2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 17

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Community Living Authority Act (Bill

45)

Hon. C.

Clark

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Events and accomplishments in Burnaby

North

R. Lee

Health care services in rural B.C.

B. Bennett

Men's Trauma Centre

J. Bray

Oral Questions

Open Learning Agency severance

payments

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Collins

Government severance payments and

ministry contract spending

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Plant

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Collins

Hon. C.

Clark

Arbitration option in legislation on

health support workers

R. Hawes

Hon. G.

Bruce

Sight testing by opticians

P. Nettleton

Hon. C.

Hansen

Skilled trades training

Brenzinger

Hon. S. Bond

Tabling Documents

Forest Appeals Commission, annual

report, 2003

Petitions

K. Krueger

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board,

annual report, 2003

Petitions

D. MacKay

Tabling Documents

Annual report on multiculturalism,

2002-03

Industry Training and Apprenticeship

Commission, statements

Industry Training Authority, service

plan

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts

Annual

Review of Auditor General Reports

J. Kwan

Special Committee to Review the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Enhancing

the Province's Public Sector Access and Privacy Law

B. Lekstrom

Committee of the Whole House

Administrative Tribunals Act (Bill

56)

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Plant

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Administrative Tribunals Act (Bill

56)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Campbell

[ Page 11233 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I would like to acknowledge special visitors from Korea in the

members' gallery today. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Sung-joon

Yim, the newly appointed ambassador of the Republic of Korea to Canada, and his

wife, Madam Kwee-joo Yim. This is the ambassador's first official visit to

British Columbia, and I am pleased that he has travelled here to discover the

many opportunities our beautiful province presents.

He is

accompanied by Mr. Bom-yon Lee from the Korean embassy in Ottawa and Mr. Jae-won

Jun from the Korean consulate in Vancouver. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. S.

Bond: I am delighted today to have in the gallery two very special members

of my staff. They help make my world a much more organized place and make sure

I'm doing my homework on a regular basis. I hope the House will help me not only

make them welcome but thank them for a job extremely well done. Please welcome

Kara Houston and Erin Bowman.

J. Bray:

Joining us in the House today are Stacy Jensen and Alana Samson. Stacy is a

board member of the Men's Trauma Centre, and Alana is their executive director.

The Men's Trauma Centre will be having an open house on June 10 from three to

six, and they are located at 1420 Quadra Street. Would the House please make

these guests very welcome.

Nuraney: We have today in the gallery a contingent of students from Eugene

Reimer School in Abbotsford. With them there is a young member of my family,

Zakim Nuraney. He is bright, smart and a shining star of our family, and I would

like the House to please join me in offering him a special welcome.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to this House Anter Pamma, a

close friend of all Surrey MLAs and a prominent member of the Surrey community.

He is also the owner of Bear Creek plaza, located off King George Highway at

88th and 140th Street.

Also

joining us today is Sarbjit Singh Taggar, who is the owner of Speedy Homes Ltd.

and has done a terrific job building a stronger sense of community in Fleetwood

in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. Would the House please make them very

welcome.

Wilson: Today is one of those rare occasions when I actually have someone

down from the riding. A good friend and a longtime acquaintance, Duncan Barnett,

is here today. He is doing business on behalf of the British Columbia

Cattlemen's Association. I had lunch with him, and we had a wonderful chat over

lunch. I ask the House to make him feel at home.

Mayencourt: In the gallery today we have a most distinguished guest. Chief

Inspector Dave Jones has served the Vancouver police department for a very long

time. He has now moved into community work and is one of the people behind the

Trespass to Property Act and the Safe Streets Act, called the Safe Streets

Coalition.

Dave is

here to speak with media and to visit with Victoria-area groups that are part of

the coalition to ensure that people understand the law enforcement side of these

two pieces of legislation.

Dave, I

haven't had a chance to talk to you, but that's the public response from the

Safe Streets Act in the last seven days. So, you're doing good work. Thank you

very much.

Would the

House please make him welcome.

Hon. T.

Christensen: The member earlier introduced one of the students from Eugene

Reimer School, but I want to join with the House in welcoming all the students

from Eugene Reimer.

[1410]

I know that

very good things are happening at Eugene Reimer Elementary School in Abbotsford,

because I had an opportunity — not to visit the school, unfortunately — when

I was in Abbotsford to discuss some of the things that were going on with their

literacy programs with a couple of teachers from Eugene Reimer. It's a

multicultural school that presents some real challenges on a literacy front. I

know that the teachers at Eugene Reimer and all the students are working very

hard and doing great things. Please join me in welcoming all of these students

to the House today.

Hayer: After the Minister of Education, I'd like to announce that it gives

me great pleasure to introduce 60 grades 5 and 6 students from Coast Meridian

Elementary School, who will be visiting the Legislature later. Accompanying them

will be their teachers, Mrs. Simone Lawrence and Mrs. Jas Cruise, as well as

several parent volunteers who have taken time away from their families and busy

schedules to accompany them. This is a very special school for me, because my

daughter Katrina Hayer graduated from there last year, from grade 7. Would the

House please make them very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY LIVING AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. C.

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

intituled Community Living Authority Act.

Hon. C.

Clark: I move that Bill 45 — a bill that the government intends to pass in

the fall — entitled the

[ Page 11234 ]

Community Living Authority Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 45, the Community Living Authority Act.

This bill introduces groundbreaking legislation which will transform how

community living services are provided to individuals with developmental

disabilities in British Columbia. It will create a legislative framework for

community-based delivery of services currently provided by government. This

transition to community-based services is the next step in a process begun by

the Community Services Interim Authorities Act and the Community Services Labour

Relations Act, proclaimed in 2002 and 2003 respectively, of the thirty-seventh

parliament.

The bill

establishes Community Living British Columbia as the permanent provincial

authority responsible for providing support to adults and children with

developmental disabilities and their families. This bill, which will be debated

in the fall, will enable the transfer of services from the Ministry of Children

and Family Development to this permanent authority.

With this

legislation, the ministry remains responsible for setting standards for how

services will be provided, and it retains the power to monitor and assess the

new authority. Creating a community-based authority to provide fundamental

services will respond to the wishes of individuals and families who have been

working for decades to make this change happen.

This

legislation gives British Columbians with developmental disabilities and their

families better options and more opportunities in their communities. They'll be

able to look forward to a safer, healthier and better quality of life.

I move that

the bill be placed as an exposure bill on the orders of the day for debate and

passage in the fall session of the Legislature.

Bill 45

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) EVENTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

IN BURNABY NORTH

R. Lee:

The fifth session of the thirty-seventh parliament will end this week according

to the schedule. Thanks to this government's policy of a fixed legislative

calendar, MLAs can have some certainty in planning activities in our

constituencies.

In Burnaby

North we have the sixteenth Hats Off Day taking place on Saturday, June 5,

thanks to the collaborative effort involving many organizations, including the

Heights Merchants Association, The Heights Neighbourhood Association, Volunteer

Burnaby and Gilmore Community School. This event will provide an opportunity for

the merchants to thank their clients and for the residents to celebrate their

community. I would like to encourage my colleagues to join in with over 10,000

people to enjoy a day of festivity.

[1415]

Mr.

Speaker, if you have some spare time on May 29, you may also want to come to the

seventh annual European Festival held at the Scandinavian Community Centre in

Burnaby North, where visitors will find the food, music, dance and displays

representing more than 20 European countries.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to give you an impression that the people in Burnaby North

are partying all the time. We study and work diligently as well. Many students

in Burnaby's schools and post-secondary institutes have excelled in arts and

science. For example, I recently had the pleasure to personally congratulate two

students from North Burnaby, Grace Leung and Elaine Deng, who won the second and

third place in the Canada Day Poster Challenge in this province.

In the next

few weeks, I have the privilege to attend graduation ceremonies at SFU, BCIT,

UBC, Douglas College, Capilano College, Alpha Secondary and Burnaby North

Secondary. My son Jarek is graduating from Burnaby North Secondary this year,

and he is planning to attend UBC. I wish him all the best in his studies. I also

would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the graduates for their

successes in reaching an important milestone.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN RURAL B.C.

Bennett: Many of the very positive changes the government has made to health

services in rural B.C. are not well known. We now train more nurses in B.C. and

recruit more nurses to B.C. than before, and B.C. nurses are the highest paid in

Canada. We are increasing the spaces for training doctors in B.C., including the

new university medical school spaces for physicians at the University of

Northern B.C., where young doctors can get experience working and living in a

smaller town atmosphere. Our doctors are amongst the highest paid in Canada as

well.

We have

created the rural subsidy agreement which identifies rural communities that need

help to recruit and retain physicians. My communities of Elkford, Sparwood and

Fernie are all on that list. Because of this special provincial funding, the

interior health authority has recently recruited two new doctors into the Elk

Valley. We are spending $23 million on capital funding for the East Kootenay

Regional Hospital. We've already spent $6 million. We have also recruited nine

new specialists at the East Kootenay Regional Hospital because of this

government. Patients from all over the East Kootenay region can now access

specialist care in their home region for the first time ever. This is

high-quality health care closer to home that we did not have before.

We also

have some new subsidized assisted-living units happening in Cranbrook and

Fernie. We have the

[ Page 11235 ]

new long-term residential care home in Fernie, which is half completed, and

one announced for Cranbrook.

Despite all

these very positive initiatives that make health care more accessible in rural

British Columbia, it's important to acknowledge that there is much more work to

be done. Specifically, remote communities and remote worksites must have access

to a high level of paramedic service. B.C. Ambulance Service has recently raised

the level of paramedic training and plans to raise the expertise of rural

paramedics even further. This is a very positive development. We as government

must support those paramedics in their desire to improve their skill level and

ensure that patients from remote worksites like the mines north of Elkford

receive the necessary care on their way to our improved hospitals.

Regardless

of all the improvements we make, the quality of health care is something we

should never be satisfied with. We will continue to strive to improve health

care in our rural communities.

MEN'S TRAUMA CENTRE

J. Bray:

The World Health Organization, in 1999, called child abuse a major health

threat. Research suggests that between 20 and 30 percent of all male children

are sexually abused before the age of 18. A 1990 study in Ontario found that 31

percent of males reported suffering some form of abuse — emotional, physical

or sexual — as children. These plus other studies suggest that in an area the

size of greater Victoria, between 4,700 and 46,000 males have been subject to

some form of abuse at some point in their lives. The need for support services

to male survivors of sexual abuse is clear. This is why I'm so pleased to advise

this House and my community about the newly established not-for-profit society,

the Men's Trauma Centre.

[1420]

Their

mission statement is:

"To

provide treatment and support services to adult and late adolescent males who

are survivors of physical, emotional or sexual trauma as well as support for

our clients' significant others. To acquire and develop educational materials

concerning the traumatization of males and to gather statistics for

dissemination to professionals and the community at large. To assist other

agencies through educational outreach to improve their responses to their own

male clients who may also be survivors of trauma. To work in cooperation with

other service agencies and professionals to ensure comprehensive case

management with respect to male survivors who seek treatment or support from

whatever source. To consult with community and government groups in the areas

of prevention, treatment, legal issues and other matters relating to sexual

violation of males."

The

and late adolescent males, regardless of ethnic origin, physical or

intellectual ability, or sexual orientation. The centre has registered

clinical counsellors and a victim services coordinator with seven years'

experience working with this client group. Because the emotional, physical and

sexual traumatization of males has such a wide-reaching impact on family

stability, drug and alcohol addiction, employment and criminal behaviour, it

is essential that we all become informed about this important social issue and

the services at the Men's Trauma Centre.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

OPEN LEARNING AGENCY

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

J. Kwan:

At the beginning of this session we asked about severance packages at the Open

Learning Agency that appear to have been deliberately structured to contravene

government guidelines. The Minister of Finance promised a swift investigation.

Later he said he needed just a few more pieces of information from the Open

Learning Agency, and then he would have all the facts. What on earth is taking

so long? Did the minister's letter to the Open Learning Agency get lost in the

mail? Or is he deliberately stalling until this session is over?

Hon. G.

Collins: Unlike the opposition, I think it's important to get all of the

facts on this matter. There are people….

Interjections.

Hon. G.

Collins: As is usual with the matters brought to the attention of this House

by the opposition, they're rarely based in fact, so I want to check the facts.

In fact, that's exactly what I've been doing. I've had a dialogue with the board

of the Open Learning Agency. I'm also awaiting an additional piece of

correspondence from an individual who is impacted by the matter. We're dealing

with individuals who have done good public service in the province of British

Columbia, and I think it's important they be treated fairly.

All of the

severance arrangements will need to be made within the parameters of Bill 66.

I've said that publicly. I expect that will be the case, and as soon as…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: …we have all the facts, I'll be making those public.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

My oh my, the Minister of Finance is operating at the speed of lightning in

trying to get this information here. I remind the minister that we're talking

about the potential abuse of tax dollars to pad severance payments for Open

Learning Agency executives. This is a very serious matter, but it appears that

[ Page 11236 ]

the Minister of Finance doesn't seem to be in a hurry to get the money back.

This is not

rocket science, Mr. Speaker. Either the Open Learning Agency broke the

guidelines or they didn't. How is it possible that a person in charge of a $30

billion budget can't get quick answers to simple questions? What is he trying to

hide?

Hon. G.

Collins: Rather than cast the aspersions, as we've heard from the member

opposite, I thought it was important to get all the facts. The reality is that

some of the people who used to work at the Open Learning Agency don't work there

anymore. They don't work for us. The effort is to try and get the facts from

them in as timely a fashion as possible, and that's what we've been doing.

It is

important to get the facts for a number of reasons. The most important one is

that the NDP government, when they were in government, repeatedly engaged in

what I would call political firings, only to find that the court came back and

rapped their fingers very hard. In fact, we paid something like over $500,000

— I think it was — in punitive damages with regard to the firing of a CEO at

B.C. Transit. The comments….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor.

Hon. G.

Collins: The noise level goes up when they don't like the facts.

The fact of

the matter is that when they were in government, they repeatedly engaged in

political firings, only to find that taxpayers were left holding the bag when

they received a reprimand from the court.

Mr.

Speaker, it's important to get the facts. When we have all the facts, we'll be

making those public.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question.

J. Kwan:

Isn't that interesting, from the Minister of Finance. He can't get the

information. He says he can't arrive at a conclusion on whether or not the OLA

guidelines were violated, but that's our fault. It's the NDP 's fault — right.

Okay.

[1425]

GOVERNMENT SEVERANCE PAYMENTS AND

MINISTRY CONTRACT SPENDING

J. Kwan:

Mr. Speaker, while we're waiting for an answer on the severance package to the

OLA executives, the government is also hiding the legal opinion that it says

required the B.C. Liberals to hand out to Chris Haynes a severance payout worth

more than a half-million dollars.

Can the

Premier explain why he won't release a legal opinion granting half a million

dollars to a guy who blew $2.3 million in the budget for children in this

province?

Hon. G.

Plant: You know, I sat in opposition when those members were in government,

and they routinely relied upon the fact that when lawyers advise their clients,

they do so on the basis that the advice is kept privileged. That's a very

important principle of our society. It's an important principle for private

citizens. It's an important principle for government. We generally rely upon it

also. It makes it possible for us to get the best possible advice and for us to

act on that advice in the best possible way.

So there's

nothing unusual happening here. We're following the procedures that we should

follow — that good governments, that competent governments should follow —

and that we as a good and competent government will continue to follow to

protect the public interest of the people of British Columbia.

MacPhail: In the past when this government was in opposition, they never let

legal opinions or the facts get in their way when they were railing about

severance packages — never. And we know how seriously the Premier takes his

contractual obligations to workers making $30,000 a year. But heaven forbid we

step on the toes of a $200,000-a-year deputy who helped a B.C. Liberal insider

run off with hundreds of thousands — millions — of dollars in taxpayer

money. For those folks there's a higher principle at stake. We've got to get the

facts. We need legal advice. But it's contained in a legal opinion that no one

can see. This is a charade.

Can the

Premier explain why the public should accept that a government that can rip up

contracts and override Supreme Court decisions at whim can't find a way to get

$500,000 back from a deputy who let the Premier's cousin run half his ministry?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'll be glad to do my best to get that back, as we have, if that

member can go out there and get back the $1.2 million we paid to Marc Eliesen

from B.C. Hydro when she was in government.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

MacPhail: I love the standard this government is setting. I wonder if the

public is getting tired of the standard that this government is setting. Hmm, I

wonder if they've had any say in that.

The Walls

audit leaves a lot of questions unanswered. British Columbians want those

questions answered, but the government is refusing to do anything other than

stonewall and obfuscate. The only way we're going to get to the bottom of this

scandal is to have an independent investigation. Mr. Parks notes that the

Minister of Finance has the power to order an investigation under the Society

Act.

Will the

Premier direct the Minister of Finance to order that investigation today into

$2.3 million of lost

[ Page 11237 ]

taxpayer money, or will he continue to bluster and spin, hoping that the

issue will just go away?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member would know, if she'd read the report, that that has

already been done. That was already a part of the report that was issued. It is

a little rich to hear the NDP stand up and talk about accountability when they

have a leader who is afraid to even run for office.

You look at

the bizarre world of British Columbia politics. Here we've got a province where

Glen Clark goes to work for Jimmy Pattison, where Ujjal Dosanjh goes to work for

Paul Martin, and Carole James won't even show up to work.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

[1430]

[Mr. Speaker

rose.]

Mr.

Speaker: Let us have some decorum in the chamber, please, or we'll be

extending question period to make up for injury time.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

ARBITRATION OPTION IN LEGISLATION

ON HEALTH SUPPORT WORKERS

Hawes: Yesterday I spoke about the HEU's refusal to allow its membership to

vote on whether or not they would have arbitration to take benefits reduction in

their contract. Since then I've had numbers of calls in my office — and I know

many of my colleagues have had the same calls — from members of the HEU

expressing both outrage and real concern about what's going to happen with their

paycheques and the fact that they have not been allowed to have a vote within

their own union. In fact, I note on their website — the way I read it — that

the union is telling its membership they weren't allowed time to have a vote,

even though we know they were offered 60 days to allow a vote to take place.

My question

is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. My constituents are crying

out for help, and I know a number of other members here have the same thing

happening. Is there anything that the minister can do to help our constituents

get what they need from their union?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It was unfortunate that the leadership didn't allow the membership to

have a vote. A process had been worked out for them also, which they could have

gone through. Everybody within that bargaining group could then have had an

opportunity to express how best they wanted to deal with this particular issue.

But they have a process internally within their union and then in front of the

Labour Relations Board if it is that members have difficulty with the decisions

that have been taken by their leadership.

SIGHT TESTING BY OPTICIANS

Nettleton: On April 19 the College of Physicians and Surgeons asked this

government to reconsider enacting a regulation that would allow opticians to

prescribe eyeglasses without medical supervision. The college claimed this

regulation would "introduce a significant element of risk to

patients." My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Will the

minister heed the advice of this respected medical authority and fully review

this proposed regulation?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I welcome the question. There is absolutely no evidence that shows

that automated sight testing is in any way harmful or inaccurate. That is an

admission that comes from, I think, everyone involved in this field — whether

it's the ophthalmologists, the optometrists or the opticians. The fact of the

matter is that for the last number of years, there have been opticians using

automated sight-testing equipment in this province. What we are bringing in are

regulations which manage that, so that the interests of the individual are

protected and people understand the importance of an eye health exam to

determine the other issues that they may be faced with.

I've

certainly had lots of meetings with different groups that are involved in this

issue. I think the more people understand what's behind it, the more they

realize that this is a very sound direction that government is going.

SKILLED TRADES TRAINING

Brenzinger: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Several

different automotive trade groups in my constituency have raised concerns about

the disturbing effects of the new model for trades training proposed by this

government. The deficiency that this training proposal being developed creates

is that the B.C. Automotive Retailers Association and the B.C. New Car Dealers

group are the only contributors to this proposal. As these business groups do

not represent a cross-section of the whole industry, it leaves approximately 75

percent of the automotive industries unrepresented in this proposal.

[1435]

My question

is: will the minister guarantee that before the Industry Training Authority

endorses any proposals put forward, all stakeholders will have an equal

opportunity to participate in the process? Will the minister install a safeguard

to ensure that special interest groups do not use our publicly funded

post-secondary education system to their sole benefit?

[ Page 11238 ]

Hon. S.

Bond: The whole point in revitalizing the industry training system in

British Columbia is to ensure that we have a skilled and trained workforce to

meet the needs of the future of British Columbia. That's exactly what we're

doing. Just recently — as a matter of fact, on Monday — the first

certification in the province under the new system was announced. It's a framing

certification that was rigorously reviewed before it was actually approved. In

fact, that's the process that the Industry Training Authority will continue to

use as it looks at skills training programs across the province.

[End of

question period.]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Please. One gets the distinct feeling that this place is about to

wind down. The Minister of Forests has the floor.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Or wind up, Mr. Speaker.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M.

de Jong: I have a report, the Forest Appeals Commission annual report for

2003, that I table today.

Petitions

Krueger: I table a petition, Mr. Speaker. This is a petition by 395

citizens, delivered to your constituency office, the constituency of Kamloops,

with regard to laboratory reform.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Abbott: It's my pleasure to present the 2003 annual report of the Property

Assessment Appeal Board.

MacKay: I seek leave to file a petition.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

MacKay: I have a petition here signed on behalf of 180 constituents who live

in the village of Granisle, who are concerned about the proposed closure of

their RCMP detachment.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M.

Coell: It's my honour to present the 2002-03 annual report on

multiculturalism to the Legislature.

Hon. S.

Bond: I have two documents to table. One is the final set of statements

tabled in relationship to the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission.

Secondly, I

committed in the House earlier to bringing the new Industry Training Authority

service plan before the end of May, and I table those documents today.

Reports from Committees

J. Kwan:

I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee

on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-seventh parliament,

entitled Annual Review of Auditor General Reports .

I move that

the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

J. Kwan:

I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of the motion to adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

J. Kwan:

I move that the report be adopted.

The report.

During the session, the committee considered six main reports and ten follow-ups

and progress reports. It also approved the auditor general's Financial

Statement Audit Coverage Plan and his appointment as auditor of the two

organizations outside the government reporting entity. The details of the work

of the committee are contained therein.

Motion

approved.

Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee

to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the fifth

session of the thirty-seventh parliament, titled Enhancing the Province's

Public Sector Access and Privacy Law .

I move that

the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

[1440]

Lekstrom: I move the report be adopted, and in moving the adoption of the

report, I wish to make the following comments.

This report

reflects the work of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act and our consultations with British Columbians.

Based on this input, the committee's report makes 28 recommendations to improve

the functioning of the act. Our report concludes that the act is generally

working well in providing British Columbi-

[ Page 11239 ]

ans with an appropriate balance between openness and privacy protection.

However,

the committee also concluded that there is a need to modernize parts of the act

and to clarify the purpose of certain provisions. Our report reaffirms that all

British Columbians have the right to expect that their information requests for

records will be treated equally, impartially and in a timely manner.

It was an

honour to serve as the Chair of this committee. I believe that the principles of

information access and protection of privacy, which are enshrined in this

legislation, are fundamentally important in a functioning democracy.

In closing,

I would like to thank all British Columbians who took the time to provide us

with their thoughts. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to all

members of the committee for their input and dedication throughout this

important process. I would also sincerely like to thank the staff of the office

of the Clerk of Committees and Hansard staff for their work in support of the

committee. In particular, I would like to thank our Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, and

our researchers, Josie Schofield and Mary Walter.

This report

was unanimously accepted by the committee, and it's a privilege. I move that

this report be adopted.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 56.

Committee of the Whole House

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 56; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:44 p.m.

Halsey-Brandt: I seek leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Halsey-Brandt: It's my pleasure to recognize in the visitors' gallery a

group of high school students, grade 10 students from J.N. Burnett Secondary in

Richmond, along with several parents and two of their teachers. The delegation

is led by Mrs. Morelli. They're here today to observe question period in the

Legislature and the debate that's going to follow, and to study history and

government. I can assure that it's an outstanding high school in Richmond, which

four of my children had the privilege to graduate from. Would the members please

make them all welcome to the House today.

Debate Continued

On

section

J. Kwan:

The Administrative Tribunals Act sets out rules for administrative tribunals in

B.C. We have more than 30 administrative tribunals in British Columbia,

including the Agricultural Land Commission, the Employment Standards Tribunal

and the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

[1445]

I do want

to clarify for the benefit of the House as well, Mr. Chair, that the bill does

not apply in totality, as far as I understand, to any tribunal in British

Columbia. The bill does not form the comprehensive set of rules for any

particular tribunal in B.C. Only sections of this bill are used to amend the

existing legislation that the various tribunals are enabled by. This is

important clarification that needs to be made. It is also important to note that

while Bill 56 amends the enabling legislation for 25 existing tribunals, it does

not at all affect 12 other tribunals and regulatory boards in British Columbia.

Again, this is as far as we understand.

I recognize

that Bill 56 is the product of many years' work and considerable effort by the

ministry in conjunction with various tribunals in British Columbia. Accordingly,

Bill 56 is a complex piece of legislation, most notably because its

implementation takes place through consequential amendments to existing

legislation for each administrative tribunal. To make things more complicated,

much of the existing enabling legislation for each tribunal already contains

similar provisions to those contained in Bill 56, the Administrative Tribunals

Act. Bill 56 therefore requires careful reading, as it cannot be read in

isolation from existent legislation respective to administrative tribunals in

B.C.

Each of the

various tribunals in B.C. has unique and individual needs, powers and mandates.

It is true that one shoe does not fit all, and I do not believe this legislation

attempts to do that. In that light, in that context, I do have questions for the

minister.

Under

section 1, in the

definitions section, the terminology is: "'appointing

authority' means the person or the Lieutenant Governor in Council who, under

another Act, has the power to appoint the chair, vice chair and members, or any

of them, to the tribunal." I just want to clarify that "another

Act" refers to existent legislation that a tribunal would be subject to. Is

that the right reading and

interpretation of that language?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes.

J. Kwan:

I think this is the correct answer as well. Presumably, that's for all of my

opening statements about it referring to all of the tribunals — some 30

administrative tribunals in British Columbia. That is in reference to some 30

tribunals and the respective legis-

[ Page 11240 ]

lation attached to them. Am I correct in making that assumption?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Now, sections 2 through 10 are the same as those listed in Bill 68, the

Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act.

Section 2(1)

defines the rules for the appointment of the chair, and this

section states:

"The chair of the tribunal may be appointed by the appointing authority,

after a merit based process, to hold office for an initial term of 3 to 5

years." What would a merit-based process consist of?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, first of all, to follow up on an aspect of the member's

question, she's quite right. This

section is not new. We debated it last year

when it appeared in last year's bill. Or we had the opportunity to debate it; I

don't remember if there was an actual debate.

I think the

important part of that phrase "a merit-based process" is not to

prescribe the particular kind of process but, rather, to ensure that the process

focuses on identifying the best-qualified candidates. The process could include

advertising. It could include formal or informal interviews. There are a number

of different ways that tribunals — or, in this particular case, tribunal

appointing authorities — could go about looking for a chair. The important

point of the subsection at issue here is that whatever the process is that is

used, it needs to focus on finding a candidate that is qualified for the

position.

[1450]

J. Kwan:

I'm curious, then, how this

section is supposed to work. The chair of the

tribunal may be appointed by the appointing authority through a merit-based

process. Who the appointing authority is, however, is defined by the existing

legislation. The reason why I want to point this out is that not all of the

existing legislation which this bill amends contains a merit-based system for

appointment. Take, for example, the Mediation and Arbitration Board enabled by

the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Under this act, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can appoint the Mediation and Arbitration Board

without any merit-based process.

Perhaps the

minister could clarify this for me. Is a new merit-based process going to be

established or part of Bill 68, which appointing authorities will then need to

follow?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes, and I believe that process has already been established by the

board resourcing and development office.

J. Kwan:

Would it then be brought into force by regulation? Bill 56 makes no further

reference as to what the process might entail. Is the assumption that it's going

to be brought in by regulation?

Hon. G.

Plant: There's no requirement that this be done by regulation. It can be

done by policy. I think what's important is that if you were to go to a statute

that created a tribunal and find in the statute that there is a power to

appoint, the power to appoint may reside with cabinet, for example, and it may

be in the enabling act, unconstrained by any particular process requirement.

What

happens now, as a result of the introduction of this provision last year, is

that those tribunals or government would be required to undertake some process

to ensure that they were finding a candidate for the position on the basis of

merit. But there's no requirement that there be a specific regulation to define

the process for appointment.

J. Kwan:

Okay, so it may not be brought in by regulation. It might be just general

policy that would apply. When do we expect that this set of policies or

regulations — whatever route that the government chooses — would be in

effect?

Hon. G.

Plant: They already are in effect. This provision is not new. It's been in

effect for a while.

J. Kwan:

Given the situation that now, though, not all the tribunal appointments have

merit-based processes built into their enabling legislation…. In those

circumstances, is it expected that the policy would apply for these authorities?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes.

J. Kwan:

All right.

Section 2 also establishes office terms. I have not examined the

enabling legislation for every tribunal, as there are many, but I've noticed

that the stated term durations will be new to some of the tribunals. Is this

correct?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes.

J. Kwan:

Some tribunal members could hold positions indefinitely. Is that correct?

Hon. G.

Plant: There were many appointments formerly that could be made at pleasure,

which would be without any duration of term specified in the appointment. Under

this regime, there is a term of appointment. But in most cases, although not all

— I don't want to say "in all cases" without having a chance to

consult with help — there is an opportunity for reappointment so that a

tribunal chair — this would also be the case for tribunal members, which are

provided for in

section 3 — could be reappointed for a series of terms. But

each of those appointments would be for a fixed term of years.

[1455]

Section 2

approved.

[ Page 11241 ]

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 3 deals with a member's initial term and reappointment, and it reads:

"

(1) A member, other than the chair, may be appointed by the appointing

authority, after a merit based process and consultation with the chair, to hold

office for an initial term of 2 to 4 years." Now, the notion of merit-based

process — am I assuming correctly that the policy that exists applies in the

same way that we canvassed earlier?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes.

Sections 3

to 11 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 12 states: "12(1) The tribunal must issue practice directives

respecting (

a) the usual time period for completing an application and for

completing the procedural steps within an application, and (

b) the usual time

period within which the tribunal's final decision and reasons are to be released

after the hearing of the application is completed."

Now, I'm

wondering about the term "usual." How are usual time periods going to

be established? How is that defined?

Hon. G.

Plant: Let me come to that question by first stepping back from this

section

to talk for just a minute about the policy issues at play here. When we started

to get the administrative justice project underway, one of the issues that I

wanted to be put on the table is that aspect of customer service or citizen

service which has to do with the extent to which tribunals build confidence by

operating in a timely way. In practical terms, that means making decisions in a

timely way and taking each step of the process in a timely way.

While most

tribunals across the province have a tradition of doing the best they can to

meet the needs of the people they serve, from time to time I certainly did hear

concerns about whether or not tribunals were issuing decisions quickly enough

— remembering that we are talking about what is by and large a more informal

part of the justice system. One of the characteristics, I think, of an effective

informal system is that it is capable of making decisions quickly and providing

the certainty that people need from fast decisions.

Then the

question is: how do you give effect to that as kind of a general policy thrust?

One way to look at it or do it would be to impose time requirements as a matter

of law. Another would be — at the other end of the scale, I suppose — not to

impose any time requirements but to allow tribunals to continue to do the best

they could.

What we

tried to do here is strike sort of a middle-ground approach. That is that the

tribunals themselves will be expected to give some thought to what represents a

reasonable time frame within which they should be expected to do the work they

have to do. Then, having given some thought to that, they must issue practice

directives. I think the practice directives are intended to sort of set an

expectation threshold so that the people who use the tribunals have some sense

of how the tribunals are going to make decisions in most cases. The tribunal

will organize its own workload management in a way to make sure that in the

majority of cases, it can do just that.

We have

been pretty careful here. We've talked about practice directives as opposed to

mandatory rules. We've also made it clear in subsection (2) that the tribunal is

not bound by its practice directives in the exercise of its powers or the

performance of its duties. I think what we want to do is recognize that while

there are probably some general standards of practice that tribunals should

attempt to adhere to, there will always be the possibility of exceptional or

unusual cases that are going to take a lot longer because of the issues or the

parties or the circumstances.

[1500]

We tried to

avoid being excessively prescriptive here. I think the "usual time

period" language is really intended to mean exactly what it says. It's

intended to say that for most cases, the time period for completing an

application or for completing procedural steps or for rendering a decision will

be whatever the practice directive says.

I expect

that practice directives would be issued by tribunals that provide them with the

opportunity to deviate from those general guidelines in exceptional

circumstances. It's not really intended to be, I think, a lot more complex than

that.

J. Kwan:

What I gather from the minister's answer is that it allows, for each of the

respective tribunals, some flexibility to make their determination of what the

term "usual" would mean in terms of what the time period would be and

for them to then engage in establishing that. I can understand that. Different

tribunals have different mandates and different issues that they're dealing

with, so I can accept that.

It is

interesting to note, though, that I think part of the premise here around the

usual time periods — the term that is being used — and its application would

really be to ensure matters are dealt with in an expeditious manner and in a way

which one could say would be reasonable in terms of the time period.

The Workers

Compensation Act adopts

section 1 and then sections 13 and 15, but not this

section — not

section 12, the practice directives tribunal issue. Now,

according to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal website, the number of

backlogged cases on December 31, 2003, was some 13,000. I think, generally,

people would agree that there is a huge delay with respect to WCB cases. It's

complex — fair enough — but

section 12 does not apply to the WCB. Why not?

Hon. G.

Plant: When we speak of the workers compensation scheme in this context,

we're not talking about the board as a whole. We're only talking about the

Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. The member is right.

Section 12 of this

bill does not apply to

[ Page 11242 ]

the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. I'm advised that that is because

time lines for decision, in respect of WCAT decisions, are provided for in the

workers compensation legislation. So in this particular case the workers

compensation legislation sets out the time lines, and therefore there is no need

for

section 12.

Sections 12

to 23 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 24 states the time limit for appeals.

Section 24(1) reads: " A

notice of appeal respecting a decision must be filed within 30 days of the

decision being appealed, unless the tribunal's enabling Act provides

otherwise."

Could the

Attorney General please advise how this

section would apply in the case of an

enabling act which does not specify a time limit for filing an appeal?

Hon. G.

Plant: In that case, the 30-day time line in this provision would apply.

J. Kwan:

That would be for all cases? It would just default to a 30-day time line, then?

Hon. G.

Plant: That's right. There may be statutes where the time limit for appeals

is actually set out in terms of days, in which case the enabling act time line

would apply. This provision generally would apply only where there is not

already an expressed time limit in the enabling act.

J. Kwan:

Okay. Now,

section 24(2) states that a tribunal may extend the time to appeal.

How would one go about getting an extension to file an appeal?

Hon. G.

Plant: By application to the tribunal. I expect most tribunals will have

rules governing the making of such applications.

[1505]

J. Kwan:

So the process of appeal would then default back to the original act related to

each of the respective tribunals in terms of what their process would be with

respect to a time line for appealing?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm reminded that here we're dealing with appeal tribunals. I think

the process for making application would be defined by the rules of the

tribunal. Those rules may be made either under the rule-making authority in this

act or perhaps in the rule-making authority that exists in the act creating the

appeal tribunal.

J. Kwan:

This sort of jumps into another section, but it is related to

section 24. I want

to know that

section 31(1)(

b) allows a tribunal to reject an application if it

is not filed within the appropriate time limit. There are issues about time

limits, which is why I'm asking this question here under

section 24. Considering

this, what sort of process would a tribunal go through in considering extending

the time limit for filing appeals?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think the fundamental question in any case where someone is asking

a tribunal to extend a time limit is: what do the interests of justice require

in a particular case? There are a variety of considerations that could come to

bear on that determination. I know that in the days when I used to practise

litigation a bit more actively, one of the considerations that courts were

always interested in taking into account in deciding whether or not to extend a

time limit or enforce a time limit was whether or not the delay had caused any

prejudice to the person on the other side. If there was no particular prejudice

caused to the other side, then that was a factor that made it slightly more

likely that the time extension would be granted.

I think the

interrelationship between these two provisions that the member is referring to,

section 24 and then the provision in

section 31, really is just intended to give

a tribunal the power to dismiss an application if it's filed outside the time

limit. I think that, generally, the scheme is that tribunals have the authority

to create exceptions as long as they're satisfied that the interests of justice

require…. These matters will come before the tribunal by way of application.

I expect

that sometimes the application would be an application for an extension of time,

and that would be where the argument would happen. Other times there might be an

application made by a respondent in a matter saying that the tribunal should

dismiss an application because it wasn't filed within the applicable time limit.

Then there would be some argument about the issues, and the same considerations

would probably come into play in that argument.

Sections 24

to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

J. Kwan:

Section 41(1) states: "An oral hearing must be open to the public."

Subsection (2) states: "Despite subsection (1), the tribunal may direct

that all or part of the information be received to the exclusion of the public

if the tribunal is of the opinion that (

a) the desirability of avoiding

disclosure in the interests of any person or party affected or in the public

interest outweighs the desirability of adhering to the principle that hearings

be open to the public." Can the minister please provide some examples in

which avoiding disclosure would be above the interests of a hearing being made

public?

[1510]

Hon. G.

Plant: Examples where the issue would be raised would be where there is

particularly sensitive or confidential or private business information that

would be talked about in the course of the hearing. Then the tribunal would have

to make a decision about weighing the competing interests in whether or not to

exclude the public from the hearing.

[ Page 11243 ]

J. Kwan: Are

there specific guidelines or policies, if you will, to guide what matters would

be determined to be above interest for the purpose of disclosure — I'm not

putting this clearly — or policies that would actually provide some guidance

to tribunals so that they can better understand when matters should be disclosed

and when they should not be disclosed?

Hon. G.

Plant: We're not intending to issue a specific policy statement about this.

I think the general law is well understood that hearings of tribunals, like

courts, should be open to the public. Therefore, the starting point in any

discussion of this would be a strong predisposition in favour of an open and

transparent process.

Then there

is a body of law out there — general law — where issues that are said to be

particularly confidential or sensitive are raised in support of arguments that

the public should be excluded from a particular part of a proceeding. I expect

that tribunals have recourse to that body of law. I also expect that across the

landscape of tribunals, there are probably some tribunals that have a great deal

of experience with these sorts of things already and draw on that experience on

a case-by-case basis when issues arise to make a decision.

This

provision, like most of the provisions in this bill, is not intended to change

the law as much as to set the law out as clearly as possible so that when

tribunals make these kinds of decisions, they're doing so on the basis of a very

secure statutory foundation.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Abbott: I make this introduction on behalf of our colleague. I guess I

shouldn't use her name in here — the member from Kelowna-Westside, is it? At

any rate, what we have in the gallery today is a group of 80 students from

Kelowna Christian School who are visiting the Legislature and in the gallery.

They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. MacArthur. I ask the House to make

them all welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

Actually, I'm fine with the minister's answer on

section 41, and I'm ready

to go to

section 43.

Sections 41

and 42 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 43 covers the discretion to refer questions of law to court. Subsection

(2) states: "If a question of law, including a constitutional question, is

raised by a party in a tribunal proceeding, on the request of a party or on its

own initiative, at any stage of an application the tribunal may refer that

question to the court in the form of a stated case."

Does this

mean that the obligation would solely be on the party to identify and raise any

matter that infringes on constitutional questions?

Hon. G.

Plant: No, I don't think so. Strictly speaking, on its terms this process in

this subsection could arise when a question of law is raised by a party. It also

could arise, though, if the question of law arises or is identified at the

initiative of the tribunal. That's what the words "or on its own

initiative" are intended to mean.

[1515]

J. Kwan:

Thank you for that explanation. Who determines if a raised question is in

fact of constitutional nature or not? Who makes that determination?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think the tribunal will in most cases have to make the

determination. Sometimes a party could identify an issue that they would say is

constitutional but that perhaps isn't. Alternatively, I suppose an issue or a

question could arise during the course of a hearing where the tribunal says to

the parties: "Well, I think you're now raising a question that really is a

question of constitutional law." However you get to that point, I think it

is going to be the tribunal that in these cases is going to have to decide

whether in fact a question of law has actually arisen. Remember that in this

case we're dealing with the power to refer, not necessarily the requirement to

refer. In this particular subsection, that power may be exercised not just on

the basis of constitutional questions but on any question of law.

I take this

one step further, and the member may want to pursue the constitutional question

side of this. It is certainly possible that in the course of a hearing in front

of a tribunal that deals every day with subject matter X or Y, an issue might be

raised that has to do with some fine point of expropriation law or something

that is a pure question of law that the tribunal has no particular occasion to

have to look at. It may be those are the sorts of questions that could arise

that are not constitutional questions, where the tribunal says: "Let's

refer that question to the court in the form of a stated case." The parties

would go off and argue that point. The court would say, "Here's the

answer," and then the matter would come back to the tribunal to proceed on

the basis of the answer to the legal question.

J. Kwan:

If the tribunal makes the decision on this, on the question around

constitutional matters or not and on other issues as well…. But let's focus on

the constitutional issue for the time being. If the tribunal makes that decision

and the tribunal could also raise the issue, isn't that a conflict? How could it

be that the tribunal that raises it also gets to make the decision on whether or

not it is a constitutional issue?

[ Page 11244 ]

Hon. G.

Plant: The tribunal is not answering the constitutional question. The

tribunal is only stating it, is only describing the question. The idea that a

lower tribunal would have the ability to define a legal question in the form of

what lawyers call a stated case is not a new procedure. It has happened, and it

is part of court and tribunal process. It does mean that sometimes you can have

a bit of a discussion at the tribunal level about what the right question is,

but it's not a conflict to ask the tribunal to define the question which the

parties will then go and argue in the higher court.

J. Kwan:

So the decision is made by a higher court, then. I appreciate that

clarification.

Hon. G.

Plant: That's right. The answer to the question will be an answer provided

by the higher court, not by the tribunal.

J. Kwan:

Moving it to the higher court…. One would assume, then, that whatever decision

the higher court makes and if either party agrees or disagrees with the decision

of the higher court, they would then follow the normal procedures of appeal

within the court system.

Hon. G.

Plant: That's correct.

[1520]

J. Kwan:

Section 43(3) states: "If a constitutional question is raised by a party in

an application, on the request of the Attorney General, the tribunal must refer

that question to the court in the form of a stated case." Could the

minister please clarify exactly what his role is in this process?

Hon. G.

Plant: The Attorney General would receive a notice that a constitutional

question had been raised under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act.

Then, having been told that there was a constitutional question that had been

raised, the Attorney General would have to decide whether or not to request that

the question be referred to the higher court.

J. Kwan:

The application would then be contingent on the Attorney General's decision in

approving the matter to go to a higher court.

Hon. G.

Plant: Under this subsection that may be so, but I think it needs to be put

in the context that what's really involved here is a recognition that when

constitutional questions are raised, the implications of the decision extend

beyond the parties to the dispute and usually involve important matters of

public interest.

The statute

law in British Columbia has long recognized that whenever parties want to

challenge the constitutionality of a law in proceedings in the courts in British

Columbia, they have to give notice to the Attorney General of British Columbia

or to the Attorney General of Canada or both, depending on the nature of the

challenge. The reason for that, again, is to give the Attorney General the

opportunity to participate in the decision in the case to ensure that the public

interest considerations are brought to bear by the tribunal or by the court

hearing the matter.

This is

sort of an additional element of protecting the public interest in tribunal

proceedings in cases where constitutional questions are raised. It's not the

only way those questions might get to a court, but it's a way of getting the

Attorney General as, I suppose, the representative of the public interest both

notice of and an opportunity to direct consideration in the courts of the

constitutional question that has been raised.

Sections 43

to 49 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 50(4) states: "The tribunal must make its decisions accessible to

the public."

You can

read this letter if you…. Well, actually, let me just read this letter. I was

going to pass this letter on over, but no, let me just put the letter on record

and then get the minister's response. It actually came from the broader

community with concerns about this. The document reads: "I see this bill is

moving to second reading. There has been some concern expressed among poverty

advocates about the implications of this bill regarding the employment and

assistance tribunals — for example, restrictions on hearing Charter

arguments."

It goes on

to say that the Attorney General "talks about there being a great danger of

inconsistent decisions regarding Charter arguments, and that is why restrictions

are necessary." The person wants to point out that in this context,

pointing out the superiority of the old B.C. Benefits Appeal Board process

established over the current appeal system….

"Because

the B.C. Benefits Appeal Board decisions were published and because the

written quality of those decisions was high with respect to a full

consideration of the law — the welfare law and case law — there was an

ability to use BCBAB decisions in arguing a case before a tribunal with the

goal of moving toward consistency, which was working. The BCBAB itself would

refer to its own library of decisions, posted on the web and searchable. Those

decisions are still useful, albeit not accessible, because the current

government took them away even before they said they would."

know that people try to frantically download this information before the

deadline, but some people have run into problems with that.

[1525]

"Currently,

the employment and assistance appeal office does not publish decisions. They

would probably be useless anyway, given the way they are written. There is no

way to review for consistency or anything else in these decisions, which

affect some of the most vulnerable people over basic benefits. Therefore the

issue of going to judicial review and having to argue something as

unreasonable at a court level, as opposed to at the tribunal level, is that

much more difficult. They also don't publish the materials used to train and

guide tribunal members for scrutiny.

[ Page 11245 ]

"If

we're really going to have a workable administrative justice system, there

should be minimum training and accountability standards applying to all

systems."

The person

actually referred to a number of issues here in this e-mail. I'd like the

54 and the concerns raised by the individual. The individual, by the way, had

asked me to keep it anonymous, so I'm not going to put on record who sent us the

e-mail.

Hon. G.

Plant: The

section we have in front of us,

section 50(4), which is the

obligation on the tribunal to make its decisions accessible to the public, does

not apply to the employment and assistance tribunal. That is a deliberate

decision, and it is, in part, because the employment and assistance….

The

Chair: Member. Attorney General. Sorry, would you just repeat that again.

Hon. G.

Plant: It does not apply to the employment and assistance tribunal.

Section

50(4) will not be made applicable to the employment and assistance tribunal.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Plant: This was a deliberate decision, I think is what I said.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'll start again.

Section 50(4), the requirement that a tribunal make

its decisions accessible to the public, does not apply to the employment and

assistance tribunal. That is a deliberate decision. We made that decision

because at this point, the employment and assistance tribunal is still in an

early stage of developing its approach to decision-making. I am advised that it

attempts to make its decisions as informally as possible. I think there is going

to continue to be a dialogue between the administrative justice office and the

employment and assistance tribunal about how to ensure that some of the public

policy objectives around transparency can be met appropriately within a

framework that also allows that tribunal to do its work as informally as

possible. This framework here in

section 50 is a fairly formal framework.

I have to

say that I think, while the author of that letter makes some good points about

the fact that there is a value in building up a body of decisions that establish

a common approach to frequently raised issues — that is, to use the lawyer's

term, a body of precedent — generally speaking, the tribunals are not, as a

matter of law, bound by their own decisions. I'm not convinced that it's always

in the public interest to encourage tribunals to develop libraries full of

decisions. What that tends to do over time is legalize and formalize processes

and procedures that are intended to be accessible and informal.

[1530]

When you go

into the libraries of some law firms and find there are virtually rooms filled

with books of administrative tribunal decisions and lawyers who routinely spend

hours scouring those decisions trying to get answers to some questions that are

quite often, ultimately, fairly practical, I'm not sure that the interests of

the public are being met in a truly affordable, accessible and efficient justice

system.

This is a

continuing discussion. I also think, though, it needs to be pointed out that the

employment and assistance tribunal is still a relatively new tribunal, and there

is probably work that needs to be done on an ongoing basis to ensure that that

tribunal does the best job it can do. At this point in that evolution there will

not be imposed upon that tribunal — by this subsection, anyway — a

requirement to make its decisions accessible to the public.

J. Kwan:

I don't want to argue the point whether or not that's the right decision.

Suffice it to say that there are varying opinions, as the Attorney General had

acknowledged, about that. Perhaps that's something the government would actually

review from time to time to see what makes sense as things evolve and as this

new system with the welfare tribunals…. I actually don't know what…. I think

it's called the B.C. Benefits Appeal Board. I think that's the right term that's

used. Anyway, it's the new system that's been adopted, and as we learn about how

it is operating, we can review that matter to see whether or not that's the

right decision or whether or not changes should be made.

Just a

quick question on this, then. The employment assistance appeal tribunal act.

Does

section 50(4) apply to the employment assistance appeal tribunal act?

Hon. G.

Plant: It does not.

J. Kwan:

Then another quick follow-up question on that. That's presumably for the same

reasons that the minister had put on record around the welfare tribunals?

Hon. G.

Plant: That's actually exactly what I was explaining — why that

section

doesn't apply to the employment and assistance tribunal and the act that creates

that tribunal.

Sections 50

to 173 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 174 lists the amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. I understand

that the WCB has its own in-house review board in addition to the Workers

Compensation Appeal Tribunal. I know this falls under the Minister of Skills

Development and Labour, but I'm also wondering if this minister can tell me if

Bill 56 would have a bearing on the WCB in-house review board.

[ Page 11246 ]

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm advised that the provisions in this bill that deal with

constitutional questions will apply to the internal review process, but none of

the other provisions of the bill will apply to that internal process. From the

point of view of the system as a whole, it's the external appeal process, the

WCAT process, which is the process that we would refer to as the tribunal part

of that system. That would explain that approach.

Sections

174 to 191 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:34 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

56, Administrative Tribunals Act, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

[1535]

Hon. G.

Abbott: I call estimates debate for the office of the Premier.

Committee of Supply

The House

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

The

committee met at 3:38 p.m.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

On vote 8:

office of the Premier, $44,129,000 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

Yesterday we were canvassing with the Premier about the Doug Walls scandal.

The

Chair: Member, before we start here…. Take your seat, please. I believe

this issue has been well canvassed in a number of ministries, and I would ask

you now to move on.

J. Kwan:

I have a lot of questions about the Doug Walls issue to which I did not get

answers…

The

Chair: Member. Member, take your seat, please.

J. Kwan:

…from the Minister of Children and Family Development.

The

Chair: Member, take your seat, please. Take your seat, please. Member, this

issue has been thoroughly canvassed in a number of ministries. I ask you now to

move on.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, with respect, the report has come out only in the last

few days. I'm not sure what the Chair means.

respectfully offer this. The report has only been released in the last week, and

so the report has not been canvassed. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

will limit her questions to the Parks report. That has only been released in the

last few days and has not been canvassed in any estimates. She will limit her

questions to the Parks report, Mr. Chair.

The

Chair: As it relates to the office of the Premier. Proceed.

J. Kwan:

Yesterday we were canvassing with the Premier about the draft report, which

no one from the opposition has seen. There is a 17-day gap between the arrival

of the PricewaterhouseCoopers draft report and the acceptance by the government

of the final report.

Could the

Premier please tell this House who got a look at the draft report and what

happened to it during this 17-day period?

[1540]

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me start by saying I recognize that yesterday the members

opposite asked that the draft report be released. The government does not

release these draft reports, and it will not. They know that the report is a

report of PricewaterhouseCoopers. It is not a government report; it is a report

from PricewaterhouseCoopers. It was also stated in the press release when the

report was released that Mr. Parks would be available to answer any questions.

It is Mr. Parks's report from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

I never saw

any version of the report. However, let me be clear that the report was

submitted to my deputy; the comptroller general, who commissioned the report

initially; and the executive finance officer from the Ministry of Children and

Family Development. All of those people were requested by Mr. Parks to do a fact

check. The fact check was done, and Mr. Parks then wrote his final report.

The process

for this review, I should remind you and the members of the House, Mr. Chair,

was indeed exemplary. There was a request for qualifications for its conduct.

The terms of reference were open. It is clear about what they were in the

report. The report was made. It was reviewed according to freedom-of-information

and privacy protections. There was minimal severing that took place in the

report, as is obvious to anyone who has read the report. I believe the report

speaks for itself.

[ Page 11247 ]

J. Kwan:

Were the three people the Premier mentioned who were asked to review the facts

contained within the report the only three people who saw the report?

Hon. G.

Campbell: There were no elected officials, as I highlighted, that saw the

report. There were no political support staff that saw the report. There may

have been staff in the comptroller general's office that saw the report; I do

not know.

I can

inform the member of this. The deputy minister to the Premier requested no

changes to the report, no factual changes to the report. Whatever requests were

made, were made to Mr. Parks, and Mr. Parks did his final report.

J. Kwan:

Did the deputy to the Premier communicate the contents of the report to the

Premier?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I received copies of the report, I believe, two days — perhaps

the Monday…. I think it was released publicly on a Wednesday. I received the

report on a Monday.

J. Kwan:

What about the financial officer of the Ministry of Children and Family

Development? The communications from the people who saw the report…. Did they

engage in any discussions about the report to any of the elected officials or

politically appointed staff members?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No, Mr. Chair.

[1545]

J. Kwan:

The final report, as we understand, was accepted on May 7, but the report was

not made public until May 12. Could the Premier please tell this House what was

done with the report between those days?

Hon. G.

Campbell: On May 7 the report was received, as is pointed out in the press

release. The deputy minister received the report on May 7. Copies were provided

to ministers on Monday, May 10. The deputy minister read it over the weekend. So

on Monday, May 10, the copies were made available to ministers, and on

Wednesday, May 12, the report in its entirety was released.

J. Kwan:

Now let's go to the contents of the report. In the document, it refers to an

e-mail, and in that e-mail, it refers to meeting with Doug Walls, Martyn Brown

and Ken Dobell. The date of that meeting was July 21. Was the Premier present at

this meeting?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No, I was not present at that meeting with regard to Mr. Walls —

or any other meetings, for that matter, since I have become Premier.

But let me

ask the member…. If she's referring directly to the report, it would probably

be helpful if she gives us the page reference so we can respond directly to her.

J. Kwan:

I'll endeavour to do that. The report's page-numbering system is kind of

difficult to refer to, but anyway, we'll try to do that.

The Premier

said he was not at that meeting. Did his staff report back to him about that

meeting?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I was answering the question with regard to my attendance. I was

not there. I'm not aware that any such meeting took place. That's why I need to

see the reference in the report.

J. Kwan:

I found the page. It's appendix D.12, page 1.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Yeah. There are several e-mails that have been referenced. Page 1 references the

e-mail, as well as page 3, under that appendix. The subject matter is

consistent. It says "meeting with Ken" in all three of these e-mails.

Hon. G.

Campbell: At least the document I have in front of me is quite

straightforward. This was a meeting that was requested by Sam Sullivan. It was

attended by Sam Sullivan and Dave Driscoll. My deputy was there. I'm assuming

the other people that are mentioned in the e-mail — Cam Doré and Jordan

Thurston — were also in attendance. My deputy has no recollection of Mr. Walls

being in attendance at all. He may have been, but he has no recollection of it.

[1550]

J. Kwan:

It's listed in here that Mr. Walls attended this meeting. It lists the number of

attending individuals, and Mr. Walls is one individual that's listed.

Hon. G.

Campbell: My deputy recalls that at this meeting there were four people in

attendance. He certainly recalls meeting with Sam Sullivan and Dave Driscoll.

[H. Long in the chair.]

He does not

recollect meeting with Mr. Walls at that time. However, Mr. Walls may well have

been at the meeting. He certainly doesn't recall it.

J. Kwan:

It is only in this report here, in the e-mail from Doug Walls to Sam Sullivan,

Cam Doré, Jordan Thurston and Dave Driscoll. It's regarding the meeting with

Ken. It says: "Good morning. This is to confirm the meeting with Ken

Dobell, deputy minister to the Premier. The meeting will be held at government

cabinet offices in Vancouver." It lists the address and then the time and

the date, and then lists the people who attended.

How could

it be that for a meeting that's been specifically arranged with the deputy

minister to the Premier, the deputy minister to the Premier does not remember

the attendance of the individual who e-mailed

[ Page 11248 ]

this and confirmed the meeting? It's quite incredible, really.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The meeting took place, as I can read it here, on July 18, 2001.

My deputy has a personal acquaintance with Sam Sullivan. He recalls that. He has

known David Driscoll for a number of years. He recalls that. He does not recall

the other people that were at the meeting.

J. Kwan:

Except that according to the e-mail document from Doug Walls, which I suppose

one could say that this e-mail document partially would be the minutes of the

meeting…. It highlights and lists some of the things that were talked about,

who attended, where it took place and so on. The person who wrote this e-mail

presumably was there. Interestingly, the person who is at the heart of the

controversy about this scandal, who arranged the meeting with the deputy

minister to the Premier…. The deputy minister to the Premier does not recall

the attendance of this person at this meeting? I'm quite sorry. I do find that

response quite incredible.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I just wanted to comment on that. My recollection is even now,

only a few minutes ago, we were talking about a meeting on July 21. Is that not

correct?

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Campbell: When the member started her questioning, she was asking about a

meeting on July 21.

J. Kwan:

No, I said July 2001.

Hon. G.

Campbell: If the member reads this, she will see that this is a proscriptive

memo. "We have also arranged a pre-meeting to discuss…." It's not a

question of minutes. It reads, to me, at least — and this is the first time

I've seen this memo — like sort of an outline of what may be discussed.

I can tell

the member opposite that my deputy, as he said, did meet with Sam Sullivan. He

did meet with Dave Driscoll. He does recall meeting with four people. He doesn't

recall meeting with one, two, three, four, five people. However, he may well

have. Those are the facts.

J. Kwan:

Okay. The Premier says that his deputy does not remember meeting with this

particular person, irrespective that the e-mail actually says this person

attended this meeting. According to the e-mail, Doug Walls, director of social

enterprise, Planned Lifetime Social Advocacy Network, is listed in the document

as a person who attended this meeting.

[1555]

We'll go

not on the basis of someone's memory but rather what's listed in this document

and through this e-mail. I would go on the assumption that Doug Walls was at

this meeting and not on the assumption of the deputy to the Premier's memory.

Having said

that, did the Premier's staff report back to the Premier about this meeting? If

so, what was reported back about this meeting?

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, I'm glad to have the member look at the e-mail once more.

If you read the e-mail, it is not minutes. There are discussions about what will

take place. "Will" is something that takes place in the future, not

something that takes place now and not something that takes place in the past.

"This meeting will be in the restaurant off the lobby level of the Pan

Pacific. We'll meet for coffee and share thoughts on strategy." It is a

prospective e-mail.

The fact of

the matter is that my deputy recollects having a meeting with Sam Sullivan, with

Dave Driscoll. At the meeting there were four people in attendance. It may well

have been the meeting that was going to take place in the future, after this

e-mail. That's possible. I'm not saying that it isn't possible. I can tell you

that there were no reports back from the meeting to me or anyone else that I'm

aware of.

J. Kwan:

Maybe we can start with this. Did the deputy to the Premier meet with Doug

Walls at any time, and if so, when?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Other than the meeting that is being discussed here, which the

deputy does not recall Mr. Walls being in attendance at, the answer is no.

I would

refer the member opposite to page 70 of the report. This is Mr. Parks's report.

There's not anyone editing it. It's Mr. Parks's report. "Mr. Walls told

us…he had no discussions with Ken Dobell about appointments, he 'didn't know

Ken Dobell,' he couldn't 'imagine sending him an e-mail,' he 'never did

telephone him,' and he 'honestly can't recall talking to Ken Dobell….'"

That's what is on page 70 of this report.

J. Kwan:

Let me just get this straight. The Premier is saying that the deputy to the

Premier did not at any time meet with Doug Walls. Is that correct?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Other than the possibility that Mr. Walls may have been in

attendance at the meeting with Sam Sullivan and Dave Driscoll that the deputy

minister attended, he has not met with Doug Walls.

J. Kwan:

Did the deputy to the Premier have conversations with Doug Walls?

Hon. G.

Campbell: With the previous caveat, the answer is no.

J. Kwan:

E-mail exchange?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No.

J. Kwan:

How about Martyn Brown — for all of the questions that I asked?

[ Page 11249 ]

[1600]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I hope it's all right with the member opposite, but I'm going to

do this from memory. I believe it will be reflected in the report for certain.

Mr. Brown met with Mr. Walls with a ministerial assistant to the former minister

at one point. That is the only time that he met with Mr. Walls that I am aware

of. There was one e-mail that was sent from Mr. Brown to Mr. Walls, probably

three years ago.

Kwan: The last part of the Premier's answer — three years ago. Mr. Brown

met with Mr. Walls once? Is that what the Premier said?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The e-mail was three years ago. I believe that Mr. Brown met with

Mr. Walls in April of…. I believe it was a year ago, maybe April 2003. But I

want to say, to be candid, that I'm not intending to read the entire report. The

report is there. It is complete. It is thorough. It's an independent

investigation that has been carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and I think

the report speaks for itself.

J. Kwan:

Yes, the report outlines a number of information…. There are also a number

of questions that, in my view, have not been answered by the report. So I would

like to canvass these questions with the Premier.

Did anybody

from the Premier's office meet with Doug Walls?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Again, let me say that the report does speak for itself.

Mr.

Dobell…. Again, let me refer the member opposite to page 70. Mr. Parks says

that he reviewed the e-mail dated July 18 from Doug Walls to Sam Sullivan, Cam

Doré, Jordan Thurston and Dave Driscoll. All right? The meeting was on, not….

It wasn't minutes of a meeting. You will see from page 70 that the meeting with

Ken Dobell was on July 19, which the three recipients were to attend.

Those are

the facts from the report. Mr. Brown did meet with Mr. Walls, I believe, in

2003, and those are the only potential times that members of my office could

have possibly met with Mr. Walls. I can confirm that Mr. Brown did meet. I can

confirm that Mr. Dobell did go to a meeting on July 19. I cannot confirm that

Mr. Walls was at that meeting on July 19.

Kwan: So the Premier is saying that nobody from his office had met with Doug

Walls other than what's been identified in this report, and nobody from his

office talked to or e-mailed Doug Walls outside of what's been identified in

this report. This is what I heard in the Premier's answer so far. I'd like to

get a confirmation from the Premier.

Hon. G.

Campbell: No political staff from the Premier's office met with Doug Walls.

I've already answered the questions with regard to the deputy.

J. Kwan:

The issue around individualized funding that was being promoted by Doug Walls

— when did the Premier's office first learn of this concept of individualized

funding? And who did they learn this concept from?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I can't speak for the entire government. In terms of our

government, we were brought into government in June 2001. The meeting we have

been discussing on July 19, 2001, may have been the first time my deputy was

made aware of this, but it may have been going on in Children and Families prior

to that.

[1605]

I would say

to the member opposite, though, that this is not a new idea by any stretch of

the imagination. For example, a letter we received from the president of the

British Columbia Association for Community Living in June 2002 points this out:

"While

the community living movement has long called for restructuring of funding and

services to meet principles of individualized funding, self-determination and

community inclusion, the vehicles and structures to manage large-scale

transformation remain largely undeveloped. With the initiative you have now

underway, B.C. is providing a real example and important leadership to

governments and the disability movement across the country."

This was

not a new idea. It was an idea that had not been picked up by governments across

the country. It was an idea that was picked up by this government because we

believed that people who had some of these difficulties and disabilities

deserved to have a right to have a sense of personal dignity. Their families had

a right to have a sense of personal direction for what was taking place in their

families and with their children and their siblings. It was an important

undertaking. It is an important transformation, as is mentioned by the society

for community living.

It was a

thrust of what we were trying to accomplish. It's a thrust that I think we

should be proud of, and it's a thrust that we will continue to pursue as we

develop the proposal in the months ahead.

J. Kwan:

Well, let me just address this with the Premier. I have before me a set of notes

regarding a meeting that took place on August 13, 2001 — an individualized

funding information-sharing meeting.

The purpose

of the meeting…. It reads:

"David

Driscoll outlined the purposes of the meeting as an opportunity to share

information about recent meetings with Chris Haynes, the deputy minister,

Ministry of Children and Family Development" — MCFD — "and Ken

Dobell, deputy to the Premier, to analyze what opportunities there may be to

promote individualized funding in MCFD."

Then

the document goes on to say:

"Opportunities

for individualized funding with MCFD. Doug Walls reported on the current

situation within the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The senior

management assistant deputy ministers are gone. There is a new minister."

names the former Minister of Children and Family Development, who has been a

member of a community living agency board, and a new deputy minis-

[ Page 11250 ]

ter, Chris Haynes, formerly an Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources.

core services review is being undertaken in the ministry, and David Young, who

has had experience with individualized funding, is leading it. These changes may

provide a real opportunity because the leadership is knowledgable and open to

looking at how individualized funding can be incorporated into the

ministry."

goes on to say:

"Doug

Walls and David Driscoll jointly reported on a meeting that they attended in

mid-July with Ken Dobell, deputy to the Premier. Jordan Thurston and Cam Doré

also attended this meeting."

goes on to talk about the purpose of the meeting. Then the document goes on to

say:

"The

outcome of the meeting was positive. Ken Dobell said that if the MCFD put

forward a proposal for individualized funding, it would be well received in

the Premier's office. He subsequently contacted the MCFD and expressed his

support for an individualized funding approach.

"In

summary, Doug Walls and David Driscoll asserted that there is a clear window

of opportunity for individualized funding that is linked to the core review

and, as a consequence, will need to be organized very quickly. A first-stage

proposal will need to be ready by September 15 with a more detailed proposal

ready for October 15.

"It

was emphasized that the pressure on the ministry to cut up to $160 million by

February 2002 is real. The core services review will restructure the ministry.

This crisis may also be an opportunity for families to reorganize, to put

forward their own vision of how individualized funding could restructure the

Ministry of Children and Family Development."

[1610]

This is the

document that I have — notes contained within this meeting outlining several

things. There was, in fact, a meeting with Mr. Dobell and Mr. Doug Walls,

amongst others, in mid-July. The minutes of the meeting, not before the meeting

took place, although the e-mail in the audit document says that Doug Walls was

to be attending this meeting…. After the fact, in reporting out to various

people, it says that in fact Doug Walls met with Mr. Dobell. That's number one

in terms of discrepancy.

Second, it

talked about optimizing a window of opportunity, if you will, in trying to push

through individualized funding and that Mr. Dobell had put forward a proposal

for individualized funding and supported this proposal to the Ministry of

Children and Family Development.

Let me then

ask this question: did Mr. Dobell receive an individualized funding document

from anybody?

Hon. G.

Campbell: There's nothing that the member opposite has said that is

inconsistent with my answers earlier today, in the last few minutes, Mr. Chair.

First of

all, let's be clear about this. I think we should be pleased that we have a

public service that is known for leadership, that is knowledgable. I think

certainly, when we were a government that had been elected, we were looking for

ways that we could provide better services to young people in British Columbia.

We watched as young people were being taken from their homes at record rates, at

rates that were far beyond anything that was found in Canada. We wanted to be

sure that in fact the Ministry of Children and Family Development was working

with families.

You know,

if it's a surprise to the member opposite, it's maybe because her government was

in government for ten years and didn't do anything with these families who were

calling out for individualized funding, who were calling out for the great

institution of government to think of their family and the people that were part

of it.

Yes, we had

knowledgable leadership. I could certainly concur with that. I don't know what

the member opposite is referring to. If she'd like to pass me the memo or the

minute, I'm glad to read it myself. I can tell you that I'm sure there were lots

of proposals that came into the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

There was a long time through estimates to discuss with the Minister of Children

and Family Development what was taking place with regard to individualized

funding, with regard to community living, with regard to the new proposals that

have been brought forward. There has been a recent report brought forward that's

there for the member to look at.

Again, in

terms of the Walls report — which is the subject, I assume, of the discussions

we have — the report is complete, it is thorough, it is independent, and it

speaks for itself.

J. Kwan:

The Premier didn't answer my question.

Let me just

put this on the record once again. The outcome of the meeting was positive. Ken

Dobell said that if the Ministry of Children and Family Development put forward

a proposal for individualized funding, it would be well received in the

Premier's office. He subsequently contacted the MCFD ministry and expressed his

support for an individualized funding approach.

Did the

deputy to the Premier receive any individualized funding proposals from anybody,

and if so, from whom and when?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The deputy may well have received briefings at the meeting that

has been referred to, which he attended with Sam Sullivan and Dave Driscoll and

others. That's certainly possible. I am sure, if there were subsequent papers,

they would have gone to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

[1615]

I want

there to be no question, though. We were looking for individualized funding. We

were looking for a way that we could respond to the needs of families that had

been calling out for help from government for over a decade. That was an

initiative that the government had undertaken. It was an initiative that the

ministry had undertaken in response to the government's challenge to try and

provide better services to the developmentally disabled and the developmentally

[ Page 11251 ]

delayed. I think that's critical. We wanted to work with families. We were

told by the community living sector that was something that was important to

them, to the quality of life and to the individual dignity of the people who

were faced with those circumstances, and we tried to respond.

J. Kwan:

Well, the Premier again didn't answer the question. He says that he might have

received individualized proposals. According to the e-mails here and according

to the information that is coming out in bits and pieces, there appears to be

communication with Mr. Dobell from Mr. Doug Walls. It's certainly curious that

the Premier's assertions are raising questions on some of the implications in

terms of documentation that the opposition has received regarding this matter.

Did the

Premier's office contact anybody about the individualized funding and express

its enthusiasm for it — or otherwise?

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, I'd like the member to relate directly to the e-mails that

she's referring to. It's very difficult for me to know what she's referring to.

We've already seen one e-mail that she was casting as a minute, and it turned

out that it was a future projection. I'd like to know exactly what the e-mail is

so we can respond to it directly.

J. Kwan:

I put on record an e-mail for the Premier's consideration, and then I put on

record minutes of a meeting for the Premier's consideration, which expressly

said that Mr. Dobell was at a meeting in July. It expressly says that in the

minutes of this document dated August 13, 2001.

It's

curious, because it appears to me that there's contradicting information coming

forward. It isn't just in the e-mail where it identified the people attending a

particular meeting, including Doug Walls with Mr. Dobell. It wasn't just that

e-mail that made that reference. Minutes after the meeting made the same

reference as well. In fact, it goes on to say: "Doug Walls and David

Driscoll jointly reported on the meeting they attended in mid-July with Ken

Dobell, deputy to the Premier. In addition, Jordan Thurston and Cam Doré also

attended this meeting." That would make four people.

It is

interesting that the deputy to the Premier recollects that there were four

people in attendance at this meeting. Well, the four that have been identified

in the minutes happen to include Doug Walls.

[1620]

There's

contradicting information here that I'm trying to canvass with the Premier. I

may add that the e-mail in this document — in the audit — before the meeting

happens to coincide with the minutes of a meeting subsequently about who

attended. When I asked the question about whether or not the Premier's office

received any individualized funding proposals, I didn't get a clear answer from

the Premier at all about that. Then I'm asking the question whether or not the

Premier's office communicated to anyone specifically about the adoption of an

individualized funding proposal for the community living sector. I didn't get an

answer from the Premier on that either. I would like an answer from the Premier,

first of all, on that question.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Perhaps as a courtesy, the member could table the minutes to which

she's referring. I can't say whether the minutes are right or wrong, whether

they've been read or not, who wrote the minutes, etc. It's difficult to respond.

There is

nothing that the member has said that is inconsistent with the conversation

we've had over the last hour, Mr. Chair. My deputy says he went to a meeting.

The people that he remembers being at the meeting were Sam Sullivan and Dave

Driscoll, two people he knew previously. They did discuss individualized

funding. He may have received paper from them — in fact, he probably did get

paper from them — with regard to individualized funding.

As I

mentioned and as I read from earlier, the community living sector, the community

living volunteers and the families who are involved in community living have

been trying to get individualized funding for years. When the government was

elected, we said to ourselves: why not try and respond to the needs of families

and people who happen to be developmentally delayed? Why don't we try and

respond and create a support program that's individualized, that provides them

with the dignity they want and that provides them with the opportunity to direct

their lives in a way they want to?

Was the

government in favour of individualized funding? Yes, the government was in

favour of individualized funding. The ministry was very open about the fact that

they were moving with individualized funding. The whole community living sector

was excited about the fact that we were moving towards individualized funding.

I won't

reread the letter, Mr. Chair, but the letter is pretty clear. It's something

they were excited about. They saw a major challenge in front of the government

and the community living sector in providing that new approach of

individualized, family-oriented kind of funding in the community living level.

They saw some major shifts that had to take place there. They saw a significant

amount of work that had to be done there, and we've been carrying out that work.

I don't

know whether the member is for individualized funding or not. I'm not quite sure

what the line of questioning is. I can tell you that the government has been in

favour of that, and we've been carrying that out.

The last

thing I will say in terms of the meeting that my deputy had is that my deputy

was very clear. He attended a meeting. He didn't recall meeting with Mr. Walls.

I would

again refer the member opposite to page 70 of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report.

It is a thorough report. It answers these questions. I think we've canvassed

this matter in a way that I hope will have met the member's concerns.

[ Page 11252 ]

J. Kwan:

The issue I'm trying to canvass here is, first of all, the process that took

place with respect to the individualized funding matter. When was Doug Walls's

plan for individualized funding acknowledged by government? Is the Premier

saying that Doug Walls's plan for individualized funding was never acknowledged

by government?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm not aware of what Mr. Walls's plan was for individualized

funding. I am aware that Mr. Walls was obviously interested in that. That's

clear from the report. I'm aware that the community living sector has been

interested in that. That's clear from the report. I'm aware that there was a

meeting with my deputy, with Sam Sullivan and with Dave Driscoll. That's clear

from the report.

[1625]

What's also

clear from the report is that the community living sector wanted to provide

developmentally delayed individuals with the opportunity for individualized

funding and funding that focused on the needs of their families and the people

who were involved with them. We moved as a government in that direction because

we felt it was best for the people involved.

J. Kwan:

The Premier didn't answer my question. I'm led to believe that Doug Walls did

present a document — a proposal, if you will — around individualized funding

to Mr. Dobell somewhere along the line.

I'm led to

believe that that actually did happen, and let me just also say this for the

Premier's information. In appendix D.12, page 3, there's an e-mail from Chris

Haynes to Doug Walls regarding the meeting with Ken Dobell. Actually, it just

says Ken. Presumably, that's Ken Dobell they're referring to.

It says:

"Looks great. I would raise the profile of the way individualized funding

is coterminus with the B.C. Liberal principles: choice, accountability,

opportunity, fiscal prudence. As you should know, Ken is a very fast study. You

must move fast. If you have reading material, he'll read it."

The e-mail

is actually from the former deputy to the Ministry of Children and Family

Development. Throughout the document, there are issues that are raised with

respect to information potentially passing hands.

The Premier

denies that vehemently and says no. Perhaps the Premier is correct, but other

information suggests otherwise. The Premier wants a copy of this document that I

have, and I'll check and see whether I could release this document to the

Premier.

Mayencourt: That leads me to believe that you don't know what you're talking

about.

J. Kwan:

The Vancouver-Burrard member is sitting there nattering, saying that, oh well,

that leads him to believe that I don't know what I'm talking about. I have with

me a document….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order. Keep order in the House.

J. Kwan:

The member for Vancouver-Burrard goes: "Well, table it." As I said,

I'll check with my source and make sure they're comfortable with me tabling this

document with the Premier. In fact, I'll do that right now, Mr. Chair. If I may

just have a five-minute recess, I will go and ask our source to see if we could

do that. I'd be happy to do that.

Hon. G.

Campbell: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I believe

the issue is on the Web. I just wanted it so that I could see it. I've got a

copy of it now, so I understand what it is. She doesn't have to get any checking

with her sources.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order, members.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I've answered the questions on a number of occasions. I'm sure the

member opposite will recognize that this is a note from the community living

sector. We can read out all the names. It's the community living sector. It is

clear that this is what they hope will happen. I'm glad that they've noted Mr.

Dobell's many, many talents. I think that's important.

I think

it's equally important to note there is nothing from the government here. It is

what they hope will happen. It's what they think happened. There is no

confirmation from the government.

You know, I

understand the member is concerned about this, as we all are. That's why we

asked for a fully independent investigation to be done. It's been carried out.

It's clear, it's straightforward, and I believe it answers the member opposite's

questions in quite a lot of detail.

The

Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a new question.

J. Kwan:

This just goes to show you that we were actually talking about different things

or different documents, because in the document it says clearly Doug Walls and

David Driscoll jointly reported on a meeting that they attended in mid-July with

Ken Dobell, deputy to the Premier. Jordan Thurston and Cam Doré also attended

this meeting.

[1630]

Well, maybe

the Premier wants to gloss over that inconsistency with the recollection of his

deputy on who attended the meeting. The minutes say otherwise in this document.

The information from the minutes happens to coincide with the e-mails that came

and were reported out in the audit about who was going to attend the meeting. I

would just say that there is a

[ Page 11253 ]

slight inconsistency here with respect to the Premier's answers.

For the

Premier's information, we got these minutes from two separate sources — not

from a website, but from individuals. For the Premier to imply that these

minutes are somehow inaccurate by his response…. Well, let me just say that

it's not true. These are the minutes of people who attended the meeting, and

that's what they reported out on.

The time

line around individualized funding in that proposal — when it was implemented

— is crucial. I want to ask a very specific question to the Premier: did his

office at any time receive a specific proposal on individualized funding from

Doug Walls?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I don't know the answer to that question with any certainty. I

know that we were carrying on, as I mentioned earlier, with a number of

initiatives in the ministry. I know that individualized funding was one of those

initiatives.

J. Kwan:

The Premier says he doesn't know the answer to that with any degree of

certainty, except that I think it's a pretty crucial question. The Premier goes:

"What's crucial about it?" The whole scandal — part of the scandal,

actually, because there are many layers to the scandal — centres around Doug

Walls having an inside track and then working hard in his own fashion to push

through his proposal for individualized funding. Somehow through that process he

was able to, quite frankly, walk away with $2.3 million of taxpayers' money.

I would

like to know the entry point for Doug Walls in this opportunity for career

development and self-promotion. Did the Premier's office receive a specific

proposal from Doug Walls on individualized funding or not? I don't think that's

a difficult question for the Premier to answer.

The

Chair: Shall vote 8 pass?

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on vote 8.

J. Kwan:

Well, the Premier won't answer the question. He says: "I answered the

question, except that I don't know the answer to the question." Well,

there's some answer that you can take to the bank — sort of like the tax cuts

that didn't pay for themselves. I don't want to give an opportunity here for the

government to walk away on these critical questions around the Doug Walls

scandal.

[1635]

Let's focus

on this. Theresa Kerin was formerly with the ministry as an ADM. Interestingly,

Ms. Kerin was fired in the process. Interestingly, according to the audit

document, Ms. Kerin was giving Doug Walls a difficult time around the amount of

money that he was trying to get from the ministry. Ms. Kerin said that Doug

Walls should only get $50,000. After she communicated that to a number of people

— including Doug Walls — we find, in the documentation here from the audit,

that Ms. Kerin was fired. Why was Ms. Kerin fired?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm sure the member opposite knows this, and she's taken a lot of

leeway with going after staff and personnel. That is, I guess, her choice. I am

not going to discuss personnel matters in these estimates. It's a personnel

matter that took place outside of my purview. I am not aware of what the

circumstances were around that individual. It would be inappropriate for me to

discuss it if I was.

J. Kwan:

Isn't that curious? Before the last provincial election, Theresa Kerin, an ADM

in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, told Doug Walls that the

government would only provide $50,000 a year to help subsidize the cost of

connecting CareNet's non-profit clients to the Internet. Mr. Walls was demanding

$600,000. In July 2001, Theresa Kerin was let go by the government.

The audit

report and the e-mail trail outlined in the audit made it very clear, I think.

In May 2001, Doug Walls complained that Theresa Kerin was being tough with him.

She's only offering $50,000 a year when he wants much more — at least $20,000

a month, to the sum of some $600,000. On July 11, 2001, under this government's

authority, Ms. Kerin detailed her troubles with CareNet in a note to file. She

reiterated her position that CareNet only get $50,000 a year. Then a few days

later Ms. Kerin is given the boot by the government, and the government's

position has changed. Doug Walls gets his money.

Why did the

audit not examine the removal of Ms. Kerin's authority over this file?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I can tell the Chair that there were no restrictions on Mr.

Parks's investigation. If the member wants to know why he didn't pursue that,

she should ask him. He is available, and he was available when the report was

released.

J. Kwan:

The audit only notes that later in July, Theresa Kerin was removed from her

position as assistant deputy minister. On what day did she receive her notice?

Mr. Chair,

the Premier's office is responsible for public servants, and in fact…. Let me

just leave it at that. The Premier's office has been responsible in some of

these matters. Specifically, when did Ms. Kerin receive her notice?

[1640]

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me be clear. I've never met the individual to whom the member

is referring. I don't know her. I would refer the member opposite to page 16 of

the report and the conclusions Mr. Parks raised with regard to that.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I read that page of the report. My question, though, is: when was Ms.

Kerin fired from the public service? When did she receive her notice?

[ Page 11254 ]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I don't know.

J. Kwan:

Can the Premier find out? Surely he could get that information. He's the

head of the executive council.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm not aware, again, of when this took place. There is normally

an OIC involved when an ADM is appointed and when that appointment has been

rescinded, so we will see if there is a reflection of that.

J. Kwan:

I will wait for the information from the Premier about when Ms. Kerin was

fired and when she received her notice. I expect the Premier should be able to

get that information.

Who made

the staffing decision to fire Ms. Kerin? If it's an OIC, presumably cabinet made

that decision.

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I mentioned to the member earlier, I don't know this particular

person. I don't know the date upon which she was given notice. I will endeavour

to get that.

J. Kwan:

Who made the staffing decision, though?

[1645]

Hon. G.

Campbell: The recommendation would likely have been from the deputy

minister. If it was an OIC appointment, then obviously that would have been

signed off. But the recommendation would have come from the deputy minister.

J. Kwan:

ADMs and DMs — assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers — are OIC

appointments, order-in-council appointments. Those things are only dealt with

through the executive council by cabinet, unless things have changed since this

Liberal government came into office. But I don't think so. Assistant deputy

ministers and deputy ministers are appointed or rescinded by the executive

council.

So the

Premier said he doesn't know when Ms. Kerin was fired or when she received her

notice. He's not sure whether or not cabinet signed off an OIC on her. Mr.

Chair, the deputy to the Premier is responsible for these senior levels of

staffing in terms of the firing and the hiring. The recommendation might have

come from Chris Haynes, but somebody who took actual action on the firing of Ms.

Kerin…. It actually took place, I believe, by cabinet.

So if the

Premier says he doesn't have that information here or he can't get that

information from his very able staff here, will he endeavour to provide that

information tomorrow to the opposition? I'm sure it won't take very long for the

Premier to get that information.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I told the member that I will endeavour to get the information,

Mr. Chair. Let me explain the challenge here. Some EFOs are ADMs, and some EFOs

are not. It is important to recognize that. There is no endeavour on anybody's

part to deal with that.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Well, she may have been. If she was, then it's a matter of public

record, and you can discover it yourself by going and getting OICs. The fact of

the matter is that this report and the terms of reference for this investigation

were broad. Mr. Parks had at his disposal whatever lines of inquiry he cared to

follow, and the report speaks for itself.

J. Kwan:

I thank the Premier for confirming that he will provide the information to the

opposition by tomorrow about the firing of Ms. Kerin and who made that decision.

I appreciate that.

It is

curious to note, Mr. Chair, that the government fired an ADM in the ministry who

told Mr. Walls that he could only get $50,000 and no more and then opened up the

money taps afterwards, handing Mr. Walls over $1.2 million in taxpayers' money.

Ms. Kerin

was replaced by Wayne Ironmonger, someone Doug Walls identifies early on as a

big CareNet supporter. On May 4, 2001, an e-mail from Doug Walls to Chris Haynes

identifies Ironmonger as someone "who has always been a strong CareNet

supporter," and Doug Walls suggests that they have him over for a beer.

That e-mail is outlined in appendix D.2, third page. Once Ms. Kerin is gone and

replaced by Ironmonger, Doug Walls gets all the funding he demands, and more.

Who made

the decision to hire Wayne Ironmonger to replace Theresa Kerin?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Mr. Haynes would have made the decision, and if it was an OIC, it

would have been processed through the ministry.

[1650]

J. Kwan:

The Premier said that it was Mr. Haynes who made that decision or that it was

processed through the ministry. Did that decision made by Mr. Haynes, the former

deputy minister to the Minister of Children and Family Development, have to be

vetted by the deputy to the Premier, who is actually responsible for the

hirings?

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The Premier said that Mr. Haynes made that decision, and my question to the

Premier is: did Mr. Haynes have to vet that decision with anybody from the

Premier's office, including Mr. Dobell?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think it's clear — again, from the report — that Mr. Haynes

was the acting deputy minister. As we came to government, there's no question

that there were a number of deputy ministers that were making changes with their

staffs throughout gov-

[ Page 11255 ]

ernment. If staff changes were made within the ministry, that would have been

Mr. Haynes's responsibility. If there were requirements for the routine

processing through OIC, that would have been done as a routine matter.

J. Kwan:

Is the Premier saying that the decision to hire Mr. Wayne Ironmonger was not

vetted through the Premier's office at any time?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Theresa Kerin's OIC was No. 767.

J. Kwan:

The Premier didn't answer my question, Mr. Chair.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I didn't hear the question.

J. Kwan:

My question to the Premier is this. The hiring of Mr. Wayne Ironmonger, the

decision that the Premier says was made by Mr. Haynes — was that decision at

no time vetted through the Premier's office?

Hon. G.

Campbell: If it was an OIC, it would have been processed through the office

as a routine matter.

J. Kwan:

So then it went to cabinet through an OIC, as is the practice. Appointments and

rescinding of ADMs and deputy ministers are orders-in-council.

Here's what

we've got to date. Ms. Kerin was fired through an OIC — fired by cabinet. Mr.

Ironmonger was hired by cabinet through an OIC — recommendations made by Mr.

Haynes, but nonetheless cabinet made that decision to carry it out.

I would

actually like the OIC information about Mr. Ironmonger as well, to get the date

exactly when he was hired by this government. Would the Premier provide that

information?

[1655]

Interjections.

The

Chair: Come to order, members. Come to order.

Premier.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Interjections.

The

Chair: The Premier has the floor. Will the members please come to order.

Thank you.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The member opposite is aware of how these things take place. There

is no question that our deputies are given the responsibility for appointments

within their ministries. Again, the report deals with these things in detail.

I've just got the OIC for the member opposite with regard to Ms. Kerin. I'm sure

she can review other OICs should she feel that's appropriate and that's a good

use of her time.

J. Kwan:

With the exception that this Premier is actually responsible. Cabinet signed off

on the hirings and the firings of ADMs, including these two individuals.

It just so

happens — it's just some sort of strange coincidence — that Ms. Kerin was

fired. She was the one on record who said that Doug Walls should only receive

$50,000 through his contract. Then she gets fired because Doug Walls, in an

e-mail, complains that she's being difficult and giving him a hard time because

he wants $600,000 from the ministry.

Then it

just so happens, all by coincidence, that Mr. Ironmonger was hired. Doug Walls

identifies him early on as a big CareNet booster. Then it just so happens, after

Mr. Ironmonger was hired, that the money taps started to flow for Doug Walls,

and he managed to walk away with $1.2 million of taxpayers' money.

Maybe

that's not important to the Premier. It is to the opposition, and it certainly

is to British Columbians, because those dollars that Mr. Walls walked away with

could have gone to the protection of children and families. I would urge the

Premier to actually take these questions more seriously and, moreover, take the

appointment and rescinding of OICs for ADMs and deputy ministers as more than

matters of routine, because in this instance — at least one instance — it

could have dir