. It's not contemplated that the disposition of each and every complaint will give rise to a press release that alerts the world. Some of these may turn out to be more serious. Some of them may turn out to be far more minor. There is an obligation to maintain a record of disposition, but I don't want to suggest that every single decision or settlement is going to give rise to a widely circulated public statement.

M. Farnworth: I understand the minister's explanation. I guess the key is that there is a public record. The interest in the minor ones, I think, is not likely to be there. However, for others, I think that's a different story, and I just want to make sure that that ability is there — that there is the ability for the public to see exactly how something was disposed of and the consequences thereof.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that assurance, in part, is contained at

section 177(

f) where, again, the positive obligation to maintain the records and reports respecting all of these matters and the statement "and make those reports available to the public" is contained. So there does seem to be positive statutory assurance that the public will have access to the decisions that are being made.

Section 10,

section 120 as amended approved.

section 10,

section 121.

[1535]

M. Farnworth: This

section deals with if the member's or the former member's request to question witnesses is accepted. As the minister said, we dealt in earlier sections with the ability to ask questions of former witnesses, and this particular

section deals with issues around legal representation. I just want the minister to clarify this

section in how it's intended to function and how it will apply to both the member and the complainant.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the long and the short of it is that this

section — and the member correctly references some of the early sections…. Once that decision has been made and the prerequisites have been met around allowing for the cross-examination processes to begin, this sets out the basis for which legal counsel will be appointed to assist in the proceedings.

I think the upshot is that you end up at that stage with a far more formalized process than may often be the case. In many cases that will be entirely appropriate, given the gravity of the situation or the allegations involved, but what we see here is the evolution along the continuum of formality, where legal counsel will be appointed to assist the discipline authority with the conduct of the proceedings.

Section 10,

section 121 approved.

section 10,

section 122.

M. Farnworth: This

section deals with fees and expenses, and it's related to the fees and reasonable expenses of a witness required to appear or appearing and also the issue around fees and expenses related to the member — if the member may also be liable for part of or all of those costs. So what circumstances would trigger that?

[1540]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is that if it became apparent at the conclusion of the proceedings that the member was calling witnesses that added virtually nothing to the proceedings, then this would provide the authority with the option of apportioning those costs. It is admittedly designed to at least make people think a little bit about creating the parade to the post of witnesses.

M. Farnworth: I thought that that might be one of the parts of that section.

The other question that flows from that, then: is it also intended to be part of the disciplinary process as, for example, in a trial awarding costs? Is that the concept behind this as well — that particular section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I may not have understood entirely, but there are no costs per se or hearing fees or anything of that nature. The only cost that I'm aware of would relate to the witness fees.

M. Farnworth: In the context of a regular court case, at the end, the judge may award costs. The question was in the context of…. Is this also seen in that same light? You've been calling all these witnesses. The fact is that you've been found to have committed an offence. You've called all these witnesses, and as a result of that…. By the way, you have a disciplinary penalty, but you're also going to pay for the fees of the witnesses.

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand better now. It's not designed to be punitive in that sense. It is conceivable, for example, that the member may have called a number of witnesses whose evidence was relevant but not persuasive in determining the final outcome. In that case, it's not contemplated that the member would be saddled with the costs of calling those witnesses.

[ Page 1631 ]

Section 10, sections 122 to 125 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 126.

M. Farnworth: At the conclusion of the hearing is the imposition of disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to members. There are a number of factors that are taken into account. In

section 2: "Aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be considered in determining just and appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the misconduct of a member of a municipal police department, including, without limitation…." And it lists that.

This list of aggravating circumstances — are they only the ones here that are prescribed, or can other factors also be taken into account?

Hon. M. de Jong: The listing contained in 126(1) in terms of sanction, if you will, is taken and adapted from the current code-of-professional-conduct regulation. So it's there.

[1545]

I think I heard two concepts being mixed. Is the member's question: can there be sanctions that extend beyond what is described here? Because down below, in subsection (2)(h), there is clearly an ability to consider "other aggravating or mitigating factors" in determining what the appropriate sanction is.

Is the member's question whether or not, in imposing sanction, the discipline authority is restricted to those options listed in sub (1) of the section?

M. Farnworth: To the latter question I would say yes, that is one of the questions.

The other question is in terms of aggravating circumstances. I just want to make sure that that either is dealing with the existing code of conduct, which a member is to abide by — so the violation of that…. I'm thinking of issues such as racism, homophobia, sexism. That's what I'm thinking of in terms of aggravating circumstances.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: there are no limitations on the factors that can be taken into account. I think the member has listed two or three that would be relevant to the determination of a just and appropriate disciplinary action.

Section 10,

section 126 approved.

section 10,

section 127.

M. Farnworth: This

section deals with disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to former members. Given, in many cases…. For example, an individual leaves the force. Many of the penalties or the disciplinary action would relate to if you stayed with the force — either a reduction in rank, loss of pay, reassignment. All those things are not applicable in this particular set of circumstances.

How does the ministry see this particular

section working, and what type of penalties would be able to apply under this particular section?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct in the case of a former member. The conventional employment-related actions are of far more limited utility. In fact, the act recognizes that and the

section recognizes that by saying that the discipline must approach this as if the member were still employed.

Practically speaking, the sanction, therefore, and the impact of that relate to its presence on a service record when the member seeks employment elsewhere. There is a record of the proceeding that can be cross-referenced by a future employer.

[1550]

M. Farnworth: So in essence, then, what would happen is that it would not just be the case of: "Okay, an individual has left the force." If that were to happen under conditions today…. If you were at a new employer…. It would be that I left the employment of X organization, and the prospective employer now phones up. They may or may not get the full story about exactly why the individual left the force or why the individual left the department.

Instead, what's anticipated, then, under this

section is that the disciplinary hearing and the outcome of that hearing would in fact be accessible to that employer. It would be on the record. If they asked, for example, if that individual had left, it would not be discretionary in terms of saying whether or not they left because of this hearing. It would be there, and the prospective employer would have the ability to see the whole issue that had taken place. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: An important question. I'm reminded that these provisions, combined with some subsequent provisions, ensure that other policing organizations have guarantees of access to this information. The consent of the member to access the service record — or the former member, in the example we're talking about — is not required.

That does not extend to employers outside of the policing community. So the guaranteed access exists for a situation where the former member of police force A decides to leave and take up an offer of employment with police force B. Police force B would have a guaranteed right, a statutory right, to access the service record without the consent. And yes, the member is correct. The idea is that the record of the discipline hearing and its disposition would exist on the record, and the subsequent policing employer would have knowledge of that.

[ Page 1632 ]

As I look through the range of available sanctions, for example, the notion of reducing a member's rank would be, I think, relevant to a member who sought employment elsewhere and might want to present themselves as holding a particular rank when in fact that had been altered.

So there is that access to information for policing organizations, but I don't want to suggest that it extends automatically beyond that.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his explanation. It does raise, I think, one question. I understand the issue, I think, in relation to the other police forces. How would that apply to, for example, other government enforcement agencies outside the police? I'm thinking within the province — for example, sheriffs at the federal level — but I also think, importantly, of security-related private sector firms where the misconduct may be a key component of whether or not to hire an individual.

I'm wondering: has thought been given to that particular issue, and is it addressed in legislation?

[1555]

Hon. M. de Jong: The best way I can answer the member's question is to look ahead to

section 180(4), where reference with respect to service records is made, specifically to law enforcement agencies, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and police forces.

I can't tell the member off the top of my head whether law enforcement agency…. Whilst it would certainly capture some of the border control agencies, sheriff divisions, I rather suspect it does not extend into the private sector. I would have to check. My guess is that it does not.

M. Farnworth: That may be one of those issues that we address at a later date. But certainly, I do think that in the immediate term a clarification around those other services — such as border services, for example — would be helpful.

Section 10, sections 127 to 129 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 130.

M. Farnworth: This

section deals with if a member fails to attend a discipline proceeding. My

interpretation of this

section is that if an individual fails to attend a disciplinary hearing without a legitimate reason, that is, in essence, almost an admission of guilt and weighs heavily on the proceedings in terms of the fact that the member has failed to appear. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'd probably stop short of characterizing it as an absolute admission of guilt, but it does provide for a trial

in absentia and the ability to draw an adverse interest, which undoubtedly would accrue in a very negative way if there was not a legitimate explanation for that absence.

M. Farnworth: It is in the scope of this legislation that a member can and will be compelled to attend the hearing — is it not?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to be clear on this, and I am advised that within the ambit of the entire act, whilst witnesses are compellable, a member whose conduct is the subject of the complaint is not compellable to give evidence at the proceedings, though as the member has pointed out, adverse inferences can be drawn from that member's refusal to participate or attend.

M. Farnworth: The minister's answer is pretty clear, but in essence, the member is not compelled to testify against themselves as a witness. So that ability to compel someone, because they are going to be a witness, isn't there. Okay.

Section 10, sections 130 and 131 approved.

section 10,

section 132.

M. Farnworth: This deals with the adjournment of discipline proceedings for further investigation. This

section deals with the ability to adjourn the hearing if something comes up that is determined would have an impact on the investigation or on the disciplinary hearing or on an aspect of the case.

It can come to light, and if it's deemed that this needs further investigation, then that can take place. There is the issue around timing. That is that it's not intended to use this as a way to drag something out, but that there are specific timelines in place and that only under specific circumstances could those timelines be extended. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer to the member's question or his submission is yes. I think he's correct. The test in this section, to diverge from the general requirement, is that the determination be made that it is necessary in the public interest. Then the subsequent 15-day test applies to avoid a circumstance where what is designed to be a specific timeline extends indefinitely into the future.

Section 10, sections 132 and 133 approved.

section 10,

section 134.

M. Farnworth: Just a brief question. Under what circumstances is the delegation of disciplinary authority

[ Page 1633 ]

functions to the deputy chief constable or the senior officer anticipated?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are a couple of factors at play here. One is a very practical one. Whilst one hopes that there isn't going to be an avalanche of complaints, obviously it is equally true that chief constables have a myriad of responsibilities. We don't want them completely consumed by working through this process.

I'm further advised that in a number of instances, the police forces involved tend now to have personnel with specialized legal training around some of the notions of procedural fairness and how to conduct these things.

[1605]

The third rationale I can think of is if a situation occurred where a chief constable had any kind of close or family-based relationship with a member who was the subject of a complaint.

M. Farnworth: I think the minister has pointed out clearly some of the obvious ones. I guess the concern I have is wanting to make sure that the individual who is engaged in that and who gets that authority is in fact fully familiar with the entire case that has taken place and that, for that delegation of the authority that goes with it, the understanding is that this is not a delegation or a subjugation or lessening of responsibility but is in fact a very serious duty that the individual will be performing.

If the issue that the minister raises is that it's intended that these individuals have legal training — for example, specific legal training in this particular area — then I think I would be satisfied with that answer.

Hon. M. de Jong: Valid point. I would add to that the following. Where a delegation takes place, it in no way abrogates that officer's responsibility to adhere to all of the provisions of the act. The second, probably best, assurance one can offer the member in response to the question is to point out that the delegation is subject to the oversight of the Police Complaint Commissioner. If there was anything deemed inappropriate, the commissioner has the jurisdiction to step in.

Section 10,

section 134 approved.

section 10,

section 135.

M. Farnworth: This is the power to designate another discipline authority in the public interest. I just want to ask the minister: what's anticipated in terms of what the test is around public interest? How is that being looked at in terms of taking place?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure I actually have a convincing answer on this one, lest I assume I've had convincing answers on any of these sections. There is obviously a situation in which there may be a perceived conflict, and the commissioner has the opportunity to step in and address that.

I think part of the construct here is to say to the Police Complaint Commissioner: "You are the independent officer of this Legislature who has the oversight and responsibility for determining at what stage of the game it becomes necessary to appoint someone other than the person generally assigned those responsibilities. You as Police Complaint Commissioner are going to determine when a matter is of such a nature, whether…."

These, I guess, would generally be high-profile cases, but sometimes they're not high-profile. Maybe they just involve people who are related in a certain way that it may give rise to a concern around a perception of a conflict.

[1610]

I'm not sure I can lay out for the hon. member an ironclad test, except to say that when we in this chamber select the Police Complaint Commissioner, that's probably one of the questions we may want to put to him or her around how they, in advance, see that public interest being served by virtue of this section.

M. Farnworth: I think that is a good point. It's one that I think we need to reflect on. I don't necessarily think there is a test in terms of what is of public interest. I think the key is the individual who makes that decision, which is the Public Complaint Commissioner.

I think the easy way sometimes is in the high-profile cases, where there is considerable public attention, and that concern about how some thinking is being done, is being considered or decided on is part of the public discourse, the public discussion and the public debate. We hope the individual we've hired to do the job takes that into account.

Sometimes it is those smaller cases where it is equally as important, because those smaller cases sometimes can be the real problem or, in some cases, precedent-setting.

I guess this is one of those issues where, if there's not a ready answer, I do think it's important that we at least acknowledge and recognize that in terms of this particular piece of legislation, it is an important role that we are giving to the complaints commissioner.

It is an important question that I think, in terms of how we hire, we in this chamber at least acknowledge is an important power that we are giving them.

Section 10,

section 135 approved.

section 10,

section 136.

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm in this

section that even though the issue around the time limit for requesting public hearing or review on the record….

[ Page 1634 ]

I am assuming that this is, in essence, in relation to a request to make a review of the decision — that even outside the fact that that has to be done within 20 days, if the commissioner deems there is a valid reason, then that time period can in fact be extended.

Am I reading that right?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understood the question and observation correctly, that is true. The rule is 20 days subject to the ability to obtain an extension for the reasons laid out in subsection 2(

a) or (b).

Section 10, sections 136 to 138 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 139.

M. Farnworth: This is one of those issues: "Reconsideration on new evidence." I'd just like to ask the minister to explain how this is intended to work. Is there a time limit in the sense of if something comes to light a year or two later, it can still be dealt with?

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: The decision operates in concert, as the member knows, with 138, where initially the decision has been made not to proceed with a public hearing. Evidence comes to light, and the commissioner — either of his or her own volition or on application — has the ability, pursuant to 139, to reconsider that on the basis of new evidence.

There's no time restriction associated with that, though presumably it would be timely to do it before proceedings got underway. But there's no restriction per se on when that reconsideration can occur.

Section 10, sections 139 and 140 approved.

section 10,

section 141.

M. Farnworth: I'd just like the minister to explain to the House this

section dealing with a review on the record and how it would be implemented.

Hon. M. de Jong: A fairly lengthy provision creating the means by which an adjudicator can be appointed to conduct a review on the record. In allowing for that to happen and contemplating the possibility that that will happen, it sets out that the record to be reviewed includes, obviously, the final investigation report but also all supplementary reports and all records relating to the investigation and the discipline proceeding.

What I think is also important to recognize is that under subsection (4), an adjudicator may also in exceptional circumstances or special circumstances decide to accept further evidence. It also speaks, the

section in its entirety, to who is entitled to make submissions, and it establishes that the standard of review to be applied is correctness. So lengthy provisions that speak to how, when, where and what gives rise to the appointment of an adjudicator.

M. Farnworth: This is, in essence, an appeal process of the decision that's been made if someone feels that it's not fair. You can have a review of the record, and in essence, it's similar to an appeal process.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member's point, that's essentially correct and three possible triggering mechanisms. First and foremost, the commissioner can undertake the process on his or her own initiative or upon the request of either the complainant or the member whose conduct has been investigated.

Section 10,

section 141 approved.

section 10,

section 142.

M. Farnworth: This

section 142 around the appointment of an adjudicator for the public hearing or review on the record is similar to what we talked about in an earlier

section whereby it is a retired judge. In consultation with the chief justice, it's the same process, and you would arrive at a judge the same way as we've dealt with in the previous sections.

[1620]

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct, hon. Chair.

Section 10,

section 142 approved.

section 10,

section 143.

M. Farnworth:

Section 143 deals with a "Public hearing" and is different from the "Review on the record." Can the minister explain under what circumstances the public hearing is likely to take place, as opposed to a review on the record? Or is this, in essence, a final step after a review on the record?

Hon. M. de Jong: The reason I took a moment there is that I wanted to make sure I wasn't leaving the impression that the public hearing contemplated here represented the end of some appeal process. In fact, the public hearing can occur at any time in these proceedings. The discretionary authority exists with the Police Complaint Commissioner, and the test is set out in 143(1)(

b) where the commissioner comes to the view that it is necessary to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct.

So there is discretion, but this is not restricted to the final stage in a proceeding. It can actually happen in extraordinary circumstances much earlier on.

[ Page 1635 ]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that explanation. I wanted to get that clarification on the record because just the way…. When you go through legislation

section after section, it can give the impression that this is in fact a step that takes place after that.

In essence then, the trigger point, as the minister stated is…. Clearly, it is a public interest component that I think is one of the key things that trigger — relating to, I think, high-profile cases where clearly there is a considerable amount of media attention, public attention.

I suspect the one that springs to mind — even though it's not covered by this particular legislation, for example — would be the Dziekanski case and the events that subsequently led up to the point where there was a hearing. There was considerable public interest, and there was considerable public concern over what had taken place. It's that type of event, and I'm not going to use…. But it is that type of event that could in fact trigger this particular provision of the bill around the public interest, if I'm correct in that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to leave it to the Police Complaint Commissioner to ascertain the appropriate test. The member has some thoughts, and legitimate thoughts, on when that threshold may have been met. I'm not sure I should be speculating with respect to existing proceedings or things that have happened in the recent past.

But the Police Complaint Commissioner obviously will be obliged to make some of those decisions based on the test that we set out for her or him in this legislation.

[1625]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer, and I understand. It is up to the commissioner. But in terms of just sort of public understanding of how the processes work, it's important that we try and have at least some comment around the types of circumstances — and, I understand, without necessarily referring to a specific.

Clearly, I think public concern and media interest are going to be those types of issues that figure strongly in something like this, and the Police Complaint Commissioner will in fact make that determination.

Section 10, sections 143 to 148 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 149.

M. Farnworth: I just want to pause here on this particular

section in relation to public hearings, because in terms of how a public hearing is operated, there's a pretty standard approach in terms of how people come, how they either present or give evidence or participate in a public hearing. From what I'm seeing in this legislation, there's nothing untoward in that.

Around the issue of "to enforce summons and punish for contempt." This is a judicial public hearing with an adjudicator, and the adjudicator has all the powers to compel someone to appear and testify — subject, of course, to all the rights and protections that we as individuals enjoy in basic common law. But this is a very strong power that the adjudicator has, and I just want to make sure that is on the record in terms of how a public hearing is conducted.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the term generally applied in circumstances like this is "quasi-judicial," but the effect is the same. It is a significant power vested in the adjudicator to compel people to participate and appear, and there is the possibility of significant sanction for anyone who chooses to ignore that.

Section 10,

section 149 approved.

section 10,

section 150.

M. Farnworth: Prohibiting or limiting attendance or access. The questions I have around "to prohibit or limit attendance or access…." Is that in terms of public access and media access?

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: The language, I'm advised, derives from provisions of the Public Inquiry Act and, in general terms, makes clear that the adjudicator…. To the point the member raised earlier, this is a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, so there are fairly broad powers vested in the adjudicator to manage those proceedings. There may be an evidentiary component to that, where there may be concerns around contamination of evidence. It's hard to think of specific examples.

There are also, perhaps, obligations under, as listed here, the FOI legislation. There may also be — the member may have heard me say — a crowd control aspect to this.

The upshot is that the adjudicator is being provided with fairly significant and broad powers to manage the public hearing that is contemplated here.

M. Farnworth: I guess the question, then, is that…. I want to ensure…. Is it a public hearing? Is there public access?

I understand the issues around crowd control and the evidentiary issues that the minister raised and the contamination of evidence. Then there is also the ability for the media to still attend, in much the same way that they currently are able to attend a trial, but the adjudicator would have the ability to put, for example, a publication ban on some or part of the proceedings.

Would that be one of the ways in which they would be able to deal with some of those issues the minister raised but still have public access?

[ Page 1636 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: The

section does — theoretically, at least — provide broad discretion to the adjudicator to determine who is in the room at a public hearing and by implication, therefore, who is in a position to report on proceedings.

[1635]

I hope the member will excuse my taking advantage of his question, though, to provide this short editorial comment. I think there is an obligation on all of us connected with the administration of justice to facilitate the entry of the media into those venues where justice is being dispensed.

We lament the fact that public confidence in the justice system declines, and yet we make it very, very difficult for the public — in an age when electronic transfers of information and the means by which we do that are expanding — to access what is taking place in the very institutions that are charged with dispensing justice. So if I have a bias….

Sorry, now I'm delving off the page. But I think it is fundamentally important that unless there is a compelling reason relating to the contamination of evidence or the protection of an individual or young person or whatever it is, that we facilitate that flow, and the media tend to be the conduit by which we do that.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate those comments. After all, we are members in this House. We are politicians, and if we didn't editorialize on issues like this, we wouldn't be doing our job. I think it is important, and that's one of the reasons the question's been asked. It's because, I think, there is an expectation, particularly when you're at the public hearing stage, that it is just that: as much as possible that it is public and that we have the ability, unless under exceptional circumstances, to know exactly what's going on.

So I thank the minister for his comments, because that's my

interpretation of the section. And that's the way that I hope the

section is administered — in that way and in that spirit of openness and public accountability.

Section 10, sections 150 to 155 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 156.

M. Farnworth: I'm dealing with division 4 of this section. This series of sections deals with resolution of complaints by mediation or other informal means. My sense from these particular sections is that if it is possible, it's desirable that complaints can be resolved by mediation or other informal means without having to go through what, over the long haul, can end up in very much a quasi-judicial, or almost judicial, set of proceedings which are extremely formal, and that, wherever possible, it's desirable to accomplish things through mediation or other informal means.

I'd just like the minister to confirm that and to outline some of the newer sections on this particular division.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the general assertion is correct, with the exception of those complaints concerning situations that resulted in death or serious harm, for which this option doesn't exist. I think there is a general preference to explore mediated resolution of complaints wherever possible.

You tend to find, when there is a mediation, at least the possibility that the parties will both leave feeling a sense of satisfaction. That is not always the case when there is an adjudicated resolution and one party feels they've won and another party feels they've lost. So on balance, where that is possible, there is a desire to promote that manner of disposition.

The member's second question related to which provisions are newer or new, and I'll endeavour to get that information now.

[1640]

Probably the most significant factor here is the fact that the act includes reference to and specifically calls for the creation of guidelines around mediation. That, in and of itself, is new. I'm also reminded — and I didn't mention this earlier — that there needs to be agreement between the Police Complaint Commissioner and the DA before this option can be taken advantage of, so it's not a unilateral decision by the DA.

M. Farnworth: There's no sort of compelling either the complainant or the member to participate in a mediation process, or is there?

Hon. M. de Jong: The best example I could think of, off the top of my head, was a settlement conference in a small claims proceedings, where the presumption is — where it's deemed appropriate — that the parties are actually required to participate, but there is, for example, a means by which the complainant can make submissions.

Maybe there's a situation where the complainant genuinely feels intimidated and says: "Look, I really don't want to be involved." It will be for the folks involved in the adjudication of this to make a determination around that.

I think the way this is designed to operate is to recognize that there is value in a number of these complaints, to see if they can be resolved by way of mediation and to say to the parties: "Look, you're coming, unless you can provide a very, very good reason for why you should not participate." In the most serious of complaints involving death or serious harm, there is no question there. That's not a mediated area.

M. Farnworth: It raises the question, given some of the other sections that we've dealt with around compellability, particularly around the issue of the member who is involved, who is being investigated.

[ Page 1637 ]

Does a failure to attend or to participate in a mediation hearing…? Is that something that is carried over and viewed negatively in the rest of the process? You're going to a more formal set of hearings where the member, for example, may decide that yes, in fact, they are going to go to that because they feel, for whatever reason, that that is how they want to have their day in court take place.

[1645]

Hon. M. de Jong: We've discussed the means by which this mediation effort can be initiated and approved by the Police Complaint Commissioner. You've then got to go down to subsection (2)(

b) which requires, in that case, the discipline authority to "order the member or former member to attend" in the manner prescribed there. Subsection (3) requires the member concerned to comply with that order. That's sort of the progression, once the decision has been made.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, 158. I think that's the

section we're on — 158. Those are the relevant provisions as to how this is designed to.…

The Chair: Minister. We're on

section 156 still, Minister.

M. Farnworth: Just in terms of clarification. Given the nature of this

section and the overall concept of the issue, I would appreciate, Chair, that we be able to talk about the different sections in the context of the overall issue. That will actually speed up the passage of the individual sections, if people are fine with that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I certainly am — having caused the confusion in the first place. I've referenced ahead to 158(2) and (2)(b). Once that decision has been made, the discipline authority must order the member to participate.

M. Farnworth: It's interesting that we are able to compel to participate in a mediation, but we are not able to compel in the more formal process in the context, for example, of giving evidence which relates to the version of events, as to what happened. Yet, that is anticipated in the mediation process. I find that just slightly incongruent.

Hon. M. de Jong: I suppose one explanation for that is the fact that, at the heart of a mediation lies the assumption that it is taking place on a without-prejudice basis, if you will,

whereas in the other proceeding — I think the member used the phrase — you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. That might be the appropriate distinction.

Section 10, sections 156 to 167 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 168.

M. Farnworth: With 168 we've actually moved out, in terms of complaints, when we enter this particular division: "Division 5 — Process Respecting Department Service and Policy Complaints."

In essence, we've moved out of the complaint process in regard to an individual member and into what we talked about in the opening comments around this particular piece of legislation — that is, complaints regarding police service and, I guess, just as importantly, policy complaints. I just want the minister to sort of confirm and to clarify the difference between the two, on the record.

[1650]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I think the member, broadly speaking, highlighted the important distinction. We have, to this point in the discussion, been focused in on conduct by individual members that gives rise to a complaint.

These provisions, which closely mirror what exists presently, relate to…. Well, you can see in 168(1)(

b) questions around staffing and resource allocation, training programs, internal procedures. They're sort of enumerated in the

section there. But they are systemic and policy-related as opposed to tied to the individual performance or conduct of an individual member.

Section 10, sections 168 to 173 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 174.

M. Farnworth: Internal discipline matters — the definition of "internal discipline matters." Can the minister just outline how this differentiates from the issues that we have dealt with in the bulk of this legislation to this particular point in time — the difference between the complaint process against a member of a police force as opposed to internal disciplining matters?

Hon. M. de Jong: The most accurate way for me to highlight the distinction here is by pointing out that "internal discipline authority" is a defined term under the act and "means a matter concerning the conduct or deportment of a member that" either "(

a) is not the subject of an admissible complaint or an investigation under Division 3…and (

b) does not directly involve or affect the public."

I'm going to sit down and try to think about an example, because one doesn't spring to m