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, MAY 15, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

B.C. Council for Families

Hon.

S. Hagen

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Child care providers

Hon.

L. Reid

Burnaby Express hockey team

Bloy

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing

Order 25 B )

Mining in B.C.

Cantelon

Mental illness

Wyse

Motorcyclists' fundraiser for

literacy

Black

Campbell River Children's

Choir

Trevena

First Dollar Alliance

Roddick

Youth representation in B.C.

Fraser

Oral Questions

Child death reviews

James

Hon.

J. Les

Dix

Softwood lumber agreement

Farnworth

Hon.

R. Coleman

Simpson

Emergency services at Mount

Saint Joseph Hospital

Kwan

Hon.

G. Abbott

Ambulance Service coverage in

small communities

Evans

Hon.

G. Abbott

Funding for HIV/AIDS

organizations

Simpson

Hon.

G. Abbott

Compensation for electrical

power surge damage

Thorne

Hon.

R. Neufeld

Petitions

D. Cubberley

S. Hawkins

C. Wyse

Standing Order 35

B. Simpson

Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Annual Report of the

British Columbia Legislative Library , 2005

Committee of the Whole

House

Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2006 (Bill 30)

Hon.

M. de Jong

Krog

Hon.

C. Taylor

Lali

Sather

Karagianis

Hon.

R. Neufeld

Robertson

Macdonald

Simpson

Gentner

Wyse

Evans

Reporting of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2006 (Bill 30)

Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2006 (Bill 30)

Standing Order 35

(continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Standing Order 35

(Speaker's Ruling)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the

Premier

Hon.

G. Campbell

James

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General

Hon.

J. Les

Brar

Fleming

Estimates: Ministry of

Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism

Hon.

W. Oppal

Krog

[ Page 4803 ]

MONDAY, MAY 15, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd like to introduce to the House Dan and Lynn Friesen, longtime residents of Oliver, British Columbia. Dan and Lynn are in Victoria to attend a pharmacy convention. Tonight Dan is going to be presented with the prestigious award awarded by the association of pharmacists, and there is only one awarded in each province of Canada. Would the members of the House please make Dan and Lynn feel very welcome here in Victoria.

Hon. G. Campbell: It's my pleasure to introduce a group of grade eight honours students from Kitsilano Secondary School in the House today. These 17 students, along with their social studies teacher Craig Brumwell and several parent chaperones, are here to experience some of the traditions that take place in the House. I should tell you that in Kitsilano the phrase fiat lux , which translates into "Let there be light," is part of their school motto. I hope that as we go through whatever we go through today, there will be at least some light shed on the issues that confront the people of British Columbia.

[1405]

V. Roddick: In the gallery today are 11 members of South Delta ProBus club: Don and Noreen Watson, Ted Tristis, Jean Cobon, Diane Axford, Charlie and Jean Poole, Grace Roblin, Paul and Olive Sansom, and Joe Oatway. ProBus clubs, sponsored by Rotary, are organizations for any man or woman who has retired from their profession or business, hence "pro"fessional, "bus"iness. These clubs are not service organizations but fellowship groups that provide social events, guest speakers and field trips such as today in order to remain connected with current issues and affairs in their communities. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: Joining us in the precincts today are the mayor of the city of Vancouver, Sam Sullivan, and Councillor Kim Capri. I hope that we will all make them welcome as they do the rounds and chat about the future of Vancouver and what we can do in partnership with the city.

H. Bloy: I'm really pleased to stand today; I have a special greeting that I want to send. It's to my dad. He turns 92 years of age today. My dad, I know, is watching. He's a regular watcher of this. He has always supported me and encouraged me in everything I do. Some members might find it hard to believe, but he hasn't always agreed with what I do. But he encourages and supports me every day. I just want to tell him how much I love him and ask the House to wish him a happy birthday with me.

J. Rustad: It's my pleasure today to introduce two people. The first is Mike Dennis, an optometrist in Prince George. He's very active in his profession both locally and provincially, and he's also a very good community supporter. Would the House please make him welcome.

Also, today I have the pleasure to introduce the love of my life, a person who has been extremely supportive and without whom I would certainly not be here in the House today. I would like the House to please make welcome my wife Kim Royle.

Tributes

B.C. COUNCIL FOR FAMILIES

Hon. S. Hagen: I rise to ask this House to join me in recognizing today as International Family Day. This year's theme is: "Changing families: challenges and opportunities." We all need to be flexible and fluid with the changing face of what constitutes a family and recognize that different family structures require different support structures. The province recognizes these changes, and we will continue to provide the resources and support necessary for healthy children and healthy families. One very significant way to do that is by supporting those who provide child care services and provide a safe and supportive environment for our children.

In conjunction with Child Care Provider Appreciation Day in B.C., we've just provided the B.C. Council for Families with more than $2 million in grants to help them continue their work to help strengthen and support families across the province. Please join me in recognizing the valuable contribution this organization makes to thousands of B.C. families every year and has made for 29 years.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: We're joined in the gallery today by Everett and Deborah Baker, currently of Abbotsford but previously of Richmond. I would ask the House to please make them welcome. They've done an outstanding job for British Columbians.

Tributes

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

Hon. L. Reid: I would like to acknowledge today as Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. We will know, all of us present today, that child caregivers come in many forms — from grandparents to early childhood educators to family caregivers, teachers and, of course, parents themselves. As a mother, I know the importance of all those who are involved in caring for a child. Today is the day to say thank you and to honour those individuals.

As a former special education teacher and someone dedicated to the principles of early childhood development, I know how important caregivers are in ensuring our youngest citizens have the strongest possible start. Children grow up so fast and learn every minute. That's why I, too, am proud to support Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. Child care providers nurture our future citizens. The more society can provide to

[ Page 4804 ]

child care providers, the stronger the start they can give our children. Please join me in thanking everyone who provides child care to the families of British Columbia.

[1410]

BURNABY EXPRESS HOCKEY TEAM

H. Bloy: There's another champion in the city of Burnaby I want to announce today. Over the weekend the Burnaby Express won the Royal Cup, the national Canadian hockey championship. But Darcy Rota, president of the team and leader, said their biggest accomplishment and how they measure the success of the hockey season at the end of the year…. "The winning of the championship is great, but how many scholarships did we get for young hockey players to continue their education?" I'd like the House to join me in congratulating the new Canadian champions.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today joining us in the House are staff from my ministry who have worked diligently on behalf of all British Columbians as we've recently concluded 18 Small Business Roundtables throughout the province. Would the House please welcome and thank Simone Decosse, Darryl Soper, Sean Gadsby, Bridget Minishka, Aureleo Reyes, Lara Delo and Lisa Tees.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) MINING IN B.C.

R. Cantelon: British Columbia has a rich history of mining, particularly on Vancouver Island. My riding of Nanaimo benefited immensely by the hard work done by miners, and the people who made up the industry played a key role in the development of the mid-Island.

Some may think the time for mining has passed. That's simply not true. In our world today mining continues to play a vital role, from computers to toothpaste to pacemakers. The extraction of these resources is needed to provide the services and the lifestyle we want. As a society we may not realize it, but mining keeps us going and growing.

There are old stereotypes, however, about mining being unsafe — stereotypes that seem to die hard. The facts show something different. Even though we've increased mining activity, the sector has been the safest industry in British Columbia eight out of the last ten years, and over the last ten years the accident rate has dropped by 85 percent. The Hillsborough development group, mining on north Vancouver Island, just yesterday won an award for safety.

What hasn't changed is the nature of the industry. It's still dynamic, it's still entrepreneurial, and the companies understand that they must also earn their social licence.

Here on Vancouver Island, Polaris Minerals has been leading the way in bringing communities and first nations together for the benefit of everyone. The company is developing two aggregate operations, one near Port McNeill and one near Port Alberni. In both cases they've engaged first nations and have taken them on as partners in the venture. The template they have developed is a model for how the industry must now earn its social licence along with its mine licence. They're doing it right, and everyone will benefit from the inclusive approach they've taken.

This is Mining Week in B.C. The industry has offered much in the past in making B.C. what it is. I ask the House to pay tribute to this industry that is alive, growing and ready to make an even larger contribution.

MENTAL ILLNESS

C. Wyse: On the weekend my wife and I were asked to address the participants at a community's Relay for Life, an event that raises money for and awareness of cancer. We were asked to speak because our son died of leukemia.

As I looked over the faces of nearly 1,000 people on Friday night, I realized that like many other communities across B.C., we were all there together to fight cancer, a disease that affects our physical health. But where, I thought, was the large-scale fundraising event that brings money and community awareness to mental illness?

Although our daughter lives with bipolar disorder, I have never been asked to speak at any fundraising events for this condition. How is it that the physical diseases that affect us are more worthy of a public profile than the mental illnesses that are equally devastating?

Last week the federal government released its final report on mental health, mental illness and addictions. The author of the report, Senator Michael Kirby, states: "I was shocked by how fragmented our system of mental health is and saddened by the effect of that fragmentation on persons living with mental illness." While 800,000 British Columbians are affected by mental illness, there is no coordinated, comprehensive plan to deliver medical and support services to these citizens. In his report Senator Kirby states: "There should be parity between serious physical illness and serious mental illness."

[1415]

In B.C. no group or individual has been assigned responsibility to advocate for persons with mental illness. Therefore, the responsibility for people with mental illness lies with us — the MLAs. I challenge this Legislature to lead Canada in providing the financial and human resources necessary to ensure that our citizens who live with bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses are accorded the same support as those citizens who suffer from cancer and other physical illnesses.

MOTORCYCLISTS' FUNDRAISER

FOR LITERACY

I. Black: It's an honour to rise today to give all members of this House an invitation, well in advance, to an event taking place in the early fall. I invite all

[ Page 4805 ]

members to take

part in the seventh annual Hogwild About Reading on Sunday, September 24, 2006.

Last year the Hogwild About Reading ride, held in my riding of Port Moody–Westwood, hosted 135 motorcyclists who rode their hogs from Port Moody for the two-hour ride up the Fraser Valley to Harrison Hot Springs in support of a cause that all members of this House support: literacy. Principal Ross Davidson of my riding's Scott Creek Middle School started Hogwild About Reading seven years ago, not only to provide a fun ride for motorcycle enthusiasts but also to promote reading and to raise funds to purchase new books for libraries within school district 43.

What began in 2000 with just seven riders now has become an impressive event in the Tri-Cities. This past year, with help from 19 sponsors, Hogwild About Reading raised over $6,000 in cash donations along with over 700 new books donated. Teacher-librarians within the Coquitlam school district ensure the money raised and books donated are distributed evenly among all schools within the district so that resources are freed up to make further additions for school libraries.

This fall Hogwild About Reading has expanded and will be taking place not only in my home riding of Port Moody–Westwood but also in the great communities of Burns Lake, Surrey and Vernon, led by school principals in those areas. I'm also delighted to advise that Literacy Now, one of the many great initiatives contained within 2010 Legacies Now, is also a sponsor of this year's ride.

I implore all members of the House to join with teachers, administrators, school staff, trustees, motorcycle enthusiasts and parents to come together in support of reading. Please join me in saluting the leadership of Principal Ross Davidson and all those who participated in Hogwild About Reading in the past and all those who will be riding the hogs on Sunday, September 24.

CAMPBELL RIVER CHILDREN'S CHOIR

C. Trevena: I'd like to tell the House about the Campbell River Children's Choir. Last weekend they held their spring concert. It's a superb group, and I don't just say that because I'm the MLA for the city. I say it because this choir of 47 young people has gained international renown.

Two years ago it sang in an international festival in Cuba. As a result of that, it was invited to submit an audition tape for an international choral festival in England. The Campbell River Children's Choir will be the only Canadian choir to participate in this festival, joining children's choirs from around the world in Canterbury, Kent and London, England. In all, 450 voices will be heard in that festival at the end of July. It isn't a competition — in fact, the choir doesn't compete with others — but being invited to participate with only ten or so other choirs from around the world is already a prize.

The Campbell River youngsters will, of course, be singing, and they'll be participating in workshops and enjoying music for seven or eight hours a day for the two weeks they're there. They will be learning new styles of music and making new friends.

Not all the Campbell River Children's Choir will be able to attend the festival. It's in the summer, and some already had family commitments. It has also taken a great deal of fundraising, with a cost of $3,500 for each young person to attend. But those who are going are doing so with pride and the knowledge they're part of a larger body.

The Campbell River Children's Choir will make their voices heard in places ancient and modern, taking the young spirit of Campbell River to Canterbury Cathedral, whose thousand-year-old stones and vaulting arches are a perfect setting for the glories of their choral music.

FIRST DOLLAR ALLIANCE

V. Roddick: I recently had the pleasure of attending a very inspiring conference in 100 Mile House with the First Dollar Alliance, a grassroots organization made up of hardworking B.C. resource workers and their families. Run largely by women, First Dollar Alliance is made up of workers, suppliers, families and other supporters that make the first dollar that fuels the rest of the provincial economy.

[1420]

These folks are supporting the very important work of taking our natural resources: lumber, mining, agriculture — we still have to eat to live — fishing, oil and gas…. Through their efforts, they're giving these resources economic value by developing them into something that the province and the world needs.

They fuel an entire provincial economy that stretches from rural locations — Campbell River, Port Hardy, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Prince George, Williams Lake, Kamloops and Cranbrook — all the way to the downtowns of Vancouver and Victoria. It's that long economic chain that results in jobs not only in rural B.C. but in the office towers, shopping centres, hotels and restaurants of the large urban centres in the lower mainland. It is that long economic chain, stretching from the rural community to the urban city to the international marketplace, that provides B.C. with its world-renowned quality of life.

You can expect to hear more from this very determined group as it continues to raise awareness of the importance of rural communities to our larger cities. I'm sure all of us in this House wish First Dollar Alliance the very best success as they continue to bridge our urban-rural divide.

YOUTH REPRESENTATION IN B.C.

S. Fraser: I rise today in recognition of the importance of our youth and of the issues that are priorities to our young people in B.C. I can't help but notice that none of us are getting any younger in these chambers, and I believe it is wise for all of us to make sure that we visit the schools within our own constituencies and encourage those students to come and visit these chambers in this building.

[ Page 4806 ]

Last year I attended Brian Lavery's grade 11 socials class at ADSS in Port Alberni — Port Alberni, I dare say, known as Hockeyville. Go, Bulldogs, go. But I digress, hon. Speaker.

I will soon be returning to Brian's class to continue my education. Decisions we make here affect the lives of young people and their future. They are woefully underrepresented in these chambers, and they are poorly represented at the polls, as all of us know. In the age groups from 18 to 25 we're seeing a disenfranchisement of our young people at the polls and in our political system.

In my last visit to ADSS we discussed ways to fix that. One suggestion that arose, and I've discussed it with some of my colleagues here, is to lower the voting age. That sparked some interesting and deep conversations amongst the students at Brian's class. Should a 16- or 17-year-old have the right to cast a vote to take

part in a democratic system? And will that help enfranchise our youth in the system? Maybe it would. Maybe we in this House should be having that debate. I know when I go back to Brian's class before they rise for the season, we will continue to have that debate and that discussion.

Oral Questions

CHILD DEATH REVIEWS

C. James: Last fall the Premier and Solicitor General repeatedly told this House that secondary child death reviews were taking place. They said all child deaths were properly investigated. At the same time the B.C. Coroners Service was quietly telling a different story to international academics. Routine reviews were not taking place.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he explain why two major international studies completely contradict everything he said about child death reviews?

[1425]

Hon. J. Les: I want to be very clear once again, as I believe I was last fall, that all child deaths in British Columbia are properly reviewed — every single one of them. They are reviewed by medical personnel, and they're reviewed by law enforcement agencies, as appropriate in each of those cases.

What was at issue last fall was the secondary child death review process, and in fact, those secondary processes were underway. In the current context, there was certainly an issue around files that were involved in the transition process from the former Children's Commission to the child death review unit at the coroner's office, but I think those issues have all been thoroughly canvassed. We are carrying on with those files that were misplaced, and that work is ongoing. Those reports will be available in the fall.

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

C. James: The minister's comments are completely contradictory to comments from the Coroners Service. I would like to quote from one of those studies from Scotland, published in September 2005. One of the key findings of this report is that "…reviews do not routinely take place, and those that do are often triggered by high-profile media attention."

That was a comment directly after consultation with the B.C. Coroners Service. Compare that to the comments from the Solicitor General in 2005: "Those reviews have been done." Again, my question to the Solicitor General: can he please explain why his comments are completely contradicted by the coroner's office comments?

Hon. J. Les: It's interesting that the Leader of the Opposition gets her research either in the headlines of the Vancouver Sun or somewhere in Scotland. These issues have been very thoroughly canvassed right here in British Columbia, most recently by the hon. Ted Hughes, who, I think, notes with approval the review processes that we have underway in British Columbia and expresses his satisfaction that those files are being appropriately reviewed. I would hope that the opposition would take note of those comments as well.

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

C. James: I would certainly hope that the minister is paying attention to international studies that are quoting British Columbia and what's going on in British Columbia, because apparently the minister doesn't know what's going on here. It's best he read those studies to find out.

I'd like to quote from the Australian study. Colin Harris, manager of B.C.'s child death review unit, stated in October 2005 that the B.C. Coroners Service faced numerous resource and legislative stumbling blocks. It's clear that the coroner's office couldn't get the job done, and this government continued to deny that there were problems. These are 1,500 families — 1,500 children.

I'd like to ask my question again to the Solicitor General: can he explain why the Liberals were telling the B.C. public that there were no problems with child death reviews while the coroner's office was telling the international community a completely different story?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure where the Leader of the Opposition was at certain times last year, but when information became available to me that there were problems with that transition process, I (

a) disclosed that in the House and (

b) had it investigated. When the investigation was complete, I reported very openly that mistakes had been made, that there were issues with respect to that transition process, which had not gone as well as we had hoped, and that we would take steps to ensure that the child death review process in the future was going to function well.

In response to that, we have increased the budget over the next three years by $13 million, and we've

[ Page 4807 ]

added additional resources and personnel to the coroner's office. I think we've been open and transparent throughout this process. Again, I would quote Mr. Ted Hughes, who says very clearly that now is the time for government to move forward and not spend more time and money looking backward.

[1430]

A. Dix: The Solicitor General said last fall — he's not referring to initial reviews; he is referring to secondary child death reviews: "The 546 files have had a secondary review, and they will be reported out appropriately." Now, let's ignore the fact that the Solicitor General hasn't been able to produce a single review in that time.

He goes on to say: "Since 2003, 546 of those files have been looked into and completed on a secondary review basis. That work continues. I am wondering, frankly, what part of that the members opposite don't get." Well, what we don't get is how the Solicitor General would make such a statement dozens of times when the staff who do the work say it ain't so.

My question to the Solicitor General is to explain why he was giving a political message here in British Columbia while his officials were giving international experts the facts.

Hon. J. Les: Since the child death review process was implemented in the coroner's office, in fact, those secondary reviews were happening. What we had a discussion about last fall with the opposition was the fact that prior to the implementation of the child death review process, a number of files — some 713 — did not get appropriately reviewed. That is something that I acknowledged openly, and that work is underway as we speak. Those reports will be coming out in September.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Let me read to the Solicitor General what the study says, what his staff say. We're not referring to the transition process. We're not referring to the 713 cases that he and the Premier lost — which were, in fact, 955 cases, according to the Hughes report. We're referring to the 546 cases that the Solicitor General said, again and again and again in this House, had been done. Here's what his staff say. They say: "…reviews do not routinely take place, and those that do are often triggered by high-profile media attention."

My question to the Solicitor General is this: on the 546 reviews, if he's right and I'm wrong, will he come back to this House, do what I asked him to do last November and table those reviews right here?

Hon. J. Les: What I will commit to do is to ensure that we continue to have an excellent child death review process in British Columbia guided, at least in part, by the recommendations of Mr. Ted Hughes.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT

M. Farnworth: According to David Emerson, the International Trade Minister for Canada, the softwood deal currently being negotiated will require British Columbia to have all forest policy changes vetted by Washington. For the next seven years we have to give Washington control over forest policy in this province. To the Minister of Forests and Range: when did the minister know that a condition of the softwood deal was the surrender of our sovereignty to the U.S.?

Hon. R. Coleman: Over the next 60 days I expect a bit of speculation on what language will be in an international agreement between two countries. There's always going to be some issue with regards to anti-circumvention once you actually sign an agreement, because then you actually are supposed to operate within the agreement. We will be going through that with our legal people, and we're at the table as British Columbia making sure that British Columbia interests are taken care of as we go through that process.

[1435]

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

M. Farnworth: When a federal minister says that forest policy needs to be vetted in Washington — it's going to happen for seven years — those are pretty strong words. One thing we know about Washington, D.C., is that when it comes to regulation and red tape, they make Ottawa look streamlined and efficient.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range: what economic analysis has been done by his government to look at the impact of Washington having to vet forest policy changes on the competitiveness, efficiency and productivity of our forest industry? If it has not been done, why not? If it has been done, will he table the studies and reports in this House?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have a framework agreement between Canada and the United States with regards to softwood. Over the next number of days and weeks we are going to actually negotiate what that trade deal looks like. As we come through the process, we'll do all the work necessary to make sure that's okay.

Frankly, to the members opposite…. I mean, I remember the Leader of the Opposition on radio in Kamloops saying that it was time to get a deal done now, that it was time to get on with it. Well, you do get on with it, and as you do that, you will come to issues along the road with regards to language that you have to work through in a trade agreement, and that's what we're going to do.

B. Simpson: Let's be very clear. No one said, "Let's get on with it," at the price of the sovereignty of this province over forest policy.

The minister says that they'll work out the language as they go forward. We know that a 23-page document

[ Page 4808 ]

has already been tabled with language in it, in particular, around the anti-circumvention clause.

In April the Premier announced at the Council of Forest Industries that we would institute a market pricing system in the interior in September. My question is very simple, to the Minister of Forests and Range: in that anti-circumvention clause, will we have to go to Washington for permission to put that market pricing system in place in September?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm actually kind of shocked at this one, seeing as he is the critic for Forests. If the member had been paying attention, he would know that I announced last week that we moved the market pricing system up to July 1.

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

B. Simpson: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier in his opening remarks today said that he hoped we would shed some light on the issues that confront British Columbians. We've just had some light shed on those issues. The very fact that the minister had to move the date up to July 1 is proof of the concern that we would not be able to do it.

Now Prime Minister Harper continues his bully tactics on getting this deal done. He has indicated that he wants the deal done by June 15. Will this minister now have to bring up the date for the beginning of the market pricing system before that? And every time we have to do policy changes to make our industry competitive, will this minister have to travel to Washington to get approval?

Hon. R. Coleman: It is a trade deal, a trade deal between two countries, and one that was worked out with industry across this country. I don't know what is wrong with having, within a trade deal, certain clauses in which you have certain behaviour defined.

No, hon. member, we've made it very clear to Washington that the MPS system is not part of this agreement and should not be part of any discussion with regards to it. In addition to that, you know…. We've got companies today that make siding, and it is end-matched, and they hit the border at 10.86-percent duty on $1,200 a board foot because they're being taxed on the high-value product hitting the border. Today, when this agreement is done, those people will actually be paying first-mill price. The saving and jobs created just by that, for the economic side of the small sector of forestry, is very important.

[1440]

In addition to that, when you talk to the industry in the province of British Columbia, the uncertainty and the difficulties of dealing with this thing for the last 15 or 20 years are unbelievable. In actual fact, the industry itself is saying to us: "This is a good deal. Get on with it." There are always going to be those that wanted a better one, but I can tell you: there are a whole bunch of companies that have been sitting on the edge of receivership in British Columbia, because of what they're paying at the border, that want to get on with business and want this deal done.

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT

MOUNT SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL

J. Kwan: Last week the Minister of Health tried to wash his hands of the cuts to Mount Saint Joseph Hospital. But doctors and health care professionals have spoken out, and so did the community. To date, over 3,200 people have signed on to a petition against the cuts. Organizations including the Chinese Benevolent Association of Canada, the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society, the Chinese Freemasons of Canada national headquarters, among others, have signed on endorsing the petition against the cut.

We understand that the officials will be meeting later on this afternoon. I would like to ask the minister: will he confirm, and respond to the community, that physicians at Mount Saint Joseph's emergency would not be reduced by 23 percent effective June 1 and that Providence Health Care's administration would not be punished for this decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: What I can tell the member very clearly is: as I have noted in this House before, over the past three years we have seen the budget for Mount Saint Joseph's emergency physicians only move from $686,000 to $1.075 million — a 56 percent increase in the funding for emergency physicians.

It is not up to me to determine the number of FTEs there are at Mount Saint Joseph. There are people in Providence Health Care and people in Vancouver Coastal Health who are far better able to determine what the appropriate staffing level is at any moment in time. But I can tell you that our commitment as a government to Mount Saint Joseph is unwavering, including a $3.5 million construction project that is underway, six new intensive care beds, a new biomedical engineering department, a new mechanical room, a new stress test and ECG clinic on the ground floor, and a new pulmonary function clinic on the ground floor as well.

We are making appropriate investments in Mount Saint Joseph. We look forward to the continuing return on that investment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Appropriate support for Mount Saint Joseph would be not reducing the physician support, effective June 1, by 23 percent. According to the doctors, the Ministry of Health allocates physicians to FTEs, and Providence Health Care has very limited ability to top up the physician funding above the Ministry of Health allocations. We've been advised by the physicians that if administrators are caught trying to adhere to national standards and to ensure patient safety in ERs in hospitals, they would be fired.

[ Page 4809 ]

Will the minister confirm, then, that the administration at Providence and any other health authority would not be punished for just doing their job?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm surprised that the member would concoct these quite remarkably foolish scenarios and hypotheses in her mind. We're always open to constructive suggestions. In fact, last Friday we had the second of our meetings with emergency room doctors and nurses, paramedics, Hospital Employees Union. Everybody's working hard to ensure that we make the best possible use of our health human resources and our other resources in this province.

Again, it's not as if we don't occasionally have difficult decisions to make in the world of health care, but frankly, we've owned up to what we need to have done. We're investing more in nurses, more in doctors and more in new capital projects than at any time in the history of British Columbia.

[1445]

AMBULANCE SERVICE COVERAGE

IN SMALL COMMUNITIES

C. Evans: A couple of weeks ago I attended a recruitment event of the B.C. Ambulance Service in Nakusp. Seven hundred invitations were sent out, to every single household in the village, and they served tea and cookies. Only two people came: me and the mayor.

They were trying to recruit because the Nakusp Ambulance Service has been unable to fill ambulance shifts for weeks now and needs new attendants. Nakusp has been covered by New Denver when it's unable to field an ambulance, and this morning the mayor of New Denver advised me that his village, too, is unable to fill ambulance shifts and will be down until July.

My question is for the Minister of Health, and it is: is the inability to put workers into emergency service vehicles limited to villages in my constituency, or is this a problem in small towns all over the province?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising the question, because I think it's a very important one. For communities that are remote or very small, finding an acceptable number of ambulance attendants can be a big challenge. As the member rightly noted, the B.C. Ambulance Service had sent out 700 flyers across the community of Nakusp to try and encourage people to come out to discuss the opportunities that present themselves in the B.C. Ambulance Service.

I do want to say that I appreciate the member's question. I do need to note, though, that we have a new collective agreement in place with the paramedics of British Columbia, effective 2004. There is provision in that agreement for both enhanced on-call pay and enhanced training. If those are items that are not working well for the smallest communities in British Columbia, I think it's entirely appropriate, as the member has just done, to make me aware of it. I will take his suggestions back to my ministry and work on them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston has a supplemental.

C. Evans: Yes, hon. Speaker. For the information of members on both sides from smaller communities, the reason the minister was using the word "remote" in his answer is because the new agreement says that if you are remote, then you only get $2 an hour on call to serve in an ambulance, and you have to pay for your own training and the travel to Vancouver, or a larger centre, to get the training, and therefore, nobody's signing up.

My question is actually for the Minister of Finance. The poor Minister of Health is locked into a collective agreement and contracts and all like that. But summer's coming. These tiny villages that are remote in the winter — 500 or 1,000 people — will be 10,000 people when the tourists come from the lower mainland. I'm sure we don't serve Whistler with a health service for its indigenous population; we do it for the larger population.

Will the Minister of Finance consider having some seasonal adjustment for smaller communities to serve them with a contractual allowance for the population that's actually physically there in the summertime rather than the wintertime indigenous population with which the Minister of Health counts their heads?

Hon. G. Abbott: The budget for the B.C. Ambulance Service has moved from $182 million back in 2001 to $256 million today. One of the reasons why that has occurred is the new collective agreement that we have with the B.C. Ambulance Service, which was strongly endorsed by the paramedics of British Columbia.

The member is right that there is a distinction made between rural and remote, and there is a differential in terms of the negotiated agreement on what the payment would be. The level at which one is either deemed remote or deemed rural depends on the call volumes that are produced annually. When a community or a region exceeds the threshold, they become deemed rural.

The member, I know, is trying to make a good point here. We're prepared to look at it. But again, we don't have all the money in the world, and it's important that we allocate resources appropriately. The member may take issue with the collective agreement, but it is the collective agreement which has been freely negotiated with the B.C. paramedics.

[1450]

FUNDING FOR HIV/AIDS ORGANIZATIONS

S. Simpson: Last year in estimates, on November 16, 2005, the Minister of Health, in response to questions related to funding for community organizations that work around HIV and AIDS, said the following: "…HIV/AIDS organizations play an important role in helping us to deal with this challenge, and we have added an additional $60 million to our budget for the public health area over the next three years for health authorities to work with AIDS organizations to assist us in trying to meet these…goals that we've set out."

[ Page 4810 ]

It's my understanding that that money has started to flow to the health authorities, but at this point, none of those AIDS or HIV organizations have received any of these dollars. Will the minister tell us when those organizations might expect to see some of the money that the minister committed to last year?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll take the member's question under advisement. I will pursue this matter with my ministry and with the health authorities to ensure that the organizations are securing the money in a timely way.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I do have a different matter. The minister received a letter on March 10 from the chair of the B.C. Persons with AIDS providing that exact quote I gave to the minister and asking where that money would be. He's had a letter from this organization for over two months to which there's been no response. Maybe the minister could tell us when he's going to respond to the mail asking him these questions.

Hon. G. Abbott: I get thousands of letters every month. We respond to every letter that we receive, and we respond to it in as timely a way as we can. It may be that the question that was posed in the letter is still being researched. Perhaps the letter has been composed. I'll look forward to seeing it signed off just as soon as it's done.

COMPENSATION FOR

ELECTRICAL POWER SURGE DAMAGE

D. Thorne: In my community of Coquitlam a single motor vehicle accident has caused headaches for hundreds and hundreds of residents. At about 4 a.m. on Sunday, May 7, a truck struck a power pole, causing a major power surge in my riding. The surge fried appliances and electrical devices, including refrigerators, stoves, television sets, computers and dishwashers.

My constituency office is getting dozens of calls from affected citizens seeking compensation. They feel they are getting the runaround from both B.C. Hydro and ICBC, as they are being told to basically check it out with their home insurance agents.

I have a question for the minister responsible for ICBC. I would like to know what the ministry is doing to address the concerns of those who have been affected by this power surge, including those who do not have home insurance to cover the costs and those who cannot afford the often up to $1,000 deductible if they do have insurance?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there was a motor vehicle accident that has caused some inconvenience for quite a few people in Coquitlam. I appreciate that. As of this morning B.C. Hydro and ICBC have reached an agreement and are moving forward on actually working with the people that have been affected.

[End of question period.]

D. Cubberley: I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

D. Cubberley: I'm in receipt of a petition from over 1,600 registered nurses in British Columbia. The nurses are supporting the implementation of an effective and comprehensive regulation to prevent injuries, especially needle stick injuries from sharps and poor practices.

The proposed changes to the occupational health and safety regulation currently in play only cover vascular hollow-bore needles. The majority of injuries to nurses and other employees are from other medical sharps, and the nurses are asking that the regulation be changed.

[1455]

S. Hawkins: I rise to table a petition. The petition is from registered nurses in Okanagan-Penticton in support of medical safety sharp regulation.

C. Wyse: I present a petition of 59 persons voicing concerns about new regulations around medical sharps from WorkSafe B.C. The petition identifies eight gaps in the new regulations.

A further petition. I present a petition from 174 persons from the Anahim Lake, Nimpo Lake and Charlotte Lake area to have the two-wheel drive ambulance replaced with a four-by-four vehicle in order that the ambulance can access all areas at all times of the year.

Standing Order 35

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 35, as outlined to you in my letter of this date, to raise a motion of urgent public importance — namely, that the provincial and federal governments have fast-tracked a final softwood agreement with the United States to conclude as early as June 15 and that this House, not scheduled to meet again until October 4, must address the question of surrender of sovereignty that both the federal and provincial ministers have accepted as a feature of that agreement. This information was only recently confirmed by federal International Trade Minister David Emerson.

In light of this confirmation, and the cooperation of the B.C. Minister of Forests to compromise B.C. sovereignty, I believe this matter requires urgent debate in the Legislative Assembly. The accelerated nature with which the provincial and federal governments have undertaken negotiation and ratification of the softwood lumber framework agreement has not allowed for any public review of the agreement and its terms. Should the government agree to these new terms, the B.C. forest sector and B.C. communities will be committed to a potentially unfavourable deal for a seven-year period.

This is the first opportunity for public debate since this critical issue of compromised sovereignty has been

[ Page 4811 ]

confirmed by the federal International Trade Minister. It is also extremely urgent that this House debate this matter today, given that the estimates for the Ministry of Forests and Range have finished and that the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn on Thursday and will not reconvene until October, long after the framework agreement will likely be signed. It is imperative that this House take this opportunity to clarify that maintaining B.C.'s independence over public policy is paramount to ratifying any deal.

I have a motion to move, if the Speaker finds it in order.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll respond.

I would first like to seek leave to make an introduction, though.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll think of my response in the process.

One of the great schools in Abbotsford is Godson Elementary, and some grade four students are here with their teacher Ms. Wiens. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. de Jong: I've not seen the motion that the member is tendering. I suppose, before I conclude my remarks, it is wise and incumbent upon me to say that.

I do make this observation, though. One of the tests laid out under the standing orders relates to the opportunity for debate. We're beginning the Premier's estimates today, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to how the member believes the matter would qualify under the standing orders. But I'll take a look at the motion, and maybe I can communicate with my friend, the Opposition House Leader, and make further submissions shortly.

Mr. Speaker: I'll wait to hear back from the Government House Leader.

Then you'll come back into the House to submit your…?

Hon. M. de Jong: Right.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the Annual Report of the British Columbia Legislative Library , 2005.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call committee stage debate of Bill 30, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[1500]

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 3:04 p.m.

Hon. M. de Jong: On the bill. For the information of members, to convey to the committee that in accordance with the statement made in the House last week, the government intends that

section 9, which is the main section, and then the consequential sections to it — 10, 17 and 58 — will not be proceeding. There is a mechanism by which that will happen at the appropriate time when we arrive at the section.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney could simply comment on the nature of this

section and what the purpose of it is.

[1505]

Hon. C. Taylor: The point is that in the past, while these calculations have been made by the comptroller general, they are not made public until Public Accounts. In trying to bring this act up to more transparent standards, this says that within 90 days it will be made public after any reorganization.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 7, my question is to the Attorney General. Does this

section represent a significant change from the previous section, and will this in fact have the effect of delaying significantly the response from public bodies?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I think I noted the member making remarks in second reading, but actually, upon reflection, it had to do with a different

section than this.

The way that I will try to convey what is being proposed in the bill is to identify for the committee what the problems were that were identified and how I believe and the government believes that what is being presented is a reasonable response to those problems.

In this case, the problem that was identified related to the fact that at times circumstances arise which interfere with the ability of the public agency that has obli-

[ Page 4812 ]

gations under the act to comply with the time limits. At times those are circumstances that are truly beyond anyone's control. They may be natural disaster events. I suppose it could be labour disruption.

The member will know that under the existing provisions of the act, there is a mechanism by which the head of the public body can extend, of their own volition, the time for replying by 30 days. This proposed amendment allows for the public agency or head of the public body to go to the commissioner and make a case for why the commissioner should authorize a further extension beyond that.

For me, the relevant point in sponsoring the initiative and having it here in the Legislature was the fact that the decision is taken away from the public body and vests in the commissioner himself or herself, who then applies the test as set out here as to whether or not that additional extension should be granted.

L. Krog: Just so I'm entirely clear, the way I read

section 7, which is this new

section 10, essentially it means that…. It seems to say that the head of the public body may extend the time, but in addition, he has authority to go to the commissioner and ask for an extension of the time. The first is an entirely bureaucratic decision made by the ministry, and the other

section provides that he can then go for a further extension in addition.

This is already a fairly complex and lengthy process, and there are great complaints about the amount of time involved with respect to the provision of responses to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. I'm just wondering if the minister can give us any assurances in the House today that, in fact, there will be appropriate funding or whatever to ensure that these lengthy delays are not exacerbated by the implementation or passage of this section.

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: I guess the assurance that I can and would like to provide to the member and the House is twofold. One, it is the commissioner — who the member will know has not been a shrinking violet in advocating for reasonableness and rationality insofar as the application of the act and the processes of the act — has accepted this as a fair and balanced mechanism by which to take account of extraordinary circumstances.

I do want to emphasize this. This is not a provision that is designed or intended to be used on a regular basis for excusing tardiness. It is designed to be applied. It is designed to give public bodies an option to go to the commissioner and make a case before the commissioner that, in these extraordinary circumstances, it is reasonable to grant a further time period within which the request can be complied with.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Sections 9 and 10 negatived.

section 11.

L. Krog: I wonder if he could comment on the effect and the reason for striking out

section 21 or 22 and substituting 21, 21.1 or 22.

Interjection.

The Chair: We're on

section 11.

Hon. M. de Jong: If the member will give me…. The

section 11 that I am looking at substitutes the term "agreement" with "written agreement," so I….

L. Krog: The minister is correct. If he could respond to that, then. What's the reason for

section 11?

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member knows, there are circumstances where the legislation contemplates certain kinds of information-sharing agreements in this act and, actually, in some other circumstances relating to health. The point here is that it seemed reasonable — and in fact, it was, I believe, probably the intention — that where those kinds of agreements exist, they should be in writing so that it is clear under what terms that information can be shared and also so that there is an opportunity for people to know with certainty the basis upon which the information is being shared.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

L. Krog: The minister is in receipt of a letter from the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner dated April 28, 2006. He says:

In the case of the amendments to FIPPA in relation to location of personal information outside of Canada or access to it from outside Canada, I support these amendments as reasonable. I note that they are narrowly tailored and would permit location of personal information outside Canada or access from outside Canada only where a public body official is temporarily travelling outside Canada or for "installing, implementing, maintaining, repairing, troubleshooting or upgrading electronic system or equipment that includes the electronic system or for data recovery that is being undertaken following failure in the electronic system."

That's a letter dated April 28. I'm wondering if the minister is absolutely satisfied that, in fact, these amendments apply just as narrowly as the information commissioner is suggesting in his response.

[1515]

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, I actually think the member has asked precisely the right question. I said at the outset that the process I followed with this whole exercise was: what is the problem? And if the problem is real, then are we adopting a solution that is focused and narrow enough not to allow the kinds of abuses that the act is designed to protect against in the first place?

So here was the problem we were confronted with anecdotally. People go across the line — whether it's a

[ Page 4813 ]

government official or even a physician. They take their BlackBerry or their laptop computer, and they want to access files. If it's a physician — golfing in Palm Springs, I suppose — and they want to be able to service some of their clients or do some work, or it's a public official trying to access their information, they are presently at risk of running afoul of the act.

If we accept that we don't want to create offences out of those circumstances, can we seize upon and draft language that would allow for people to engage in what I would suggest would be regarded as reasonable behaviour without opening up the door too wide? That gives rise to the member's question. He has fairly pointed out that the Privacy Commissioner has considered these proposals and regards them as reasonable, focused, balanced and appropriate.

It won't surprise the member to know that I feel the same way on the basis of the hours of discussion that have taken place around the drafting of the provisions. The best I can say to the member is that I believe we share the same objective here — or I hope we do — and that is to recognize that as it is presently worded, the act is having some unintended consequences which we are trying to deal with via this amendment. The intention is not in any way, shape or form to frustrate the predominant or prevailing intention or objective of the act, which is to protect against the unauthorized dissemination of information to other countries.

L. Krog: I have heard it referred to by some folks as the BlackBerry amendment, which conjures up this image of just a very quick, simple and short disclosure and some temporary travelling outside the country of no significant consequence whatsoever. Is the minister then saying that that is the entire focus of this section? We are talking about a genuinely…. I would call it an even less than temporary period of time.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm glad the member asked the second question, because the answer is no. The section, particularly sub (b), actually does something else. It does facilitate a flow of information, to this point, in very different circumstances than someone carrying a laptop computer or a BlackBerry.

The problem, if I can offer this to the member, relates to the fact that a lot of equipment…. I'll use one example that has been brought to my attention: MRIs. Apparently when there's a problem with an MRI — highly specialized, technical, complex equipment — the practice for the initial diagnosis of what the technical problem might be is carried out on line or is intended to be carried out on line. Largely, the diagnostic folks in that case are in Massachusetts.

Apparently, as part of that diagnostic exercise, information covered by the act flows back and forth. It can even be, to anticipate the member's question, specific data relating to a specific situation as a means of tracking the accuracy of the equipment or what might be wrong with the equipment. So another key provision here is to allow that kind of repair, maintenance and diagnostic work to occur without placing the operators — the proponents — in jeopardy of running afoul of the legislation.

[1520]

Again, though, I do not quarrel with the member's question. If we accept that that is a legitimate thing to try and accommodate, how do we do so? We must make sure we do so without opening the door any wider than absolutely necessary to accommodate that.

L. Krog: Does the amendment allow data to be stored outside of Canada by a contractor of government for extended periods of time?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that the act is worded in such a way as to make clear that it is temporary storage only, for the purposes contemplated in the

section only.

L. Krog: It is proposed that all officers and employees of a public body be allowed to disclose information inside and outside of Canada if the information is necessary through performance of their duties. What is their relevant definition of "necessary"?

Hon. M. de Jong: To come back to one of the examples I cited earlier where you have the physician who travels south and then from his or her vacation spot or seminar felt obliged to access data via their transmission device or personal data device…. The act contemplates that. The member's question is around the test for "necessary."

At the end of the day, like most of these tests involving the reasonable application of provisions, they are not defined exhaustively or codified. But the final adjudicator, where there are allegations of improper use of those provisions or improper application of the necessary provisions, would be the commissioner under the terms of the act.

L. Krog: I appreciate that the commissioner will be the ultimate adjudicator, but the question that the public has, of course, is: who's going to determine when the disclosure is necessary? And who is going to watch over which public body employees are disclosing information within any government structure, other than the commissioner?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I took incorrectly what the member said. Except in the case of one of the sections we just talked about for extending the period, the act is not built around the principle of preapproval.

[1525]

Whilst I understand that the member correctly focuses in on the fact that a provision like this must not be misused, I am suggesting to the House and to the committee that the language that has been employed is designed to provide some safeguards coupled with the fact that — as with every other provision — there is the oversight offered by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

L. Krog: I do emphasize the term "freedom" here. If I understand what the minister has had to say and if I

[ Page 4814 ]

understand the act, essentially untold hundreds of public servants — employees of public bodies — will be in a position to make these decisions on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, on an annual basis — none of which will come to public review unless someone presumes there's been some breach of the act.

In other words, this act gives the ability to any employee of a public body to make a decision about what is necessary in terms of disclosure for the performance of their duties, and that can happen literally a hundred times a day, a thousand times a day. Am I correct in my understanding?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure how that is different from what takes place today. The act imposes the obligation on officials at public bodies today to make decisions, make judgments. Whilst I don't wish in any way to diminish the importance of the decision relevant to this section, it is not unlike the decisions that officials make in countless thousands of other circumstances relevant to the protections being afforded by the statute.

L. Krog: With respect to the minister's previous answers, obviously these decisions are going to be made by individuals working for government, and the language talked about is "necessary for the performance of the duties."

What is necessary? Is the term "necessary" defined somewhere in this legislation that I'm missing? I mean, who determines what is necessary? Are there any tests? Are there any regulations intended to describe the tests? What's going to be the guidance here for these hundreds of public employees to make the decision on a daily basis what's necessary, when they can do this?

Hon. M. de Jong: The guidance that people may seek, and I should point out…. I think I heard the member say just government employees. I'm not sure that's completely accurate, actually, because it may have application for people outside of government.

As the member knows, we have a fairly well-regarded policies handbook for the act. Upon passage — assuming it does — of the section, that would be the document that would contain the guiding principles and policy that would afford people, I hope and I think, the assistance they need in terms of governing their behaviour on a day-to-day basis.

L. Krog: This

section begs the obvious question: why are employees and officers not required to keep records of which information is being disclosed and the reasons for such disclosure? Otherwise, frankly, how is anyone ever to get this before the commissioner if there are no records being kept of when these disclosures are being made to determine whether, in fact, they were necessary?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if part of the discussion here I have not responded to properly is the use of the word "disclosure." I would emphasize to the member that what we're talking about is not disclosure outside of the family of individuals that are entitled to the information in British Columbia.

In the case of the first subsection, this isn't designed to apply to someone who brings information via their BlackBerry or their computer and then discloses it. This doesn't authorize that. It allows them to utilize it as they would be authorized to do so within British Columbia — so no disclosure issue in that respect.

In the other case, in the other subsection where I talked about the diagnostic equipment, there is an issue around the temporary disclosure of that information for very, very specifically enumerated purposes.

L. Krog: The

section provides that disclosure outside of Canada be permitted only for those temporarily travelling outside of Canada. I guess the obvious question is: who determines what is temporary, and again, is there any definition to determine temporary? If you're a high-level public servant, you might be travelling around the world for 30 days. You might be popping down to Seattle for six hours. I mean, what's the definition of temporary?

Hon. M. de Jong: I sat here for a moment, and I tried to turn my mind to contemplating every possible circumstance that could arise. Of course I can't. Temporary travel outside of the jurisdiction is just that. The member is right. In some cases it's a few hours. In some cases it might be a few weeks. I suppose, in rare circumstances, it might be longer than that. The policy guidebook will endeavour to provide some assistance, but I don't want to mislead the member. Like most policy guidebooks, it will not provide an anticipatory decision of every conceivable circumstance.

The purpose here, as revealed in the discussion we're having, is to create a circumstance in which people who may need — on a very temporary basis while they're outside of the country as part of their duties — to access information that heretofore has not been permitted to travel across our borders have the ability to do so on a very temporary basis.

Again, I point out that this is not about disclosure of that information. The person who would be accessing it has the right to access that information within British Columbia, and there would not be an issue if they were within British Columbia.

L. Krog: Why not limit these disclosures, if you will, or the relation to disclosure outside of Canada to work-related trips of a specific length? In other words, establish it by policy very clearly. The minister has indicated in his answer that this will be covered by policy guidelines, etc. Most British Columbians take this stuff fairly seriously. I'm wondering why the legislation doesn't provide for much more specific

definitions of the cases in which this would apply.

[1535]

Hon. M. de Jong: Because I'm not sure how that would provide the member, or those who share his concern, with any more comfort. If the absence was for

[ Page 4815 ]

four hours, but the purpose of accessing the information were still improper, I'm not sure how the mere fact that there is a time line around the absence…. I mean, we're not talking here about continuous access either. The wisdom of statutorily imposing a deadline….

If the physician is in Palm Springs, and the patient requires an opinion instantly two weeks plus one hour after departure, is the physician going to say: "No, I'm sorry. The act only authorizes me to access your file for up to two weeks, and I've been gone for two weeks now"? I'm not trying to in any way belittle the member's obvious interest in drawing parallels around the application, but I don't know the wisdom of statutorily enshrining those kinds of time lines. The wisdom of that eludes me.

L. Krog: The

section also talks about service providers. Their employees and associates are also to be allowed to disclose information that is "necessary for the performance of the duties of the individual in relation to the public body…." Who is going to determine when those disclosures will be determined or declared as necessary, and what, if any, criteria are going to be used?

Just to assist the minister, it's (e.1), where it reads, "to an individual who is a service provider of the public body, or an employee or associate of such a service provider," if the information as to their performance, etc.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me try to convey this. I think I missed part of the member's question, but he'll remind me of which

part I've missed. The addition of the subsection allows and enables — and this is key — a Canadian-based service provider of a public body to access necessary personal information while temporarily travelling outside of Canada. But the provision is limited to Canadian-based service providers by the requirement that the service provider receiving the information must be a service provider who normally receives the personal information only inside of Canada. So there's a built-in limitation around who qualifies.

[1540]

L. Krog: If I understand the minister, what he is saying the

section says is that if I'm a service provider and I'm travelling outside of Canada, then I get to receive the same information — or any information someone declares as necessary — that I would if, to use the minister's example, a physician travelling outside of Canada needing to get medical information. Is my understanding correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is correct with the synopsis. The key point being that if you are abroad — if you are temporarily abroad as contemplated by the subsection — you are only entitled to receive that information which you would be entitled to receive if you were at home in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Again, that will be a determination with respect to the definition of "necessary." The criteria will be established either by policy — not by this Legislature — or by some manager or some person within a bureaucracy or a given organization that constitutes a public body. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer to the member's question is essentially yes. The member is skilled at reading the legislation. The act establishes the broad parameters. There will be guidance afforded via the policy guidebook. Where there are allegations of abuse or non-conformance they are ultimately adjudicated, as we discussed earlier, by the commissioner.

L. Krog: Obviously, if this kind of activity is taking place on a regular basis — and it may well be so — if you have the technocrat who has got to be the person who can give the service provider the answer for the problem back home, and they're travelling abroad a lot, as often high-brow computer experts do….

If there's a breach, then who is going to be liable for that breach when the data is under the control of a service provider?

Hon. M. de Jong: I need to know more about the breach.

[1545]

L. Krog: In a situation where there has been a breach and some of that private information has been disclosed through some mistake of the service provider — or to use the language, employee or associate of such a service provider — and it happens outside of Canada, will the public body be liable? Will the service provider be liable? Who's going to be liable in those circumstances?

Hon. M. de Jong: The liabilities in the circumstance the member has referred to would attach in the same way as if the breach had occurred within British Columbia.

L. Krog: I take that answer from the minister to mean that it would apply to the service provider, whether or not it occurs inside or outside of British Columbia. But it also talks about the service provider of the public body or an employee or associate of such a service provider, and I'm just wondering what constitutes an associate of a service provider. Does that mean that if I'm a Delaware company providing assistance to Accenture, who I work under contract for, and Accenture in turn has control of Hydro records….? Does that make my Delaware company, as an example for the minister, an associate for the purposes of this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: We the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia will continue to look to that entity with whom we have the relationship. Just as some of these organizations may have subsidiaries, the act — as the member knows — requires these to be Canadian-based organizations. It is to that agency that we and ultimately the commissioner continue to look.

L. Krog: I would like to defer to some of my many colleagues who have questions to ask around this par-

[ Page 4816 ]

ticular section, particularly the member for Yale-Lillooet.

H. Lali: Bill 30 would permit computer maintenance people, such as system administrators and database administrators from foreign countries, to access data which is currently protected under FOIPPA. Many people don't seem to realize that computer maintenance people actually control data entry. They also end up having a lot of power to grant access and read data or even move entire databases around.

In other words, one doesn't really control security if one doesn't control the people who control the security. Once the people doing the snooping or people who have access have computer maintenance people helping them, they can copy entire databases.

[1550]

I know that over the course of the last few years this government has been giving so many assurances to the opposition, to the media, to critics, to people that data that belongs to the people of British Columbia or that the government actually keeps on behalf of British Columbians would not be subject to the U.S.A. Patriot Act. We know otherwise, with what has taken place with Accenture — with data being actually stored in Chicago, for instance.

I'm wondering if the minister is aware that in terms of the computer maintenance people who control the data security and have a lot of power to actually grant access, read data and even move entire databases around…. Again, system administrators tell me that one doesn't really control security if one doesn't control the people who control the security. I wonder if the minister could tell me how this will prevent British Columbia information being accessed by the Americans under the American patriot act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, here's the deal. We have gone to great lengths in this province to, if I can use the term, Patriot Act–proof ourselves, but we are confronted by a situation. I'm not sure if the member heard the earlier example. We have something in British Columbia that we use on a regular basis, on a diagnostic level, called MRI machines. I will just use one example that the member for Nanaimo and I were speaking of earlier.

If there is a problem with one of those machines, I'm advised that the first order of business is to conduct a diagnostic analysis of what is talking place electronically. There are lots of reasons for doing that. First of all, the machines are very important, and they like to get them back on line as quickly as possible.

So we have a choice, and I think the member has astutely identified that choice. We can decide not to make this change. You don't have to make this change. We can decide not to create this exception — because it is an exception — but if we make that decision, we need to understand that every time one of those machines goes down, we are going to pay to fly people from Massachusetts to do the repair.

Now, aside from the cost involved, I am satisfied that it doesn't make sense in terms of taking advantage of the technology that is available to facilitate a more rapid repair or correction of whatever the technological glitch is that is preventing the machine from doing its work. The member is correct. We are creating a very specific exception to allow for that maintenance repair to take place in as timely a way as possible.

I point out, because the member for Nanaimo was kind enough to read it into the record, that the Privacy Commissioner turned his mind specifically to this

section — as he did several other sections, which the member knows full well — and proffered an opinion that he believes this is an appropriate response to that situation.

The member may differ — and I am, as always, interested to hear that — but we should understand in the discussion we're having that there is a consequence to not attempting to do something that would facilitate the speedy repair of some of this equipment that we rely upon quite heavily in British Columbia.

[1555]

H. Lali: Earlier in his answer, the minister said that this government has gone to — I'm paraphrasing — great lengths to Patriot Act–proof our systems. I'm sure that the attempts are being made by the government, but…. I mean, we've had, even internally, a great problem in terms of keeping secure the most personal information of British Columbians. We've had breach after breach of security of information. Under this government we've had tapes, computer laptops, computer systems being sold without either items being erased or software destroyed. We've even had offices broken into where computers were stolen with their databases.

I think it's upwards of a hundred thousand people in British Columbia who have had their information go into the hands of people who weren't supposed to have it. So it doesn't really give me great comfort — I know the minister must be sincere in his remarks — that the information the government has is going to be secure or going to be appropriately Patriot Act–proofed, as the minister says.

I also want to say to the minister that a system administrator says that people don't realize that maintenance work often involves moving an entire database around. Databases are often zipped up and sent off-site to troubleshoot a problem or to do a test of the backup and recovery system. Can the minister tell me how much of that is going on presently? Could the minister also tell me: after these changes are made when Bill 30 is passed into law, how much of an increase in that are we going to see?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I can begin by answering the member's question this way. There are statutory limitations placed around the use of this tool. It is a tool, admittedly, because it does provide an unusual exception to the general rule around the disclosure of this type of information.

In this case, it is actually disclosure, as we talked about earlier. That is, under subsections (

a) and (b), the information has got to be limited to temporary access,

[ Page 4817 ]

and even any storage has to be on a temporary basis. It can only be that amount of information absolutely required to perform the diagnostic and maintenance work. In that respect, it imposes a strict obligation on the service provider to ensure that no more information than was absolutely necessary to conduct the repair or the diagnosis of the problem was transferred.

H. Lali: I wasn't in the House a little earlier. I had other business to attend to. I don't know if my colleagues from this side of the House have asked this question or not, but I'm sure they'll let me know.

When the minister says "temporary," what is temporary? How is it defined? What's the length of time? It has been canvassed? Okay, I'll pass on that, and I'll have to check the record. My colleagues tell me that has been…. Anyway, it concerns me, when we're looking at temporary, what the definition of temporary would be.

I guess I want to move on to ask the question. When databases are allowed to travel outside of B.C. jurisdiction, then B.C. privacy protection laws actually don't protect them. When one looks at some of the sections in the act, 33.1(1)(e.1) and 33.1(1)(p), they may look reasonable. But from the perspective of database administrators, they believe that these two sections would actually render the provincial privacy protection almost useless for the purpose of protecting personal data held by provincial institutions. They wouldn't be able to protect that personal data from the Patriot Act, from snooping.

[1600]

Would the minister care to comment on how allowing these amendments to Bill 30 to go through is supposed to make it more secure for British Columbians knowing the information is going to be secure, when in actual fact what the database administrators and systems administrators are saying it is making it wide-open either for abuse or for access by the American government under the U.S.A. Patriot Act?

Hon. M. de Jong: I've alleged no such thing. Even in the short time the member and I have been having this discussion, I have openly acknowledged that this represents an exception to the general provision. The act is about rationalizing why that is so and why that's necessary.

I come back to my original point. I take it from the discussion we're having that the member is opposed or wouldn't want to do this. I'm curious, because the Privacy Commissioner is not opposed. I actually listened with interest several days ago when the member for Nanaimo, on a separate piece of legislation, at least had the courage to say he disagreed with the Privacy Commissioner. I can't remember what the piece was, but he said: "I have great respect" — as we all do in this House — "for the Privacy Commissioner." But in this instance the member for Nanaimo disagreed with his opinion and said so.

If the member disagrees with the Privacy Commissioner, who has examined this and come to the conclusion that it is a reasonable, focused and balanced approach to solving a problem, then…. If the member disagrees with that, I hope he'll say so, and at least we'll know on the record.

I've tried to lay out the problem. The member can say: "Well, I don't think that is a serious enough problem to warrant this exception." I'm happy for him to tell me that as well. I'm not going to take great offence if the member says: "I disagree." But I have come and the government has come to the conclusion that our ability to effect timely repairs of some of this crucial equipment is sufficient to justify a very limited and very specific exception to the rule against the transfer and disclosure of information outside of British Columbia and Canada.

H. Lali: I'm not going to stand up here and say whether I agree or disagree with the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner, but I will stand up here and tell the minister I disagree with the minister. I disagree with his government. I disagree with the direction that his government has taken in terms of keeping our information safe, which the people of British Columbia entrust the government to do.

I take exception to what has happened over the last three or four years, with the kind of assurances that were given by Liberal cabinet ministers, the Liberal Premier, Liberal backbenchers, saying to us that our information — British Columbians' most sensitive information…

The Chair: Through the Chair, member.

H. Lali: The member is talking about the legislation here.

The Chair: Through the Chair, member.

H. Lali: …through the Chair, was not going to be stored in the United States.

What we found out barely a month back through leaks that took place…. What happened in this political scene was contrary to all the false assurances that this Liberal government has been giving us for the last few years — that our information was safe from the U.S. Patriot Act and that our information was not going to be stored in the United States.

That's exactly what has happened with the hydro records of employees and of customers, which are being stored in Chicago as we speak. What this bill, in essence, is doing is trying to put into law the practice that is currently taking place in British Columbia — contrary to all of the false assurances given by this government over the last few years.

[1605]

That's what is happening here. That's what I object to, and that's what I am opposed to, because what the people of British Columbia deserve and want from their government is some honesty. That's what folks are looking for. I want the minister to know this.

[ Page 4818 ]

Does he support more of our information being stored in the United States where it can be accessed at any time by the U.S.A. Patriot Act? What kind of assurances can he give to the people of British Columbia that such won't happen? We know that the kind of assurances that were given by this government over the last few years turned out to be false.

We all want this minister to put on the record and tell British Columbians that they should trust them once again when they have given those assurances, which ended up being false. In reality, what this bill is doing is putting into law the practice that is taking place, contrary to all of the false assurances.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sadly, I think the member does himself a disservice. Whilst I appreciate that he has some statements that he would like to make about his

interpretation on the general state of affairs, we are dealing with a very specific

section with a very specific purpose. Unfortunately, very little, if any, of what the member had to say was relevant to the section.

It is always instructive and generally mildly entertaining when the member conveys to the House his thoughts, such as they are, on a variety of topics. We are seeking here, in as open a way as I can possibly convey to the member, to create an exception — not, as he has suggested, to permanently store data outside of British Columbia or Canada. Quite the opposite. The wording in the

section that we are debating conveys that. I am, as always, interested in the member's views, but they bear very little relevance to this section.

Finally, I confess I do have a certain interest in whether or not the member agrees or disagrees with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. That is the watchdog and advocate this House appoints to assist us with matters. I have so much respect for that individual that despite the fact I have a profoundly different

interpretation of one of the sections of this bill that is now not proceeding, I thought it important and the government thought it important enough to withhold those sections so that we could further canvass with him his thoughts.

Yes, I have great respect, as does the member for Nanaimo. I am actually very interested in whether or not the member believes that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is mistaken in lending his support to the

section we're debating.

R. Hawes: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Hawes: In the House today we have 15 grade 11 students from Meadowridge independent school along with their teacher Jason Alexander. This is arguably the best independent school in this province, and they will tell anyone who wants to know that that's exactly what they are. Could the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: In answer to the question from the minister…. Actually, we're supposed to be asking the questions; the minister is supposed to be giving the answers. But I don't mind now and then answering a question from the hon. member across the way.

In answer to his question, I will believe the independent Privacy Commissioner over this government any day of the week and any week of the year. I'll put that on the record for the hon. member across the way.

[1610]

The member may want to, as usual, try to deflect and not answer the question. As a matter of fact, last year in estimates I don't think I got a single answer out of the minister. Here in estimates it's the same thing. What I find of great disservice is the fact that the minister just keeps denying anything put on the table, as is the usual fashion of this government when they're caught red-handed or they've been caught with something….

The Chair: Member, this is not estimates. This is the bill — Bill 30. We're on

section 12. I would ask the member to make his comments relevant to

section 12.

H. Lali: Pertaining to

section 12, obviously, as a question I was asking the minister…. All I'm ending up getting in terms of answers is denial.

He may want to keep on shifting and trying to make light of something or make fun of something, but the fact still remains that there are so many questions in the minds of the public out there. Yes, the government has withdrawn

section 9, and had it been the opposition's way or the way of the people in British Columbia, this

section would have been withdrawn as well. But that's not to say here nor there.

I would again ask the minister this question. How can he assure the people in British Columbia that their most sensitive information is not going to be subject to the American Patriot Act and that there isn't going to be a tremendous increase in the amount of information being stored in the United States?

We've already heard this government before, assuring that none of our information would be stored in the United States. But we have found — with its privatization of our information, whether through Maximus, Accenture or others — that information of British Columbians has landed in databases, where it's being stored in the United States and Chicago.

Can the minister assure this House and, through this House, the people in British Columbia that this does not open the floodgates of storing more and more information of British Columbians in the United States, where it will be subject to the United States Patriot Act?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, I can do so.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister two questions. One of them is to clarify something he said around the process of

section 12, and the other is to do with a specific contract.

[ Page 4819 ]

The minister made reference to equipment in the United States, if I understood it correctly. He said that this amendment was brought forward because of the need to save money. In other words, the person wouldn't then have to come back from the United States in order to take care of business. I can understand, if that's the case, how that would be a money-saving event.

What I wasn't clear on was whether or not this was equipment that was…. He made mention of an MRI. Was this equipment that is only accessible in the United States as a particular kind of equipment? A lot of outsourcing has taken place, and that is, of course, the source of a lot of discomfort British Columbians have around this amendment and previous contracts that have been discussed. If it's not equipment that is there in the United States, then it seems to me there would be an additional cost involving this outsourcing — that is, having to bring a person back to Canada every time or not.

If I'm on the right track here, are we talking about specialized equipment in the United States, and therefore that is necessary? If not, it sounds like there would have been an additional cost factor in this outsourcing contract, and I wondered if it had been accounted for.

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: I fear I have rather clumsily conveyed an example, so I'll try again. Hopefully, that'll clear up some of the ambiguities that are in the member's mind.

First of all, this is not an outsourcing issue. The MRI example I gave relates to a situation where in a hospital in British Columbia, maybe in the lower mainland, there is a problem with that piece of equipment. I'm told that most of this equipment is supplied and serviced out of suppliers who are located either in the Massachusetts area of the United States or in Germany. So like any piece of equipment, if there's a problem with it, there are some very specialized skills necessary to conduct the repairs.

The first thing the operators here in British Columbia will do is contact — whether it's Siemens, I think, in the case of MRIs or there is an operator around the Boston area…. They'll describe the problem, and over e-mail and the phones they'll get some advice on what they might try to get a sense of whether it works.

With the advent of technology, it is now possible for those people in Germany or Boston to actually look at what the person here in British Columbia — the technician, the person in the facility — is looking at. They can actually transfer that information electronically, and the technicians, from their home base in Germany or Boston, can say: "Hey, you might want to try this" or "You might want to check this" or "I think I know what your problem is. We're going to have to come up." It can also result in confirmation of the need for them to come.

The difficulty that facilities in B.C. have run into is that the way the act is presently worded, even that limited exchange of information or transfer of information electronically outside of British Columbia technically runs afoul of the act. So what we're trying to do is create a very limited, small window through which just enough information can pass for that technician in Stuttgart or Hamburg or Boston to conduct that analysis, perhaps preclude the necessity of a trip and effect a more speedy repair of the diagnostic equipment located here in B.C.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that information. Certainly, the bottom-line concern for us on this side of the House and for the public has to do with sensitive information of Canadians and British Columbians going to corporations that are centred in the United States, let's say, and therefore — as a previous speaker mentioned — being potentially accessible through the Patriot Act in that country.

One such contract I wanted to ask the minister about has to do with SunGard Corp., another American corporation that specializes in disaster recovery. If there should be a massive failure or some sort of catastrophe such that we would lose our information that's held by government, it could be accessed somewhere else.

My understanding is that SunGard had entered into — I believe, in 2004 — a contract with the government to hold this information and in the process would have been given access to all government data on the mainframe, which was stored off-site in Philadelphia, in the event of disaster here for later recovery. It was also reported at that time that the Ministry of Management Services had been shipping tapes of enormous amounts of government data to SunGard in Philadelphia, and data was sent with no encryption or encoding. I wanted to ask the minister if that in fact had occurred. And if so, has it been rectified?

[1620]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two points I want to emphasize. First of all, nothing in this

section of this amendment is designed to authorize storage of information outside of British Columbia or Canada. The part about the

section that the member is referring to has application in the scenario I described, but it is not a blanket authorization for the storage of information outside of Canada.

In fact — and I apologize for the delay — the point that has been emphasized to me by staff is that a number of years ago backup tapes, storage of information, did take place in the United States. As a result of the last round of amendments to Patriot Act–proof our privacy protection legislation, that storage now takes place in Canada.

L. Krog: Referring specifically to the (

p) section of the amendment, disclosure will be permitted outside Canada for temporary access for storage for the minimum time necessary for "(

A) installing, implementing, maintaining, repairing, trouble shooting or upgrading an electronic system or equipment that includes an

[ Page 4820 ]

electronic system, or (

B) data recovery that is being undertaken following failure of an electronic system…."

System maintenance is an ongoing activity. How could this be defined as temporary, then, if it's an ongoing activity? That's what system maintenance often involves.

[1625]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have forgotten the specifics of the…. I will try this. I think the member was asking about the situation involving maintenance, and I'll start with this. This equipment we've been talking about, an MRI machine, as part of a maintenance program….

I am advised that it is generally the case that a very limited amount of information would flow back and forth as part of that distance maintenance program. To that extent, yes. The decision enshrined in this subsection of the act is that the benefit associated with allowing that limited exchange and precluding the need for the technician to travel to the site each time outweighs the risk that the member is referring to.

L. Krog: I thank the minister for his answer, because it clarifies and confirms one of the major concerns we on this side of the House have.

Then it begs the next question. Major system installations or troubleshooting can take months. We're talking about an ongoing activity. It could go on and on and on. So in a situation like that, in fact, it may be necessary, and it will be arguably temporary. But we're not talking a few hours or days. We're talking about the installation. It talks about installing, implementing.

In other words, that disclosure could continue with a person outside of Canada for an extended period of time. That's the way I read the section, and I wonder if the minister can confirm that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has identified a realistic scenario. The key part of that, though, is it does not imply that the exchange of information or transfer of data would be continuous. There is the other limiting feature of the act, which says that no more information than is absolutely necessary can be conveyed as part of that process.

I won't dispute with the member that where a problem has arisen or there is a major installation, that work might be ongoing for a period of time. That in no way implies that there will be information transferred back and forth during the duration of that. Each circumstance, of course, would be very different, but one does not automatically follow, I would suggest, from the other.

M. Karagianis: To continue in the vein of questioning that the minister just responded to, we have up to this point been talking about MRIs. We've been talking about a very specific kind of information flow, main-tenance and upkeep.

In the case of other systems, like EDS systems, this particular system is responsible right now for all of our revenue collections in government. It is a system that has been put in place by a company outside of Canada. In fact, they maintain the entire system. Can the minister perhaps explain how the clauses in this

section apply to this ongoing system with EDS?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am reminded that the contract to which the member refers is with a Canadian company. All of the provisions of the act apply to govern the conduct of that company with respect to the protection of information, as they are contractually bound further to respect the privacy provisions. There may be more about the example that the member wants to convey to me, but the contract itself is with the Canadian entity.

[1630]

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I realize that there is a Canadian subsidiary of the American company, but they are responsible for all of the computer programming — the entire system for revenue management. I would anticipate that that includes upgrading of equipment and upgrading of database capabilities and all of those things. Those would come from the parent company, and in this case there would be some kind of relationship between the parent company outside of Canada and upgrading, maintaining the system. In fact, the system is expected to be grown considerably with the new consolidated revenue system. Where does this

section actually protect British Columbia citizens from that process?

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the member bringing the example forward, because it does allow me to distinguish between the two circumstances. In the case the member has brought forward, there is a Canadian entity bound by all of the jurisdictional laws and requirements and also contractually bound.

The reason for the need for the exception that this creates — and it is an exception, and that's why I was talking about the MRI example — is that there is no Canadian equivalent. The technicians…. The diagnostic work only exists outside of our borders. In the example that the member has offered — but for a situation in which there's a need to access the expertise outside of the borders, as in the MRI example — you wouldn't need this provision. You certainly wouldn't need it in the case of the example that the member has properly brought forward.

M. Karagianis: I guess, conversely, then, I would ask whether or not, in any of the circumstances where an outside provider is doing maintenance, upkeep, troubleshooting and that, there is the possibility of those outside sources accessing work stations, government systems from outside. In fact, if we can send MRIs or share MRIs with Americans, can they then, as part of the upkeep and maintenance — EDS systems in

[ Page 4821 ]

particular — access that from externally in order to provide that maintenance and upkeep and troubleshooting? And what is the protection there for government?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope I answer this correctly. This is not a security issue, so nothing in the amendments we are discussing today is designed to impact on those security arrangements or the entitlement to access the information. The amendment we're discussing actually allows for access where the domestic agency here in B.C. decides that's what they want to have happen. They want that technician in Frankfurt to be able to access the information, so this allows them to facilitate that without breaching the existing FOI and privacy protection laws.

M. Karagianis: It was my understanding that this is about disclosure as well. Part of the process here would be disclosure to our citizens that this kind of information is in fact being accessed or shared.

[1635]

In the case of EDS systems, which is all of the revenue systems currently handled by government…. The expectation under the consolidated revenue management system is that British Columbians should know and have disclosed to them that all of these systems and all of the revenue documents and all of that data within government could be, by agreement, accessed from outside the country or provided to a company outside of Canada for troubleshooting, repairs and that kind of thing. It's my understanding that this is about disclosure — is it not? — and that the citizens deserve to know that we're giving permission for that to occur.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure that this is…. I hope this answers the member's question. To the extent that we're talking about disclosure, I hope I can convey to the member…. The Canadian service provider has access to this information. They will continue to have access to this information; that's the work they do.

This is about reinforcing that this information isn't going to be available to people outside of our borders except in a very specific example as enumerated under the

section for very specific purposes. But agencies which have legal access within Canada to the information — in the example that the member has given — will continue to have access to that information in accordance with the provisions of the law.

L. Krog: Referring again to (

p) of the proposed section, it talks about:

"(ii) in the case of disclosure outside Canada, (

A) is limited to temporary access and storage for the minimum time necessary for that purpose…."

Obviously, the ambiguous term "temporary" gives the opposition cause for concern, so the real question for us is: who is to be held accountable for such disclosure? And what mechanisms will ensure that such information is not copied, distributed or stored once it has, in fact, left the country under this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: The best answer I can give is the one I gave earlier. That is that ultimately, the recourse from the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia is to that agency or service provider with whom we have the relationship.

L. Krog: Obviously, as the minister can determine from the lengths of the questions here today, the opposition has significant problems with

section 12. Accordingly, I would move an amendment to

section 12, which is simply to amend it as follows:

Section 12, by deleting the section. ]

The Chair: Member, that amendment is not in order. An amendment to delete a

section is not in order. The proper course is to vote against the section.

[1640]

L. Krog: With respect, finally, one question.

We suspect that the term "the minimum time necessary", if not better defined…. Folks in foreign countries would have ongoing access to what would otherwise be FOIPPA-protected data. People will have ongoing access to do maintenance work. Or will they have ongoing access as they are assigned from project to project?

The minister is looking a little perplexed. It's a tough question. I appreciate that. We suspect that if the term "the minimum time necessary" is not better defined, people in foreign countries will have ongoing access to freedom-of-information and privacy-protected data. People will have ongoing access to do maintenance work. Or will they have ongoing access as they are assigned from one project to another? In other words, you've got the troubleshooter; he's moving from project to project.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if I just might probe a little bit. The question suggests that the troubleshooter who is moving from project to project…. The suggestion is that the pool of data or information he or she has access to is the same. Is that the essence of the question?

L. Krog: Yes, if it's a database, that would certainly be the concern. I'd appreciate the minister's comments on that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if I might offer this to the member by way of assurance. The responsibility for defining what is reasonable in terms of the temporary nature of the access does not fall or accrue to the individual or agency located outside of the country. It is for determination by that agency located here, in concert with the guidelines and principles enunciated in the policy guidelines that will flow from the passage — if it does — of this section. I don't want to leave the impression that responsibility for definition and application of these principles and these terms falls to someone outside of the jurisdiction.

[ Page 4822 ]

[1645]

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Bennett

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Campbell

Taylor

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Krueger

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 32

S. Simpson

Evans

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Brar

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Ralston

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

[1650]

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

Section 17 negatived.

section 18.

L. Krog: Just what's the purpose of this particular section?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may know or recall from a previous bit of legislation that has allowed for the creation of something called a health information bank. This helps establish some of the legal parameters around which those information banks may be kept: the access people have, the statutory guarantees around the protection of privacy. The short answer is it relates to the provision that was part of, I believe, the health statutes amendment bill passed by the House a week or so ago.

Sections 18 to 49 inclusive approved.

section 50.

L. Krog: I had the pleasure some years ago of serving on the Public Service Appeal Board, a body that conducted hearings with respect to employees who were dissatisfied with the decisions made by the ministry with respect to employment. The effect of this section, as I understand it, is to delete a significant number of individuals from the protection afforded by that statute. I'm wondering why it is in fact necessary for that to occur.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The reason for it is that the commission has never been able to fully staff to meet the growing needs of what the commission has to do. In the last four years the workload has increased by at least 100 percent, but we're having difficulty retaining staff, with the great economy that's going on in northeast British Columbia. The member may smile, but in fact it is true.

There are certain levels that need to be attained by the staff that work at the Oil and Gas Commission so we can actually fulfil the duties that it's supposed to fulfil. This will actually allow the commission to set wages that are closer to what is required to keep people in that part of the province.

[1655]

What happens is…. It was happening to a lesser amount numbers of years ago, too, that people working for the commission would work for a while and learn some stuff about the oil and gas industry, and the industry itself would actually come and lure those people away with higher wages or whatever other kind of benefits they could.

What we're doing here is we're going to actually maintain the union. They will be in the union. They will still be covered by the public pension act. What will happen is that the commission will be able to work with those employees to try and facilitate, maybe, different hours of work that are difficult to do under the provisions that are there now and, also, remuneration to actually encourage and keep people working in the commission.

The turnover has been pretty substantial. In fact, some places — Fort Nelson, for instance — are having a hard time keeping anybody, just simply because they go up there, and they're lured away fairly quickly. This is only a way to actually try to get up to a full complement of staff and to start paying the wages that we have to pay to keep those people there.

The Chair: I would just remind members that it's not parliamentary to comment on an individual member's demeanour in this chamber.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair. You've stolen an opportunity for a small amount of humour between the minister and me, but I appreciate those are the rules of the House.

Just to confirm, I understand the minister's answer to be essentially that this component couldn't negotiate decent wages with the existing structure, so now we're going to shuffle them out from under the protection of the Public Service Act so, in fact, they'll have access to

[ Page 4823 ]

better wages. That's sort of what I got out of the minister's response. I'm just wondering if my understanding is correct.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The intent of this change in the legislation is to attract people to work at the Oil and Gas Commission, pay them accordingly and work with them in trying to facilitate work routines that facilitate the work that has to be done at the commission.

Section 50 approved on division.

Sections 51 to 55 inclusive approved.

section 56.

L. Krog: This particular section, as the minister is well aware, has created a great and appropriate public reaction amongst municipal governments across the province. This section, on the face of it, appears to be some bit of innocent housekeeping but in fact appears to provide that municipal zoning and municipal regulation will be superseded by the provincial government. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can confirm that.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, there are some qualifications. This applies to Crown land only. They have to have a power-purchase agreement with either Powerex, B.C. Hydro or Fortis. They have to have completed all the processes that would have to be done federally or provincially, as in permits, DFO. All of those processes they must complete before this would take place.

[1700]

G. Robertson: I would like to ask the minister, specifically on

section 56…. A number of concerns have been voiced to me in my office from municipalities, from regions around the province.

I have the great benefit of having lived in a number of regions around the province in the past — the Fraser Valley, up the coast, the Cariboo — and have lots of connections. Great concerns have flowed over the past days concerning

section 56 and what they consider a direct assault on local government authority, which is reprehensible, unacceptable and should not be — I repeat, should not be — passed into legislation in this House.

No doubt the minister is familiar with the concerns of a number of these regional districts and municipalities. I'm sure their voices have been heard. I should hope they've been heard. The communications have been loud and clear, written and verbal. Certainly this trust with the levels of government, with local government, is in dire danger with this piece of legislation.

Overruling local government zoning authority is no small matter. I express the concern on behalf of the many people around the province who have come to me raising this as a big issue and one that will not go over smoothly, particularly given the commitments that this government has made on paper with an MOU to UBCM. I can't for the life of me understand how this government can go back on its word — its signed word — to local governments that they would respect the autonomy, the authority of local governments.

I'm curious: with

section 56, what authority and autonomy will local governments have over IPPs on Crown land in the future?

Hon. R. Neufeld: What will happen is that we will continue to work with local government, wherever those projects may be across the province, to have discussions. They will continue to have input into whether or not projects should move forward, but at the end of the day the sole decision-maker will be the province of British Columbia. Other than if it's on private land, then the bylaws or zoning of a municipal or regional district will actually apply.

This puts it in the same form that B.C. Hydro now is. B.C. Hydro is not subject to local zoning. It hasn't been for as long as B.C. Hydro has been around, so these independent power producers must have a contract with either B.C. Hydro, Powerex, which is an arm of B.C. Hydro, or Fortis, which provides electricity in the Kootenays.

It puts it on the same level as mining is — also with a single decision-maker. Local zoning does not affect decisions about mining. That's one decision-maker — the province. Forestry is also exempt. Oil and gas are also exempt. So it puts independent power producers on the same level as those interests, and those interests are in the public interest of the province as a whole. That's why we're moving forward with that.

G. Robertson: The minister refers to

section 56 as basically levelling for IPPs this authority or autonomy away from local government…. What's not clear to me here is the authority or autonomy over local watersheds. The difference here is that there's water at play.

Certainly, B.C. Hydro has this similar authority. B.C. Hydro is a publicly owned utility. The last time I checked, it was a publicly owned utility. IPPs are not publicly owned utilities by their nature and end up with what are, in effect, water rights in watersheds in local communities.

[1705]

Will the minister comment specifically on that point? Are there water rights that are not under the authority or autonomy of local governments? Or does this distinguish this authority and autonomy to the province for IPP water rights, effectively superseding the local governments when, in fact, they currently have authority and autonomy over the water in those watersheds?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Whether it's an independent power producer or B.C. Hydro, the Crown still owns the water across British Columbia. A water licence would have to be issued, whether it's with B.C. Hydro or an independent power producer, to generate electricity.

[ Page 4824 ]

N. Macdonald:

Section 56 of Bill 30 removes local government from zoning decisions related to independent power projects on Crown land, and it defies a written agreement between the provincial government and the representative of local government. The regional district of Squamish-Lillooet passed a resolution condemning this break of faith by the provincial government and demanded the removal of

section 56 from Bill 30. Past presidents of the Union of B.C. Municipalities have condemned

section 56. The Okanagan Mainline Municipal Association, at its annual general meeting, passed a resolution condemning

section 56. Over this past weekend the lower mainland local government association passed a resolution calling for government to abandon its plans to remove local people from land use decisions. As well, the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities has passed a motion demanding that the government reconsider.

Given that the government has a memorandum of understanding with the UBCM where the province committed to respectful process, how can the government support this section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, in the fall of 2004 the government actually signed a memorandum of understanding with the UBCM to begin discussions in regards to independent power producers, and they're across British Columbia. Those discussions went through 2005. In March of this year the UBCM was informed by both the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines and the Deputy Minister of Community Services that we felt the MOU had reached its conclusion. We received out of it what we could actually receive out of it, and we would have to think about how we were going to deal with the issue.

N. Macdonald: I draw your attention to the memorandum of understanding and the language that is there. It is clear the province entered into an agreement on how they were going to handle independent power projects. Is the minister saying that it's acceptable to arbitrarily step away from that, to now go on its own and to leave the UBCM out of the process altogether?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not going to repeat my answer. They had some pretty fulsome discussions with the UBCM — the ministries that were all signatory to the agreement — to discuss issues around independent power producers. The UBCM was informed in March of '06 that we had probably received — without sitting there for another year talking about the same issues over and over again and not getting to resolve some of them — the information that we could, and we were going to see what we could do to move forward.

N. Macdonald: The inconsistency is with the principles that the minister and this Premier espouse consistently about the value of local government, the importance of local government being part of decisions such as this. This goes against speeches, the service plan for Community Services and answers to questions.

Consistently, from 1993 on, the person who is now Premier talked about a certain way that local government was going to be dealt with. I fail to see how this is in any way consistent with what the Premier said, what the Minister of Community Services has said and, in fact, what was promised to the UBCM with this memorandum of understanding.

[1710]

The question is: will the minister reconsider? Will the minister enter into a process that they have already agreed to, which is the reasonable process that leaves decision-making in the local area — where it should be?

Hon. R. Neufeld: An interesting comment the member made at the end, saying that the decision should be at the local level. I want to draw the member's attention back to the '90s. For ten years the NDP, which the member is a part of, was