2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Hon. G.

Campbell

Myles Mansell

Hon. G.

Campbell

C. James

J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Public Inquiry Act (Bill 23)

Hon. W. Oppal

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Violence against women

M. Polak

National Volunteer Week

N. Simons

Youth addiction services

L. Mayencourt

Emergency first-aid response by Stormy

Foreman

H. Bains

Whistler Water Company

H. Bloy

Passover

D. Chudnovsky

Oral Questions

Child protection services

C. James

Hon. G.

Campbell

Child death reviews

A. Dix

Hon. J. Les

Implementation of child protection

report recommendations

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Campbell

Ferry service to northern communities

G. Coons

Hon. K. Falcon

WorkSafe B.C. changes to workers

compensation benefits

C. Puchmayr

Hon. M. de

Jong

B. Simpson

R. Fleming

Motions without Notice

Establishment of committee on children

and youth

Hon. M. de

Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Securities Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill

20)

Hon. W. Oppal

J. Kwan

L. Krog

Supplements Repeal Act (Bill 26)

Hon. W. Oppal

L. Krog

Employment and Income Assistance

Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 21)

Hon. C.

Richmond

C. Trevena

M. Sather

M. Karagianis

L. Krog

Resort Timber Administration Act (Bill

24)

Hon. O. Ilich

N. Simons

N. Macdonald

S. Simpson

M. Sather

S. Fraser

Provincial Symbols and Honours

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 22)

Hon. J. van

Dongen

M. Sather

Hon. B. Penner

S. Simpson

J. McIntyre

R. Fleming

K. Krueger

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Economic

Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and

the Olympics

Hon. C. Hansen

M. Farnworth

H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources (continued)

C. Evans

G. Gentner

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology

Hon. M. Coell

G. Robertson

[ Page 3879 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I'd like to introduce two people in the gallery with us today. Barbara Dashwood is a longtime resident of Victoria, a cartographer and mapping technician at Islands Trust. With Barbara is Michael Vasilev, who is just finishing his first year at UVic. He's a keen political observer who one day might find himself in this chamber elected as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Les: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr. Derek Fryer, a constituent of mine in Chilliwack. Derek is a chartered accountant, and he's very active in the community, particularly with the Chilliwack Hospice Society. I would ask the House to please make Derek welcome today.

Tributes

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II

Hon. G. Campbell: Last Friday marked the 80th birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. British Columbians will recall how honoured we all felt when Her Majesty joined us in October of 2002 to celebrate her golden jubilee. During that visit we were reminded of the true grace and dignity and public service that Her Majesty has provided for over half a century.

While she's held the throne for over 50 years, she's touched the lives of literally millions of British Columbians, Canadians and people around the world. I know she holds a special place in the hearts of the people of our province. On behalf of all of them, I think it would be appropriate for the Legislature to send her all of our best wishes and wish her many happy returns.

[1405]

MYLES MANSELL

Hon. G. Campbell: On a more solemn note, I also rise today to recognize the loss of another young Canadian soldier from British Columbia. On Saturday, Bombardier Myles Mansell was one of four Canadians killed in an explosion north of Kandahar, Afghanistan. He was a 25-year-old reservist with the 5th B.C. Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, who lived his entire life right here in Victoria, British Columbia. What a huge shift he made to go from Victoria, British Columbia to Kandahar, Afghanistan.

He volunteered to serve in Afghanistan to represent and defend the hopes and ideals of that country and our own. He was a proud son, a beloved brother and a fiancé, with plans to become a husband when he returned from his tour of duty.

We will never know now what Myles Mansell would have achieved in his life when he returned. But we do know this. Whether helping fight the wildfires in the interior of British Columbia in 2003 or pursuing peace half a world away until last Saturday, he lived his life in service to all of us. There is no higher calling than that answered by Myles Mansell and his colleagues, and there's no greater sacrifice that one can make on behalf of all of us who live in Canada.

Our loss as a community and as a society pales in comparison to that of his family. We are all lessened by his death, but we are honoured by his commitment to service. Our prayers go out to his family in this time of great sorrow. Our hearts remain as strong and as true as ever, behind all those who continue to serve beyond our borders. May they find their way home safely and securely soon, and may Myles Mansell know only peace and rest in the hearts of all those that he loved.

C. James: On behalf of the opposition, I would like to add our thoughts and prayers to the family, to the colleagues, to the Mansells. This is a very difficult time for their family, for their colleagues at the Bay Street Armoury who have worked with and know this family and know the individual well. I would like to pass along our thoughts and prayers as well.

J. Horgan: Some weeks ago our colleague from Powell River spoke of a son of Powell River who had given his life for British Columbia and for Canada. I thought at that time: I hope I never have to do that for a son of Langford, a son of British Columbia and a son of Canada. Myles Mansell leaves behind the honour and integrity of a community, a province and a country.

It is with great sorrow that we recognize the pain and suffering of his family, but as a House and as a community, we want to thank them from the bottom of our hearts for giving their son to protect and promote the values that we all share in this place.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would ask that everyone in this House recall and reflect on the number of times since this House came into session last May that we've had to stand and speak about proud Canadians who have given their lives so that we can be in this place today.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the House today are a number of visitors

from my riding of Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. They're from the Archbishop

Carney Catholic high school in Port Coquitlam. I had the pleasure of attending

their annual fundraiser on Saturday night with a former member of this House and

former Premier of this province, the Hon. Bill Vander Zalm, who was the guest auctioneer, and he did a terrific job. So in the gallery today I'd ask the House to please make welcome the teachers — Mr. Jerome Francis, Mr. John Borizzilo, Mrs. Brygide

Reis, Mr. Charles Harris — and the students of Archbishop Carney Secondary School.

[1410]

G. Hogg: We are joined in the Legislature today by two residents of Surrey, the owners of a vibrant B.C.

[ Page 3880 ]

business entitled Team Sales. One is shuffleboard-challenged; the other is blessed with consummate skills. Would the House please join me in welcoming Glen and Gaye Johnson to the Legislature.

R. Chouhan: Today I would like to welcome two people, Gabriel Eklou and Judy Cavanagh. Gabriel Eklou is a self-taught, full-time painter and today one of the most prolific artists in Ghana, West Africa. Gabriel is a member of the international scene who with his humanist art challenges the stereotype that limits Africa to AIDS, poverty and civil wars.

Judy Cavanagh is a former deputy minister in this province. She has recently returned from Ghana, West Africa, where she worked on the project with the office of the president on central governance. Gabriel and Judy have recently established the Motherland Studio, specializing in promoting contemporary African artists and sharing the richness of African life. Please join me to welcome them.

S. Hawkins: I would like to introduce two École Brodeur high school students who are joining the public education and outreach office of the Legislative Assembly for a week. They're here as part of their tourism 10 class to complete a practicum. These students will be observing and working alongside our own tour guides to learn about our role in educating the public about parliamentary democracy and the political process. Would the House please welcome Suzie Thierrien and Sifa Divovua. Please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: Today I would like to introduce Judy and Ted Pollard. Although they are constituents of Nelson-Creston, they are both retired instructors from Selkirk College, which is in my constituency. Ted is from the forestry program — or the renewable resources department, as it is called now — and Judy is from the early childhood care and education department.

In fact, Judy was my instructor when I graduated from early childhood education back in 1979. I've always considered her my mentor, a person who has been there for me with support and advice throughout my entire career, and she is still there for me today. It is with a great deal of honour that I introduce Judy and Ted to the Legislature today. Would you please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House I'd like to introduce Mr. Steve Gammer. Mr. Gammer is here today in Victoria with the B.C. Real Estate Association. He's a very active resident of Cloverdale and a very active, upstanding member of the real estate community. I would ask the House to please join me in making him welcome.

D. Routley: With us in the House today is a constituent of mine named Gilles Villineuve, who was an integral driving force in organizing and monitoring the establishment of a homeless shelter in Duncan, my hometown. Gilles, as his thesis, wrote on the organization of this shelter and has given us information that is invaluable to us today. I would like the House to welcome him and his parents, Jacques and Jeannine Villineuve, visiting from Ontario. Please, members, join me in welcoming the Villineuves.

Hon. B. Bennett: On the floor today we have the former member for North Coast, Bill Belsey, visiting us. Bill served his constituents well here for four years. He was a tireless advocate for the people of North Coast, and I miss him around here, as all of us do. He's a real gentleman. Please help me welcome Bill back to the House.

J. Horgan: Joining my colleague from Surrey–White Rock and the Burnaby Team Sales were the owners of Team Sales Vancouver Island: my best friend Keith Bridge and his spouse Bridget Bridge. The best part of their visit to the precinct today, hon. Chair and colleagues, is that the member from White Rock bought the dinner, and I got a piece of pie.

I. Black: I would like to add my greetings to those of the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain to the staff and students of Archbishop Carney school.

[1415]

I, too, was at their fundraiser on Saturday night and can verify — to the surprise of probably no one in this room — that the former Premier is still very much in fine, fine form.

I would also like to make welcome a friend and former colleague of mine by the name of Sandy Struss, who's in the gallery today. She's a consultant. She's a great advocate for many causes, and she's a motivational speaker. The tag line in her consulting firm says it all. She's a champion of the underdog. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

N. Simons: More than one member has stood in this House in defence of their community's bid to become Hockeyville. I wouldn't dream of taking anything away from their communities or their quest for the title, but there's actually little doubt that that title belongs to Powell River.

This weekend the Powell River Regals won the Allan Cup, the senior triple-A hockey tournament, which goes back to about 1908 — before my time. The Allan Cup is an important historical part of Canada's sporting heritage. I hope all members of this House will join me in extending our congratulations to the organizers of the

Allan Cup as well as to the players, the coaches, the staff and the fans of the Powell River Regals.

C. Wyse: I would like the House today to extend a welcome

to my constituency assistant. Marc Woons happens to be on holidays, and when I look around I see that he has decided to join us here in the Legislature. Would the House make him welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today I have the pleasure of introducing two guests. First of all, I'm very, very

[ Page 3881 ]

pleased to introduce my wife Yasmin. Secondly, I have the great pleasure of introducing the young lady who's the inspiration for my hairstyle. I would ask that the House please welcome to British Columbia for the very first time my sister Mena Brown.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT

Hon W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Public Inquiry Act.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce the Public Inquiry Act. The act would repeal and replace the existing Inquiry Act with a more modern statute. The purpose of the Public Inquiry Act is to provide for the ability of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish commissions of inquiry in order to inquire into and report on any matter considered to be in the public interest and to provide for the powers and the duties necessary for commissions of inquiry to carry out their functions.

The act would provide for two distinct types of commissions of inquiry, which may be established according to the purpose of the inquiry: hearing commissions for the traditional and more formal type of inquiry and study commissions for inquiries into matters of public policy. The Public Inquiry Act draws upon the principles of the Administrative Tribunals Act, enacted in 2004, which establishes a modern standard for administrative justice and effectiveness. The new act will provide a modern statutory basis for commissions of inquiry to fulfil their functions and duties in a manner that is independent, fair and efficient.

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

Bill 23, Public Inquiry Act, 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.

[1420]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

M. Polak: This week in British Columbia we focus on the prevention of violence against women. In times past it was difficult to convince people that violence against women was even a problem. Today it is rare to find anyone who believes violence against women is acceptable, and yet women and their children from every cultural and socioeconomic background continue to be the victims of violence.

Governments can and should take an active role in eradicating this crime. In British Columbia the government has taken the lead through legislative reform and the provision of resources to those who are vulnerable. Reforms to the spousal assault policy have resulted in fewer stays of proceedings. Approximately $900,000 a year goes to support multicultural outreach services to immigrant women who have experienced abuse. In January of 2005 government increased funding to transition houses and front-line services for women by $12.5 million, the largest increase in over a decade.

This commitment to supporting women and their children means that now 95 percent of women in British Columbia have access to services within an hour of their home. This week we are reminded that government action alone will not stop the abuse. Each one of us must choose to make ourselves part of the solution. Choose to talk about it. Choose not to tolerate inappropriate comments. Choose to speak up for those who can't. Choose to volunteer, to support those most vulnerable in your community.

Violence against women is something that can be prevented. Let us all hope that at some future date, a week to highlight prevention of violence against women will be totally unnecessary.

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

N. Simons: Today I rise to celebrate with my colleagues on both sides of the House National Volunteer Week, which takes place until the 29th. The purpose of this week, which was first proclaimed in 1943, is to recognize the vital contribution that volunteers make to our society.

British Columbia volunteers in particular…. About 26 percent of us volunteer for an average of about 160 hours per year. According to the most recent survey, we've contributed 142 million hours of volunteer work — the equivalent of 74,000 full-time jobs.

Of course, we all also realize that the contribution that volunteerism makes to our community is far more than just the economic impact. As well, it brings together people from various community groups and from various walks of life to build community. In fact, some people say they are the glue that keeps our communities together.

I think it's appropriate to think about the valuable contribution that volunteers make to our own communities. I know that on the Sunshine Coast in Powell River, they contribute greatly to the cultural events, sporting events, social gatherings and events that just help those who are needy in our communities.

I'd also like to emphasize that the importance of volunteerism is not to replace services that should be offered by other agencies or government. We need to make sure that we nurture and support the volunteers

[ Page 3882 ]

who take time out of their active lives to help those or to contribute to areas that they find of particular interest.

I hope all the members in the House will join me in honouring B.C. volunteers for their contributions, whether they be in social, economic, education, athletic or religious organizations.

YOUTH ADDICTION SERVICES

L. Mayencourt: I rise to speak about youth addiction services. Now more than ever, it's become really apparent that we have addiction problems that are facing our youth. Our government is moving quickly to address this, including increasing the amount of annual funding for these services by $6 million.

The increased funding for youth addictions represents a 75-percent increase in the number of youth addiction treatment beds, and it is fair to note that we are the only province in Canada that has youth addiction treatment beds.

Vancouver Coastal Health is receiving an increase of over $2 million annually and is working with the community of Vancouver to address the needs of youth with addiction issues and their families.

Last week the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I presented PLEA, a community-based organization in Vancouver, with a government grant. This grant will go towards two of the youth addiction programs that they offer. These will provide a unique combination of residential care and a day centre approach for young men and women.

[1425]

Waypoint is PLEA's substance abuse program for young men aged 12 to 18, and it offers a four-month program which includes individual, family and group counselling; Narcotics Anonymous and AA meetings; school instruction and recreational activities. Daughters and Sisters is a substance abuse program for young women aged 12 to 18. It is a six-month program similar to Waypoint but specifically designed for young women.

The goal of the programs is to decrease the amount of substance abuse, criminal activities and high-risk behaviour while meeting individual, social and academic needs. Our government is working with Vancouver Coastal Health and community-based organizations to tackle addiction issues. With the increase in funding and the work of organizations like PLEA, we are committed to leading the way in North America in healthy living.

EMERGENCY FIRST-AID RESPONSE

BY STORMY FOREMAN

H. Bains: Thursday, April 21, will be a special day for me. I had the opportunity to take

part in a ceremony at Kennedy Trail Elementary in my constituency, where one of our young heroes, Stormy Foreman, was recognized for her courage and quick action that saved the life of her friend Brandon Johnson.

On Monday, April 10, Stormy Foreman did what you normally do not expect from 12-year-olds. When Stormy found her friend choking on a piece of popcorn, she knew what to do. She went into action and averted what could have been a real tragedy. While others in her group started to panic and talked about calling 911, Stormy knew exactly what to do, and she knew that we didn't have time. After reassuring the friend, the 12-year-old performed an abdominal thrust called the Heimlich manoeuvre that helped save Brandon's life.

Stormy took the St. John Ambulance first-aid course two years ago with her dad. That's why Stormy knew what to do. "He was on the ground, couldn't talk or anything," Stormy said. "I knew from the first-aid course that if you can't talk or make any sounds, then you are choking." Stormy was in a group of kids, mostly grade six or seven students, from Kennedy Trail Elementary out training for the Sun Run. Her mom, Barbara Morgan, who often accompanies them but sometimes lets them train on their own, said: "I'm a proud mom today, and I think it could have been a real tragedy."

I say that Stormy is a real inspiration and role model for all of us to follow to make this world a better and safer place to live. I ask all members of this House to join with me to thank Stormy and recognize Stormy for her heroic efforts, courage and quick action that averted a real possible tragedy. At the same time, let's urge all parents to have members of their families, including their children, take the first-aid course so that when we are in trouble, we know there is someone to help us.

WHISTLER WATER COMPANY

H. Bloy: It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak again about a growing, expanding business in my riding, the Whistler Water company. They started as a small company serving the local market, but through their hard work and dedication they've grown into a successful international company. Employing over 60 people, they currently export over 40 percent of their total water production to 12 countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

As the name indicates, the company takes its water from the Place Glacier, located north of Whistler in Pemberton. Demonstrating responsible environmental practices for this valuable renewable natural resource, the water is extracted and delivered to their 65,000-square-foot bottling plant in Burnaby.

In addition to their own brands, they also produce private label product and packaging of beverages on behalf of a number of leading North American and international producers. Due to the increased demand, the strong business climate and opportunities that exist in British Columbia today, Whistler Water is currently investing $7 million to expand its business in the riding of Burquitlam, and they will be adding more jobs. Please join me in thanking Whistler Water and Stuart McLaughlin, the owner of Whistler Water, for providing people in other countries the opportunity to experi-

[ Page 3883 ]

ence one of our greatest natural renewable resources and also for investing back into the community.

[1430]

PASSOVER

D. Chudnovsky: Virtually every culture and religion has festivals to observe the end of winter, the coming of spring, the rebirth and regeneration of nature. In my culture, the Jewish culture, we celebrate Passover, or Pesach, as we did the week before last.

In the "Song of Songs," it says: "For lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone. The flowers appear on the earth, the time of singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in the land." Passover is a celebration of freedom. It marks the exodus of the Jewish people from slavery and bondage under the leadership of Moses, his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam. At the Passover dinner the youngest child asks, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" and the traditional answer begins: "Because we were slaves in the land of Egypt, and had we not fought for our freedom, we and our children and our children's children would still be enslaved."

Passover also commemorates another struggle for freedom. On the first night of Pesach in 1943 the Jews of Warsaw began their revolt against the Nazis who had come into the ghetto to deport the remaining Jews to the death camps.

For every people the dream of spring, the struggle for freedom, the quest for peace is alive. Jew and Muslim, Christian and Sikh, Israeli and Palestinian, American and Iraqi, Afghani and Canadian — each culture, each nation, each religion deserves to live in peace and freedom.

I'm not one for quoting religious texts very often, but in honour and celebration of Passover, I'd like to read from Isaiah: "They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they study war anymore. But they shall sit, every man and woman, under their vine and fig tree, and none shall make them afraid."

Oral Questions

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

C. James: It has now been two weeks since Judge Ted Hughes delivered his report. The Premier has had those two weeks to review that report. My question is to the Premier. Given Mr. Hughes's findings, will the Premier now admit he was wrong and apologize to the children and families of British Columbia for decisions he made that resulted in chaos and suffering for the most vulnerable in our province?

Hon. G. Campbell: We were pleased to receive Mr. Hughes's report on April 7. When we asked Mr. Hughes to take this report on, it was clear that Mr. Hughes was not someone who was known for pulling his punches. What we should all learn from Mr. Hughes's report is that the government undertook a number of initiatives which Mr. Hughes endorses. He also says that we perhaps took on too many initiatives at once.

If we have any failings as a government, I would suggest that it was because we were trying to provide for the children of British Columbia — provide for them in terms of safe and secure families, in terms of keeping them in their homes. We did not carry that out as well as we should have. There is no question about that. In fact, in December of last year we pointed out that there may well have been challenges with funding. In this budget this year we provided an additional $100 million, which Mr. Hughes endorses, to allow us to move forward and to build on the regionalization concept which we announced in the throne speech.

What I want the Leader of the Opposition to know is that this government takes responsibility for the actions it took. We believe we have a course mapped out in front of us that we can provide for the children of British Columbia the top quality of care. We believe we've been providing that care across the province.

That does not mean it has not been disruptive. It does not mean there were not problems. It does not mean there weren't times when we could have done things a lot better. The commitment of the government to the children of British Columbia has got to be that we will continue to work with their best interests at heart so that children in British Columbia know that the government is there to provide them with protection in their families and communities so they can lead the fullest life possible.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

[1435]

C. James: While I appreciate the Premier acknowledging that last December he did speak of budget challenges, I also think the people of British Columbia expect the Premier to take responsibility when the government fails. The failures went beyond budget challenges.

I'd like to quote from Mr. Hughes's report: "I cannot agree with the Premier's earlier assessment that budget cuts did not contribute to the failure of the transition process or that the transition provisions of the new act constituted a clear plan for the transfer of the death review function."

Mr. Hughes said very clearly that budget cuts did hurt. Mr. Hughes said very clearly that there was no plan. So to the Premier: would he accept that they made a serious error in judgment when he suggested that his government cuts were not responsible for the challenges facing children and families and the most vulnerable in this province?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have already said to the House and to the public that we did not execute the program that we laid in place the way that they should have expected. I think it's important for us to recognize that, and I do. I embrace Mr. Hughes's report. I em-

[ Page 3884 ]

brace the report, and he points out quite specifically that front-line workers did not suffer from budget reductions. Having said that, last November when I said I didn't believe that it was the budget that created the challenges, I asked our Solicitor General to have a look, and he did.

We laid out quite clearly for Mr. Hughes that we believe that those, indeed, may have been some of the problems. In undertaking the reviews that we did and looking at the situation that we faced in 2001 when we came in, we watched as children were being yanked out of their families on a regular basis. That is not the best thing that can happen for a young child.

We made the decision that we were going to do the best we could to keep children at home in their families. We made the decision that we were going to try and keep children with their aboriginal communities. We signed memorandums of understanding with aboriginal leadership groups to make sure that we could include them in a culturally significant and meaningful way in protecting the livelihoods and the young children of aboriginal descent.

I accept that we took on a big load. I accept that we took on many challenges. I accept that we may have demanded too much of the people who were at work in trying to help us do that. But I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. At no time was there anything in front of this government except for what is in the best interests of young children and their families in British Columbia, and that remains our commitment to those children.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: While I appreciate the Premier's comments around the implementation and the lack of implementation of the changes that the government made, I find it hard to believe there weren't questions raised about the cuts to that ministry, about the challenges in that ministry and about the lack of a plan in place after the Children's Commission was abolished.

One of the other areas that Mr. Hughes spoke clearly to was the missing files of children who had died in our province. There are still questions remaining about those files. Mr. Hughes recommended that an all-party committee be put in place to establish and implement the Hughes recommendations.

My question is to the Premier. Will he charge that all-party committee of the Legislature with the responsibility, as well, to investigate what happened to the 955 children files that went missing when the government eliminated the Children's Commission?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important, as Mr. Hughes suggested, for us to start looking ahead and for us to start recognizing that there are things Mr. Hughes said in his report, which the opposition should read with the same open mind that government has read it.

The opposition recommended that we immediately go back to the children commission model. Mr. Hughes says no, that is not the right way to go. He believed the way for us to move was to a new, independent representative for children and youth for the Legislature. I can tell you the government intends to follow through with that. Mr. Hughes has asked for us to establish a select standing committee for children and youth in the Legislature. Following the establishment of the office, the government intends to follow through with that.

The issue for us in this House is to follow the spirit of what Mr. Hughes said, which is to recognize there's not one person in this House that doesn't care about the children in British Columbia. As we establish a select standing committee and as we establish a new independent officer for the Legislature, that should give us an opportunity to be able to see what Mr. Hughes says were correct directions to take, correct initiatives to undertake, as well as to see the things that we can do better. I hope, as a Legislature, we will be able to embrace that.

[1440]

Mr. Hughes embraces, indeed, the coroner's following through of all child death reviews. He says specifically that the model we were following under the Children's Commission was actually moving to a direction that was not providing the kind of information we needed so that we could act in the best interests of children in the province. Our goal is to act in the best interests of British Columbia's children. I believe that's the opposition's goal. I believe that working in good faith and working together, we will be able to continue to improve that.

We'll be able to continue to improve a situation that sees 15 percent fewer children in care today than in 2001. We'll be able to continue to improve the number of aboriginal children that have been adopted in British Columbia and continue to improve the increase in adoptions we're seeing across the province.

We can continue to improve. Do we claim that we have reached perfection? Not even close, but I can tell you this. We're going to continue to strive to provide children in British Columbia with the support they need, with the care they need and with the protection they need when they need it.

CHILD DEATH REVIEWS

A. Dix: In January and February 2002 the Minister of Finance prepared and presented a budget. The Premier rose in his place and gave it a standing ovation. That budget cut the Ministry of Children and Family Development by 23 percent. I'm telling you, you can parse the Hughes report any way you want, but the Hughes report is a condemnation of that action. It is a condemnation of that action, and the Premier, I believe, needs to acknowledge that failure today.

Last November the Solicitor General, the day he announced the government had in fact abandoned 713 child death reviews, promised a full and complete accounting. He said it was fundamental to him. Then in December, he interrupted his deputy's inquiry into the issue and referred the issue to the Hon. Ted Hughes.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member put the question, please.

[ Page 3885 ]

A. Dix: Ted Hughes, rightly and curtly, sent it back to the minister. Can the Solicitor General tell the House how he plans today to fulfil his solemn commitment to provide a full accounting of what he called a complete failure?

Hon. J. Les: I think Mr. Hughes's report provides a very full review of all of the events that have taken place. It makes, obviously, a great number of very specific recommendations. Mr. Hughes also clearly points out that rather than finger-point, rather than go back and unearth all of that material all over again…. He suggests very strongly that both sides of this House move forward constructively and build for British Columbia's children the best protection system we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I just asked, very plainly, the Solicitor General whether he'll make public today the documents prepared by the Solicitor General and referred to the Hughes commission. Will he commit to referring those documents to a select standing committee of this Legislature?

Hon. J. Les: I think Mr. Hughes has conducted an extremely extensive and thorough review of all of the matters that were referred to him, and I think he has come up with a very thorough report and recommendations. As has already been stated, we intend to follow through on those recommendations.

[1445]

Again, I would suggest to the member opposite that Mr. Hughes suggests very clearly and very emphatically, in fact, that it is now time to move forward and to do so constructively. That's what we're going to do.

IMPLEMENTATION OF CHILD PROTECTION

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General says he wants to cooperate with the opposition. In the report on B.C.'s child protection system the Hon. Ted Hughes strongly criticized policies and changes that this government made. He said that there has been an unmanageable degree of change made against a backdrop of significant cuts, all of which put children at risk.

Two weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition sent a letter to the Premier suggesting that the government and opposition meet during the break to determine a timetable for implementation of Ted Hughes's recommendations. That timetable would include a plan for an all-party standing committee of the Legislature on children and youth, the introduction and passage of appropriate legislation, and a process to select the new representative of children and youth.

With only four weeks left in this session, we have not heard back from the Premier. Will the Premier commit today to sit down with the opposition immediately and settle a time line for implementation of Ted Hughes's recommendations?

Hon. G. Campbell: Within days of Mr. Hughes's report, we had laid out the fact that we intended to follow through with his recommendations. As I've said earlier, we intend to bring forward legislation to establish a representative of children and youth in this session of the Legislature. I was encouraged to hear the opposition say they wanted to do that as quickly as they possibly could. Our staff are working diligently and around the clock to try and make sure that is available as quickly as possible.

I have said in the past that we intend to establish the standing committee and charge it appropriately, as we do with all other standing committees in the government. We will have to be in a position where we can appoint a representative for children and youth. That will be done as we do other independent officers of the Legislature. A transition team has been put in place. That transition team will come forward.

The opposition will not just be a part of the standing committee but…. As I think Mr. Hughes identifies, this goes across government. There are a number of issues that will be dealt with by different ministries as we develop the transition plan. Everyone will be in a position where they can participate in the discussions about that through estimates and other areas of public endeavour.

The goal that we have is to put in place a comprehensive plan that deals with 62 recommendations, which makes sure that we live within both the spirit and the intent of Mr. Hughes. I can tell the members opposite that we intend to maintain the office of the child and youth officer until that is in place. The transition team will make sure that works completely and fully. I believe, again, that children in British Columbia will be well-served by that process.

FERRY SERVICE TO

NORTHERN COMMUNITIES

G. Coons: In the last two weeks I visited many ferry-dependent communities on the north and central coast. At every stop, the same question: why didn't the government have a contingency plan for an event whereby the Queen of the North would be out of commission for a significant length of time?

My question is this: when can the people of the north and central coast expect the Minister of Transportation to take a leadership role, to meet with them, hear their concerns and work with them to come up with viable options to meet their transportation needs?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I'm well ahead of the member opposite on that. I had the pleasure of meeting with the mayor of Prince Rupert and the mayor of Masset a couple of weeks ago to talk about that very issue.

Look, I don't think we should kid ourselves. This was an extraordinary event that took place when the Queen of the North unfortunately sank. It has created an

[ Page 3886 ]

enormous challenge for the ferry corporation to try and meet the needs of those coastal communities. But I can tell the member — the member knows well, in fact — that the ferry corporation has had repeated meetings and conference calls with the northern coastal ferry advisory committee, with leaders in the community and the business community to make sure that as they come forward with their ferry schedule, which they announced today…. It won't be perfect, but it was a result of a compromise between all of those voices at the table trying to figure out how we deal with a tough situation, given the fact that they have scoured the entire world looking for an alternative ferry.

They are doing their best. We will push them to do their very best. We will meet with the coastal communities anytime they wish to meet and make sure that they are served as best as we can possibly serve them.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[1450]

G. Coons: Yes, the minister may have met with mayors of Masset and Prince Rupert down here, but I've got lots of constituents up and down the coast who want to meet with the minister and find out what his plans are for our ferry system.

Once again, the minister is ducking his responsibilities. He's washing his hands. He's washing his hands of our integrated marine highway. The Queen of the North sinking has been devastating — devastating — to the northern routes in the Queen Charlottes. Business, tourism, residents have taken a huge hit financially. There has been a 60-percent service reduction between Prince Rupert and Port Hardy. This is crippling — crippling — to the tourism industry and to communities dependent on a marine highway.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. What is this government going to do to restore core services to the people of the north and central coast?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, look. The member opposite knows that we had a pretty extraordinary event, and the member knows that there are no simple solutions. I can't wave a magic wand and make a boat appear out of nowhere and restore full and complete service. But I can tell you that the ferry corporation has got people flying to Europe, checking every available vessel around the world to try and see whether they can bring in a replacement.

I'll tell you, it is a little tough to hear this kind of lecture from that member, who belongs to a party that all through the 1990s made promises and sent out…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …press releases saying that they were going to replace those vessels. They never did. They instituted capital freezes. As usual, nothing got done.

I will tell you this. We're replacing those vessels with new vessels that will ply the waters. It takes time to build them, granted, but we're moving forward just as fast as we can to restore service to that important community.

WORKSAFE B.C. CHANGES

TO WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS

C. Puchmayr: An internal document shows that in the first 11 months of 2005, WorkSafe B.C. has amassed a surplus of over $300 million when it budgeted for $185 million over budget. Yet vocational rehabilitation payments went from $12.2 million in '04 to a paltry $1.7 million in the same period of '05.

Can the Minister of Labour tell this House: why the drastic cuts to vocational rehabilitation entitlements for injured workers? Will the minister intervene to bring this basic justice back to injured workers?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm constantly amazed when members of the opposition examine what the circumstances are today in a department of government or with an agency like WorkSafe and then reflect on it in a negative way and try to compare favourably to a day five or six or seven years ago when that same agency was on the road to bankruptcy.

WorkSafe B.C. is doing a tremendous job ensuring that workers can engage in their activities in a safe way. Training, vocational training, retraining — all of that is taking place. But you know, if the member wants to compare it to a day five or six years ago when the agency wasn't ensuring that those services were there, when rates that were being paid by employers were way out of whack with the rest of the country and when the needs of workers weren't being served in a timely way, then I guess that's what he'll do. On this side of the House we're actually proud of the achievements of WorkSafe B.C. over the past five years.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Wow. Since the restructuring of WCB we're seeing a growing despair amongst workers and their families. We've seen a cut in pensions. We've seen abilities to appeal being extinguished. We're seeing wage-loss payments being reduced, all the while the board reaps huge profits off injured workers.

Will the minister please tell this House what he is willing to do to bring a balance back to a system that is so desperately needed by injured workers?

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily, I don't need to just tell the member. I can show the member. Again, he may have been satisfied at a time when there were literally thousands of unresolved appeals before WCB's appellate body.

[1455]

He may have thought it was appropriate for those workers and their families to be waiting not just for months but for years to get a decision about their fu-

[ Page 3887 ]

ture. Last month that backlog of unresolved appeals was eliminated. People can get a timely decision from WorkSafe now, and that's the way it should be in B.C.

B. Simpson: As my colleagues have already indicated, it's easy to get rid of a whole bunch of backlog appeals if you just change the rules of the game and wipe them out in one fell swoop.

The changes that this government made to WorkSafe B.C. impact people at a time of great need. For example, forest workers, who by legislation from this government have gone from workers under contract with benefits, have become independent owner-operators without benefits. The changes that this government has made to WorkSafe B.C. dramatically impact those workers when they injure themselves. A 1-percent or 2-percent disability for a forest worker can result in the loss of their livelihood. Now, under this government's changes, WorkSafe B.C. would call that injury a "permanent functional impairment" and give them $50 a month instead of what they used to get, which was a living wage.

According to this internal WCB document, in 2005 there were only 11 loss-of-earnings awards granted to workers, down from 737 in the previous year.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member put the question, please.

B. Simpson: Will the Minister of Labour on behalf of government commit to intervene in this matter and restore balance back to WorkSafe B.C. so that injured workers in this province can have meaningful pensions and benefits once again?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are members in this chamber, actually sitting on both sides of the House, who have been here long enough to know that there was a day — oh, about five or six years ago — when individual MLAs were inundated in their constituency offices by individuals…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services has the floor.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: …who couldn't get a decision, let alone a decision that they thought was fair.

This government has taken appropriate steps to ensure that workers in British Columbia can have confidence that there is a network of support for them when they need it, that they can get timely decisions from the adjudicating bodies when they need them. We're going to continue down that path. We're going to make sure that support is there. If the member has difficulties with that, well, that's just too bad, because we're going to keep doing the good work that WorkSafe B.C. is doing on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: It's not too bad for me. It's too bad for the workers from whom this government has removed the right of appeal, has removed fair wages and benefits. I'll tell this minister that if he's not getting inundated in his office by claims with respect to WCB and by issues with respect to what this government has done to change that, then he's not answering his phone.

Not only do workers in hard sectors like the forest industry and other resource sectors get cut off from a meaningful living wage by this government, but retired workers at 65 no longer get disability benefits. The injury doesn't go away. The quality of life constraint doesn't go away. But at 65 they're cut off.

[1500]

Again to the Minister of Labour. WCB saved $500 million as a result of cutting off people when they reach retirement age. Will the minister respond again to the call to restore balance to WorkSafe B.C. and benefits and pensions to injured workers?

Hon. M. de Jong: Is there any better example of the fundamental lack of understanding or appreciation on the part of members opposite of the power of a strong economy when you hear a statement like that? The fact is that there are literally tens of thousands more British Columbians working today than there were during the decade of the 1990s, and this member wants to stand up and pretend none of that's happened. He wants to assign blame elsewhere.

We have a network, and we have established a network of support for workers. It's actually working for them. The member wants to dismiss as inconsequential the fact that there were thousands of families waiting for appellate-level decisions out of WCB when the NDP was in power — waiting for years and years and years. They can now get a timely decision. They know the support is going to be there. Of course there are challenges for individual members who have been injured, but we've got a system in place that responds to that in a timely and responsible way, and that's as it should be.

R. Fleming: We've had a lot of rhetoric this afternoon about WorkSafe B.C., but let's get to a specific case: the case of Peter Overwater, a 78-year-old miner living in Vancouver-Langara, the riding of the Finance Minister. After 30 years on the job working underground, Peter developed silicosis. His request for addition funding from WorkSafe B.C., which he would use to buy oxygen that he needs, was rejected. WorkSafe B.C.'s letter directly cites the 2002 amendments that this government introduced for refusing to grant Peter funding beyond his 65th birthday.

Will the minister commit today to work to restore meaningful benefits to these retired workers who have put their lifeblood into building this province and strengthening our economy?

[ Page 3888 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. As always, it is helpful to hear about individual cases. It is sometimes challenging on the part of a minister of the Crown, when dealing with a fully independent body, to realize the constraints around intervening in the case of individual cases, but I am happy to receive the information from the member.

Let me just say this. The credentials of this government for ensuring that protection is there for workers are there for all to see. It was this government that recognized, in the case of firefighters, there had been an injustice. We took action. It was this government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: It was this government that recognized that workers should have the ability to tend to loved ones when those people needed their attention, and we amended employment standards legislation to make sure that could happen. So whilst we always appreciate….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: We always appreciate hearing about individual cases and suggestions from the opposition. We're not going to take lessons from anyone on that side of the House about the need to ensure that there is proper protection for workers in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Motions without Notice

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE

ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Hon. M. de Jong: I move, with leave, the following motion:

[That Standing Order 68 (1) be amended to include a ninth Select Standing Committee intituled Children and Youth.]

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: I so move.

[1505]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber second reading debate on Bill 20, and in

Section A is continued debate on the Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Second Reading of Bills

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 20 now be read a second time.

I am pleased to further address the principles behind the proposed amendments to the B.C. Securities Act. The government of British Columbia and the B.C. Securities Commission are strongly committed to a better protection for investors and to reducing the regulatory burden for market participants through ongoing securities law reform and the provincial-territorial memorandum of understanding regarding securities regulation.

The proposed changes to the B.C. Securities Act support the improvement of securities law in three key areas: (1) by implementing the passport system, (2) by harmonizing securities laws across the country and (3) by protecting investors. Once implemented, these changes will facilitate easier access to capital markets within Canada through a single-window passport system. This will allow market participants from British Columbia to be subject only to British Columbia requirements so they do not have to comply with the equivalent requirements in other provinces.

The amendments complement the central goals of increasing investor protection and reducing the regulatory burden on the securities industry. Some of the innovative investor protection remedies contained in the unproclaimed 2004 Securities Act have been brought forward in this bill. For example, the amendments will authorize a Provincial Court to order restitution or disgorgement of illegal profits and provide a process for victims to make claims against disgorged money.

The council of ministers responsible for securities met in February in Victoria and reconfirmed their commitment to principles of the memorandum of understanding they signed in September 2004. That memorandum introduced a passport system. Nine provinces and three territories have now agreed to implement the passport system. The passport system streamlines the securities regulations by allowing issuers and registrants to deal exclusively with the regulator in their principal jurisdiction, thereby providing a single window of access to capital markets in 12 Canadian provinces and territories based generally on their home jurisdiction's regulation.

Ongoing development of harmonized, streamlined and simplified securities laws offers further opportunities for enhancing regulation of capital markets. As evidenced by the proposed amendments and the progress of the passport system implementation, the ministerial council, the British Columbia government and the B.C. Securities Commission remain committed to working together to continue to improve securities regulation and investor protection in Canada.

The proposed changes to the B.C. Securities Act are just one step in a longer process of securities law reform and the shift to a harmonized regulatory environment across the country for the securities industry.

[ Page 3889 ]

[1510]

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to Bill 20, Securities Amendment Act, 2006. It is true what the Attorney General has stated, which is that the changes to the Securities Amendment Act would actually allow for and broaden some of the issues around accountability, if you will — the issues around investments.

I think it is worthy to note that in this bill there are some pieces that are significant, for example, which the government has acted on, and that is to broaden the insider trading and frontrunning prohibitions, expansion of liabilities for anyone who engages in such illegal trading, if you will. I think that's important. Frontrunning occurs when a broker personally buys stock, knowing that a client has placed a larger order which will likely increase the price of the stock, as an example.

The bill also touches on fines with respect to offences, raising it from a million dollars per offence to $3 million, which I think is also significant in that regard. Relating to that, the proposed legislation will also authorize a Provincial Court to order restitution to victims, particularly where there are illegal profits that have been gained. The process for victims to claim that money is essential. Right now that is not in place, but the proposed legislation puts that in place. I think that's significant, as well, with respect to this bill.

I want to just touch on, though, the harmonization of the bill through the passport system. It's true. It does harmonize the passport system to a degree with respect to this legislation, but I would also point out that the passport model will not deal with the fragmentation of the securities regulatory system. The passport model is moving towards a common regulatory approach and is better than the status quo. Make no mistake about that. However, a number of the regulatory burdens and economic costs will remain in the absence of a single national securities regulator.

Furthermore, there has not been a universal buy-in in the passport model — namely, Ontario being the outstanding dissenter. This is significant, as Ontario's buy-in will be crucial to a modern national system of securities regulation. Certainly, I would hope that beyond this legislation, the Attorney General would continue to work on pursuing the federal government in bringing forward national standards in this regard. We would be happy to work with the government on that file, because I think that's important for investors and for people in all of Canada, quite frankly.

The legislation, I would also say, does not necessarily reform the bureaucracy of the British Columbia Securities Commission. The principles-based regulatory approach of the Securities Act is commendable, and stricter penalties are indeed welcome. However, much criticism has recently been directed at the B.C. Securities Commission, including its inability or unwillingness to enforce existing rules. It is questionable whether or not the legislation will drive at the need for a more effective enforcement regime, on which we will be questioning the Attorney General at committee stage.

There is one piece within this legislation that I find disturbing, and that is

section

19, which eliminates the requirement for the commission to publish the list of defaulting reporting issuers. This generally includes companies that have not filed their annual reports. That, in our view, reduces corporate accountability.

Section

77 of the existing legislation states: "The commission must maintain a list of defaulting reporting issuers for public inspection during normal business hours in the commission's offices."

By making this optional, the commission may very well decide not to disclose this information, making it inconvenient for investors to have to determine whether a company is defaulting on its disclosure obligations or not. This, of course, would hurt investor confidence.

[1515]

I question why this amendment is being put forward in this legislation. What's the purpose of it? Why would we not require the commission to list those that are defaulting so that the public has access to that information, as opposed to leaving it optional? Some would argue that perhaps that's increased flexibility. Others would argue that's less accountability. I would certainly question that, and I would venture to say that I would disagree with this amendment

section 77.

I also want to note just for a moment, as well, that the freedom-of-information commission has also commented on this bill. I know that the Attorney General would have received a copy of that letter, as did the opposition critic, my colleague from Nanaimo.

The bill empowers the commission to withhold information in confidence and does not clearly state that such information is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Section 55 of the act does not clarify that privacy rights of individuals and corporations will still be protected by FOIPPA should an FOI request be made.

The freedom-of-information commissioner is of the view that: "In order to ensure that both access and privacy rights of the public are appropriately protected, I believe the principles of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act should apply to disclosures of information whenever possible, with only very limited exceptions." The letter goes on to say that the commissioner believes that the discretion provided to the B.C. Securities Commission under the paragraphs in the act, sections (

a) and (b), should, of course, be guided by the freedom-of-information and protection legislation in sections 21 and 22.

I want to be very clear that the opposition supports better protection for the public in this area. We support enhanced enforcement tools to the securities regulator. We think these are welcome steps. However, we also would wait to see whether or not the British Columbia Securities Commission would in fact use these tools effectively for the benefit of the investment community and, of course, the broader community.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

[ Page 3890 ]

I would urge, finally, that the government continue to pursue a national approach on the issue around securities regulation. I think that's important. I think that would be beneficial in the long run. This measure is simply, in my view, a stopgap in terms of measures, but much more needs to be done.

I look forward to committee stage debate with the Attorney General. We'll have some questions for him related to particular sections of the act.

L. Krog: I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who has spoken, I think, very well on this bill before the House. It's not something that generally attracts much attention in this Legislature — a bill of this nature.

Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon all of us to view with careful scrutiny all that passes before us in this Legislature. It is important to recognize that it is a positive step to try and bring into some uniformity the conduct of securities commissions across the country, to improve investor confidence, to establish a pattern of rules that are similar.

Notwithstanding this nation's seemingly intense desire to retain its status as a federation, with each province retaining jurisdiction over its various constitutional priorities and obligations, it seems to me that this points out the inadequacy, by its very nature, of the constitution to address the modern world. We are a society that communicates with little hand-held devices that have been the subject of some discussion in this chamber from time to time, which the U.S. government regards as being so important that it was considering intervening in the court case around the BlackBerry.

This is not the Canada of 1867 when the constitution set it up. On that basis, I encourage the minister to work as much as he possibly can on behalf of British Columbia's investors — including all of those union pension funds that invest as well — to ensure that we achieve some uniformity of regulation across the country and that this, in fact, is nothing more than, as the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant put it, a stopgap measure.

[1520]

Now, speaking as someone who has practised in the private sector for a number of years, I must say that I look forward with great interest to the Attorney General explaining to the House why you would want to eliminate the provision that requires the commission to publish the list of defaulting reporting issuers. The simple explanation is that it's only companies that have failed to file their annual reports. I have to say to this House that in my experience, the only companies that fail to file their annual reports are generally small, solely controlled or family controlled business enterprises.

If the companies in this province are in such a sorry state that they do not keep their annual reports up to date, then surely it would be in the public interest to ensure that the commission would publish the names of those defaulting issuers. Often the first indication that a company is in financial trouble is the fact that it won't pay the legal bill to ensure that its annual report, which is a fairly simple document, is in fact filed. This strikes me as frankly, with great respect — and I hesitate to use the language — a pretty stupid suggestion to amend the legislation in that way. This is a very fundamental, simple thing.

Surely it's incumbent upon the commission in protecting the interests of British Columbia's investors to ensure they are made aware that a company has failed to do the one basic thing required by law to ensure that it maintains its existence as a company in British Columbia.

As I say, I am astonished that the government would suggest that proposal, and indeed I concur with the comments of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. That should be the subject of some amendment or some change on the government's behalf. If not, the opposition will fill the breach in that regard, because surely we should not make it easier for corporations that enjoy the investments of pension funds of the hard-earned savings of British Columbians to avoid the kind of scrutiny that an investor should probably be making in those circumstances if a company isn't filing its annual report.

Obviously, we on the opposition side support investor protection and enhanced tools to do so, and obviously we support the efforts to reduce regulatory overlap. In doing that, we should not be taking steps that, in fact, make no sense. Surely, common sense is what should govern legislation.

I speak in favour, generally, of the bill. I think there are some serious, very practical concerns which I hope the government, during the course of the passage of this bill through the House, will address. If not, we will certainly do so on this side.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move second reading of Bill 20.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 20 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 20, Securities Amendment Act, 2006, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Bill 26, second reading.

SUPPLEMENTS REPEAL ACT

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 26 now be read a second time.

Bill 26 provides for the repeal or re-enactment of all those outstanding provisions of the 1996 statutory supplements. These supplements contain all the provisions that were enacted but not enforced at the time of the 1996 statute revision, which are still not in force today. The supplements include a wide range of legis-

[ Page 3891 ]

lation that falls under the mandate of a number of ministries. All of these provisions are at least ten years old, and many are decades old. In many cases, they reflect circumstances and thinking that are different from today.

However, the fact that these provisions are still in the books contributes to uncertainty and unpredictability in the law and, on a practical level, require that they be considered for amendment each time new legislation is drafted.

[1525]

Bill 26 addresses this situation in three ways. First, it will repeal provisions that are so outdated that they will never be brought into force. Second, Bill 26 allows the repeal by regulation of another group of provisions if and when appropriate. Finally, Bill 26 re-enacts some provisions in the supplements that remain potentially useful. Bill 26 ensures that these provisions may still be brought into force at a later date.

Bill 26 is a technical bill to fine-tune the statute books, ensuring they are up to date and increasing the certainty and predictability of the law.

L. Krog: The Attorney General and I seem to be busy this afternoon plowing through the most scintillating legislation the House has seen this session so far.

Although supporting generally the Supplements Repeal Act, because it is very much housekeeping legislation in the full meaning of that term, there are some concerns that the opposition has, particularly around why the government is re-enacting provisions of the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act that are currently not in force. I suppose the question from our side is: is there some plan to enact those provisions in the future?

We also are somewhat concerned that there are supplements listed under

section 2 that are to be repealed at a later time by regulation,

whereas those in

section 1 are to be repealed with royal assent of this bill. It gives us some concern on this side as to the explanation for, if you will, a two-tier system of dealing with supplements.

Having said that, nevertheless, I think this is a bill that would require some scrutiny in committee stage rather than in second reading debate. It hardly moves my heart to wax eloquent for any longer on this particular legislation.

Hon. W. Oppal: Madam Speaker, I don't think anybody should waste their eloquence when it can be used at a later stage.

I move second reading of Bill 26.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 26 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 26, Supplements Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call second reading of Bill 21.

EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ASSISTANCE

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. C. Richmond: I move that Bill 21 now be read a second time.

The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance routinely reviews its legislation, policies and procedures to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of the people they are intended to serve and that they support an income assistance system that is fair, caring and sustainable. Changes to legislation are not made lightly, and every effort is made to balance the needs and interests of our clients with those of taxpayers and all British Columbians.

The amendments we are introducing today are intended to increase our ability to serve our clients in a fair and caring way while at the same time strengthen and protect the sustainability and integrity of the British Columbia employment and assistance program. The amendments include new legislation in three areas:

definitions of dependent and spouse, sanctions for inaccurate or incomplete reporting of circumstances, and information-sharing agreements.

The

definitions of dependent and spouse are key components in how the ministry makes a determination of eligibility for assistance. To ensure that our clients are treated fairly and consistently, we are proposing to amend these

definitions so there is a clear distinction between two spousal dependency relationships and relationships of people who in the ministry would not expect to support each other financially.

We recognize that a number of clients in our caseload are involved in relationships — some marriage-like and some not. The changes we are proposing will allow the ministry to treat roommates, boarders, friends and adult relatives as individuals and not as family units in determining eligibility for assistance. Under the new legislation, it would be possible for two individuals to share rent and groceries, for example, without this decision affecting their eligibility for assistance. There would be no effect on assistance, because sharing rent or groceries or realizing some other economies through sharing is good money management.

[1530]

It is not sufficient financial interdependence to warrant being assessed for assistance as a family unit. Even couples who decide to reside together will not be considered to be spouses until they have resided together for a number of months and demonstrate financial, social and familial elements consistent with a marriage-like relationship.

At the same time, we want to ensure that people in a true marriage-like relationship are assessed as a family unit when they apply for assistance and that the

[ Page 3892 ]

income and assets of both individuals are taken into consideration.

Furthermore, it is fair to expect a spouse who temporarily relocates for employment to continue to be responsible for his or her partner. In this case, a marriage-like relationship has already been established, and the level of assistance has been determined by the family unit's combined income and assets. The fact that one of the partners in the relationship takes a job out of town does not change the nature of the relationship nor that person's responsibility to support their spouse.

Therefore, it is reasonable and fair to expect that the income earned from the job, even though it is out of town, be included as income for the family and the family's assistance reassessed by the ministry. These changes are fair and reasonable, recognizing the rights of individuals and the obligations of people in dependency relationships. As well, these changes better and more precisely reflect the values that are entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are also seeking to introduce legislation that will encourage clients to accurately and completely report their circumstances related to income and assets and their employment and family unit status — legislation that will result in fewer overpayments and less abuse of our programs. This change also ensures that clients who take the necessary steps to provide accurate information are treated fairly.

Having a process in place that encourages clients to report any change in their circumstances not only ensures that the funds are going to those most in need but also ensures that we are fiscally accountable to the B.C. taxpayers. It is up to each of our clients to provide accurate and up-to-date information to the ministry.

In those cases where clients do not accurately report their circumstances, this change will give the ministry the authority to sanction this behaviour by reducing assistance for a specified period. The amount of the reduction and the time period over which it will be imposed will be prescribed by regulation. Our intention is to make this reduction in assistance small but still enough to serve as a deterrent.

Specifically, our intention is to impose a $25-per-month reduction for three months on a first occasion, $25 per month for six months on a second occasion and $25 per month for 12 months on a third occasion. While the vast majority of clients receiving assistance are in compliance with the ministry's legislation, this amendment will ensure that the integrity of British Columbia Employment and Assistance programs is not compromised. It will also allow the ministry and all taxpayers to avoid the high costs of lengthy court proceedings.

Finally, we are seeking a change that will shift the general oversight for the protection of client information from the employment assistance acts to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This change, while not in any way compromising our clients' personal information, will allow the ministry to more effectively participate in cross-government shared services projects, explore new methods for improving how we deliver services to our clients and improve our capability to evaluate our programs.

The change will also expressly provide for research agreements. All information-sharing agreements must be published on the Internet, require privacy act assessments and must comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Again, I want to stress that all personal information is protected by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

an act that has been in place since 1993. It is the strongest privacy legislation in Canada and among the strongest in the world.

[1535]

The protection of privacy is the highest priority for government. This legislative amendment will allow information-sharing to take place, but it will take place under the very strictest of privacy-protection protocols. In fact, on drafting this amendment, we sought the opinion of the province's Privacy Commissioner. We welcomed his response and have taken into careful consideration his suggestions and comments.

Government believes that the most efficient and effective way to manage information privacy is to rely on the high standards of the province's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Our current legislation predates the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and, as such, does not contain important amendments within that act that serve to further protect personal information.

Also, leaving privacy protection to individual pieces of legislation restricts government's ability to respond effectively and swiftly in circumstances where sharing information can greatly benefit clients. Privacy is more effectively governed by the very powerful Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

All of these changes reflect our commitment to fiscal accountability, to ensure that ministry resources go to those truly in need and that the income assistance system will continue to be there for all British Columbians when and if they need it. Clients will continue to receive the exact amount of income assistance that they're eligible for each month. All of these changes are reasonable and fair — fair to our clients, fair to taxpayers and fair to all British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, I am proud to introduce second reading for this bill.

C. Trevena: I am very pleased to hear the minister saying that there will be assistance for those in need.

I have some concerns with the bill. I think it provokes many questions for the committee stage, particularly the issue of dependent and spouse, because we're talking about

definitions. The bill is changing the definition of what a dependent is and what a spouse is, and I don't believe that it really makes it very clear.

It's very welcome that the

definitions are being looked at, because people have been unfairly treated in the past. So it's good that we do look at it. However, I have concerns about the way that it has been brought in. It brings up the questions: how is dependency defined, and who is dependency defined by?

[ Page 3893 ]

We're going to face, when we're changing

definitions, issues of

interpretation. For example, in the first

section of the bill it talks about parental responsibility for a dependent child. Is this going to mean that if someone's roommate regularly helps with child care or collects a child from school, they are going to be seen by some front-line worker or someone within the ministry to have a parental responsibility? Therefore, are benefits going to be affected by that? There have been cases in the past where this has been so, and I would hope that in changing

definitions we have clarity rather than further confusion. However, I believe that we are getting further confusion.

The other area in the

definitions which is particularly concerning is the one about the spouse. The minister has had cases brought to his attention by myself and by others about people who are living as roommates, sharing accommodation because they cannot afford to get accommodation on their own, because they need to help each other. Often people with disabilities have different levels of disability, and they can help each other out.

Under these changing

definitions, it seems that it doesn't clarify whether those people will or will not be deemed as a spouse. It puts the onus on individuals who are often having a lot of stress at the time that they're applying for benefit. They may acknowledge that they are residing together, and that might be interpreted by one person that they are residing together in a spousal relationship

whereas another person may not take that

interpretation. Again, I think we are going to face many problems with

interpretation.

[1540]

I think there are also real concerns about the time lines. Under the amendment we're talking about two people who have resided together for at least three consecutive months or nine of the previous 12 months. There is always a difficulty in defining what a spousal relationship is. Common-law is defined in many different ways by many different acts, both provincially and federally, so here we have a different

interpretation again. I think that this could further put people in a very difficult position. Will it mean that after three months, roommates who are sharing because of cost issues or because they can help each other out are suddenly deemed to be married? Will this therefore impact on their shelter and other benefits?

I'm also concerned that the criteria…. What is a marriage-like relationship? I mean, we have the statement there that the minister is satisfied that the relationship demonstrates financial dependence and social and familial interdependence consistent with a marriage-like relationship. What is a marriage-like relationship for one set of people may not be a marriage-like relationship for another. Again we are talking about, many times, people who are living on the margins, people who are living on the fringes, who really do need to offer each other support.

It's definitely not a marriage-like relationship in the accepted sense of the word, but because they are together, they will be perceived to be in a marriage-like relationship. I think there is real concern there. Also, "in the minister's opinion…." Unless we have a clearer definition of what the minister's opinion is, there are again real concerns about the change of the

definitions.

The other areas. These are quite broad-ranging amendments. We are also looking at the issue of inaccurate information. I know the minister wants to prevent fraud, as we all do, but it seems unduly harsh. I was very pleased to have the financial penalties laid out by the minister to see just what it is going to mean, but again the onus is being put back on individuals who are often highly stressed at a specific time when they are applying for assistance or when they are asking for extra benefits. There is, I think, an unduly unfair onus on the applicant.

I've also seen in other cases where applicants have been applying for supplements where they have had letters of support, supporting evidence, from many people including medical professionals, and they are still not deemed to be eligible for that benefit. We've seen other people who have been in a very looking-glass world where they have had to prove that they don't have a bank account. I've come across cases where somebody has had to prove that they don't have a bank account overseas and another person who has had to prove that they really don't have a job. So you are proving a negative.

Again, we are asking people to prove things and show things that they may or may not be able to do, so I'm very concerned that this is going to become unnecessarily harsh on many people in an attempt to stop the small elements of fraud that there are in the system.

My final concern is the area of information-sharing. I know that the minister has talked a lot in his introduction about how under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, it's going to be much safer. I am somewhat concerned about this. I fear, maybe, that the minister protests too much. He was talking so much about it that there may be some real concerns there.

While I know that the ministry is working with other ministries for certain areas, there are questions about what is the research that's going to be carried out, what are the shared services that the information is going to be used for and particularly why we have the mention that — when they're applying for income assistance, when they're applying for disability benefits — very personal information could be shared with other authorities, other provinces and the United States.

[1545]

I think this could cause a lot of alarm for a lot of people. It certainly does provoke a lot of concerns for me. We're talking about highly sensitive, highly personal information that there really doesn't seem to be any need to be sharing with other authorities — possibly within ministries, but again I have great concerns about that.

I'm very much looking forward to being able to ask many more questions about this. This bill does raise many questions — many questions of definition, many areas that we need clarity on. I don't feel it is possible

[ Page 3894 ]

to support this bill, because there are too many loopholes, too many questions still there that need to be answered. There are too many concerns and too many areas where it is up to the minister to make the call, and it seems that it's going to be unduly harsh on people who are already in a very vulnerable position.

M. Sather: I, too, have concerns about this legislation. I will wait for third reading to get more clarity from the minister, but my reading of it certainly does raise some concerns, some flags, for me.

I have to wonder if this isn't a bill in response to concerns that have been expressed to this ministry about some of the kinds of invasions of privacy that have taken place with regard, for example, to searches of clients' homes or of those who have been applying for assistance. Ministry staff, no doubt with the authority of their supervisors in the ministry, have reportedly gone into homes and searched private belongings not only of recipients and those applying for assistance but of those who live with them.

My concern is that this is an attempt by the government to circumvent some of the concerns that have been expressed to the government about that particular behaviour. I hope it's not the case, and I will wait to hear what the minister has to say with regard to the specifics of this bill. But as my colleague before me has mentioned, issues such as the definition of dependents and spouses certainly jump out at me as an area of concern. It looks to me as if it leaves a great deal of latitude to the minister. It appears that the definition has been broadened in such a way that many people could be caught by these

definitions who, in my opinion, should not be considered as in dependent relationships and certainly not as spouses. That will be something that we'll be glad to speak to further.

Also with regard to privacy, the minister says that this bill will bring greater measures of privacy, that the previous bill was brought in before the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation and that this will bring it up to date. It looks rather wide-reaching to me. The kinds of information-sharing that would be permitted by this bill…. Such things as eliminating the requirement of an information-sharing agreement for research purposes…. What does that mean? What sort of research purposes are we talking about? Why would it be necessary to subject anyone's private information for research purposes or for sharing, perhaps, with other ministries?

Certainly, we will wait to hear more from the minister about that. The overall appearance for me is one of heavy-handed legislation. It appears arbitrary in many respects with regard to what the minister deems may be the case with regard to income assistance recipients.

[1550]

It's not something, at least at this reading, that I think would give those who are in the system — or applying to be in the system — any sort of comfort. In fact, quite the opposite — I think we'd give them some cause for concern. I'll leave it at that and just say that I look forward to further debate on this bill.

M. Karagianis: I am rising to speak to the second reading, understanding that full debate will come clause by clause at the committee stage. I look forward to that.

I in fact support the concept of simplifying the process for income assistance. Whenever a more sensible approach is taken to any of these kinds of procedures, I think it's a very good thing. I'm not entirely convinced that that is what's happening here, although on the surface that appears to be, from the minister's comments, the exact intent of this bill. In fact, I think there are some concerns here — some devil in the details of the language that concern me greatly.

Recently we've had a lot of reports in our local newspaper about the difficulties that some people have had in obtaining income assistance and how that has resulted in growing homeless numbers and frustration on the streets of this city. I am very concerned about any kind of changes in legislation which may result in the same kind of thing or which may magnify or exacerbate existing circumstances around that.

I do think there are, unfortunately, some issues with the language in this bill, especially around the definition of spouse. Previous speakers have already talked about that. The minister has said that this legislation moves to protect people who are just living in a roommate situation — who are friends who have moved in together to share expenses. In fact, the language in the bill indicates something entirely different. The three-month definition, I think, has such broad

interpretation that it has moved in the opposite direction that the minister may have intended for this legislation.

The reality of the economies in urban centres is that people are often forced into living together merely to be able to afford the day-to-day costs of food, shelter and transportation in cities as expensive as Victoria. In my riding I have the highest per-capita number of people living under the poverty line here in this urban centre — in Esquimalt-Metchosin, particularly in Esquimalt.

Most often this affects women. Whenever citizens are forced into living together in order to make the economies of their expenses, exactly as the minister alluded to in his opening comments — often those being women or single mothers — they are now put into an unusual situation. After three months they could actually be defined as now cohabiting in a spousal relationship when in fact no such relationship exists at all.

I know lots of women who are sharing costs of living together, who are roommates. Often these are older women as well, who tend to be some of the most vulnerable, in this particular situation.

It seems to me that in many ways, some of this new language around this new definition of a spouse is really putting the squeeze on more of those more vulnerable citizens out there who are getting income assistance. Often these are the same people who find it the most difficult to defend themselves and to speak up for themselves. The onus is now on those individuals to protect themselves and say: "No, this is not a spousal

[ Page 3895 ]

relationship." They've now been accused of living together in a heterosexual or same-sex relationship when in fact these are friends who have pooled resources in order to pay for extreme costs of living here in urban centres and elsewhere in British Columbia.

Often I've run into older couples — men and women who are merely friends — who don't have any kind of spousal relationship whatsoever but have had to pool their resources together because they cannot afford to live on their own, still feed themselves and live any kind of dignified life with the high cost of living here. I would hate to think that after three months, they would automatically fall into the category of spouses and have their income reduced.

[1555]

Much of the constituency work — and I'm sure it's the same on both sides of the House here — is about helping citizens navigate their way through complicated processes, complicated policies around things like income assistance, and looking for a safety net from government, especially where they have been turned down or had many of their income programs removed from them. That is the time when they turn to us for help. In fact, I think all of us have seen the kinds of citizens that will be most affected by these changes.

I will look forward to debating this clause by clause, but at this point I have great alarm over what the changes in language have actually done — very benign on the surface. They look really good, but of course when you look under the surface, you begin to take that and apply it to individual cases. You see that in fact it's much more restrictive and can be much more punitive to individuals. I could not support anything in this House that did that.

L. Krog: I want to agree with the comments of the members who have spoken previously, but I do want to raise a couple of issues that arise out of this bill in a very philosophical way.

We've had a great argument in this country recently around the issue of gay marriage. The presumption is that relationships between parties in marriage-like relationships should be a good thing, that it's a building block. It's a necessary fundamental in society. We encourage the concept of marriage. People get together. They work together and support one another both emotionally and financially.

Yet I have to say to this House that the whole thrust of these changes…. It confirms what exists now in many respects. If people are on assistance — if they find themselves at the bottom of society, so to speak, in economic terms — and they get together in a relationship that may indeed be supportive for children, may be supportive of one another…. Either of whom may be suffering from some emotional or mental illness or problem.

We're saying: "If you get together, we want to make sure that if it's anything remotely resembling a marriage-like relationship…." What we say to you as a society is: "This is a bad thing, because we're going to cut your benefits." That's what this says on a broad, philosophical basis. That's what we're talking about.

We are really saying: "If you remain dependent, if you're on social assistance, if you are at that bottom rung, if you get together with someone else in relationships that we generally encourage across the board in society, then we're going to punish you. We are going to ensure that your income is reduced." Notwithstanding that minor opportunity, that little step up the economic scale that may be advantaged by allowing two people to live together and pool resources and perhaps benefit themselves enough, enable them to buy decent enough clothes to actually go out and find and look presentable for employment opportunities…. If they do that, we're going to punish them.

Sometimes as we stand in this Legislature and as the opportunity is put before us to talk about these things, it's important to think of this in the larger context. What this bill is really saying is that we're going to…. It's not some legislative change that enhances the ability of social workers on the front lines to determine who's eligible and who's not eligible. What it says in the broadest sense is: "If you're on assistance, then we want to punish you. If you're on assistance, we don't want to encourage relationships.

We don't want to feel that the taxpayers of this province are somehow being put out by allowing you a few extra dollars, when we already know that social assistance rates for single employables haven't been increased in this province in something like 14 years."

There's not a person in this province who wouldn't acknowledge and state openly, if they had any sense, that one cannot live on $525 or $515 a month anywhere in this province, even if you were residing in a tent in one of the warmest climates of the province. It is impossible to survive on that. We acknowledge that.

According to a recent poll, something like 74 percent of British Columbians would support an increase in social assistance rates. In other words, an overwhelming majority of British Columbians support it.

[1600]

In response to this bill before the House today on second reading, I say take this as an opportunity to reconsider the whole issue of social assistance in this province. Consider the message that we send to the poorest amongst us when we say: "Get together in relationships that we generally encourage — whether they be gay, lesbian, heterosexual or otherwise — and we're going to take away some money. We're going to tell you that supportive relationships, the coming together of people who want to support each other, are a bad thing." That's really what we're saying here today.

I look forward to the debate on this bill, because it raises a fundamental and important issue about our whole attitude toward the poor in this province — our whole attitude to those who are unfortunate enough to find themselves on social assistance, let alone the thousands of British Columbians who we know today live on our streets because they don't meet the qualifications even for social assistance.

Those are the big issues that need to be debated in this House, and this bill gives us an opportunity to do so.

[ Page 3896 ]

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess that with those last remarks, I've heard every

interpretation there is to be heard about this. I understand some of the members' concerns and that they want more detail, and we'll examine that in committee stage. I, too, look forward to it, because we can clear up a lot of detail that is not contained in second reading.

I'm sure we will be debating this in full committee of the House very shortly. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Richmond: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for examination by a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Employment and Income Assistance Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call second reading of Bill 24.

RESORT TIMBER ADMINISTRATION ACT

Hon. O. Ilich: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce this bill entitled Resort Timber Administration Act, which creates a new framework for timber management in the context of resort development. Through this bill, British Columbia is demonstrating its commitment to supporting the tourism industry, which is a key contributor to our economy.

This government continues to support the industry by facilitating resort development in the province, and this bill carries on that work. This bill introduces a one-window approach to all-seasons resort approval processes by allowing officials of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts to authorize timber harvesting when approving specific development proposals.

All-season resorts are resorts that provide seasonal or multiseasonal recreational activities. The most common example of an all-season resort is a ski hill. Such resorts are situated within controlled recreation areas, and controlled recreation areas are the areas in which resorts are legally entitled to operate under the terms of master development agreements between the resort developer and my ministry.

These areas are the areas of Crown land that encompass recreation infrastructure and activity areas and the base area, where most of the real estate development takes place. The current scheme requires resort developers and operators to obtain approvals from both the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts and the Ministry of Forests and Range in order to proceed with resort development and associated timber harvesting within controlled recreation areas.

The current scheme is at odds with the streamlining objectives identified in the British Columbia resort strategy and action plan, which was released by the government in November 2004. The need to reduce duplication in approval processes was identified by the resort tourism industry as a significant step toward facilitating resort development.

The new scheme enabled by this bill meets the streamlining objectives identified in the British Columbia resort strategy and action plan and is one of the specific actions contemplated in the strategy. This bill reduces duplication by providing a consistent and coordinated one-window approach for resort development approvals.

This result is achieved by granting two main powers to my ministry: the authority to designate controlled recreation areas by regulation — and this will establish the geographic area in which the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts will be exercising the timber management powers and responsibilities conferred by this bill — and the power to transfer, by regulation, existing authorities under the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act from the Minister of Forests and Range to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

[1605]

This transfer will enable my ministry to assume timber management powers and responsibilities within controlled recreation areas. It is anticipated that the regulation authorizing this transfer would be brought forward as soon as possible after this bill is passed. The wording of the bill makes it very clear that such transfers of authority would only be authorized for the purposes of the development or maintenance of an all-seasons resort in a controlled recreation area.

The bill also contains consequential amendments to the Forest Act. These amendments are required to create a new type of forestry licence to cut that could be issued from the management of timber as part of a resort development. The Ministry of Forests and Range would also benefit from the creation of this new category of licences, as they could use them for a number of purposes that are not currently contemplated in the existing provisions of the Forest Act, including, for instance, urban interface and wildfire management.

In four years British Columbia will host the 2010 Olympics, something we can all be proud of. As part of its commitment to the Olympics, the government pledged to set the stage to double tourism revenue by 2015 by encouraging new investment in recreation and tourism. This bill ensures that these objectives and the streamlining objectives set out in the B.C. resort strategy and action plan are met. The implementation of the framework created by this bill is an important step towards the achievement of the goals that government set for tourism in this province.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

N. Simons: The response to Bill 24, the Resort Timber Administration Act, will take place not just during

[ Page 3897 ]

this second reading debate but in third reading as well, where we go to committee stage and examine the bill in its details, clause by clause. But I'd like to just begin by saying that in theory, perhaps there is nothing inherently wrong with the perception that the tourism industry can authorize timber harvesting in approved commercial tourism and recreational development areas. Ultimately, the problem we have with that is that there's no clear definition as to what exactly is entailed by a controlled recreational area.

The question that we need to ask ourselves as legislators is: how are these areas approved for commercial development? More to the point, how are the assets of the Crown — and consequently of people in British Columbia — recognized, and how is the land accounted for in this new system?

I have some very serious concerns about this act. It is also my duty to reflect the concerns that have been expressed to me by stakeholders in the community that include forestry companies and conservation groups and, I might add, the concerns of many people in the tourism industry itself.

I understand that the underlying philosophy is to streamline the application process for resort developers and make it easier for developers to achieve their goals of perhaps creating a new recreational area or resort area or to expand on the area they currently operate. But what it appears to be to many people with whom I've spoken is an opportunity to undermine the public interest by reducing the requirements for consultation and for upholding environmental standards.

That's a concern many people have expressed to me. It's a concern that will be addressed in further detail in committee stage. I think there are many, many questions that need to be answered before any sort of acceptance of this act without opposition can go through.

[1610]

What essentially is at the root of the problem with this particular piece of legislation is that it's another opportunity for the government to bypass a consultative process, a process that may take slightly longer but takes into account the values and the concerns of community members, local government, local interest groups and local residents who, by virtue of this act, would be cut out of the loop entirely. I think that's a problem. Perhaps it can be sold under the guise of streamlining or the one-window approach, but this is one window that could perhaps use a screen on it so that the bugs could stay out.

I think that is really what we're trying to accomplish through pointing out some of the deficiencies of this particular piece of legislation.

Part of the problem, essentially, with this type of legislation is that it provides authority to the ministry and consequently to the delegated members of that ministry to make decisions that are potentially very wide-ranging and broad-ranging. There is a large amount of discretion in the ministry's powers, having to do with everything related to the process of the forest industry, including waste disposal, working in volatile environmental areas, the protection of water, protection of wildlife and potentially the concern over endangered species.

We know there are many reasons, and there is a history of regulation that has developed to this particular point in time where regulations to protect species at risk, whether blue or red species, have been created over time. With one act of the Legislature, many of these well-thought-out regulations and regulations that have taken many years evolving will be completely wiped out, and I think that is a concern.

Essentially, the ministry has the authority to make decisions over these important issues but has, perhaps, no expertise in the area. So the concern may be addressed through some amendments or through some regulatory changes, but essentially the concern is that the Ministry of Tourism doesn't have the capacity to make decisions over environmental stewardship that may be entailed — or without concern for local involvement in the decision-making process.

I would say, in

summary, that this legislation is very powerful because of its vagueness, and I think that those two don't work well in legislation. If there is an authority to be assumed by a new agency, that agency should have guidelines, and it should be clearly stated in legislation what the limits and extent of that legislation should be.

Bill 24 also fails in addressing the question that regular British Columbians will probably ask, and that is: how is this legislation going to be used? How will we see the actual implementation of this legislation as it happens on the ground or on the ski hill, wherever that happens to be? Many of these questions, I'm sure, will be further examined in the committee stage, but I should point them out now, as perhaps this is the place to do it.

There are concerns, as well, about compensation for tenure holders should their rights be voluntarily surrendered. I'm sure the ministry has been notified by stakeholders of concerns in the community. How will these be addressed? I'm of the belief, and we on this side of the House believe, that these kinds of issues should be resolved in the actual legislation itself. It should not be left to the whim or even the careful deliberation, secret deliberation or private or non-public deliberation of these issues.

I think that whether well-intentioned or not, the perception of accountability and openness is as important as that accountability is. To leave it out of legislation — in particular, what I'm talking about is the scope of the powers of this legislation — is doing harm to British Columbians' trust in the public process.

[1615]

There's also lack of clarity in terms of whether this bill will apply to already existing controlled recreation areas. If it does, the question will be raised further at another time about what consultation has taken place. You know, we have examples in British Columbia history about the importance of local involvement or input into recreational areas, into land use plans, and Jumbo is a good example.

We wonder perhaps what would have happened at Cypress Bowl if the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the

[ Page 3898 ]

Arts — had it existed at the time — had been the body holding the jurisdiction to authorize the harvesting of yellow cedar. They fortunately are still standing, but we question the strength and integrity of legislation to protect that valuable asset. Putting this important responsibility in a ministry that most would agree isn't set up to do forest management is questionable in terms of public policy.

Fundamental to my concerns about this legislation is the vagueness around how controlled recreation areas are established. This is a matter of policy once again. It is not a matter of law. As much as policy does govern much of our day-to-day operations in the province, I think that when left in policy and outside of the jurisdiction of legislation, it's subject to the whims and the winds, in fact, of public opinion or government will, policy, focus. It seems to me that this should be ingrained in the legislation.

Bill 24 allows cabinet to make regulations "designating Crown land as a controlled recreation area, cancelling such a designation or amending the boundaries of a controlled recreation area." Land use and tenure is controversial, and there are always conflicts over land use. But suddenly we have another ministry that will have the jurisdiction, or potentially the jurisdiction, to govern issues around those kinds of concerns.

Land use issues are obviously important in my constituency. I'm not suggesting that ultimately it's always conflict that resolves issues. I believe that the way this legislation is currently crafted, it leaves open far too much discretion on the part of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, which doesn't have the capacity to deal with these — unless, of course, we find out later that the Ministry of Forests will be amalgamated with the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, which I am not in any way proposing.

Bill 24 threatens to undermine local input into land use planning. I think that ultimately members of the British Columbia public are very sensitive to the possibility that, once again, local decision-making and local autonomy and local jurisdiction might be circumvented by such legislation as this.

We on this side of the House believe that the best land use planning comes from input, comes from giving voice to the community and respecting the will of the community. I believe this is a form of legislation that distances decision-making from people who are affected by the law and who, in general, are concerned about decision-making by government with that lack of oversight.

We should also remember that decisions around timber management come from a government that did not do a lot to support the Ministry of Forests in the past. Some 800 Forest service jobs were cut, and 21 Forest Service offices were closed. They are having a profound and negative impact on the protection and management of forest lands.

[1620]

It's not just me identifying concerns about this legislation, and it's not just concerns from local community members or local governments about this legislation. It's also concerns from the forest industry, as I mentioned, and from the tourism industry, where there are conflicting tenures over land use.

I'm sure that some of the stakeholders have contacted the ministry and will continue to contact the ministry, and I'm quite sure that opposition to this bill will continue, if not get stronger, if some changes to the act are not forthcoming. These have to do with protecting the public interest in these decision-making processes. The concerns over the unilateral loss of annual allowable cut — I know that's another issue.

I think these issues really need to be clarified and addressed — addressed and clarified; I think they go together — so that we can have some comfort with this act. But as it stands now, we have strong opposition to the act as it, once again, further dilutes the community consultation process. It further distances the decision-making process from the people who should have the most input into decision-making.

I know there are others of my colleagues who wish to comment on this act.

N. Macdonald: Well, there are a couple of things, just to give you some background as to the opinions that I'm going to share with the House. I was involved with the development of Kicking Horse when I was mayor in 1996. The proponent came to the community, and they worked closely with the community through a process that has put in place one of the best ski hills, I think, in the province. So that's part of my experience.

The other experience that I will bring to what I'm going to say here is around other tourist developments that are being considered for the region. Just to highlight the point, these developments can either be something you want to move quickly through a process or you do not want to move quickly through a process, depending very much on a number of factors that I'm going to describe here. Part of the background for my comments will be around Jumbo Glacier Resort, as well as Columbia Lake and the development there and the subsequent changes to the park boundaries that would need to take place for that development to go ahead.

Bill 24 is basically described as

an act that makes it easier for those establishing or operating resorts on Crown land. Now, this act is going to move powers currently held by the Ministry of Forests and Range to the Ministry of Tourism or somebody that the Minister of Tourism designates to make forestry decisions in an area designated by the government as a controlled recreation area.

The government has indicated that it wants to double the number of tourists. As mayor of Golden, I worked to support development of the tourist industry in the community that I was responsible for, but with any development the needs of the investor need to be balanced with the needs of the community. Those needs also have to be met.

It is difficult to support legislation that makes it easier to establish resorts on Crown land until the ability of local residents to decide their destiny is clearly established. So the issue that I have with this bill is the

[ Page 3899 ]

order in which things are being brought forward. As the representative of the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke, I believe that we are the ones who best understand the implications of a major resort development and who will live with the benefits and problems that accompany any development.

[1625]

I want our rights entrenched, and that's not going to happen without clarity from this government and, I believe, without the withdrawal of the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. Until that happens, the rights of communities are not guaranteed.

The Significant Projects Streamlining Act is something that was brought in by this government. It gives the government the ability to override what local government wants to do. The point I will be making throughout what I have to say here is that before we look at ways to make it easier for an investor to move forward with a development, it needs to be very clearly supported by the people who are going to have to live with the development.

There needs to be an approach that has balance. We need to see the needs of the investors served, but the needs of the investors are not more important than the needs and interests of the local community. They're not more important than environmental concerns. They're not more important than forestry interests. I don't see the interests of the public served if we are not careful to maintain the balance that would exist if a community controlled the process or had a big impact on the process.

It's important to emphasize, in a way that perhaps you only understand if you live in the Kootenays, that Crown land and access to that public land and the activities that go on, on Crown land are of crucial importance to the culture of the Kootenays. We have pride in the activities that we participate in on Crown land.

There's pride in forestry. We see forestry as something that we in the Kootenays do particularly well. As mayor, when I was promoting tourism as an important part of our economic diversification, there were many people who had concerns about the difficult relationship between tourism and forestry and the potential conflicts that you can see. There is a point to be made there. Now, within a community we can work through and find the balance, but there needs to be a balance found.

We have pride in environmental sustainability. A tourist resort is a permanent altering of the back country in a way that forestry isn't. As a teacher, you meet with classes, and kids often talk about the values they have around sustainability, around the things that they find important about what's going on in the world. They have an expectation that environmental considerations will be made by people in power. It's important that we consider that as we look at developments in our area. In making something easier for an investor, even if that's a laudable goal, it is only laudable if we have also considered the implications for the environment that surrounds us in the Kootenays.

In the Kootenays we have pride in the abilities of local residents to make good decisions. We are able to balance things and get together and work through the many issues that need to be considered. Sometimes that takes time — time that a developer or an investor might find irritating — but it is part of a good process.

I've seen my councils and regional districts in action. I have seen the level of community commitment to land use decisions, and there is reason for the area to be proud about what we can offer to development in the province and in the Kootenays in particular. The Kootenay also has a great deal of pride in its ability to resist things imposed from Victoria. That's something, no matter which government is in power, they find is a