2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 26

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

Timber Sale Licence Replacement

(Sliammon First Nation) Act (Bill 26).

Hon. M. de Jong

Introduction and first reading

Hon. G. Plant

Oral Questions

WCB workplace smoking ban

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Affordable housing in B.C.

R. Stewart

Recruitment of senior Liberal government

staff

J. MacPhail

Social worker shortage in northern B.C.

S. Orr

Government action in federal-provincial

relations

B. Suffredine

Tabling Documents

Report on diagnostic and treatment

facility of Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria, B.C.

Health Services ministry, website

document, Tobacco Truth, Tobacco Facts;

Secondhand Smoke, Firsthand Damage

Document regarding ventilation of

secondhand smoke, Physicians for a

Smoke-Free Canada

Oral Questions

Community enterprise grant for Horsefly

Response to question taken

on notice

Tabling Documents

Attorney General ministry and Ministry

Responsible for Human Rights, annual

report, 1999-2000

Attorney General ministry and Ministry

Responsible for Human Rights, annual

performance report, 2000-01

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills

Fumertons Limited (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2001 (Bill Pr401).

T. Christensen

Second reading

Committee stage

Third reading

Fumerton Holdings Limited

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001 (Bill Pr401).

T. Christensen

Second reading

Committee stage

Third reading

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust

Company Act, 2001 (Bill Pr403). R. Sultan

Second reading

Committee stage

Third reading

Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act (No. 3) (Bill 25)

Second reading

Hon. G. Abbott

Constitution (Fixed Election

Dates) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 7). Hon. G. Plant

Committee stage

Third reading

Community Charter Council Act

(Bill 12). Hon. T. Nebbeling

Committee stage

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Point of Order

Committee stage of bill, scope of debate

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Chair's ruling

Community Charter Council Act

(Bill 12). Hon. T. Nebbeling

Committee stage continued

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Third reading

Consumer Protection Statutes

Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 19). Hon. R. Coleman

Committee stage

Third reading

Parental Responsibility Act (Bill

16). Hon. R. Coleman

Committee stage

J. MacPhail

S. Brice

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

Third reading

[ Page 773 ]

THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 2001

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, 55 years ago tomorrow a young lad came kicking and

screaming into this world. He was born in White Rock, he grew up in White Rock,

and he went to school in White Rock. He's lived his whole married life in

White Rock. He was the mayor of White Rock. What an exciting life he has had. He is known in some circles as Mr. Triple O. Would the House please

join me in wishing the member for Surrey–White Rock a very happy fifty-fifth

birthday.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

MacPhail: My opening comment is: 55? And you can figure out what

I mean by that.

I am

delighted to welcome to the gallery today some extremely talented young people,

a group of gifted children from 13 to 16 years of age who are attempting to

complete high school in two years. They are watching us today. Their names are

Krista Poon, Freddy Tsai, Alex Shyr, Casper Shyr, Zhou-Wei Liu, Amy Zhou, Wendy

Wang, Ana Pop, Christina Pop and Albert Chang. Please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: In the gallery today we have someone who, I'm sure, wishes he was

55. He served as a Vancouver parks commissioner from 1963 to 1974, as a

councillor for the city of Vancouver from 1976 to 2001 and as Chair of the

greater Vancouver regional district since 1993, I think. He is now Chair of the

TransLink board. He is a man who has dedicated his life to local public service.

I hope everyone in the House will make George Puil welcome.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Today in the gallery we have a guest by the name of Chris Lee.

Chris is a constituent of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. However, he's also a

graduate student at Brown University in Rhode Island, U.S.A. He is visiting

Victoria today to meet up with a good old friend, Tracy Tang, who is a staff

member of our government. I'd like the House to make Chris welcome.

I also

would like to welcome in the gallery a good old friend, Scott Clark. Scott has

been a resident of Whistler for many, many years. He has been very active in my

campaigns as mayor and as a member of this House. Scott moved to Victoria two

years ago, and he and his family reside here now. He's doing very well, I'm very

pleased to report, and it's great to see him in the gallery right opposite me.

I'd like the House to make him welcome as well.

McMahon: It's my pleasure today to introduce to you my son Roger, in the gallery. He's visiting from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I ask that you all make him

welcome.

Harris: Joining me in the House today is my wife, Cathryn, and my youngest

son, Matthew. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. K.

Whittred: In the gallery today is Steven Howard. Steven is director of

communications of the B.C. Hospital Employees Union. I'm going to be meeting

with him later this afternoon. He's also a constituent of mine from North

Vancouver. Will the House please make him welcome.

Locke: In the gallery today is a young lady who has spent a couple of days

with me. Her name is Amy Benwick, and she's from Surrey. Will the House please

make her welcome.

H. Long:

In the

gallery today we have a legislative assistant, Alex Dutton. Believe me, she has

worked very hard for four of us in the caucus. She'll be leaving us to go to

Queen's University. We want to wish her the best of luck and ask this House to

wish her the best in her new endeavours and in her journey there.

[1410]

Stewart: In the gallery today we have my family — or most of them: my

wife, Anna Rosa, and three of our children, Christina, Matthew and Amanda.

They've been in Victoria with me the past ten days or so, enjoying this great

camping weather. Would the House please welcome them in from the rain. As well,

we have the daughter of the member for Yale-Lillooet. Miss Emily Chutter is here

along with some friends of her family as well as of my family: Carrie Froese,

Tyler Froese and Larkyn Froese. Would the House please make them welcome.

Bennett: It's my pleasure to welcome my baby sister from Ontario, Donna

Bennett. She didn't used to like me calling her my baby sister, but she's gotten

older, and she doesn't mind it so much anymore. She and her husband, Brian

Findlay, are both classical musicians. They're up there somewhere, I think, with

their two boys, Adam and Benjamin, who are also musicians and hockey players, I

understand. Please help me welcome them to the House.

Hayer: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House my wife's sister Lygie

Haazen, my brother-in-law Nick Haazen, my nephew Nickolas and my niece

Isabelle. They're visiting here from Washington, D.C. May I ask the House to

please make them welcome.

Manhas: I'm also delighted to introduce some young people who are here

today, some very hard-working and integral members of our caucus staff who've

made the time to come to watch question period today: my legislative assistants

Alex McMillan and Kate Wellburn. I'd like to make a special mention again of

Alex Dutton. On her penultimate day with our cau-

[ Page 774 ]

cus team, although she's returning to school and although, as a McGill

graduate, I may not agree

with her choice of educational institution, I wish her all

the best in her endeavours at Queen's.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Those of you who drove up and down Vancouver Island Highway during

the course of the last year and during the campaign would have noticed some very

fine, large billboards on the side of the highway — some that I am

particularly interested in. The man that was responsible for putting those very

fine, large billboards up is a good friend of mine in the House today, Mr. Con

Lang. Would you please make him feel welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TIMBER SALE LICENCE REPLACEMENT

(SLIAMMON FIRST NATION) ACT

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: On behalf of the Minster of Forests, I am pleased to introduce Bill

26, Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act. This bill is a

lot less complicated than its title. The bill allows government to honour our

commitment to preserve the integrity of the proposed Sliammon treaty settlement

lands as set out in the initialled agreement-in-principle and at the same time

to address impacts on two affected timber sale licences. This bill manifests in

a very practical on-the-ground and real-world way our government's commitment to

treaty-making in British Columbia.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 26

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

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

Oral Questions

WCB WORKPLACE SMOKING BAN

J. Kwan:

My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Can the minister tell this

House how many people die every year in British Columbia from secondhand smoke

and how many get sick?

[1415]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'll take the question on notice.

J. Kwan:

The minister's own website says that every year, 500 non-smokers in B.C. die from

diseases brought on by secondhand smoke and that many thousands more become

sick. To the Minister of Health Services: will the minister stand up in this

House today and explain to thousands of workers who make their living working in

pubs and restaurants, many of whom are women and young people, why he failed to

stand up for them when the Premier and his cabinet colleagues made the decision

to interfere with an independent agency, WCB, and halt the introduction of

protection against secondhand smoke scheduled for early September?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It is a very clear objective of this government that we want to

reduce tobacco use in British Columbia and we want to reduce exposure to

secondhand smoke. Governments across Canada have wrestled with this challenge of

how to move towards tobacco reduction throughout society. The government of

British Columbia could have made the sale of tobacco illegal ten years ago.

Clearly, that was not practical. What we have in place are programs that will

reduce tobacco use, and we are seeing some success from those various programs.

We want to continue to work to reduce tobacco use, but we want to do

it in a responsible way that moves us forward.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a further

supplemental question.

J. Kwan:

What we have in place, as we saw yesterday, is interference from the Minister

of Labour in reintroducing a review of the WCB regulations,

which puts thousands of workers at risk. The minister's own website also says

that a non-smoker breathing secondhand smoke is exposed to roughly 3,700

different chemicals, many of them poisonous and many of them cancer-causing.

To the

Minister of Health Services: how does the minister reconcile the fact that he's

telling workers that secondhand smoke is dangerous and can kill, while he sits

idly by and his government forces workers to endure the effects of secondhand

smoke?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Certainly, the Ministry of Health Services is not sitting idly by.

We have an aggressive tobacco strategy. There is $10 million of funding going

into programs now to reduce tobacco use. We have seen studies that show that

British Columbia is the lowest in Canada, and we want to continue working

towards that. I think the actions that have been taken by this government are

responsible in trying to move that agenda forward in an orderly, systematic way

that really looks out for the interests of the population as a whole.

MacPhail: Until yesterday, British Columbia led the way in its tobacco

strategy, reducing the use of tobacco in British Columbia with great success.

Yesterday the Minister of Labour dismissed concerns of workers who are worried

about the effects of secondhand smoke and of having to wait seven months for new

regulations. He said to them: "They're not going to get cancer in the

meantime by waiting from now until

[ Page 775 ]

that period of time." Again to the Minister of Health Services: do you

agree with the Labour minister that no one will get cancer or get terribly sick

while they wait for the new regulations?

Hon. G.

Bruce: If the House would allow me to get all three of my feet out of my

mouth, I would appreciate that. The fact of the matter is: it was not a very

thoughtful comment, at the end of a long scrum, and I acknowledge that.

We are

moving as quickly as we can in bringing this regulation in. It will be brought

in by April; that's eight months from now. We clearly wanted to have a review of

this so that we not only have a healthy and safe workplace for the people that

work in these institutions but in fact have institutions viable and alive that

these people could work in. That's our objective.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.

[1420]

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the working people of British Columbia

will accept the minister's apology, given with sincerity, but there's more that

the Minister of Labour can do by putting substance behind that apology. I think

it's clear that this government doesn't care — or it sent a very strong signal

yesterday that they don't care — about the health of workers.

The

Minister of Health Services knows full well that secondhand smoke kills, and he

knows full well that the risk has increased to thousands of workers who have to

work in pubs and bars today. The bottom line is this: the pub lobby gave the

Liberals tens of thousands of dollars, all fully supported by big tobacco, and

the Premier caved in to those demands. Again, I ask the Minister of Health

Services to stand up in this House and explain to workers why they get

secondhand smoke from the government and Liberal donors get first-class

treatment.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Pubs, hotels and the like are all part of the small business

community in the province of British Columbia. The small business community

employs thousands of people throughout this province. In fact, governments of

all stripes have always claimed how important small business is. But small

business can't function in an economy that's blown to smithereens, as this

member and the other, in respect to their previous government, did to small

business in the province.

If you want

to protect the health and well-being of employees in small business, you have to

make sure you have a strong and healthy economy. As well, you have to have a

strong and healthy workplace, and that's in fact what this government's going to

do.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN B.C.

Stewart: This question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services. Last week the minister met with his federal, provincial and

territorial counterparts in Ontario to discuss affordable housing issues. With a

number of low-income Canadians dependent on public housing to provide shelter

for themselves and their families, many are looking for government to step

forward to address the shortage of public housing in Canada. Can the minister

tell this House what actions he and his counterparts agreed to take to address

the issue of affordable housing?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We did have a very positive and constructive set of meetings last

week in London, Ontario. I can confirm that the federal government has put $680

million on the table for affordable housing. B.C.'s share, should we be able in

the weeks and months ahead to reach agreement with the federal government, would

be about $90 million.

The

principal concern that came out of the provincial and territorial governments

was more flexibility in terms of the parameters around federal funds. I'm

pleased to note that when Minister Gagliano joined us on Thursday, he did

promise that additional flexibility that we were looking forward to. So we're

looking forward, in the weeks and months ahead, to working very hard not only with

the federal government but with municipalities and non-profits to, indeed,

provide a lot more affordable housing to people in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville with a supplemental

question.

Stewart: Affordability of market housing is also a major concern to British

Columbia families. According to the director of the Centre for Urban and

Community Studies, more than two-thirds of people who rent in Vancouver will not

be able to afford average market rent. Will the minister tell us what he's doing

to address the problem of housing affordability and market housing in B.C.?

Hon. G.

Abbott: This government did make some very substantial commitments around

affordable housing in the last provincial election campaign, and unlike the

former government, we actually intend to keep our promises with respect to

affordable housing.

We've

committed to over 1,100 affordable housing units in the current budget. We

certainly are going to follow through on that. We have also taken some important

steps with the Minister of Finance and others to ensure that we have a healthy,

competitive, dynamic housing industry again in British Columbia through

progressive changes to the tax system. So once again, we can move forward and

have the number one economy in housing and elsewhere in this country.

[1425]

RECRUITMENT OF SENIOR

LIBERAL GOVERNMENT STAFF

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, last night the Premier told this House that executive

search firms that recommended the president of the B.C. Liberal Party for a top

civil service post volunteered their time to the B.C.

[ Page 776 ]

Liberal Party. That would have meant that they would have had to file the

value of that time with Elections B.C. It turns out that four firms donated only

$10,900. That's not a lot of money for four firms looking at over 200 people

over 18 months. However, today the Premier changed his story, saying that they

worked for the Liberal caucus and not the Liberal Party, so they don't have to

file their contribution with Elections B.C.

To the

Premier: last night the Premier said that the firms worked for the Liberal

Party; today the Premier said they worked for the Liberal caucus. Which is it?

And will you release the documents, regardless, pertaining to the search for the

hire of the president of the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As part of our role as opposition, it is correct. We did look

across the country for top-quality people that are willing to come and serve in

the province. There were four recruitment firms from British Columbia that

helped us in that search. I am pleased to say they were successful in

identifying excellent people who are willing to come and work for us. There is

no question that the work that was done by those firms was in no way an election

expense. It was a volunteer effort on behalf of the opposition as we moved

forward to create a top-quality public service that was appointed based on merit

so that we could move British Columbia forward after a decade of decline under

the NDP.

SOCIAL WORKER SHORTAGE

IN NORTHERN B.C.

S. Orr:

I feel that over the past decade children and families, our children and

families, have been very poorly served in this province by the previous

administration. My question is to the Minister of Children and Family

Development. British Columbia has historically been plagued by a shortage of

social workers, especially in the northern communities. These vacancies,

especially in the northern areas, can affect the delivery of important services

that many children and families need and depend upon. Can the minister tell us

what he is doing to address the shortage of these front-line workers?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Indeed, we have been having difficulty filling the vacancies in the

north. In fact, there are about 173 social workers in northern British Columbia,

and in March of this year there were about 33 vacancies. I'm pleased to say that

we've been able to reduce that to some 13 now and are hoping to have the vacancy

level down to about eight in the next few months.

We have

introduced incentives. There's a $12,000 incentive for social workers who commit

to working two years in the north. There's also an academic incentive to social

workers who are interested in pursuing further education. If they commit to

working four years, they're entitled to receive that academic incentive. There's

also a lateral transfer provision that allows them, after a four-year stay, to move to other parts of the province that they may wish to work in.

With those

three incentives, we're finding that we're better able to meet the needs. We're

also working with the Minister of Advanced Education to increase the number of

social workers graduating from institutions in British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS

Suffredine: My question is to the Minister of State for Intergovernmental

Relations. Many British Columbians feel disconnected from the federal

government. They feel forgotten by their Ottawa representatives. Recent polls

suggest that western Canadians in general are increasingly dissatisfied with the

federal government and the role it plays in their lives. Will the minister tell

us what this government is doing to ensure that the federal government is

addressing the concerns of British Columbia?

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Indeed, we have had several incidents over the past decade

under the previous government that have, I think, contributed to western

alienation. I think particularly of the Nanoose Bay and the Alaska ferry

blockade problem. The Premier went to Ottawa right after he was sworn in and met

with the Prime Minister, the Liberal government and the leaders of the

opposition parties to get a dialogue going with them. I think we've had a great

improvement ever since that time.

[1430]

I'd just

like to mention a couple of examples. One is energy policy. Western Canada is

now speaking with one voice with the federal government in terms of dealing with

the United States. The second one is softwood lumber. I think it was almost

unprecedented when, on Tuesday of this week, we had the Minister for

International Trade, Pierre Pettigrew, and also David Anderson here in Victoria

meeting with the Minister of Forests and the Premier about coming up with a solid

British Columbia and Canadian position on softwood.

We are

also, as mentioned in the throne speech, having a dialogue on British Columbia,

a congress on British Columbia. Early in the new year we're inviting all members

of this Legislature, federal MPs from all parties, aboriginal leaders and mayors

to a dialogue in Vancouver.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C.

Hansen: I rise pursuant to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to

table a report on the diagnostic and treatment facility of Royal Jubilee

Hospital in Victoria.

J. Kwan:

I rise to table two documents. One is Tobacco Truth, Tobacco Facts;

Secondhand Smoke, Firsthand Damage , which I have retrieved from the Ministry

[ Page 777 ]

Health Services website. The second document is Physicians for a

Smoke-Free Canada , which answers questions on ventilation of secondhand

smoke, which clearly states and answers the question on whether any Canadian

agencies found any acceptable ventilation standards for secondhand smoke. The

answer is clearly no. I am tabling these documents for the House.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. Leave is required. Shall leave be granted?

Leave

granted.

COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE GRANT

FOR HORSEFLY

Hon. G.

Abbott: On August 14 the member for Vancouver-Hastings asked a question

regarding a community enterprise grant to the community of Horsefly, which the

Government House Leader took on notice and which I would like to respond to

today. In her question, the member suggested that the government had reneged on

a commitment to Horsefly.

That was

not correct. First we need to note the distinction — and I hope the subtlety

of this doesn't escape the opposition — between a grant application and an

approved grant embodied in a signed contract. For better or worse, the Horsefly

application was the former: a grant application. There was no reneging on

commitments. The government, in fact, is loath to do that, although I know the

former government was quite used to doing exactly that.

Tabling Documents

Hon.

G. Plant: I rise to table the annual report for the Ministry of Attorney

General for the year 1999-2000 and the annual performance report for the

Ministry of Attorney General, April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001. My name is in

the documents, but I bear no responsibility for their contents.

Reports from Committees

S. Orr:

I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. I move

that the report be read and received.

Motion

approved.

Law

Clerk:

"August

23, 2001:

"Hon.

Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical

Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"1.

that the

preamble to Bill Pr401, intituled Fumertons Limited (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2001 has been approved, and the committee recommends that the

bill proceed to second reading;

"2.

that the

preamble to Bill Pr402, intituled Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2001, has been approved and the committee recommends that the

bill proceed to second reading;

"3.

that the

preamble to Bill Pr403, intituled The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company

Act, 2001, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed

to second reading,

"All

of which is respectfully submitted.

Sheila

Orr, Chairman."

S. Orr:

By leave I move the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Bills

Pr401, Pr402 and Pr403 ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call private bills.

[1435]

FUMERTONS LIMITED

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Christensen: I move that Bill Pr401, intituled Fumertons Limited (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2001, be now read a second time.

Motion

approved.

Christensen: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of

the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr401,

Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

FUMERTONS LIMITED

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2001

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:36 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Christensen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

[ Page 778 ]

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:37 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr401,

Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration Act), 2001, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill Pr402.

FUMERTON HOLDINGS LIMITED

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2001

(second reading)

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

Motion

approved.

Christensen: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of

the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr402,

Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

FUMERTON HOLDINGS LIMITED

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2001

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr402; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:38 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Christensen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:39 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1440]

Bill Pr402,

Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill Pr403.

THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA TRUST

COMPANY ACT, 2001

(second reading)

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

explained in the House yesterday, the Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co. is in the

process of acquiring the operations and affairs of the National Trust Co. All of

the other provinces of Canada have passed comparable legislation allowing the

personal trust affairs to be transferred to the Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co.,

and we are now asked to facilitate this transaction as well. It is not a

controversial bill. That's the story.

Motion

approved.

Sultan: By leave, I request that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr403,

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA TRUST

COMPANY ACT, 2001

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr403; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1

to 9 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

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

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr403,

The Bank Of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 25.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING ACT (No. 3)

(second reading)

Hon.

G. Abbott: I move that Bill 25, intituled the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act (No. 3), be now read for a second time. I'm pleased to present

Bill 25 for second reading. This government appreciates

[ Page 779 ]

that local governments sometimes need to address local challenges in ways

which are not defined under the Local Government Act. That's why we're

introducing the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3). Like the

previous two municipalities enabling and validating acts, this act gives local

governments more flexibility in the way they handle their affairs. It gives them

the option of seeking approval from the provincial government on a case-by-case

basis to develop and implement solutions that aren't specifically outlined in

the Local Government Act.

In the case

of the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, certainly this MEVA is

an act

which will benefit from this amendment. The regional district has been facing

financial challenges following one of the longest and most expensive arbitration

cases in Canadian history. In 1999 the regional district ended up with a bill of

approximately $5.3 million on behalf of Naramata residents due to the Blackwell

arbitration case.

[1445]

This case

involved a dispute between Blackwell Stores Ltd. and the former Naramata

irrigation district, later taken over by the regional district of

Okanagan-Similkameen, concerning access to water rights for a subdivision

Blackwell planned to build. The dispute, which went to arbitration in 1994, was

not settled until 1999. After consulting with Naramata residents, the regional

district has decided to impose a special equal share parcel tax, a form of

property tax, to recover the $3.3 million still outstanding.

The

regional district's approach requires all Naramata property owners to pay one

equal parcel tax, regardless of how many properties they own. Since the Local

Government Act doesn't authorize an equal share parcel tax, the regional

district has requested authority to pursue its plan through an amendment to the

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3). This legislation will allow

the regional district to address its financial concerns in a way that has been

approved by Naramata residents.

Before I

move on to the balance of the MEVA, Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge the

efforts of two members of this House with respect to the resolution of this

matter. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of Provincial Revenue,

also known as the MLA for Penticton–Okanagan Valley, and the efforts of the

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, also known as the member for

Okanagan-Westside. Both of those members have worked long and hard to try to

find a resolution to this very, very difficult issue, and I commend them for

their efforts.

Mr.

Speaker, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) also allows

local governments to validate past actions that did not fully meet the technical

requirements of the Local Government Act. On behalf of the Minister of Health

Services, I move the following as part of the amendments to the Municipalities

Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3): "Municipal anti-smoking bylaws

approved by the provincial health officer or deputy to the provincial health

officer, between April 1, 1996, and August 9, 1996, be retroactively

validated."

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, Mr. Minister. Could we do the amendments at the

committee stage of the bill, please?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Fine.

Mr. Speaker, in August 1996 the former Health minister delegated

authority to approve municipal anti-smoking bylaws to the provincial health

officer. It became apparent that there was a potential problem with a specific

problem of time during which the provincial health officer or deputy to the

provincial health officer may have signed the municipal anti-smoking bylaws

believing the authority had been delegated to them. We are taking steps to

ensure that these bylaws are on solid footing. The provincial health officer

acted in good faith and with the best interests of British Columbians. This is a

clerical error that must be corrected to provide British Columbians the

protection they deserve from illnesses related to exposure to secondhand smoke.

In closing,

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we're introducing today will ensure the validity of

anti-smoking bylaws passed under the authority of the provincial health officer

in 1996. I'm also confident that it will help the regional district of

Okanagan-Similkameen recover the money it spent to resolve the Blackwell Stores

Ltd. arbitration case and plan for the future with confidence. I ask all members

of the House to lend their support to this very important piece of legislation.

Mr.

Speaker: Further debate on Bill 25? The minister closes debate.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that the bill be read for a second time.

Motion

approved.

Bill 25,

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3), read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 7, Constitution (Fixed Election

Dates) Amendment Act, 2001. If the Speaker gives me a moment, I'll call the

Attorney General to begin the debate.

[1450]

CONSTITUTION (FIXED ELECTION DATES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:52 p.m.

[ Page 780 ]

On

section

Hon. G.

Plant: I table an amendment to

section 1:

[SECTION 1, in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting

"year" and substituting "calendar year".]

The effect

of the amendment is to ensure that the definition of calendar year in the

Interpretation Act is respected. It does not change the intent of the statute as

it has been described in first reading and second reading. It's really just a

drafting issue that was caught in the last day or so by legislative counsel.

Amendment

approved.

Section 1

as amended approved.

Section 2

approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:54 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7,

Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete with

amendment.

[1455]

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. G.

Plant: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 7,

Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 12.

COMMUNITY CHARTER COUNCIL ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:57 p.m.

On

section

J. Kwan:

My question is on the makeup of the members for this council. What consideration

was given by the minister with respect to this makeup? Did he consider community

makeup, meaning people from the broader community and from the associations to

be involved in this council's work? Did he give consideration to workers who may

have something to contribute in this area and so on? In terms of the makeup, how

did the minister arrive at this breakdown?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Mr. Speaker, to deal with that question, local government

representatives are not full-time employees doing the council duties. That's

number one. The second thing is the fact that these are working people. These

are people that pay taxes, so these are the people that are closest to the

communities, and they know what their community members feel needs to be

represented in dealing with the new Community Charter Council. I feel that as

far as the workers are concerned, there is no problem. There is clearly

representation on the charter council, in multitude, by people in the workforce

who are representative of individual groups in communities. I feel very

comfortable that all of these voices are going to be heard.

[1500]

However,

what we will do, once the charter council is established and the deliberations

on the potential charter take place, is invite interest groups that we feel

would be affected by certain sections of the charter — depending on the

charter council and what direction they're going in. At that time we will invite

these interest groups to come and discuss these sections that would apply to

them, and I believe that in that sense, we really complete the democratic

process.

I should

also say that I'm not aware that comprehensive programs were introduced in the

past to deal with Local Government Act changes. I think that allowing local

government to have a real voice and be a real partner in creating a community

charter that is a tool for how local governments in the future will exercise

their duties and their powers is the best way to go.

J. Kwan:

Certainly, the representatives from UBCM are individuals within the community.

There is no doubt about that. There is also a broader picture in terms of

representation. On the one hand, you are an elected official, and your mandate,

of course, in that instance is to represent the municipality in which you have

been elected at the local government level. Having said that, though, they are

still individuals who may have different points of view, community associations

who may have significant contributions in terms of the shaping of the charter in

the process that the council would embark on, workers who work for the

municipalities. I assume that none of the UBCM representatives, or the

combination here, are people who are workers within the municipalities, who may

also have a lot to contribute to the makeup of the community charter when it's

introduced next year.

In that

vein, would it not be wise to ensure that there's broad representation, as is

often done in many different areas of government? Certainly, when I was in

government as a minister of the Crown, we attempted to ensure that there was

broad representation so that the voices from all sectors were at the table. In

this instance, one would think that it is very important to ensure that that

representation is there as the council

[ Page 781 ]

embarks on revamping the laws that govern local government.

Did the

minister at any point consider that broader representation outside UBCM on this

council? Who did he consult with in arriving at the list of people that he has

decided to put on the council?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Certainly, I've had discussions with various people on that

subject, and I think that in general the agreement was that indeed local

council representatives do represent the communities in all aspects of the

communities.

The member

should remember that there is a trend where the voice of local community

members, through new consultation processes at a local level, are heard much

more strongly. It is also recognized that on many councils there are members

elected that do represent special voices in the community. Environmental

organizations often manage to get members elected to their council. When these

council members participate in the process of deliberating on the elements that

should make up a community charter, that input is there.

The member

opposite should also know that we will undertake a comprehensive consultation

program with the Community Charter Council. Not only that, we will have a large

and strong presence at UBCM. After UBCM in October we will actually go on the

road and visit communities throughout British Columbia. At that time there is no

doubt that there will be representation from all kinds of organizations that

would at least see their voices being heard. When that happens, we take

everything into consideration.

I really

think that the path of consultation we have chosen is the right path and the

most constructive path, and I'm very comfortable with the makeup of this council

representing, indeed, the voices of all British Columbians.

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry; the minister didn't actually answer the question. Who did he consult

with, with respect to the makeup of the council?

[1505]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I've worked on this particular project for about three years, just

gathering data. Believe me, in that process I've met many, many people all over

British Columbia and basically gotten a feel for what they were looking for. I

can truly say that if there's one thing the general voice of the province is,

it's that people truly want to see the provincial government have much less

control over the destiny of communities.

We are

giving the communities the tools to focus more on their own destiny, and once

the charter is there, there are certain new elements of accountability by the

local councils in dealing with the community. The community charter will not

only empower local governments but also give the communities a chance to really,

through benchmarking, channel how much improvement is done to what happens in a

community. The voice of the community at large will always be part of the

decision-making program. That's the beauty of a charter, rather than what we're

dealing with now, the Local Government Act.

J. Kwan:

Perhaps the minister is not understanding my question. Or perhaps he's trying to

avoid the question. Let me be very specific. The community charter was

established per the act before us, which says that the makeup of the council

will consist of the following members:

"(

a) the minister, who is to be the chair;

(b) 3 persons

appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to represent provincial

government interests;

(c) 4 persons appointed by the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities to represent local government interests;

(d) 4 persons appointed

by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the advice of the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities, who are to be members at large."

My question

to the minister is: who did he consult, if anyone, specifically on the makeup of

this council? Did he consult UBCM representatives? Did he consult CUPE, who are

the workers? Many of them are workers for municipalities. Did he consult with

community associations who may have an interest in participating and being part

of this council? My question to the minister is very specific on the

consultation of the makeup of this council.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: …to repeat my answers. I've consulted over the last three years

with a large variety of people representing all sectors of our British Columbia

society — nothing formal by calling a meeting but just meeting with people,

which is always the best way to get people to give you the information that I

truly believe is important to share. The makeup of the council is clearly done

in full cooperation with UBCM. I've met with the table officers; I've met with

the board members. The board members and the table officers put forward names

they wanted to see represented on the board. These members do represent all

areas of British Columbia. That was my answer before, and it will continue to be

my answer.

J. Kwan:

Then it's clear that the only people the minister has consulted on the makeup of

the charter council are representatives from UBCM. He did not go beyond the

scope of UBCM in consulting with community organizations or with the privacy

commissioner, as an example, who may have an interest in terms of shaping

how local government could impact issues of privacy for individuals. He did not

consult with the workers who are a huge component affecting local governance.

Clearly, the

only people, it appears to me, in this answer from the minister are the

consultation with UBCM…. I think that's most unfortunate, because the minister

is actually embarking on a huge project, with the introduction next year of the

community charter, which would revamp the governance of local government. That

has huge ramifications, and it is of particu-

[ Page 782 ]

lar interest, I would imagine, to

every single individual throughout British Columbia in their respective communities. Many people would have, I think, a valid contribution,

being part

of the council, not just providing information through the consultation process

but being part of council as recommendations are being made to the government

for legislation in the future.

[1510]

I think

that's unfortunate. I think it would have been better to ensure proper, fair and

broad representation on the council — for the minister to have embarked on a

broader consultation before the makeup of the council was decided upon and then

to ensure that the makeup of the council is a broad representation of community

interests in British Columbia.

On that

note, I disagree with the makeup of the council and will therefore be voting

against

section 1.

[1515]

Section 1

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 59

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Lee

Thorpe

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Bond

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Bell

Long

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

K. Stewart

Visser

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

On

section

J. Kwan:

My question is on the role of the council. Is it the intent of the minister that

the Community Charter Council would actually write the legislation relating to

the community charter?

[1520]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: As I said, about three years ago we started to look at the

community charter that was introduced by the now Premier in 1995, in order to

entice the then government to become more in line with the way that local

communities are thinking and how the relationship between provincial and local

governments should happen. The bill did not pass through the system. Three years

ago I took that bill and started to work with some administrators and other

individuals to look at how much of the bill still made sense, considering it was

1999-2000. We removed considerable pieces from the bill of '95, sometimes

because it didn't make sense and sometimes because a local government act that

was introduced by the previous government had taken care of some of these

sections. Then we started to go through a process of what was needed to make a

charter that would truly empower local government as partners with the

provincial government. We have a list of suggestions. These recommendations will

go to the Community Charter Council, and they will deliberate over all of these

issues.

The reason

we chose this path is that the charter council that will eventually be created

is for local communities, and it should not be created without local

communities. That's why we have a charter council made up of local government

and provincial government representatives.

That's the

history. There is no charter per se. The only charter is the charter from '95

that was tabled here in the House. We have a working document that will be used

by the charter council members to fulfil the mandate of the Community Charter

Council Act. That is, to go through certain and various ways of consultation with

local governments and groups that are impacted by the sections that will be

finalized by the charter council and have a consultation program through the UBCM after

that and broad exposure of charter council elements to local governments

throughout British Columbia. By January 15 the product should be ready for the

legislative staff to do numbering, cross-referencing and whatever else is needed,

and then introduction into the House shortly after February 15.

J. Kwan:

section 2(1), where it outlines the role of the council, it reads: "The

Community Charter Council is responsible for preparing a report to the executive

council recommending legislation, to be titled the Community Charter, that will

establish a new foundation for municipal government in British Columbia."

Do I take

this to mean that the Community Charter Council would actually write the

legislation itself, to be titled the Community Charter, and that would be a

component of the report that would be forwarded to the government? I note that

section 2(2) it then goes on further to say: "The report must include a

draft Community Charter, including required consequential and transitional

provisions, prepared with the assistance of staff of the Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services and the office of the legislative counsel."

I take it to mean that it is the responsibility of the council to provide a

draft community charter as part of this report, with the assistance of staff.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: …with the last statement.

J. Kwan:

I'm wondering what it meant when the minister earlier, in second reading, had

indicated that the draft community charter has already been written.

[ Page 783 ]

Therefore, if it's already been written, what is the work of the council?

[1525]

I will

quote, if I may, from Hansard the words of the minister. The quote is as

follows:

"That's

the Community Charter Council Act, Bill 12 — and I'm very proud of this

legislation. It's bold reform. Municipalities have for far too long been denied

a real voice in the process of creating legislation that impacts local

governments. It's true that the Community Charter Council Act heralds a new era

of respect for communities and citizens — something that they have strongly

desired for a long time. When I say 'bold reform….' When talking to staff here

in the Legislature who have seen the proposed charter, they all recognize this

as one of the boldest and most innovative pieces of legislation they have worked

with for a long time. It is not just me believing that we're taking a huge step

forward, but it is something that people who work with legislation all the time

recognize to be very, very forward-looking as well."

I ask the

minister: what does this mean, when during second reading stage he had actually

said that the community charter, the draft legislation, has already been written

and that his staff are very proud of it? They may be very proud of it, but

that's not the question. If the legislation has already been written, then why

would he now bring in legislation that says there's a council whose job is to

draft the community charter?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I think that in my previous answer to the question I already explained

to the member that the 1995 community charter is a document that has been

delivered to this House. We have taken that document and cleaned it up, so to

speak. Where there were areas that had not been covered in '95 and now need to

be covered because we live in the year 2001, certain sections were written as a

starting point for the charter council to begin working with.

It is the

charter council that, through deliberation, will put finesse to these areas that

need that debate and that discussion and that input from local government. When

we do a report, there will be a charter attached to it that will be the document

that eventually will finish up here in the House for further deliberation. I

look forward to the members participating in that exercise.

J. Kwan:

Then a copy of the community charter has already been drafted and written.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister says no, but yet….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we can do this through the Chair.

Mr.

Chair: Carry on, member. You have the floor.

J. Kwan:

Thank you. As I read the comments from the minister during second reading of the

bill, he clearly says that the proposed legislation that is going to be brought

into the House has already been written. The staff has already looked at it, and

they think it's very bold and very innovative, and they're very excited about

it.

So there is

a copy of the community charter already — a draft of the community charter

existing. Will the minister confirm that there is already a draft copy of the

community charter? Yes or no?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: One more time. In 1995 a community charter was introduced in this

House. Many of the points that were raised in that draft no longer apply. I'll

give one example: the CORE program that was, I think, done away with in 1998.

These are the kinds of things we went over and looked at to see if they still

made sense to be in there. We were left with a number of sections and areas that

will still be represented there. We also recognize that we are living now in the

year 2001. There are new elements that have to be considered for local

government. These new areas should be considered by local government and the

provincial government as a partnership. That's what we're doing.

What I've

spoken of is a draft of some of these ideas, as I explained earlier on. We have

a whole series of ideas for starting points for the discussions. That is the

material that staff who have looked at this draft material, the starting

material, find very bold, very innovative, and that certainly will bring a new

era in the relationship between local government and the provincial government.

That's what is there. Once the charter council has worked with all that

material, then truly a community charter will be delivered to the Legislature

around or just past February 15.

[1530]

J. Kwan:

How long is the document, the draft community charter, that exists now?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: How long? It is 11 by 17; 17 is the length and 11 is the width.

And it is about 100 pages. You asked me how long, so….

J. Kwan:

I understand that the minister's attempt at humour is very, very

funny. About 100 pages is the length of this document. Is this a public

document?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: As this is in preparation for legislation, clearly it is not in

the public domain yet.

J. Kwan:

The minister has just responded to my question of whether or not this document

is a public document. He just finished saying that it is draft legislation, so

therefore it is not in the public domain. Yet on the other hand, he's saying

that draft legislation is really just a working document, that the work he has

embarked on since 1995, I think he said, is not in legislative form. So

which is it? Is it draft legislation entitled the Community Charter, or is it

just working documents, working notes that he has gathered since 1995? Why won't

he release it to the public, given that

[ Page 784 ]

it has significant importance to the public? If it's 100 pages long, the

public would certainly be interested in reviewing it and perhaps giving some

thought to it and then responding to it.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: The member must be getting very desperate trying to find other

arguments to rise to speak again. I have at no time said that this is

legislation. This is not draft legislation; this is not community charter

legislation. It's a working document, as I've said before, as a starting point

for the charter council to start doing its work. At the end of that work, at the

end of that exercise, there will indeed be legislation prepared that will come

to the House, the rightful place where legislation should be introduced.

I don't

know how the member did it when she was a member of government. We will follow

the parliamentary way. When it is ready and it is presented, she will most

likely share with me the elation that I have on this particular piece of

legislative drafting. No, it is not legislative drafting; I am following your

part. It's a working document, and that's it.

MacPhail: I think the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is exploring an

important issue. The record has been corrected by the minister. The minister

will well remember that in my second reading remarks I was concerned about his

statement that the draft legislation was….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Well, actually….

Interjection.

MacPhail: I think what the minister is getting used to, in his role, is that

as an executive council member, you have to speak with clarity, because you're

in charge of making decisions. Perhaps it's a learning curve, and we accept

that. But the fact of the matter is that these matters are crucial to explore

for this reason: why would a council be appointed to draft a piece of

legislation when the minister says the legislation has already been drafted?

This is a matter that I've been exploring with the Premier in the Premier's

estimates: how do decisions get made in this government?

[1535]

There are

numerous committees being set up; there are numerous councils and task forces

being set up. We're trying to explore, in a very cogent way with the Premier,

the decision-making process of the government. This legislation is all about

having a community of interests draft legislation. That's what the whole bill is

about — nothing else. Yet the minister said: "They all recognize this as

one of the boldest and most innovative pieces of legislation they have worked

with for a long time." That's all. The minister really needs to speak with

clarity. Otherwise, he undermines the whole intent of his legislation. The

suspicions people have about the fix already being in are exacerbated. That's

why this is being clarified on record.

To recap,

the minister now says there is no piece of legislation, and therefore there is

no requirement for him to release the piece of legislation that he referred to.

The Community Charter Council will be starting from scratch, and the public will

be able to have input into the whole parameter of the community charter.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: This is a document that has its foundation in the community

charter that was introduced here in 1995. We have been working for a number of

years to improve it. It will be introduced in this House one day. At that time,

the members opposite will have the opportunity to look at it and ask questions.

They may make some recommendations for amendments. We will deal with whatever

comes, and then this bill will hopefully pass. Then we'll have legislation that

will truly give local governments a place in how they deal with local issues.

They deserve something that has not happened in this province before, and I

continue to work hard to make sure that it is the very best community charter

this province will ever see.

J. Kwan:

My question is to the minister. I ask him to explain to the House what he meant

when he told the Vancouver Courier earlier this month: "I think that

95 percent of the charter will be adopted as it is written now." If the

charter is already written and 95 percent is going to be adopted, then what is

the process about for the council to engage with the community to draft this

legislation that supposedly has not been drafted and yet has been drafted? The

minister is anticipating that 95 percent will be adopted as it is written.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I read that

article in the Vancouver Courier . There were a

lot of elements presented there that I certainly haven't talked about. There

were assumptions made by a couple of lawyers who made comments on the draft, on

parts that are just not part of the draft.

Interjection.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: There is a quote there, and I certainly have said to the

individual that I believe the directions, the suggestions that we are making

towards the channel, are directions that will ultimately lead to the goals we set

out in the first place: to make the charter a workable document for local

government. I'm not denying the quote. It is just that the

interpretation he tried to give is incorrect.

J. Kwan:

It is obvious to me that the minister has several different stories. During

second reading of the bill he actually clearly said — and was very excited to

advise the House — that this bold and innovative piece of legislation that

they've worked on for a long time is now before the House, and there is draft

legislation already in place. When he spoke with the Courier earlier this

month, he said that 95 percent of the charter will be adopted as it is written

now, clearly indicating

[ Page 785 ]

that the draft charter is already in existence and that he anticipated 95

percent of it to be adopted.

[1540]

Today we

are before the House addressing Bill 12, the Community Charter Council Act,

which establishes a Community Charter Council to work on and prepare a report

and a draft community charter for government. Yet the work has already been

done. You've got to ask the question: if the work is already done, what is this

process about? Is it just simply smoke and mirrors? Is it just for public

relations to say that you are going to do consultations, when all the work has

already been done?

Clearly,

the comments by the minister illustrate that. He has flip-flopped, within

the last 15 to 20 minutes, two different ways: yes, it's been done; no, it hasn't

been done. Perhaps he really doesn't know whether or not it's been done.

Why doesn't

he just come clean and tell the House? Show us. Table the document before the

House. Table it and invite the public to review it and comment on it. Engage in

a true consultation process, inviting all members and British Columbians who

have an interest in local governance with respect to their local communities to

provide input. Just table the document. It could be easily done, yet the

minister is refusing to do so.

The

question is: what does he have to hide? Why doesn't he come clean with his

agenda, whatever it is, and just show British Columbians what his intentions

are? Invite true consultation for all sectors of the community to participate

and be involved in the drafting of the legislation. Why doesn't he just scrap

the document of which he says some 95 percent would likely be adopted? Why

doesn't he just scrap that document and start anew, if this truly is the process

and the new era of this Liberal government?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I think we have a fundamental difference. I truly believe that

local governments have to be part of creating a community charter. In the future

that will be their tool to do their duties and fulfil their responsibilities as

local government. I will not participate in an exercise where the voice of local

governments cannot be heard. That is why we have always said that the Community

Charter Council will be entrusted to come up with a community charter that will

have the support of local governments. That's the exercise we're going to go

through. In spite of all the twists that I hear from the members opposite, I

will not change that attitude. I believe in local government and in empowering

local government. These are principles that the member, when she was the

minister of the Crown responsible for municipal affairs, did not necessary

represent, as shown by the action of the UBCM, who actually walked out of

meetings because there was no consultation as promised.

We will

continue to consult with local governments. We will expose this to thousands of

local elected officials. With all their input, we will have this working

document completed to reflect exactly what the very best way is to have a

relationship between local government and provincial government. That's the

bottom line; it is the only line. It doesn't matter what the member opposite

tries to push for. That's the way it's going to be. After February 15 we will

have a community charter prepared with the partnership of local government. It

will be a charter that local government will believe in, support and work with

to make the community aspects better for every community in British Columbia.

Section 2

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: I raised some questions during second reading that perhaps the

minister can help us through now with respect to

section 3. Under which of the

various principles will the public be able to address the issue of electoral

reform at the municipal level, including the advisability of having a ward

system?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: See "Principles to consider in preparing report."

Section 3(

c) says: "Municipal governments must be democratically elected,

responsible, accountable and accessible." How a local government will

introduce, for example…. If they decide to have a ward system, it will be done

by that local government and most likely with input from the community members.

Section 3(

c) covers exactly that question.

MacPhail: Does the working document contain any information or advice on

ward systems?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: It doesn't deal with election. That's under the Election Act.

[1545]

MacPhail: Sorry; I'm having trouble hearing the minister. My apologies.

the minister saying that the working document excludes information about the

ward system because it's not appropriate to discuss under the charter?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Elections are not an area the council will be looking at. So I

believe that with advice from the council, the Election Act will reflect, as it does

today, the Local Government Act.

J. Kwan:

Is there any reference in the draft legislation that touches on the

structure of governance as they relate to local government?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: The principles that are set out in

section 3 are basically the

guiding principles for the Community Charter Council to work with. They will use

these principles to look at core powers within local government. They will

certainly deal with many of the aspects of local government. Certain areas will

not be visited at phase 1 of the community charter; planning and land use is one

area. The area of elections is also not part of phase 1 of the community

charter.

[ Page 786 ]

J. Kwan:

I'm trying to understand what the minister is saying. Is he saying that, no, the

draft legislation community charter has no reference around the structure of

governance as they relate to local governments, or is he saying maybe there is?

I'm unclear on his answer. The question is quite simple. In the draft

legislation that the minister now has, is there any reference to the structure

of governance to local government? This question goes directly to

section 3(

c) as they relate to accountability issues to local government.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: My answer has to be quite like my previous answer. The charter

council will look at the mechanisms of local government. They will not be able

to look at all aspects, so what will happen is that the core powers we will be

looking at…. There will be changes made in these areas. Areas that we do not

touch this time but are coming up in future legislation…. In these cases the

Local Government Act remains the place where these sections are covered.

MacPhail: The next round of municipal elections is in November 2002. Am I

correct?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I believe so. Yes, next year.

MacPhail: So is it the minister's view that the community charter — which

is as revolutionary as creating an order of government, as revolutionary as

dealing with taxation — will not be addressing the issues of how we elect our

municipal councils? What does democratically elected, responsible, accountable

and accessible mean, then?

[1550]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I think the answer I gave before is the answer I give again. We

will look at certain elements of the core powers. Certain issues that we cannot

deal with will remain status quo as they are described in the Local Government

Act.

J. Kwan:

section 3(

b) it says that municipalities are recognized as an order of

government. Could the minister please explain that?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: One of the duties that the Community Charter Council will be

charged with, of course, is that as a council they will look at all these

principles and determine what exactly they feel the community charter has to

reflect. I cannot prejudge the deliberations that will be made by the Community

Charter Council.

J. Kwan:

Section 3(

b) actually says, "municipalities are recognized as an order

of government," and there is a list here from (

a) to (

l) of principles that

would be used to guide the council in its work. I'm trying to understand….

Under

section 3(b), is it the intent of the minister to give the council this

direction — that is, that there is a possibility of considering municipalities

as a third order of government?

Hon.

T. Nebbeling:

Section 3 starts with principles to consider in preparing the

report. These are principles to consider for the Community Charter Council. They

will do the consideration and then make a report to government on how they see

that order of government issue being dealt with. I also believe that in the

Local Government Act itself, in the

preamble, it is stated that local government

is an order of government.

J. Kwan:

So the minister is saying that under 3(b), because the council can do the work

and determine what an order of government means, the option is open to them,

potentially, to consider local governments as a third order of government.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I'm not going to talk about what the deliberations by the

Community Charter Council will entail.

J. Kwan:

I'm going to move forward, because the minister keeps on not answering the

question. I will take it to mean that he is allowing the Community Charter

Council to entertain the idea of determining whether or not local government is

a third order of government, per

section 3(b), which is one of the guiding

principles for the work of the council.

Section

3(

c) goes on to say that as part of the guiding principles, municipal

governments must be democratically elected, responsible, accountable and

accessible. My question to the minister is: in his draft legislation that now

exists, is there any reference to in-camera meetings? Is there any

reference to making sure that information, minutes and so on are protected for

the public's interest?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I cannot discuss future legislation or details.

J. Kwan:

Then my question to the minister is: how does he define accountability? What are

the areas of accountability that would be applicable for the council to consider

in its work as it embarks on developing its report for his consideration?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I would not prejudge, first of all, what the conclusion will be

by the council as a whole, how they would describe accountability.

[1555]

J. Kwan:

The question around accountability is a very important one. The guiding

principles for the work of the council as they're being laid out in Bill 12 are

critical, because local governments often may not want to allow for broad

accountability measures, including the minutes of in-camera meetings, agendas

set for in-camera meetings, when it is appropriate to actually have in-camera

meetings, when the public is allowed to be heard or even to listen in to the

discussion, and when the media is allowed to participate. All of those questions

are critical to the question of accountability. The guiding principle says that

municipal gov-

[ Page 787 ]

ernments must be democratically elected, responsible, accountable and

accessible, and I'm asking the minister what he defines accountable

to mean.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Again, I'm not going to give a response to a question on a

discussion that hasn't even taken place. I know one thing: local governments do

believe in accountability. They believe in transparency. It is the level of

government that is the closest to the people, and communities will hold their

members accountable. How the tools will be created is up to the discussion that

will take place with local government and provincial government, and I'm

certainly not going to speculate on the results except to say that I believe we

all know the importance of accountability and transparency.

J. Kwan:

The minister is refusing to provide the information that he says he already has.

He already has the draft legislation in place.

I'm going

to move on to the next section, which says that the municipal governments must

be provided with adequate powers and discretion to address existing and future

community needs. Under this guiding principle, does the minister mean to say:

giving local governments broader powers for decision-making? What areas is he

contemplating?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Again, I cannot prejudge future discussions by the Community

Charter Council. This document — let's be clear — is not the community

charter. This document is a tool to establish the Community Charter Council,

which will work with the working papers that have been prepared over a number of

years to conclude with a community charter. The questions we're getting asked in

the House right now are questions that should be asked in February, when the

community charter is on the table — not today.

MacPhail: How outrageous for the minister to stand up and say that. What's

the intent of the words, then? His job is to come into this House and explain

the intent of the legislation that he's sponsoring. Why include the words? Why

does the minister feel it's not his responsibility to explain the words that he

has tabled as legislation? This isn't about the community charter; it's about

the principles underlying the community charter that we're exploring. The

minister himself put those principles in the legislation. As we ask questions about the intent of the principles to give guidance to

those who won't be on the council.... Are we supposed to just say: "Sorry,

that's not our business to ask"? Of course it's our business to ask.

They're his words, and he has to explain the principles.

It doesn't

say that these are guiding statements; it says they're the principles by which

the council will be doing its work. Why is it that he can't explain it?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: One more time. Again, I look at the

preamble: "Principles to

consider in preparing the report." That's the instruction to the council.

For me to give a definition of any of these aspects would be totally out of

line. It would be prejudging, and it would, in a sense, really reduce the value of

the activities that this council will undertake to prepare a community charter

that is meaningful and is the tool for communities to take control over their

own destiny.

Every

question that I get on the essence of the wording, be it

"accountable," be it "accessible," be it

"democratic…." I cannot give the definition, because that is the

council's work. That has to be done after this Council Act has passed.

[1600]

J. Kwan:

When the minister spoke on second reading, when he advised the House that there

is already existing legislation and that he's proudly proclaiming the work

having been done and being reviewed by staff…. At that point the legislation

had already been drafted, and he deemed it to be appropriate to reference the

draft legislation. When he spoke with the Courier newspaper, he told the Courier

newspaper that some 95 percent of the charter will be adopted as written.

Here we stand today in the House asking questions around the guiding principles

behind the work that will be guiding the council, and he is refusing to answer

the questions in terms of what the guiding principles mean and to what extent

they enable and allow for and define the scope of the work of the council.

I have

another question relating to taxation in

section 3(e). The clause reads:

"Municipal governments have authority to determine the public interest of

their communities, including authority to determine the level of municipal

expenditures and taxation." I know that local governments' source of

taxation is really property taxes. Yet I don't see the word "property

taxation" within this clause. It's just "taxation." Does that

mean to say that the work of the council will be opened up with a scope to allow

for beyond property taxation considerations?

Point of Order

The

Chair: Member, on a point of order.

Hon. G.

Collins: I've been sitting here painfully listening to the questioning. It

is very clear that in second reading we have a broad-ranging discussion. There

are opportunities for members to talk about all sorts of things. When we get to

committee stage, we deal with the content of the

section that's before us. It

is inappropriate for a member in questioning to be standing up and looking at a

section here and then referring to what may end up being legislation before the

House at some future date. To ask the types of questions that the member is

asking and to keep coming back to other legislation, draft legislation, working

papers and seeking the contents of those…. Those are not before the House now.

What is

before the House now is

section 3. These are guiding principles. I believe the

words are: "They must consider the following principles." You can con-

[ Page 788 ]

sider them. There's a broad, wide-ranging scope for that discussion to take

place. The member can't ask questions that are out of order about what the

legislation might look like a year from now or six months from now, when the

council, the very people who are going to be formed by this act, haven't had a

chance to do the things and address the various issues that the member is

addressing.

Those are

very appropriate questions for the House when the legislation is actually before

the House. I expect that at that time, all sorts of discussion and debate will

take place in committee stage, as well as second reading, about the community

charter, which may well be an inch thick. I expect it will take a great deal of

time.

I know, as

well, that when the previous government brought in their act on municipal

governments, which was about that thick, there was no consultation that went on.

There was no charter. There was no involvement at all.

MacPhail: Once again, the Minister of Finance comes to the rescue of one of

his colleagues who can't answer the questions, under the ruse, the guise, of a

point of order.

The member

was merely putting in context the nature of her questioning, in that she was

raising the issues in the context that the minister was saying several different

things. Her questions stand alone, without reference to future legislation. They

stand alone. Her

preamble was just to say why she's concerned about these

things.

The

Minister of Finance has to stop protecting his ministers from being held

accountable in this Legislature. The questions are about principle. The

questions are about the exact meaning of the words in the legislation.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members.

I have

heard both sides of the argument. We are dealing with

section 3, which involves

the principles of Bill 12. I remind the committee to restrict their comments to

provisions under

section 3 and not to broad principles of the bill.

[1605]

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

My question is to the minister on

section 3(

e) and the word

"taxation." I am interested in the scope of the work that is given to

the council under these guiding principles, which the council is to consider.

Does taxation include only property taxes or beyond property taxes, meaning to

include other taxation avenues?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I will not prejudge what the input from UBCM may well be on that

particular issue, but in general we look at broader options for consideration.

That's the word. We are not dictating anything. An issue comes on the table, and

the board as a whole will consider the issue. What the considerations will lead

to will be reflected in a community charter that we will be introducing next

year. At that time I also expect, like the Minister of Finance, that we will

have broad discussion on all of these elements in detail. But the members have

to wait until that time.

J. Kwan:

Under

section 3(g), which reads, "Municipalities must be able to draw on

financial and other resources that are adequate to support community

needs," could the minister please define for the House what "financial

and other resources" means?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Again, without giving a direct answer, I can say that over the

years, first of all having been in local government myself for ten years and in

discussions with mayors and councillors over time, they have often suggested

ways where a municipality could create revenue without having to go to the

property tax base. I expect that UBCM, as a full partner in this exercise of

creating a community charter, will come forward with some ideas. It will be

deliberated and discussed, and it will be voted on. After we have had these

discussions, we'll see if indeed the consideration of the principle has led to

some new opportunities.

Again, I'm

not going to prejudge what these opportunities are, because we are not going to

dictate as a government what it has to be. It is the council as a whole that

will discuss potential options.

J. Kwan:

I'm trying to establish the scope that is being given to the council to do its

work, as they undertake the work with these guiding principles. Financial and

other resources in terms of a scope could be varied and very large, as a matter

of fact. Does it include, as an example, the possibility of looking at

fee-for-service, wherein services that are now paid for by the municipal

government would have the option, under these guiding principles of the council,

to be recommended to be associated with a fee and considered as other financial

resources? Or does it only mean to say that in the area of taxation, financial

and other resources would be an introduction of a new tax in some form or

another? These have tremendous impacts for British Columbians in every

municipality in which I'm sure they'd be interested. What is the scope that is

given to the council as they embark on this work of trying to explore options

and opportunities for financial and other resources?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: First of all, local governments already have the authority to

charge fees in certain areas. I come back to my previous point, and that is that

it will be the council that will ultimately dictate the scope of opportunities

that may be available. It will be happening through discussions with the council

members collectively. It will represent provincial viewpoints, and it will

represent local government viewpoints. Whatever comes out of these discussions

will determine the scope of that particular section.

[ Page 789 ]

Section 3

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: For clarification, he meant January 15 under this or February 12,

the return of the Legislature?

Interjection.

[1610]

MacPhail: No, that's okay.

The

minister, earlier on in discussions, kept on referring to a date of February 15,

just earlier this afternoon. This refers to January 15 as the date it needs to

be returned. Also, the Legislature is returning February 12. Perhaps he could

just clarify which one he means.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: The date January 15 is when the Community Charter Council is to

report to the executive council. Shortly after February 15 we intend to

introduce that charter council into the Legislature for first reading and the

following legislative steps.

MacPhail: Where would the public take comfort in the fact that it will be

tabled in the Legislature? Where's the commitment to that in the bill?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Just to make sure I said it right, and I was right…. Once cabinet has received the report, a date will be set

for the introduction of the legislation into the House. I believe that in the

throne speech and at other opportunities, the Premier has very clearly stated

that the timing for introduction of the community charter is shortly after

February 15, and I have no doubt we will deliver on that.

MacPhail: So do we have a commitment from the minister that the final report

that's being sent to the executive council will be made public in some way

before the legislation is introduced?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I cannot really commit to anything that will be in a direction

that cabinet will give to me. So I think the date of February 15, which the

member opposite asked about, reflects fully our intent. A commitment to make it

public beforehand as a community charter will be something that cabinet has to

deal with.

MacPhail: Well, the final report that's being legislated is from the

Community Charter Council, and the legislation specifically says it goes to the

executive council rather than the Legislature — which is an interesting

approach to openness and accountability — unless, of course, the minister

commits to releasing the report. So in order to reassure those that may have

alternative points of view from the government.…

Interjections.

MacPhail: Maybe I wasn't speaking loudly enough; just let me know. The

legislation is very clear that it's going to the executive council. It's not at

all clear that the report will be released as a public document. So I'm asking

the minister today to make a commitment to release the report of the Community

Charter Council publicly.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: As I said before, the Community Charter Council itself cannot

deliver a report to the House. It has to go to the executive council. The

executive council will then decide what to do with the report. It would maybe be

a good idea to release it, but I'm not going to prejudge that. It's not the

position I'm in. It will be up to the executive council to make a decision on

how the report will get into the public domain.

MacPhail: Let me get this straight. The 90-day commitment of the new era is

to strike a council made up of a very narrow group of representatives to do a

report of which we can't find out what the underlying principles really mean and to

deliver it to the executive council with no commitment that the report will ever

see the light of day. Is that what we're dealing with here?

[1615]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: That is the

interpretation that the member gives to my statement.

That's her business. I look at it a different way. The executive council will

receive the report by January 15. That's the commitment that the Community

Charter Council makes under this act. It is the executive council that will

decide what to do with the report. For me to prejudge their action would not

only be unwise but it's just not the right thing to do.

J. Kwan:

I would assume that the minister would have the prerogative to determine, once

he is in receipt of the report from the council, whether or not to release it to

the public. If the minister is committed to accountability to the public and the

consultation process, then he would commit today in this House that he would

indeed release the report for the public's information and for them to peruse a

document which I would assume would no doubt be very thick and very big. But

the minister would not commit today. Does he need to seek permission from the

Premier — the centralized agent of this entire government — for a decision?

Does he need to seek permission before he commits whether or not he would

release this document once it's completed?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I'm really amazed that the member opposite, who has been a member

of government, is not aware of how documents and reports go through the

system. She must know, as a former member of the Crown, that the report is not

delivered to me as the minister. The report is delivered to the executive

council. For her not to realize that, after many years in government,

really surprises me. But I am certainly pleased to enlighten her that, indeed, I

as the minister will not receive the report. The report

[ Page 790 ]

will go straight to the executive council. The executive council will then

determine how to handle it for the public exposure. What we will see is the

community charter here in the House as a piece of legislation shortly after

February 15.

MacPhail: The only reason this is going to the executive council is because

this government has determined that it will go to the executive council. Not

only are they shutting down public access to it by their actions, they're

shutting down public access to it by legislating it. It is only because this

legislation says it goes to the executive council that it goes to the executive

council.

Secondly,

not every document that goes to executive council is a confidential document. In

fact, I would assume, based on this government's commitment to openness and

accountability, that this would be a public document. All we're asking for is

the minister's commitment to make the report public. Who would've thought,

reading the New Era document, that that would be in dispute? Who would've

actually contemplated that this government would legislate a ruse of secrecy?

I will tell

you, because I understand the government has much more work to do today, the

opposition will be voting against this

section on the basis that it is not going

to be made public — the document. There is no commitment to make it public.

We'll do so on division.

Section 4

approved on division.

Sections 5

and 6 approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:20 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12,

Community Charter Council Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon.

G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole. For the information of members,

it will be committee stage of Bill 19.

CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:21 p.m.

Sections 1

to 23 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:23 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19,

Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 16.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:25 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: There has been much discussion since this bill was tabled about

defining a child as a person who is under 18 years of age. The discussion I have

heard is on holding parents accountable for what one can call a senior teenager.

What studies or supporting documentation did the minister glean in order to have

the bill applicable to children under 18 years?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The reason for the definition of a child as under 18 years is to

stay consistent with the Young Offenders Act.

MacPhail: Is it the minister's understanding, then, that every child will be

charged criminally, as well as a parent charged or convicted under this? Is that

why the age of 18 — so that not only will the child be convicted under the

Young Offenders Act, but then the parent will be held accountable under this

act?

[ Page 791 ]

Hon. R.

Coleman: There are no charges under this act. This allows for an action

under small claims action. To use the terminology "charging parents"

is not correct. The parent is held responsible for damages done by the child

over whom it can be shown they should have had reasonable supervision. The

argument around the age factor is one that a judge at a settlement conference

would take into account relative to anything that took place.

MacPhail: I fully understand that this isn't about charging, but the minister said that the logic behind having children

under 18 years as the scope of parenting that's covered by this act was to match

up with the Young Offenders Act. Decades and decades of discussion have gone

into when a youth or a child is subject to a different test of criminal charge

than an adult is. That's to deal with the Criminal Code.

I confess

on the record now to all who listen: I'm not a lawyer, and I've actually had no

direct experience with the Young Offenders Act. But I do know and have followed

closely the debate that has raged across this country about the intent and the

applicability of the Young Offenders Act and the balance that's needed. Much

of that discussion occurs around the age of the child. In fact, I think there's

even an ability to raise a child to adult court and the more stringent test of

adult behaviour for a child that would be chronologically under the age of 18.

That debate has raged.

So what I'm

asking the minister to do is table the studies that show why that same test applies

to parents who may be subject to a civil suit brought against them that concerns

the negligence of their children.

[1630]

Hon. R.

Coleman: The definition isn't about study; it's about school-age children

aged 18 and drawing a parallel to the Young Offenders Act age bracket for what we

consider to be a child in most areas under actions like this. It's not a matter

of having to study what that definition is. That's been the definition used in

other pieces of legislation, and it's a definition we apply here.

MacPhail: The reason why the Young Offenders Act determines a threshold of a

chronological age is because that child, himself or herself, is being held

accountable for his or her actions. It doesn't involve anyone else. There's not

a test that says that the maturity or lack thereof of the child is in relation

to anyone else.

In this

particular situation, the parent is being held accountable for the actions of the

child. I must say that the reason I raise this is because there's been much

discussion in the community about this. The discussions centre around: how is it

that a parent — clearly, there's a new problem that we're trying to solve here

with this legislation — of a teenager who's 16 or 17 or sometimes 15 can be

held accountable for the actions of a 15-, 16- or 17-year-old?

I quote,

and this is yesterday. Again, this is the Victoria News :

"The

lawyers contacted argue that in most cases, a youth of 15 to 17 years is a fully

responsible individual or, at least, old enough that their actions cannot be

attributed to the influence or lack thereof of anyone else. That, they say, puts

the fundamental basis of the law into question."

This is a

lawyer who is a family law lawyer in the Victoria area. His name is David Shaw.

"'At

what age does the parent no longer really control the child?' Shaw asked. 'If

this is restricted to a young child, the victim has, I hope, the problem of

establishing that the child understood what they were doing and intended to

create the damage. If it's an older child, I have problems with the idea of

parents controlling the child.'

"'The

legislation implies that if your child has committed property damages, you're

failing in your duty as a parent. I assume the victim merely has to prove that

you're the parent of that child,' said Shaw. 'Who is this

helping?'"

This is a family law lawyer who actually has read the act. That's

why I started off by saying I'm not a lawyer. The minister has given no comfort

to the debate by suggesting that the age determination was related to the Young

Offenders Act, a criminal act,

an act dealing with criminal intent.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The fact of the matter is that Mr. Shaw isn't entirely correct, and

maybe he hasn't read the act. If he had read

section 14, which allows for damage

to be either given to parent or child, depending on age, or if he had read the

section which allows for the balance of responsibility to the child where.... In

the very first part of that

section — and I'm sure we'll get to it — a judge

is told he may take into account the age of maturity of the child when he

measures parental accountability. The fact of the matter is that this act

allows for those measurements further down in the act. The definition just

defines a child.

MacPhail: If the minister is basing the chronological age limitation on the

basis that it's somehow relevant to the Young Offenders Act, can he show any

studies that show such laws have actually had an impact on youth crime?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I will answer the question one more time. The age is a definition

of a child. That definition was based on the experience of members with the

legislation, including the fact that the Young Offenders Act deals with children

under the age of 18.

[1635]

MacPhail: My question was not about that. My question was: does the

Solicitor General have any studies that show such laws have an impact on the

level of youth crime?

Hon. R.

Coleman: This is actually not about youth crime; this is about victims. This

is about victims and parental responsibility. That's what this act is about.

MacPhail: Well, it isn't about that. The legislation is about parents being

held accountable for the actions

[ Page 792 ]

of their children in property damage. That's what this is about. If somehow

this government's

interpretation of how they treat parents is to say that the

only aspect of this legislation that the government cares about is the victim,

then we need to explore what it is we're trying to achieve here.

I assume

that what the Solicitor General means by victim is the victim of a crime. It may

be a crime that has not gone to court. It may be a crime that has not been

tested under the Young Offenders Act, but it's property damage — right? It

says: "suffers property loss." They will be able to start a civil

action. So I assume that what we're trying to stop here is property damage or

vandalism — crime against property owners — by young people. Has the

Solicitor General got any evidence that parental responsibility legislation has

led to a reduction in vandalism and property

damage, in the words of the act?

Hon. R.

Coleman: We're on the

section dealing with the definition of a child. If you

want to debate the rest of the act, I guess we can move on to those other

sections. The fact of the matter is that this is parental responsibility

legislation. Every single tool that we can give to any community is going to

assist that community in reducing crime or reducing vandalism. I would

anticipate that this would be no different. To measure it is impossible. The act

hasn't been passed in this province as yet, so we have no way of measuring it as

of today.

MacPhail: Does the Young Offenders Act have a threshold above which the

child is subject to the Young Offenders Act?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm not going to get into a debate relative to the Young Offenders

Act. This is the Parental Responsibility Act; I'm prepared to deal with it.

MacPhail: The reason I'm asking the question is that I'm

trying to find some guidance on how this legislation is appropriate. It's my

recollection that the Young Offenders Act applies to children who are 12 or

older. I'm not sure about that, but there's a threshold below which it doesn't

apply. Is that correct?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Again, I'm not about to get into a debate about the thresholds in

an act that isn't before this Legislature and that I don't have in front of me

at the moment.

Interjections.

MacPhail: My gosh, the government's having trouble that we're actually

asking some questions.

Let me just provide the logic for the government, who clearly

haven't thought this through. The definition that says that it's a person under

18 years of age could apply, then, to a three-year-old. That's the significance

of my question. What other legislation that deals with youth vandalism applies

to three-year-olds? Does that follow?

[1640]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Get as agitated as you like. I'm not going to buy into that.

The reality

is that the Young Offenders Act in this country is 12 to 17, but that's about

criminal law. This is about parental responsibility. The act allows for

measurements by judges, when they go before them under a small claims action,

to take into consideration the age of a child. Any reasonable person who wants

to make a reasonable argument about this would understand that going before a

judge and saying, "This three-year-old child deliberately broke my window;

I want the parent to pay for it...." The judge would say, "The child's

three years old," and that would be the end of it.

Apply the

logic that you want to apply to the act, but apply it fairly. The age of a child

in here is under 18 years of age. We use that as a standard. Then we put in the

act a number of measurements that can go before a judge under a small claims

action to determine the responsibility of the child. The first one is the age

and the maturity of the child.

The

Chair: I just want to remind members to make all their comments to the

Chair.

MacPhail: Well, the judge already has the ability to make those rulings. Any

judge now, under the current common law, has the ability to pass the test of

maturity, etc. What I'm trying to figure out is why we need this legislation and

why we have legislation that applies, unlike any other legislation, without an

age threshold. Why was it left out?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Maybe this will help. The member should refer to the School Act,

which has no lower age threshold — it's no different than this act — and as

I understand it, neither does the Ontario or Manitoba legislation that this is

patterned after. In addition to that, the member is right about common law, but

the reality, though, is that that usually is an expensive process to a higher

level of court.

That's

expensive when we're talking about property damage. If somebody has a $500

window broken, they don't want to go spend the legal costs and everything else

to deal with something like this, relative to responsibility. Small claims

actions don't usually require a lawyer. This is just one more tool to assist

people in communities to recover damages relative to actions.

MacPhail: The reason why the School Act doesn't have an age limit is because

it applies to children who attend school. That's why. Children start to

attend public school at the age of five, sometimes four.

[ Page 793 ]

So that's why. It's about vandalism on school property.

We have an

act here that's broadly applicable to a child, regardless of his or her age. It

applies to children that could be defined as fully consenting, thinking adult

individuals at the age of 16 or 17, and it applies to a three-year-old and a

five-year-old and a four-year-old. I would suggest that the criticism levied

against this act about its age breadth is absolutely legitimate, and there's

absolutely no study the minister can put forward where there's any linkage

between youth vandalism and parental responsibility legislation — none. I can

say that there are studies to show that there is no link, no impact.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The fact of the matter is that it's challenging to link any piece

of legislation back to any level of actual solution that comes relative to a

piece of legislation. It goes to enforcement, it goes to ability to apply, and

it goes to the people that deal with it. The member is obviously debating the

first

section of this act, but it's always easy to draw the outside parallels of

any portion of a piece of legislation. The member opposite would know that

because she's debated from this side of the House relative to legislation. The

outside parallels are always easy to draw.

When

an act

allows for measurements to deal with those outside parallels the member wishes

to draw, like a three- or four-year-old, the fact is that the court may consider

age and maturity and other factors within it. You don't draw legislation that

says: "This specific situation could occur." The fact of the matter is

that you build legislation with balance and measurements in it, and this

legislation has enough measurement in it to protect a parent from unnecessary

action from somebody under this act.

[1645]

MacPhail: However, this is a bill about — as the government has said over

and over again — the rights of victims. They've said that that's the reason

why this legislation was brought in. We all sympathize with victims of crime.

However, even the organization CAVEAT B.C. objects to this legislation — the

pre-eminent organization defending the interests of victims of crime. They

object to that.

If this is

about victims, what is to prevent a victim from bringing forward a claim for

consideration? Because there is no threshold of age, what is to prevent that

victim from bringing forward a claim against the parent who has to attend small

claims court with the threat of up to $10,000…? What do you call it? I don't

want to use the wrong word, because my colleague used a wrong word yesterday,

and she got quite a lecture from the Attorney General. The word is compensation —

to be subject to a claim for $10,000 in compensation.

Hon. R.

Coleman: What's to stop anyone from bringing a frivolous or vexatious claim

under any type of a legal proceeding is a good question. But under this

situation, the court would dismiss it, and the small claims court actually has a

right to award costs against the person who brought the frivolous or vexatious

action.

Brice: I just

would like some clarification from the Solicitor General on the definition of

parent, and in particular (b), the adoptive parent of the child. I would be

interested in knowing just what the thinking was that included that as part of

the definition.

Hon. R.

Coleman: We believe that adoptive parents should have the rights and

responsibilities of birth parents. To provide them with less would be, frankly,

unconscionable. At the same time, no person considering adoption should see this

act as an impediment or risk of an adoption, for it is not. No responsible

parent, whether adoptive or birth, needs to be concerned about this act. A

parent that were to adopt a child that had fetal alcohol syndrome or something

like that would have all the protections within this act relative to the age,

maturity, health and behaviour of the child — like any other parent.

MacPhail: I gather that the list of exclusions under (

h) is where the

state assumes the role of parent.

Hon. R.

Coleman: If the member's question is whether those people are excluded from

this act, the answer is yes. That's because they're in the care of government.

MacPhail: Why, when government is the parent, is there no application of

parental responsibility?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Through the variety of other services within the Ministry

of Children and Family Development, we already take those responsibilities. If

something were to happen, the government would step up and take responsibility.

MacPhail: So you mean it's now available to a person who suffers property

damage by a child in care that the victim can sue the government for up to

$10,000 in compensation?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I just told you they're excluded, so no, they can't sue the

government for up to $10,000. But if there's a child in care, they would go to

the local social service agency or to the children and families agency or to

whoever was dealing with that file and deal with that file with the government.

But they are not included in this act relative to being able to sue in small

claims court.

[ Page 794 ]

[1650]

MacPhail: Yes, I know that. That's why I'm asking the questions. I'm asking:

why is it that when government is the parent, there's a different test?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I guess that goes back to a philosophical question, depending on

where you sit. Frankly, if you're in care of the government, that doesn't make

government the parent.

MacPhail: Believe you me, I think one of the most wonderful jobs performed

in society is as a foster parent. I also know that the government, when they

were in opposition, was terribly critical of the Ministry for Children and

Families and the services that they provided. What I'm trying to figure out here

is, by the exclusion of children whose parent is the government.... I

think the Solicitor General must know that the state is assigned as guardian and

must have the best interests of the child paramount. That's what the law

requires when the government takes a child into its care. Why would there be

any less parenting required for those children? Are they less valuable? Why is

it that government doesn't have to be responsible as a parent and a guardian for

the actions of that child when there's a victim of vandalism?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As the member knows, any department of government when someone's in

opposition does receive criticism, but that doesn't mean we were vastly critical

of the Ministry for Children and Families. As a matter of fact, I remember

sitting in this House and all members being concerned about the issues and the

offer being made from one side of the House to the other to work together on

solutions to help deal with the issues and concerns in and around children and

families. For the member to say that is almost like a blanket comment that we

were completely critical of Children and Families. Frankly, that's an unfair

statement. As a matter of fact, I know that as an opposition MLA, I worked with

the Ministry for Children and Families on a number of files that were good and

successful both for the people and for the communities involved.

The bottom

line for me is that these children are in care. They're in the care of

government. We did not choose to deal with this legislation relative to the

children who are in our care as being defined as being under the care of a

parent. We've exempted them; we've done that.

MacPhail: My questions on this topic flow from this: when the Attorney

General was commenting on this legislation, he said that making parents more

responsible will help to make their children responsible. I assume that the

children who are in the care of government deserve exactly the same love, attention

and support as if they were with their own parents. That's the reason why social

workers sometimes make the decision, in the best interests of the child, to take

them into the care of government. When that child is taken into the care of

government, there's a legislated requirement, of which I am very proud, that the

best interests of the child have to be the paramount consideration in parenting

that child.

I'm

wondering if the exclusion is because the Solicitor General knows full well that

this legislation isn't in the best interests of the child.

Hon. R.

Coleman: That's a ridiculous statement. Foster children are in care of

the government, and nobody…. First of all, does it mean we love somebody

less if we don't include them in a piece of legislation? That's nonsense.

To say we're sending a message…. That's nonsense.

[1655]

The fact of

the matter is that these children are in the care of government. Government

takes certain levels of responsibility for children in care. For the member to

advocate, as I'm hearing right now, that we now tell foster parents — who are

sometimes provided with children in the middle of the night in dire and

difficult circumstances coming from abusive situations — that in addition to

this, we're going to capture them in

an act relative to parental responsibility,

when they're acting as an agent for government to take care of those

children…. I think that's a wrong advocacy position to take, hon. member. I'm

surprised at you for taking that. I would never have thought I would hear you

advocate that we would include foster parents in

an act where we're dealing with

parental responsibility and not children in the care of government.

MacPhail: In fact, it's exactly the opposite that I'm advocating. The

minister knows full well that I'm advocating that this legislation is not in the

best interests of the child, whether it be a biological parent or a foster

parent. When the government itself has to be responsible for children, they

exclude themselves. I'm not advocating the inclusion of foster parents. The

minister misunderstands the fact that the foster parent isn't legally

responsible for the actions of a child. The government is; the Ministry of

Children and Family Development is.

Foster

parents do an unbelievable job. The fact of the matter is, as the minister

rightfully points out, parenting is extremely difficult, whether you are a

foster parent or the biological parent who has the daily care of your children.

There's no difference. They're extremely difficult circumstances that some

parents sometimes find themselves in. That's why I'm wondering if the exclusion

is because the minister recognizes that and understands fully that he would be

legally liable if the best interests of the child weren't paramount and that

this legislation doesn't put the best interests of the child first. It puts the

property owner's interests first, over and above the child.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Sometimes in legislation we choose to disagree, and at this point I

choose to disagree with the member. Frankly, this is the exclusion that's in the

bill, and it will stay in the bill. The fact of the matter is that the children

in the care of government….

[ Page 795 ]

The government has those children in care, and this bill is to deal with

parental responsibility in other areas.

J. Kwan:

In the instance where the person is in a divorced family situation, where the

child is with one parent and not the other, and in the instance where the

individual does not have custody of the child, is the parent who does not

have custody of the child responsible for the actions of the child under this

act?

Hon. R.

Coleman: If I understand the member's question correctly…. First of all,

we're in

definitions. When we get to

section 10, you're going to find that

there's a number of measurements, including whatever else the judge may want to

take into consideration when making an award in this. Under the

definitions

section here, excluded is "an individual described in paragraph (a), (

b) or

(

c) or who has no right of custody and no right of access to the child."

J. Kwan:

Yes, I see that. Under the definition of parent in (i), it describes that if you

have no custody or no right of access to the child…. But in a circumstance

where you have very limited access to the child and you don't have custody,

is that parent held accountable under this act?

Hon. R.

Coleman: That's caught in

section 10.

The

Chair: Shall

section 1 pass?

Interjection.

MacPhail: God almighty. It's a very important issue, and the House Leader

seems a bit impatient.

Could you

report exactly where in

section 10 that's covered off, please?

Interjections.

MacPhail: The question is now under this section. You can't have it both

ways.

[1700]

Hon. R.

Coleman: I guess we're basically…. If I assume what we're doing here is

debating the entire bill while we're in

section 1…. I would suggest that it's

probably caught under

section 10(g).

MacPhail: So

section 10(

g) limits or excludes the responsibility of a parent

who may have very limited access and not custody. Is that correct?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Maybe I could get some direction from the Chair.

Section 10 deals

with the factors that a court may consider if there's an action before the

court. They're all taken together, and the judge may also include other things

in his determination of whether reasonable supervision was undertaken.

Frankly, I think that to try and take one portion in one

section in the absence

of the rest of that

section is probably unfair to this portion of the

discussion. Maybe we should deal with that when we get to

section 10.

J. Kwan:

I'm going to ask a question around property laws. In all of the discussion so

far, it appears that it is referencing private property. But does this include

public property as well?

Interjection.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair — and this is just for the benefit of people who

weren't here for the second reading — the opposition voted against this piece

of legislation. For instance, we're voting against this

section on

division.

Section 1

approved on division.

Section 2

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: This is the parents liability clause. We're to understand that the

loss or damage to the property experienced as a result by an owner, by a person

legally entitled to the possession of the property, can include public property.

Hon. R.

Colem