2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Statements

Battle of Vimy Ridge

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Harry Quarton

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Anaphylactic Student Protection

Act, 2007 (Bill M210)

Cubberley

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Quesnel Community Powwow

Simpson

Squamish Nation Sculpture

Symposium

McIntyre

Vancouver downtown east side arts

community

J. Kwan

World Police and Fire Games

H. Bloy

Spare Time Fun Centre

Trevena

Kelowna women's curling team

Horning

Oral Questions

Mark substitution at private

secondary schools

Cubberley

Hon. S.

Bond

Dogwood certificates issued by

offshore institutions

Fleming

Hon. S.

Bond

Farnworth

Funding of seniors health care

facilities in Cariboo region

Simpson

Hon. G.

Abbott

Visitor access at Deni House

C. Wyse

Hon. G.

Abbott

Raw log exports and value-added

forest sector

Robertson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Impact of government policies on

value-added forest sector

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Coleman

Petitions

C. Wyse

Simpson

Fraser

Committee of the Whole House

Securities Transfer Act (Bill 9)

Ralston

Hon. C.

Taylor

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Securities Transfer Act (Bill 9)

Committee of the Whole House

Community Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11) (continued)

Macdonald

C. Wyse

Puchmayr

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Hon. I.

Chong

Sultan

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Community Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

Chudnovsky

Hon. K.

Falcon

J. Brar

G. Coons

Fraser

C. Wyse

Gentner

[ Page 6529 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Statements

BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, if I can just take a moment. April 9 will be the 90th anniversary of the start of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. It was April 9, 1917. At 5:30 a.m. that Easter Monday, the first wave of Canadian soldiers began their offensive against German defences at Vimy Ridge. They fought their way through mud and sleet across a desolate battlefield and into history.

The Canadian success at Vimy Ridge was a triumph of meticulous planning and uncommon courage. In the end it was the greatest Allied victory of the war up to that date. It cost 3,598 Canadians their lives, but it was a turning point in the Great War.

Vimy Ridge was not the first time Canadian soldiers distinguished themselves in World War I, nor would it be the last, but it was the first time that all four divisions of the Canadian corps attacked together. Soldiers from across our country fought shoulder to shoulder, and it has been said that those who witnessed the Battle of Vimy Ridge witnessed the true birth of our nation.

As is so often the case with military victories, Vimy Ridge is a source of both national sorrow and national pride. The Canadians who fought so valiantly there reflected the best of a young nation and who we have become since.

In recognition of their courage and sacrifice 90 years ago, the province is proclaiming April 9, 2007, as Vimy Ridge Day in British Columbia. It's a time to reflect on the courage of generations past and on the responsibility we all share to live up to the legacy they handed down to each of us. It is also a sombre reminder of the challenges faced by Canada's Armed Forces even today.

[1335]

I ask the House to join me today in paying tribute to those who gave so much at Vimy Ridge throughout the Great War and also to those who carry their proud tradition of courage and service to freedom around the world today in Canada's Armed Forces.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased today. There's a large group of people with us today, who have come to witness the introduction of a private member's bill, the Anaphylactic Student Protection Act, which will be introduced by my colleague shortly.

I want to introduce some of those people to the House today: Mrs. Pamela Lee and her son Aaron — I would note that Pam was the motivator of my statement made yesterday on this issue; Linda Virginello and her son Nick; Stephanie Parsons; Mr. Mike Shannon, who I would note is the father of Sabrina Shannon, the young girl who passed away and who Sabrina's Law in Ontario was named after; Kelly Grinyer; Pamela Nielson; Leann Collins; and Shirley Connell. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 30 public servants seated in the east gallery who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. It's offered by the Legislative Assembly, and this workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that affects the Legislature. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

R. Fleming: Today it's an honour to introduce guests here with us from the Crystal Meth Society of British Columbia. As many members of this House know, this organization has worked tirelessly to stop the use of crystal meth on Vancouver Island and, indeed, in communities across our province.

With us today is the society president Mark McLaughlin, his wife Ruth and their daughter Mila. This family has been the inspiration of much of the grass-roots education that goes on in our communities across British Columbia about this powerfully destructive drug. Their education, their efforts to tell British Columbians about crystal meth have reached tens of thousands of people — be they front-line health workers, parents and school kids, or employees of all levels of government.

Also here with them are incredible volunteers: the society vice-president Marilyn Erickson and her friend Krista Baird, who has just finished her practicum in nursing outreach in Victoria, working among young addicts in the street population.

I would add just further to the McLaughlin family. Ruth's parents Eric and Muriel Pearson are watching this afternoon, and I would like the House to offer their congratulations. They just recently celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary. Will the House make these guests most welcome.

Tributes

HARRY QUARTON

Hon. R. Thorpe: Last Friday, March 23, I had the pleasure of attending an event at the French consul general's residence in Vancouver. It was in recognition of a constituent of mine, Lieut. Col. Harry Quarton. The regiment that he served in was the only Canadian regiment unit awarded a Victoria Cross during the Normandy campaign. On March 23 Lieutenant Colonel Quarton was awarded the Legion of Honour by the President of the French Republic.

Lieutenant Colonel Quarton will lead a group of 40 Canadian army officers and veterans on a battlefield

[ Page 6530 ]

tour at Vimy Ridge on April 9. In addition, there will be a number of students from the South Okanagan, including Penticton and Summerland, who will also be in attendance.

I would ask that the House please recognize the accomplishments of Lieutenant Colonel Quarton and express our thanks to Lieutenant Colonel Quarton and all of the others who have served and who are serving our country.

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: Today in the gallery we have some visitors from Ottawa, here visiting family. I'd like us all to give a good welcome to Russ and Trudy Tully.

[1340]

Hon. J. Les: I'd certainly like to add my recognition to the McLaughlin family, who have already been mentioned by my colleague from Victoria-Hillside. The McLaughlin family has done much to raise awareness around crystal meth issues in British Columbia. They're joined today by Marilyn Erickson and April Haussmann. I'd also like to add my congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Pearson on their 60th anniversary.

I have another introduction, and that is a class from Mount Cheam Christian School in Chilliwack who are here with us today. We have a class from that school that comes out annually to watch the proceedings in the House, and we certainly welcome them.

In particular, I'm sure I'll be forgiven if I make reference to my niece who is part of that class, Larissa Lindhout. She's in grade 12. She will soon be one of the teachers in our province. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Cubberley: It's my pleasure today to introduce some families and individuals who are here because of their concern with anaphylaxis. I would like to begin with Mrs. Nancy Wong, who is a constituent of mine and who's here with her son Brendan and daughter Megan. Brendan is anaphylactic.

I would also like to introduce Mrs. Carolyn Posynick and her son Griffin, who is also anaphylactic, and Mrs. Tracy Zeisberger, whose son is also anaphylactic. They are joined by Dr. Gendreau-Reid, who is an allergist and has treated Nancy's son; Mrs. Karen Sheridan, who is a supporter; and Yvonne Rousseau, who is the B.C. and Yukon regional coordinator for the Allergy and Asthma Information Association. Would the House please join us in making them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I have two introductions today: first, a number of students from Dogwood Independent School in Abbotsford. They are accompanied by their teacher David Green. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Then it's my pleasure to introduce four representatives from the Catholic Women's League that are visiting the Legislature today: Sheila Quinn, Pat Battensby, Gloria Gausobel and Marilyn van Dongen. Marilyn is related; she's married to my brother in Kamloops. I ask the House to make them all welcome.

R. Austin: It's my pleasure today to introduce a visitor from my home community of Terrace. Her name is Jennifer Jones, and I ask all members to join me in welcoming Jennifer.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce a number of gentlemen that I'll be meeting with later, who are in the business of generating clean, green electricity: Katabatic Power CEO Tony Duggleby and COO Jonathan Raymond.

Accompanying them are people from the Deutsche Bank: Ulrich Schmall, Frank Hasselwander and Uwe Schmidt. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Evans: I'm lucky to have a visitor from Creston. His name is Trent Hans Nicolajsen. Trent is 40 years old. He's a tree-planter and has three kids, and like many silviculture workers in British Columbia, he also has another trade. We have got wonderful, intelligent, creative tree-planters in B.C. He's also an industrial designer, and he dropped off his portfolio. Welcome to the House. It's your House, actually.

J. Rustad: It's a pleasure today for me to stand and introduce the three bears. I'm talking about the Vanderhoof peewee-A Bears, the Vanderhoof bantam-A Bears and the Vanderhoof midget-A Bears.

They have performed a feat that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been done in the province before. They've all managed to win their respective provincial tournaments. I would ask that the House please help me congratulate the players as well as the coach, volunteers and sponsors of the Vanderhoof Bears.

[1345]

Hon. G. Hogg: The Minister of Transportation and I had the pleasure of hosting for lunch today both the incoming and the outgoing executive directors for the White Rock and South Surrey Chamber of Commerce: the outgoing executive director Jim Dyson — he has chosen to come here for his last day of work and is then heading off across our wonderful country — and the incoming director Doug Hart, who has come to us from Delta.

We're very pleased to have both of them here with us in the House today. Would you please join me in making them feel most welcome.

D. Hayer: I have a very special guest here today. John Kelly of GlaxoSmithKline is visiting us in the House today. Could the House please make him very welcome.

H. Bloy: It's a real privilege to stand up today. I had lunch with the future of British Columbia — a number of young people. They are members of the British Columbia Young Liberals, and many of them attend Simon Fraser University in my riding. I would like to recognize them: Anderson Zhang, Ben Lee, Brody

[ Page 6531 ]

Murfin, Chris Sandve, Erik Heather, Fuhan Shi, Jamie Mulholland, Katy Merrifield, Peter Woo, Richard Ly, Zach Poturica, Silvester Law and Wisam Abdella. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

ANAPHYLACTIC STUDENT

PROTECTION ACT, 2007

D. Cubberley presented a bill intituled Anaphylactic Student Protection Act, 2007.

D. Cubberley: I move that the bill be read for a first time today.

Motion approved.

D. Cubberley: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the Anaphylactic Student Protection Act. Anaphylaxis is a serious and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction triggered by food allergens like peanuts, seafood, egg and dairy products. To date, British Columbia has taken a voluntary approach to anaphylactic preparedness, leaving many anxious parents to blaze their own trails on these issues. The level of concern this raises is evident from the interest by guests in this chamber today.

This bill would ensure that all B.C. schools are equally prepared to monitor anaphylactic students, avoid inadvertent triggering of anaphylactic reactions and intervene effectively should they occur. The bill requires every school board to establish and maintain an anaphylactic policy, setting out risk-reduction strategies and a mandatory regular training program. It requires every school principal to maintain a file and individual plan for each anaphylactic student. It also enables school board employees to administer or supervise student administration of medication in the event of an anaphylactic reaction.

This bill is modelled on Sabrina's Law adopted in Ontario after Sabrina Shannon died from inadvertently consuming fries that were likely contaminated with a dairy protein, to which she was highly allergic. Severe allergic reactions happen quickly, and intervention has to be equally swift, and it cannot be left to chance.

This bill mandates a uniform approach on a serious public health issue affecting between 1 percent and 2 percent of all students. It's a tangible way of improving student safety through school preparedness. The issue is non-partisan, and it's our hope that government will see the way to support the bill and respond to the needs of anaphylactic families.

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

Bill M210, Anaphylactic Student Protection Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) QUESNEL COMMUNITY POWWOW

B. Simpson: Earlier this month I had the pleasure of attending the Quesnel Community Powwow, participating in the grand entry and even dancing — or at least attempting to dance — with the other dignitaries at the official opening. Although organized by Ecole Baker Elementary, this year the powwow was held in one of our high school gymnasiums for the first time. This venue change proved to be a wise move, as attendance at this annual event has been growing, and the large number of people who participated this year would have crowded out the former location at Ecole Baker.

[1350]

This year's theme was "Keeping our cultures strong." The plural "cultures" was deliberately chosen by the powwow organizers not only to reflect the diversity of first nation cultures in our area but also to recognize and embrace all cultures represented in our community.

Chiefs, elders, royalty, drummers and dancers from first nations communities in the Quesnel area were joined by representatives of first nations communities from across the entire north and south Cariboo, the Chilcotin and the Nechako region. The North Cariboo Métis Association was also represented in both the grand entry and the events of the powwow.

This year, however, the South Asian community also participated in the powwow activities. The priest from one of our Sikh temples joined the grand entry. He actually had to dance with us, with the dignitaries, afterwards and gave greetings on behalf of his community.

Samosas were also served as part of the powwow feast. The Quesnel community powwow filled the high school gym with colour, music, dance and the wonderful smell of a wide variety of foods.

The organizing committee, led by Sherry Carifelle, demonstrated throughout this celebration of cultures that we can only build strong communities by recognizing and embracing the strength of all cultures.

I ask this House to join me in congratulating Sherry, her large and diverse organizing committee, the staff and parents of Ecole Baker elementary school and the staff of school district 28 for their vision and for their recognition of the strength that comes from embracing diversity in our communities.

SQUAMISH NATION SCULPTURE SYMPOSIUM

J. McIntyre: I'm pleased to report to the House that I had the privilege of attending several events recently related to the Squamish Nation Sculpture Symposium funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage through its designation of West Vancouver as one of its five cultural capitals in 2006.

This symposium is a series of exhibits, public programs and events including the Enduring Traditions exhibit featuring historic and contemporary Squamish and Coast Salish art, which celebrates the Squamish

[ Page 6532 ]

Nation history and continuing presence within their traditional territories.

A highlight and legacy of the symposium is the commissioning of a juried public sculpture entitled Spirit of the Mountain created by Xwa lack tun, or Rick Harry, originally from the district of Squamish, whom I had the pleasure of knowing through my growing relationship with the Harry family.

This stunning steel sculpture, which was dedicated and unveiled on March 17, will endure forever as a marker for Ch'tl'lm, which is the Squamish name for Ambleside Park. It serves as a tribute to the heritage and the bond between West Vancouver and the Squamish Nation, both past and future.

This installation — echoing the Lions Gate Bridge named after the lions, the two mountain peaks that the Squamish Nation call the twins or the sisters — was designed to fit into the waterfront without obstructing views. The brickwork forming the exterior wall of the medicine garden at the sculpture's base is designed beautifully to create the impression of a woven Squamish basket.

I was particularly honoured and touched personally to be asked by the Squamish Nation to be one of the witnesses at the work at the unveiling, and to be part of something so monumentally important in bridging cultures is something I will treasure forever.

I invite everyone to take a trip to Ambleside Park to view this work and/or to participate in the series of events going on now through August to obtain a better understanding of the rich cultural heritage of the Squamish Nation.

VANCOUVER DOWNTOWN EAST SIDE

ARTS COMMUNITY

J. Kwan: The innovations which exist in the downtown east side are central to artistic practice and ideas. It should come as no surprise that many deem this neighbourhood as the art and cultural capital of Canada. Artist-run centres not only provide original artwork but are crucial to holding public discussions and artist talks and to publishing emerging ideas which contribute to the public sphere of B.C.

They're also engaging in groundbreaking work which engages with the downtown east side community as well as other national and internationally significant artistic movements. Generally, these artist-run centres exhibit contemporary art which parallels the larger public institutions and private commercial galleries, offering an alternative to artists in determining how to represent their work.

Most of B.C.'s best-known and internationally recognized contemporary artists, curators and cultural practitioners have come out of the artist-run centre movement. They not only provide an important place of practice for emerging artists and curators but make this a geographic hub of cultural activity incomparable to anywhere in Canada.

[1355]

People like Jeff Wall, Germaine Koh and Stan Douglas are only a few of the examples of the dozens of artists who have developed an international reputation while working from this community. Jeff Wall, one of the most important living artists in the world according to many critics, currently has a touring exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Much of his artistic practice features this neighbourhood and its residents.

There are more than 250 artists' studios and 38 exhibition centres, including artist-run centres and commercial galleries. There are some coming further in the future. There are also many struggling artists who are engaging in innovative ideas. Some artists' spaces have been in my constituency for over 20 years.

The intellectual community within the art and cultural sector believes that we can have revitalization without the displacement of the long-term low-income community, which is central to the identity of this neighbourhood. I would like to ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the original, talented, critical and internationally significant voices of the art and cultural community in the downtown east side.

WORLD POLICE AND FIRE GAMES

H. Bloy: During our break week from the Legislature, I made the trip to Adelaide, Australia, to observe the 2007 World Police and Fire Games. These games, created in 1985, were also hosted in Vancouver in 1989 and have taken place in other cities around the world — Stockholm, Sweden, and Barcelona, Spain.

In 2009 British Columbia will have the honour of being the first region to be the official host of the games, and many of the events will be occurring in the riding of Burquitlam. Athletes from approximately 50 different countries participate in a wide variety of traditional and non-traditional sports. Olympic sports such as swimming, wrestling, soccer, and track and field will be represented.

I am proud to report that the British Columbia team in Adelaide, Australia, did quite well, finishing sixth overall — including 49 gold, 39 silver and 28 bronze, for a total of 116 medals. As entertaining as the games were to watch, I was truly honoured and privileged to have the honour of accepting the official flag to bring to Vancouver for the hosting of the 2009 British Columbia World Police and Fire Games.

This is a tremendous opportunity for Burnaby and the whole lower mainland, as the games are the second-largest sporting event in the world, next only to the Summer Olympics. Over 15,000 athletes and 25,000 families and coaches are expected to participate in the 2009 games, generating over $100 million in economic development.

I encourage all members of the House to make plans to attend British Columbia's Police and Fire Games. In the near future I will be providing a package to every member of the House to encourage their local fire and police departments to participate.

SPARE TIME FUN CENTRE

C. Trevena: There has been a lot of discussion recently about child care. Canada ranks 30th in OECD

[ Page 6533 ]

rankings on child care, which is bottom of the league. I think that's pretty embarrassing for us in a country where we have a priority on education, health care and social services.

When we talk about child care, we often assume it's for babies, toddlers and preschoolers, but it also involves children up to the age of 12. I recently visited an amazing example of that after-school child care, the Spare Time Fun Centre based at the David Lloyd George School on West 67th Street in Vancouver.

It's a very energetic program, and the first duty of all the participants is their homework. After that, they can have creativity and stimulation. Throughout the week there's dance, karate, science, sewing, fundraising, chess, computers, baking.

As the youngsters feel ready for responsibility, they can become a leader, where they encourage others to help and to become fully involved. The emphasis at the centre is on being a role model, being respectful and being responsible.

The centre is independent of the school and non-profit. It's warm, and it's welcoming. The youngsters have been involved in furnishing it, decorating it, creating spaces to hang out and play. The coordinator Barb Fuentes, who started the centre when she had children, still drives it with her energy and her very dedicated team.

The centre in Marpole is licensed for 105 five-to-12-year-olds. There is a wait-list of 50, and the centre could create 75 more spaces. They do have the land. They just don't have the money.

[1400]

It's a pity, because the work of bringing together children of many different backgrounds in this safe and very stimulating environment, which is the Spare Time Fun Centre, helps give them a very solid foundation. Many more in both Vancouver and around the province should be given that opportunity.

KELOWNA WOMEN'S CURLING TEAM

A. Horning: I'd like to pay tribute to Kelowna's own golden girl. Even though she was thousands of miles away from home, Kelly Scott and her rink of third Jeanna Schraeder, second Sasha Carter, lead Renee Simons, alternate Michelle Allen and coaches Gerry Richard and Elaine Dagg-Jackson have made themselves household names in the international scene of curling. They did it by thumping Denmark 8 to 4 in the World Women's Curling Championship in Aomori, Japan last weekend.

At times the game was intense, and being so far away, the team only had a handful of Canadian supporters to cheer them on. Despite being in a foreign land, the team remained focused and determined to bring home the gold.

The team was in Japan vying for gold when a major earthquake hit a city just outside of Aomori. The tremor was a sign for the Scott rink, who knew going into this tournament that there would be challenges, highs and lows and that they would have to conquer without the comforts of being on home soil. They did it all with the grace and charm they have been showing since the first game they ever played.

The tournament has catapulted Kelly into the history books. She became the first female skip to win the gold medal in both world junior championships and a world women's championship. Believe it or not, even with all the accolades and triumphs, every time you meet or speak with Kelly, she remains as humble as her first day on the ice.

They are a team to beat. They are heading into the 2009 Olympic trials, which will determine Canada's team for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. So as I've asked in the past, let's give the Scott team another hardy round of applause for bringing home the gold and making us proud. [Applause.]

Oral Questions

MARK SUBSTITUTION AT

PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS

There are two issues here. First, the ministry practice of substituting private-pay marks for enrolled students and, second, the possibility that these marks are grossly inflated.

My question to the minister: how many private schools does the minister have under investigation, and will she agree to put an immediate end to her ministry's practice of substituting concurrent marks?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, we want to start this discussion by saying that this side of the House supports choice for parents and for students in British Columbia, and we're going to continue to support independent schools.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we know that the vast majority of independent school opportunities for children in British Columbia are excellent. They are outstanding, and we're going to continue to provide choice in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer to the question. You know, it's a serious matter.

[ Page 6534 ]

As it happens, one of the private-pay schools suspected of inflating grades is Kingston High School. Kingston High School is owned by Michael Lo, a big Liberal Party donor who this minister appointed to the government's own quality assurance committee — someone who is now famous for bilking foreign students.

[1405]

My question to the minister: is she investigating Kingston High School now — and if not, why not? And why has she not already closed the loophole that allows purchased marks to be put onto public transcripts?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, obviously the member opposite hasn't read the clips, as they normally do, to get their answers. In fact, I said very clearly from the moment that information came to my attention that not only are we going to investigate those schools, but we've actually looked at the entire list of both public and independent schools. We're going to follow up on every single mark discrepancy, and we are going to take action if indeed that information proves to be accurate.

Just one final point to be clear. The schools we are looking at…. Let's just check when they were created in British Columbia. Let's look at Century High School, 1996; Kingston High School, brought to my attention by the member, 1992; and St. John's International High School, 1990.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a further supplemental.

D. Cubberley: The question isn't when the schools were created. The question is when the practice began of allowing people to purchase marks and substitute them for marks in the public school system.

What this minister can do today to stop this practice is close the loophole in her own ministry, a loophole opened up by that government. That's a loophole that allows those marks to be substituted for marks in public school. Simply say it can't happen, and the practice will stop. Are you prepared to act today?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the critic on the opposite side actually is behind. The moment we became aware of that discrepancy, we said we would be sending the inspector of independent schools. All of those visits will be done by April 13, and I can assure you that if there are discrepancies in marks….

We, unlike the member opposite, are actually going to do our homework first before we disparage the work of independent schools in this province. We're actually going to get the facts. If there's a problem, we will move to rectify that immediately.

DOGWOOD CERTIFICATES ISSUED

BY OFFSHORE INSTITUTIONS

R. Fleming: Well, I hope we're getting towards an answer as to what action this government is prepared to take, because the minister started her first answer by saying that buying grades in this province is all about choice.

The minister says she's concerned about her government's policy changes that have enabled the buying of better high school grades to gain admission to university. Given the international concern about B.C. expressed by China, India and Korea with the poor quality and financial swindling, quite frankly, by bad elements in the private post-secondary sector, can she tell this House what action her government will take to ensure that the selling of grades and lowered standards of B.C. Dogwood certificates by private high schools is not happening internationally?

Hon. S. Bond: We've been clear. Mark discrepancies are not acceptable in British Columbia, whether it's a public or an independent school. We said that immediately upon finding that information, we would actually do our homework, and we would go and meet with those institutions.

Listen carefully. Two things will happen. Those institutions will be asked to put a plan in place to rectify the marks and the situation. If that is not done satisfactorily, they will be decertified.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: On the subject of listening carefully, maybe the minister can address the 11 offshore B.C. private schools selling Dogwood certificates, which was my question.

Two of these are in China. They are owned by a friend and longtime donor to the B.C. Liberal Party, Mr. Michael Lo. His name keeps coming up with this government. This is the very same person who left hundreds of students penniless and empty-handed at Kingston College with fraudulent degrees. This is the same person who misled Ministry of Advanced Education personnel and again ripped off students at Lansbridge University — without any financial penalty or criminal charges by this government, I might add.

Can the minister confirm that this discredited operator continues to operate, with her permission, two B.C. private high schools in China that are licensed to offer Dogwood certificates?

Hon. S. Bond: What's really disappointing is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was actually a school trustee. You know, one would have expected that after the experience that she's had with education in this province, you would….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 6535 ]

Minister, just take your seat. Continue.

Hon. S. Bond: With a Leader of the Opposition who has had experience in education, one would expect that there would be some understanding on the other side of the House that independent schools, that public schools, all offer important options for our students in British Columbia.

In fact, there are rigorous expectations. We will inspect, and if they do not meet them, we will deal with that.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Premier because it's pretty clear the Minister of Education doesn't want to deal with the question.

The question is British Columbia's reputation overseas. The question is British Columbia and the Asia-Pacific, which this Premier puts great stock in. The question is that a Liberal Party donor of significant amounts of money, who has continuously run into problems here in this province with Kingston College, is operating schools in China which are damaging the reputation of this province and are selling substandard Dogwood certificates and cheapening the integrity of those certificates, which we in this province take great pride in.

I would like to quote from staff that work at that school: "For any teachers considering working at this school, be aware. This school is now managed, and it is not being done in the best substandard. Recruitment is what's taking place. Resources at this school are inferior."

Another e-mail: "This school is a scam and a poor excuse for a Canadian-certified high school. Good quality education is far down on their list. Money and power are at the top."

That is what is being said in China about a British Columbia school. My question to the Premier: will he ensure that this is investigated and that the integrity of the Dogwood certificate in China is being maintained, and our system is not being cheapened by these scam artists that are at work?

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly hope that the member opposite is prepared to make those kinds of allegations in the hallway.

Let's be clear. In fact, our independent schools are inspected annually. Whether a school is offshore, whether it is independent or whether it is a public school in British Columbia, we have rigorous standards. We expect them to be followed. We are inspecting and following up on every situation that's been brought to our attention. We'll continue to serve our students well, and we're proud of British Columbia's reputation.

[1415]

FUNDING OF SENIORS HEALTH

CARE FACILITIES IN CARIBOO REGION

B. Simpson: Yesterday when I posed my final question about Deni House to the Minister of Health, the minister posed a challenge to me knowing full well I could not respond to it given the rules of the House. The challenge was as follows: "We're about to make a huge investment in Quesnel in a place called Dunrovin Lodge. I challenge the member to get up and tell us whether he wants us to make that investment in Quesnel or not."

To the minister: is that a threat? Because I'm standing up….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, member for Cariboo North.

B. Simpson: Is it because I'm standing up and defending the rights of seniors in Williams Lake that this minister has the audacity, when I cannot respond to him, to ask me whether or not they should continue an investment in Quesnel that is already committed to?

That sounds like a challenge and a threat to me, and I ask the minister directly: was he threatening public investment in Quesnel because of me defending seniors in Williams Lake?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is remarkably threatening, I know, for a member of the opposition to have the government spending large amounts of money making major investments in the opposition ridings. I can't imagine how daunting that must be to this particular member.

The other thing that is amazing to me about the way the NDP are conducting themselves on the issue of Deni House is just how shallow they will go, how low they will go in exploiting the frail elderly for their political purposes. It goes even to the point of — as has been a theme other times in this session — ignoring the rule of law, and I think it is unfortunate.

I invite the member again to tell me whether he welcomes that investment. If he doesn't want the investment, he should make it clear to his constituents. But the NDP has to get off this pot. Do they want the investment or don't they? If they don't welcome the investment, they should make it clear that they don't want it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I certainly do, and yes, I want that investment in Quesnel.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[ Page 6536 ]

B. Simpson: Not only do I want it, but I want it the exact same way that it was done in Quesnel. That's what we've been asking this minister to do.

Northern Health consulted with the community. The community said that they did not want a P3. Northern Health said: "We're not going to do that. We're going to do it publicly."

The community said that we want the ability to have choice in our community and that we want a reasonable and decent transition. Northern Health said they're going to do that. They consulted with the community. They're going to leave Dunrovin open. They're going to do it through the public purse, not through a P3. This is what we've been asking this minister to do in Williams Lake — to have Interior Health do the exact same process in Williams Lake.

[1420]

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister finally hear what we're saying and use the Quesnel model in Williams Lake? That's what we're asking for.

Hon. G. Abbott: While the member was remarkably articulate, that was one of the most tortured pieces of argument that I have ever heard in this House. It appears that the member welcomes the investment. I guess the question is the investment would only be welcome if it is made through a traditional public spending model. That's what I understand the member to be saying. Yet if we go back to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: If we go back to 2000, we can hear from the then Health Minister, today the Opposition House Leader, say that P3s were the way of the future. We can go back to 2003. We can see a letter from the gentleman who is now the member for Cariboo South, saying that this is a project that could be done on a P3 basis. We can go back to Treasury Board minutes of the former government and see that the direction of the NDP government in the future was going to be P3s. All of that, I think, points to us doing exactly the right thing from their perspective.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member for Cariboo South has the floor.

VISITOR ACCESS AT DENI HOUSE

C. Wyse: I wish to return to the issue that we have at hand today. Interior Health Authority has locked all the doors at Deni House in Williams Lake. They have placed security guards on the only entrance left into the building, which is a tunnel that connects Deni House to the hospital. Family members have reported to my office difficulty in accessing their parents who are in Deni House.

Yesterday I received assurances from senior Interior Health Authority representatives that family and friends would be allowed reasonable access to their parents in Deni House. However, very shortly after those assurances had been given to me, I received a phone call from a daughter at my office in Williams Lake in which her access to her mother in Deni House was denied.

My question to the minister, who consistently has defended how Interior Health has handled this issue in Victoria: will he assure the family and friends of people living in Deni House reasonable access to them in Deni House today?

Hon. G. Abbott: Interior Health have handled the issues around the transfer from Deni House to the Williams Lake retirement village in a most sensitive and most sympathetic way, which is not something I can say for that opposition over there. I think that what we have seen….

In fact, family and friends have been able to visit residents at Deni House. The fact of the matter is that there is an influenza outbreak in Deni House. They have had to take some precautions with respect to people going in and out. I understand the member attempted to enter Deni House yesterday. I understand the member was advised…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …that if anyone in the facility wished to visit with the member, he would be welcome in. Apparently, no one was interested in visiting the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: I do, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

C. Wyse: My job in Williams Lake yesterday was not primarily to ensure that they had access to one of their elected officials. My job yesterday was to ensure that family members continue to have access to their parents. I did not get that assurance here. I received those assurances yesterday in Williams Lake from the Interior Health Authority, yet family members continued to be denied access to their parents.

Yesterday the minister also declared that he knows the best accommodation for seniors here within British Columbia. He described very clearly that one size fits

[ Page 6537 ]

all for all seniors everywhere in British Columbia, and he did that very proudly on behalf of the government opposite. The Premier's report on seniors and aging likewise clearly states that a wide and varied choice of living accommodations is required to serve the needs and wishes of B.C.'s seniors.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Wyse: Other communities have similar living conditions provided by Deni House and provide these conditions in an older building. My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier explain to the seniors of B.C. and their families why the residents of Williams Lake are restricted to a single type of service model, while the rest of the province is allowed a choice of different service providers and also allowed different types of accommodations?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think that was an excellent question because it reveals, once again, that the new NDP in British Columbia is nothing but the same old socialism of 30 years ago. That's what the new NDP is. I am amazed that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am amazed that the new NDP appears to be turning their backs on the new and worldly approach that was articulated by the former Minister of Health, now the current Opposition House Leader. He said P3s were a way to go. He articulated standards for new seniors facilities, and it was great that he articulated those. The only problem was that the NDP never acted on them. That's the major problem with the NDP.

RAW LOG EXPORTS AND

VALUE-ADDED FOREST SECTOR

G. Robertson: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition raised a critical issue of more than 10,000 lost jobs in the forest industry. The Forests Minister promptly blew that off as irrelevant.

A recent submission, which I'll bring to the attention of the House, to government from the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association states: "It is doubtful if there has ever been a time when things were tougher than they are right now. The fact is that most of our recent problems have been created by our own governments."

The primary issue for the value-added sector is that Liberal forest policy has

created a critical log shortage.

When will this minister show some respect to the forest industry, this sector of the forest industry, and take action to stop the export of the logs they need to survive?

Hon. R. Coleman: I thought maybe I would just point out to the member opposite the Valentine's present that the member for Cariboo North gave to the province of British Columbia in his quote in the Terrace Standard on February 14, 2007, when he said: "If you say no to log exports, you kill their jobs. They correctly argue that."

Hon. Member, the fact of the matter is that we've looked at log exports. We've done a study. We're bringing a plan forward, and you know what? You guys have no position among you that's consistent, and we're going to solve the problem and fix it for British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[1430]

G. Robertson: Our position is clear on this side. We don't want a radical expansion of raw log exports.

This minister talks and talks about all his elaborate plans. He's not talking to the people and the businesses that are impacted by his lack of policy. This industry is being shut out of decisions on their own fate.

I'll quote again from the submission: "In the last six years communication and consultation at the political level has gone from reduced to nonexistent. B.C. Liberal forest policy is killing the value-added sector, which is truly the key to sustainable forest economy in B.C."

Again, when will the minister stand up for B.C.'s value-added businesses and be sure that they get the logs they need?

Hon. R. Coleman: I find it rather interesting. However, I will say this. In the value-added sector that I've met with in the last few months…. A number of the value-added manufacturers in this province came to me before Christmas and said: "We're not here to ask for anything. We're here to thank you for what you did in softwood and for putting a high-value cap in there and saving the future of the value-added industry in British Columbia."

As a matter of fact, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke said that the softwood agreement was good for the value-added sector and for the Downey Street mill in his own community. And you know what? That was one of the companies that actually came and said: "You did the right thing for British Columbia's value-added sector."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

VALUE-ADDED FOREST SECTOR

C. Evans: The Minister of Forests says that the people on this side have no position on the issue of the remanufacturing sector.

[ Page 6538 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: I have here the lumber remanufacturing report of the standing committee, which in fact we did in 1993 with the Minister of Mines sitting just to the left of the minister. Guess what. It was unanimous — not NDP position, not Liberal position or even — at the time what was it? — Social Credit or Reform. It was a unanimous position.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member for Nelson-Creston continues.

C. Evans: What the standing committee determined in its unanimous investigation was that the remanufacturing sector requires a real open market in logs and lumber to survive. Now Mr. Russ Cameron, the president of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association of British Columbia, says that the free market for lumber no longer exists. He says: "The many suppliers and buyers of the 1970s is a thing of the past. The last ten years of mergers and acquisitions reached the point where we can now say that the B.C. industry is dominated by four regional oligopolies."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Can the member put his question.

C. Evans: I'm not kidding. I could spell it for Hansard if you want. By four….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

C. Evans: O-l-i-g-o-p-o-l-i-e-s.

Okay, now they're having a good time. But it's dead serious, so let's calm down.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose his question. Question, Member.

C. Evans: Dominated by four regional oligopolies. Their influence over government policy is now greater than ever, and the independents now live or die at their pleasure. My understanding of forestry jargon has always been quite good, but the Liberals have now invented an industry…

Mr. Speaker: Member, pose the question.

[1435]

C. Evans: …that I no longer seem to understand.

Will the Minister of Forests please tell us: what is an oligopoly? Wait for it. What is the impact on the remanufacturing sector of having created oligopolies, and what does he intend to do about it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Out of that, there are two things I should point out to the member. The member that was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has had uninterrupted standing in this House since 1991.

Secondly, to the member: an oligopoly is a big guy like me maybe. I don't know. What I could suggest to the member — and I don't want to be glib about it — is…. The fact of the matter is that there's a lot of work that's been done on the forest sector in the future in British Columbia. There are some very strong plans coming forward on the coast on our log exports.

There is work being done on value-added and always is. We actually have an industry that I think is making a big turnaround and setting a great direction.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Frankly, Member, I know you want to heckle me from across the hall, but if you want to look up oligopoly, go to wikipedia.com.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Wyse: First, a petition on behalf of 150 of the students from Peter Skene Ogden in 100 Mile who feel that the portfolio course is unnecessary and time-consuming.

A further petition is from 236 residents of Williams Lake requesting both the Interior Health Authority and the government to reconsider their decision to close Deni House in Williams Lake, bringing the total to 7,000.

The third has 340 signatures on a petition to reinstate the funding cuts to the child care resource and referral program.

B. Simpson: I present a petition signed by 217 people in my constituency decrying the state of our roads and asking for more road maintenance.

S. Fraser: I also present petitions from the constituents of Alberni-Qualicum demanding that government immediately restore and maintain child care operating funding. This is from over a thousand residents.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In the wake of the bipartisan conspiracy to extend question period, Mr. Speaker, I call Bill 9 in this chamber, Securities Transfer Act. In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the estimates of Ministry of Transportation.

[ Page 6539 ]

Committee of the Whole House

SECURITIES TRANSFER ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

section 1.

B. Ralston: Can the minister set out the basic objective of the bill?

Hon. C. Taylor: The point of this bill is really to put into legislation the backup that we need for what is the practice in terms of securities. It recognizes that no longer do we all hold our security certificate in hand as we're making trades, but in fact it's done electronically.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise what effect this will have on what is called the OTC Board?

Hon. C. Taylor: None.

B. Ralston: Does this piece of legislation deal with the Securities Commission on the regulation of the securities in the province? Obviously, that's a matter of continuing public concern.

Hon. C. Taylor: No, it does not.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the definition of a certificated security? The definition seems to be circular, in the sense that what the act says in

section 1 is that a certificated security means a security that is represented by a certificate. So can the minister illuminate, please?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is literally what the words say. It's a security that is represented by a piece of paper.

B. Ralston: If the certificate or the security is held electronically, does this definition apply and, if so, how?

Hon. C. Taylor: It could be either a certificated security or one that is uncertificated when it's held.

B. Ralston: My next question pertains to the definition of an uncertificated security, which says that it's one that's not represented by a certificate. So the definition seems to be circular. I'm wondering if the minister can explain more fully what the distinction is and what the importance is, if any, in the operation of this act.

Hon. C. Taylor: What you often find with the CDS is that you could have one certificate which is a bulk certificate representing a number of shares that do not individually have certificates attached to them. Really, what this act is trying to do is ensure that it is quite clear — it's consumer protection in a way — how the ownership line follows and how transfers happen.

B. Ralston: For those who are not familiar with the jargon of the securities industry, what does CDS stand for, please?

Hon. C. Taylor: Canadian Depository for Securities Ltd.

[1445]

B. Ralston: Can the minister then explain the role of that agency in the formulation of the principles of this act?

Hon. C. Taylor: If I understand the question, they had no role in our creating this act. This has been an intergovernmental effort to really bring British Columbia up to international and United States standards, and it is a model that other provinces across the country are doing as well. Alberta and Ontario have already brought their act and legislation in, and the other provinces are following. This has been a very positive, coordinated effort across the country to ensure that all the provinces are moving in the same direction on this particular legislation.

B. Ralston: I had understood that CDS was listed as the registered owner on the books of issuers or their transfer agents and that it holds securities as depository for the benefit of 104 direct participants of CDS, primarily banks, trust companies and investment dealers. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes.

B. Ralston: Turning to the

definitions section,

section 1, which we're on, a security certificate means "a certificate representing a security, but does not include a certificate in electronic form." To return to the previous two

definitions that we were discussing, how does that interact with those two

definitions — the certificated security and the uncertificated security?

Hon. C. Taylor: If I understand your question correctly, security certificate and certificated security are basically the same thing.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain what a certificate in electronic form is and whether it falls into the category of an uncertificated security or a certificated security?

Hon. C. Taylor: Uncertificated security is the electronic version, but this act applies to both so that the rules are clear. Whether you have a certificate or whether it's electronic, these are the rules that follow in terms of ownership and transfer.

[1450]

B. Ralston: Can the minister give a sense of what percentage of certificates within the province or na-

[ Page 6540 ]

tionally are held in paper form and what percentage are held in electronic form? I would assume that the vast majority are now held in electronic form. Perhaps the minister can confirm that.

Hon. C. Taylor: We don't have a specific number, but if you ask what our guess would be, it would be the same as yours. Clearly, the world of securities is moving much more towards the electronic transfer.

B. Ralston: In the definition of securities intermediary, there are a number of persons referred to, including a broker, a banker, a trust company. Aside from banks and trust companies, are brokers provincially regulated?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes.

B. Ralston: Does this definition have any impact upon other provincial securities legislation or regulation?

Hon. C. Taylor: No.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the definition of "issuer" and why this definition has been framed in the way it has been?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm sorry. The definition is written here. What part of it did you have a question about?

B. Ralston: We can begin with definition (b): "with respect to an obligation on or a defence to a security, includes…." Then there's a number of subdefinitions or subparagraphs. Can the minister explain what that means?

Hon. C. Taylor: The definition of issuer specifically applies to the directly held securities only, and with respect to a registration of transfer of a security refers to a person who maintains the transfer books.

B. Ralston: Is that the same definition that appears in the United States revised

article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code, sometimes known as rev 8?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's very similar, but not identical.

B. Ralston: What significance, if any, is there to the differences that are represented in the drafting of this definition?

Hon. C. Taylor: We don't have their particular definition in front of us today.

B. Ralston: I had understood, perhaps incorrectly — and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — that one of the objectives of the Uniform Securities Transfer Act, which this act is following in an attempt to harmonize the similar legislation in other provinces and in the American states, is to replicate those

definitions for ease of interjurisdictional business.

It would seem to me that if you have a different definition, however insignificant the differences may appear, there may be some legal significance to those that would appear to defeat the harmonizing effect of the legislation. So I'm troubled by the fact that the minister can't answer that question.

Hon. C. Taylor: These

definitions are harmonized across Canada, but because we have different drafting conventions between the United States and Canada, you will see slight variations.

B. Ralston: Then can I take it that this definition of issuer is identical to the one that appears in the same statute in Ontario?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes.

[1455]

B. Ralston: Turning to the definition of "purchase." There's a very lengthy definition of purchase. A similar question. Is that the same definition that appears in the Ontario legislation and, secondly, that appears in the so-called rev 8 American legislation?

Hon. C. Taylor: Rather than talk about whether every comma is exactly the same, I think we should return to basic principles. This was a cross-government effort across the country to make sure that we harmonized the legislation that we were all introducing. Not that every word would be exactly the same, but in function it would be harmonized. It would be harmonized and work with the United States and international standards as well. In terms of whether every single word is the same, I could not give you that guarantee.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate the enunciation of the general principle. I suppose my concern is legal

interpretation. Lawyers and courts thrive on different phrasings of the same similar concept. So I'm concerned that in this effort to harmonize where the wording is not identical and the differences are not explained, the purpose of the legislation may be defeated or at least clouded by an ambiguous comparison of

definitions across the jurisdictions that this legislation is designed to span.

Hon. C. Taylor: Our drafters and those across Canada worked very hard to harmonize this act so that it would work across the country and work with the United States as well. Our legal advice is that it is harmonized.

B. Ralston: I understand that the Uniform Securities Transfer Act, which this bill is based on, was developed by the Task Force to Modernize Securities Legislation in Canada. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: This came under the Canadian administrators' task force.

B. Ralston: I think we're referring to the same thing — the Canadian securities administrators, a forum of the 13 securities regulators. Is that the same body?

[ Page 6541 ]

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it is.

B. Ralston: Has a form of this act been passed in Ontario already, or is it only being considered prospectively? A similar question with respect to Alberta: has a form of this act been passed in Alberta, or is it only considered prospectively?

Hon. C. Taylor: In the two provinces cited, Ontario and Alberta, they have been passed and are in effect as of January 1, 2007.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

B. Ralston: This

section refers to what's called the "obligation of good faith." There's a definition given to what's called "good faith." It reads: "means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing."

[1500]

What measures, what legislation or what case law would be looked at to determine the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in interpreting this section?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm certainly not a lawyer, and it's not our job to interpret case law, but these double

definitions were put in to make sure it meets the double standard of not only honesty but also the reasonable commercial business expectations of the day.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that the minister may not be a lawyer, but that shouldn't be an impediment to offering an

interpretation or the intended

interpretation of the section.

Is this

section based on the Uniform Securities Transfer Act? Did it flow from the task force? Is it represented in other commercial statutes in the province? Is it followed in the Alberta legislation? Is it followed in the Ontario legislation?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes.

B. Ralston: So we're clear, because that was a number of questions all together…. It is followed in both Alberta and Ontario, and it's also modelled on the Uniform Securities Transfer Act. I want to confirm that that's a yes to all of those three.

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

B. Ralston: In

section 5 there is a reference in (2): "The obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness and care imposed by this Act may not be disclaimed by agreement, but the parties may by agreement determine the standards by which the performance of such obligations is to be measured so long as such standards are not manifestly unreasonable."

Is that an ability to contract out of

section 4(2) the "reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing" or not?

Hon. C. Taylor: No, it's not.

B. Ralston: If it's not, then what's the intention of

section 5(2)? My reading of it would be, certainly at first blush, that it offers that possibility. I'm wondering if the minister could clarify.

Hon. C. Taylor: Actually, the warranty provisions of this act apply unless otherwise agreed, and the parties can enter into express agreements to allocate the risks of possible defects.

B. Ralston: Allocating risk is one thing, but derogating from reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing may be another. I suppose I'm concerned that this appears to open the way, by agreement, to circumvent

section 4. I'm not clear why that

interpretation or that possibility of an

interpretation that I'm offering is incorrect.

Hon. C. Taylor: The intent of this is that two parties could agree to the definition of good faith, as long as it's not unreasonable.

B. Ralston: The wording of

section 5(2), though, seems to suggest that it's not limited to good faith, because the words are: "…good faith, diligence, reasonableness and care imposed by this Act may not be disclaimed by the agreement."

One possible conclusion would be that the reasonableness and care imposed by this act refers to

section 4(2) and, in fact, the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.

Again, I'm concerned by the explanation that's offered, and I wonder if there's further clarification available.

[1505]

Hon. C. Taylor: The intent of this piece of legislation is just to codify what's already happening. It's not intended to do anything new or different. It's just to give legal basis to the practices that are currently out there. The parties may agree on the standards by which the performance of the obligations of good faith, diligence and so on may be measured, but they have to be reasonable.

B. Ralston: Well, I suppose the concern by some might be that within this particular industry, if it's seeking to codify present practice, it may not be codifying practice of the highest standard. Certainly that's been an ongoing concern of many observers of this particular industry. I would take it that wasn't the intention, but perhaps we should just confirm that the legislation seeks to codify best practice or something other than, necessarily, what's acceptable in some parts of the industry.

[ Page 6542 ]

Hon. C. Taylor: We have relied, in developing this, on some of the best minds in this industry across the country, and it's done interprovincially so that we are all using a similar approach and similar words. So we have been assured that this is the best way to codify what is currently happening and in fact give protection to what's happening, because there will now be a legal basis for the transfer of securities even if you don't have that piece of paper in your hand.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

B. Ralston: This

section defines mutual fund security. Can the minister advise for what purpose these

definitions are included? Then I have some following questions about how that might affect, if at all, mutual funds that individuals might presently hold.

Hon. C. Taylor: All of the drafters who worked on this across the country put this in because there was a thought that perhaps some people would not think about mutual funds as a security, so it was put in for clarification.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that, and that's obviously quite a common way that many individuals participate and maybe the only participation they have in stock markets or the holding of securities. What effect, if any, would this have on the transfer process or the purchase process for a private individual purchasing mutual funds from a bank or credit union in British Columbia today?

Hon. C. Taylor: It doesn't change anything. It just gives the legal backing for current practices.

[1510]

B. Ralston: The mutual fund industry is obviously a huge industry carried on by a number of independent mutual funds, banks and credit unions across the country. Would most of those securities be held in electronic form, attributing ownership to individual holders of fractions of the relevant mutual funds that they've purchased?

Hon. C. Taylor: I couldn't say for sure, but our assumption is that most would be held electronically.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister could advise. I assume that this would be part of the task force to modernize security legislation in Canada and the Canadian Securities Administrators. Were representations by the mutual fund industry incorporated as part of this process? I would assume so, but I really just want to confirm that that's the case.

Hon. C. Taylor: There were no delegations or presentations made to us on this, but I could only assume that there was broad consultation at the level of the task force at the national level. There was certainly broad support for what is being done here, because they didn't see it as changes. They saw it as giving the necessary legal support for current practices and recognizing that, really, so many securities are just not held with certificates these days. It's done electronically.

B. Ralston: I appreciate this may venture into an area which the minister is not responsible for, so if she could please indicate, that would be acceptable.

It would appear that there's a growing national movement, which this task force would be part of, to regulate securities nationally as opposed to by individual provincial securities commissions. The Minister of Finance, in the budget speech he made just recently, said that he expected some progress in the area. I understand the appropriate minister in Alberta has taken a position that the province of Alberta is prepared to consider a national securities regulator.

What is the position of British Columbia with respect to a national securities regulator?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is the file of the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Taylor: This

section is clarifying that the term "security" does include the interest offered to the public by open-end mutual funds. This clarification is necessary given the fact that a typical transaction in shares or units of an open-ended mutual fund is an issuance or a redemption rather than a transfer of shares from one person to another, as is the case with normal corporate stock.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

B. Ralston: This refers to an interest in a partnership or a limited liability company. As the minister will know, in a separate piece of legislation that we expect to deal with in committee stage sometime soon, there's reference to what's called an unlimited liability company.

[1515]

This

section expressly excludes that. Is there any particular reason why that is excluded from this particular section, or is it not contemplated at any point in the future to include it in this section?

Hon. C. Taylor: These are the exceptions: the partnership and limited liability. The unlimited liability, in fact, would be included under this bill.

B. Ralston: Just so we're clear, then — and this may assist in the debate of the subsequent legislation — an interest in an unlimited liability company is a security?

[ Page 6543 ]

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it is.

Sections 12 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

B. Ralston: This division of the bill, division 3, refers to notice of adverse claims. Can the minister set out what an adverse claim is, how that might come about and what the relevance and the necessity to include that in the legislation is?

Hon. C. Taylor: Adverse claim is an assertion that the claimant has a property interest in a financial asset and that it is a violation of the rights of the claimant for another person to hold, transfer or deal with the financial asset.

B. Ralston: In the ordinary course of business or in accordance with what's called "reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing," how would a notice of adverse claim be transmitted or given?

Hon. C. Taylor: The person with the claim would give notice to the issuer.

B. Ralston: How does this

section or this division change, if at all, what is reasonable commercial practice in the sense that…? Is there now an ability to give notice electronically? Is there an ability to give notice interjurisdictionally, or does it merely codify existing practice?

Hon. C. Taylor: It codifies current practice.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

B. Ralston: This

section refers to "a purchaser of a certificated security." What would be the mechanism for giving notice of an adverse claim to an uncertificated security?

Hon. C. Taylor: If it were an uncertificated security, you would just give it directly to the issuer.

[1520]

B. Ralston: Is that, then, what's called a bearer certificate? Ownership is determined by simply having the certificate in one's hand or not?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm sorry; we don't really understand your question exactly. If you don't mind repeating it, please.

B. Ralston: Well, I had understood — and correct me if I'm incorrect — that there is a form of share certificate which is a physical piece of paper, and sometimes it's referred to as a bearer certificate. In other words, there is no registration of the ownership other than the fact that the owner has the certificate, and that determines their title to it. I'm interested in whether that's a correct

interpretation or whether that is a way in which, under this legislation, securities could be held. If it is so, I have some other questions that would follow.

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it is still one of the options. You could have a bearer certificate.

B. Ralston: Given that there are a number of instances of new legislation and the federal agency that's set up — the Fintrac agency, which tracks money laundering and the proceeds of crime — I'm wondering if this ability to still issue bearer certificates is of concern to those agencies that would attempt to monitor unauthorized and illicit movement of funds in particular in that form. It would seem that if the company can issue a bearer certificate, the control of those assets, then, is highly mobile throughout the world.

Hon. C. Taylor: We're not aware of any specific concerns about the issue that the member opposite has raised. But in any case, that's not what this piece of legislation is about. This is just codifying what's already there. If there were ever to be changes in terms of bearer certificates, that would come under a different act.

B. Ralston: Well, then, just for my edification and perhaps those members of the public who have an interest in these matters, what act would have to be modified in order to eliminate the legal issuance of bearer certificates in this province?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's the Business Corporations Act that talks about the kinds of shares that can be issued.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

[1525]

B. Ralston: Just so that we're clear, then, this is designed to codify purchasers…. It is described as "Purchaser's Control of Uncertificated Security." How would that come about? Is this the electronic means of keeping track of a purchase, or is it some other physical method of holding security certificates?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is talking about direct electronic securities.

B. Ralston: So that I can be sure I understand it, then, this is the entitlement of a purchaser to an interest in a security where the records are held electronically through the CDS network. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: This has nothing to do with CDS.

B. Ralston: Then what process is being referred to here? Just so that I understand, there's a subsequent

section that refers to the purchaser's control of security

[ Page 6544 ]

entitlement. I'm seeking to explore the difference between the two. They both refer to purchaser's control. I take it they're different forms of recording purchaser's entitlement or legal interest in a security. I'm not clear on the distinction that's being drawn between these two sections. Perhaps the minister could help me understand the difference between these two sections.

Hon. C. Taylor: Madam Chair, could you please identify the second

section you're referring to?

B. Ralston:

Section 24 says the "Purchaser's Control of an Uncertificated Security." The subsequent section,

section 25, refers to the purchaser's control of security entitlement. That would suggest to me there's two different ways of recording a purchaser's interest in a security, depending on how that interest is held or recorded — whether it's recorded electronically or whether it's held in a paper certificate. Perhaps the minister can lead me through that and clarify that this is the distinction that these two sections are seeking to draw.

Hon. C. Taylor: If I can try to clarify this, in

section 24 it's an individual who has a direct share in a company. In

section 25 it's a person who has an entitlement to a share held by an intermediary.

B. Ralston:

Section 24(2) makes reference to some changes that the registered owner can make. It says: "(

a) to make substitutions for the uncertificated security, (

b) to originate instructions to the issuer, or (

c) to otherwise deal with the uncertificated security." What commercial practice is this seeking to codify?

[1530]

Hon. C. Taylor: The key concept of control is that the purchaser has the ability to have the securities sold or transferred without further action by the transferor. But there is no requirement that the powers held by the purchaser be exclusive.

B. Ralston: The subsection refers to the registered owner. My understanding is that the registered owner would be, perhaps…. For example, the brokerage house would be the registered owner. The purchaser would have an interest in the security, although the actual title was registered with the brokerage house in an account. Does this seek, then, to empower the practice of the brokerage firm — to give these powers, under section (2), to the brokerage house as the registered owner of the security?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm assuming we're still on 24, and this doesn't have anything to do with brokers.

B. Ralston: Obviously, one would assume there's a purpose to the section, so what current commercial practice is this seeking to codify?

Hon. C. Taylor: The business practices this

section is trying to codify are that even though you don't actually have the share, you are still registered, you have the rights, and it follows the rules of transfer and transactions.

B. Ralston: Again, correct me if I'm wrong. The wording of this

section appears to draw a distinction between the purchaser and the registered owner. I can understand the response where the purchaser then becomes the registered owner, but this

section seems to draw a distinction between the purchaser and the registered owner. Am I correct in that

interpretation or not?

Hon. C. Taylor: This really is intended to cover the time delay between when a purchaser's name is on the certificate and just before that transaction happens.

[1535]

B. Ralston: Again, I'll make reference back to the purpose, which is to codify current commercial practice. What would be the time delay that this

section is seeking to bridge ordinarily?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's as simple as trying to codify that there is a time delay between my actually purchasing a share, which is registered in somebody else's name, until that change is made.

B. Ralston: I'm wondering: what would the ordinary passage of time be for this to come about? I understand that the transfer of ownership would take place electronically, and that would be almost instantaneous. I'm wondering if that indeed is current commercial practice or not.

Hon. C. Taylor: We were simply advised by those in the industry and those guiding us across the country that this was a good protection to put in.

B. Ralston: I suppose the question arises: whose interest is being protected — the purchaser's interest, the interest of the issuer or the interest of the brokerage house or other intermediaries? Whose interest is being protected?

Hon. C. Taylor: This protects both sides. This really is codifying what already happens and just ensures that everyone's rights are protected during the transaction.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the difference between a registered owner referred to in

section 24 and an entitlement holder referred to in

section 25? What's the difference in the nature of the legal interest?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's the same explanation that I just gave, which is that in

section 24 it's an individual who

[ Page 6545 ]

holds a share directly in a company. In

section 25 it's an individual who has an entitlement to a share that's held by an intermediary.

Hon. C. Taylor: This could be, for instance, a broker or a clearing agency.

B. Ralston: In

section 26, which is obviously the next section, it refers to security intermediary. Are there any other parties that would meet the definition of a holder of an entitlement?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm not sure if you've jumped to

section 26 or whether you're still on 25.

[1540]

B. Ralston: Well, I was being murmured to by the House Leader, so perhaps I should rephrase my question. An entitlement holder is referred to in

section 25. I'm wondering whether there is any agency other than a securities intermediary that would be entitled to deal with a purchaser and confer upon him that designation of an entitlement holder. Is that the only agency in the securities arena that would be described as the keeper of an entitlement?

Hon. C. Taylor: The entitlement holder is the person who holds the share through an intermediary.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

B. Ralston:

Section 26 refers to a securities intermediary. In the

definitions section,

section 1, there's a definition that refers to a clearing agency or person, and so on. I take it from that definition, which is fairly expansive, that no one else would be in a position where an entitlement holder could grant to them the control of the security entitlement.

Hon. C. Taylor: It says in the definition, as you've identified, that the securities intermediary could be "(

a) a clearing agency, or (

b) a person, including a broker, bank or trust company, who, in the ordinary course of the person's business, maintains securities accounts for others and is acting in that capacity."

Sections 26 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

B. Ralston: This is the beginning of a division relating to "Warranties applicable to direct holdings." Can the minister explain what a "warranty" in this particular act means, and what's the purpose of it?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is an implied warranty that a person gives to a purchaser. This is traditional across Canada.

Hon. C. Taylor: I think it lays out pretty clearly what these warranties would be. But it's basically that it's genuine; that it hasn't been altered; that the transferor does not know of any fact that might impair the validity of the security; that there's no adverse claim; that it doesn't violate any restriction on transfer; that if the transfer is by endorsement, the endorsement is made by the appropriate person; and finally that the transfer is otherwise effective and rightful. It's just trying to ensure that this is a proper transaction.

Sections 33 to 39 inclusive approved.

[1545]

section 40.

B. Ralston: The reference in

section 40 is to brokers. This is a provincially regulated industry, I take it. Are these warranties any change in ordinary commercial practice, or do they merely codify existing commercial practice?

Hon. C. Taylor: No change, Madam Chair.

Sections 40 to 43 inclusive approved.

section 44.

B. Ralston: The "Conflict of laws" division that's referred to here prescribes, I take it, the relevant law that would be used to settle a dispute, should one arise in the operation of this act. Just to confirm, then, this is a product of the Uniform Securities Transfer Act and is the same

section that would appear in the Ontario act and in the Alberta act. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it is.

Section 44 approved.

section 45.

B. Ralston: The law that is referred to here is the law of the securities intermediary's jurisdiction. In the case of provincially regulated brokers and credit unions, would this

section apply to those commercial actors?

Hon. C. Taylor: If we understand your question correctly, as long as they are involved in securities, this is the law that would apply to the transfer of securities.

B. Ralston: For example, if a purchaser had a dispute with a brokerage house where litigation was con-

[ Page 6546 ]

templated and the brokerage house had its headquarters here, would the law of British Columbia then apply to the dispute?

Hon. C. Taylor: No, it would depend on what the contract between the parties said.

B. Ralston: Does the legislation contemplate that the jurisdiction of the courts of British Columbia could be ousted by agreement, even if the securities intermediary is a registered company and carries on its business in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Taylor: Again, it depends on the nature of the contract between the two parties.

[1550]

B. Ralston: Perhaps just to better understand this, then. If there's a brokerage firm here and an individual purchaser has a dispute that falls within the jurisdiction of this act, is the minister saying that by the standard contract that the purchaser might sign, jurisdiction to resolve the dispute could be agreed, by the words of the contract, to be the law of Ontario, for example, and that that would require the person seeking a resolution of the dispute to engage lawyers in Ontario to solve the problem?

Hon. C. Taylor: It depends how the contract is worded. The contract, of course, is presumably signed before there's any dispute or any problem.

Once again, I'll say that I think it's important to ask the detailed legal questions, but this is codifying current behaviour. It is giving protection to a system of electronic transfer of shares which is happening without the legal background. It is based on work done nationally by the task force that the member opposite identified.

Every province is doing the same thing. Alberta and Ontario already have theirs into law as of January 1, and other provinces are following. So this is a harmonizing of the Securities Transfer Act across the country. It's an important piece of work, and it is based on a model that we're all following.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that the minister may be slightly impatient with the questions of individual sections. However, there's an obligation, I think, on the part of the opposition to scrutinize legislation. Since members opposite, or at least staff employed by members opposite, have expressed some concern about the scrutiny that some legislation is getting, I think it appropriate that I continue in this vein.

My question is: would a standard agreement that might require a potential litigant — someone with a dispute with a firm — to engage a lawyer in Ontario comply with the reference in

section 4 to "reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing"?

Hon. C. Taylor: The same answer as I've given twice previously. It depends on the contract that's signed initially, and it covers the matters that you see in

section 45(1).

B. Ralston: Turning to

section 45(2), the subsection of the same

section refers to a number of instances where jurisdiction is decided. One method is by agreement, subsection (2)(a). But (2)(

b) then refers to the law of the particular jurisdiction, and then it goes on in (

c) to give other alternatives which would decide jurisdiction.

Is that a standard commercial practice, and does that codify the standard commercial practice that this statute, we're told, purports to?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes.

Sections 45 to 52 inclusive approved.

section 53.

[1555]

B. Ralston: I'm just wondering whether this particular

section of the act complies or is in accordance with the Evidence Act of British Columbia, or is this a unique codification of commercial practice? Is it consistent with it?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's based on commercial practice.

Sections 53 to 55 inclusive approved.

section 56.

B. Ralston: Can the minister give some examples of terms of a certificated security that are being referred to in this section?

Hon. C. Taylor: The terms might include redemption rights and voting rights, for example.

Sections 56 to 70 inclusive approved.

section 71.

B. Ralston: This

section refers to forms of endorsement. The division is entitled "Endorsements and instructions." Can the minister give an example of an endorsement and explain what the purpose of an endorsement might be?

Hon. C. Taylor: An endorsement is your signature.

B. Ralston: The subsection refers to "an endorsement in blank to a special endorsement." Can the minister explain the distinction that's referred to in

section 71(4)?

Hon. C. Taylor: An endorsement can be in blank — signed by the transferor and left blank or specifying "to bearer" — or a special endorsement signed by the transferor and specifying to whom it is to be trans-

[ Page 6547 ]

ferred. A holder may change an endorsement in blank to a special endorsement.

B. Ralston: Forgive the question in this sense. I had understood that the purpose of this act was to regulate or normalize what was ordinary commercial practice, which would be largely electronic transfer. The use of a signature endorsement seems to be somewhat archaic.

Is this designed to simply preserve that option as a way of issuing certificates, or is there some other purpose for it?

Hon. C. Taylor: As we said earlier, this is intended to cover all the practices out there. Not everything is electronic yet, so this also is the piece of legislation that would cover regular certificates and endorsements.

[1600]

Sections 71 to 94 inclusive approved.

section 95.

B. Ralston: This

section refers to the "acquisition of security entitlement," and there are a number of methods by which a person acquires security entitlement. The reference here in

section 95(1)(

a) is to a "book entry. " Is that intended or meant to be an electronic entry?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it is.

Sections 95 to 112 inclusive approved.

section 113.

B. Ralston: This refers to the Personal Property Security Act. I take it that these are consequential amendments that adopt the same definition that's set out in the Securities Transfer Act that we're dealing with. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it is.

Sections 113 to 139 inclusive approved.

section 140.

[1605]

B. Ralston: This gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the opportunity to bring the act into force. Can the minister advise: assuming that this bill is going to be passed — and I think it's imminent — what's the likely date that the act will come into force?

Hon. C. Taylor: We are hoping by summer or early fall.

B. Ralston: Is that designed to coincide with the coming into force of similar legislation in any other province, or is that simply the province's own time line for bringing it into force?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is our own time line. Alberta and Ontario are already in force.

B. Ralston: What has to be done in order to proclaim the legislation in force?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is just, out of an abundance of caution, trying to make sure that we consult with everyone and that everyone understands what the words are and what they mean and how it will work before it's in force.

B. Ralston: I had understood that the industry was eagerly awaiting this, so I'm surprised to hear that further consultation will be necessary. Does the minister expect that there might be a necessity for amendments?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's really about education, not amendments. It's just to give everyone time to absorb it.

Section 140 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:08 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SECURITIES TRANSFER ACT

Bill 9, Securities Transfer Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued committee stage debate of Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

[1610]

Committee of the Whole House

COMMUNITY SERVICES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 4:11 p.m.

On the amendment to

section 15 (continued) .

N. Macdonald: I rise to continue my comments on our amendment to

section 15 of Bill 11. The amendment adds the need for the board of the regional district to approve the creation of a resort region. The amendment comes as a result of a deep conviction this

[ Page 6548 ]

side has that local government is best able to deal with land use issues.

The Columbia Kootenay is well removed physically and in many ways culturally from the capital as well as from the lower mainland. Good decisions come from institutions that are closer to the people that understand exactly where these areas are, who understand the impacts of developments and have to live with them, frankly.

This government has moved consistently to pull decision-making away from the rural areas. You see that with the end to appurtenance, but you see it with local government with the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, which still sits there as

an act that can override anything that local government decides to do. And you have

section 56 of Bill 30, which removed regional districts from decision on the independent power projects despite the fact that ministers signed a serious affidavit — well, they signed a solemn promise — to the UBCM that they would not do that. But they chose to instead.

The further that you move from…

Interjections.

The Chair: Order.

N. Macdonald: …local government to this level of government, the further you get from the truth. I'll give you an example. The minister put out a press release saying: "The NDP's" — my name — "votes against new revenue for local municipalities." Hey, that came out yesterday.

So far, what have we voted on? We voted on: a resort region means a resort region designated under

section 6.8. That's a bit of a stretch. We can maybe let Matthew MacInnis…. Whoever is up there writing these press releases needs to wait and just see what unfolds. They can't make it up ahead of time. He talks about a conspiracy theory that we're working on here, and we will see if it is a conspiracy theory or if it's actually accurate.

I spent six year in Africa. Governments there intimidated a certain way. Here we've got press releases turned out by 200 people who spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to produce these press releases.

I just want to say that the least we can do is make sure that my name is spelled properly. So I will pass

that alongthe primar in terms of accuracy. The simplest thing to do is to get my name spelled properly. Of that press release, the only thing that offends me is that fact that is there. I will write it down and pass it across to the minister, and she can make sure that when she gets these press releases put together, she gets at least that

part correct, and then we can move from there.

I find this bill problematic, and I've said it again and again. I've asked this minister. She talks about a conspiracy theory. I have asked ten times one simple question that needs either a yes or a no. For a government that in 2001 came in claiming that it was going to be the most open and the most accountable, you cannot even get a yes or a no.

Will the regional district be making the final decision on Jumbo Glacier Resort? That's the question that's been put in front of this minister and this government again and again, and you get no answer. How is that to be interpreted as anything other than devious and sly? So there is a need to be open and clear with that question. From the beginning we would have been able to settle much of this if a commitment that was made was going to be kept.

[1615]

The Chair: Member, I'd like to remind you to be very, very careful about your language.

N. Macdonald: I apologize.

As we move with this amendment, it is my intention of course to encourage people to vote for it. Without this change,

section 15 in my view is unsupportable. Once we have moved through there, we will turn to

section 16 and examine in detail what

section 16 has to offer.

With that, I turn it over to my colleague from Cariboo South.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the proposed amendment and to give a rationale behind the need for this proposed amendment, in my judgment. Before I do that, I would like to acknowledge the diligent work that was done on both sides of the House yesterday.

I was able to watch it late in the evening on reruns, and it was obvious that the amount of work and effort put into the discussion around

section 14 leading into the proposed amendment was given much banter back and forth between both sides of the House. I mention that before I begin to give a reasoned, thought-out need for this particular amendment simply so that my hon. colleague is aware that I attempted to stay in touch with the legislation that is in front of us here today.

It's a very good bill overall. However, what we have in front of us, which came out of the discussion around a definition of the resort regions, was a lack of clear understanding of what those regions may be in actual fact when we're finished with the legislation here in the House.

That's a very important principle that needs to be remembered in our discussion. Our responsibility here in the House is to put the legislation into play and then turn it over into practice. Right now the proposed amendment that is in front of us for

section 15 removes that ambiguity of the possibility of shopping around to come up with actual examples of resort regions.

We had in the debate yesterday around the definition, if my understanding is correct, that you could have a multiplicity of people, regions and communities bringing forward a request to be considered a resort region. They could be from a wide variety of areas around the province. They would presently qualify under the act as it now stands.

[ Page 6549 ]

What the proposed amendment does is remove, in our judgment, the ambiguity that presently exists. In essence, it simply moves ahead and takes from

section 18 the same type of wording and puts it into

section 15 so that it is clearly understood that local government, called the regional district, has a say directly in the formation of a resort region. It has a say in the application of the definition that will go in front of cabinet.

In the process, it is important for us to remember that amongst the 79 of us here, there never is any assurance where the elected representatives will come from tomorrow or where they will sit in this House. They can sit on different sides of the House. That is a fact that is self-evident, but it's also possibly been overlooked that this decision, as it now sits, would pass to the cabinet.

[1620]

In that particular set of circumstances, there are no assurances that the cabinet minister is from the region of the province that we're talking about. There are no assurances in the legislation that there is a conduit for the feelings of those regions to be heard in the closed rooms where these decisions are going to be made in the future. That is the situation as we understand it on this side of the House.

The proposed amendment is here in the spirit as is contained in

section 18 in the legislation, a

section of this legislation that is most supportable. It takes that same principle that is contained here, removes the ambiguity with the amendment and puts it into play.

In the discussion around the definition of

section 14, it reinforced the concerns of residents that exist here in British Columbia whether in actual fact, inadvertently or in any other fashion, their possibility of having say into the formation of these regions will be lost. There is a record that exists by members opposite, who are on record on behalf of the government, to clearly state that no, that principle should not be lost. I will come back and give some examples of that very shortly in support of this particular amendment being passed.

More importantly, this House passed the Community Charter in 2004. The principle of the Community Charter is based upon a principle. Paraphrasing, it says that the two levels of government — the senior level, the provincial government, and the local level of government — will have respect for each other and that they will not override legislation one over the other. Legislation passed here in this House sets up that principle.

The last time I looked at the legislation, regional districts are by definition a form of local government. In my briefing, I was advised that somewhere, in the future but definitely within the intention, the government intends to extend the principles of the Community Charter around regional districts.

However, the point here is that we're in the now, which makes this proposed amendment even more important. It removes that ambiguity so that as the government gets time and comes around and extends the Community Charter to this other level of local government, the ambiguity is now removed with the passing of this amendment.

Returning to some principles that are in the nature of speaking on behalf of these principles being applied in a part of the province where my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke is from — and, by the way, where many of the local elected representatives from that area have voiced their concerns to me, as the critic, around sections 14, 15 and 16…. This proposed amendment is in front of this House to remove the angst that exists at the local government area. It removes it by having it put into play.

[1625]

As has been discussed, we are talking specifically about an example that has been in the front of discussions for over 15 years, the Jumbo Glacier Resort. "For more than 16 years" — and I quote now the member for East Kootenay — "the Jumbo resort proposal has been a major source of discussion in our area. It's a project that has been subjected to the most comprehensive environmental review in British Columbia's history, it is consistent with the resort development that was identified in the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan, and it is time for a decision to be made."

When we go back and look at the other two legs on the stool that makes up that particular statement, once more from the member for East Kootenay: "The government recognized that there are strongly held views surrounding this project."

Pardon me, Madam Speaker. I do wish to apologize through you to all members of the House. My eyes went to the wrong part of what I was reading, and I have ascribed some words incorrectly to the member for East Kootenay, and for that I do apologize. I will very shortly ascribe those words to the correct individual in the House. My apologies to the House. I make that profusely and thank you for accepting that.

Back to the member for East Kootenay. "Government also has to take into account what the people in the region actually want. On this particular project, that's going to be an interesting exercise. It is a bit like putting your finger into your mouth and holding it up to the wind, trying to figure out just exactly where everybody is on that particular project."

Makes sense to me from where I am, but not living in that part of the province, I can only say that I think I understand the thought and the feelings that exist there.

The present Minister of Health, in a different capacity but as a cabinet minister on behalf of the government, made these statements on this particular project: "The government recognizes that there are strongly held views surrounding this project. The final decision will be in the hands of those closest to the project. Those who will benefit most directly and who most directly understand the costs will have the final say here. The project would not be able to proceed without the approval of the East Kootenay regional district."

I would like to repeat that for emphasis: "The project would not be able to proceed without the approval of the East Kootenay regional district."

Madam Speaker, you believe, in your wisdom, that you can understand why this particular amendment is

[ Page 6550 ]

being proposed. It removes the ambiguity of where the regional districts fit in on the definition of the resort region. It removes that ambiguity and clearly has the input and the endorsation in passing on that recommendation through whoever to the minister and to the cabinet.

Having set the tone around the need for this particular amendment and the rationale behind it, it also, through my eyes, is important that this amendment is passed, because it removes a developing feeling amongst regional districts by recently passed legislation that says that regional districts are a second order of local government.

For example, in the last

section of Bill 30,

section 56 removed the input of regional districts on issues of independent power producers and their say on the effect upon local government. You will always have, in my judgment, the conflict on certain issues between what are considered to be provincial overguiding responsibilities versus the interests and the desires of local government.

[1630]

The province, through many, many pieces of legislation, maintains that right to always override, in their wisdom, what they believe are local interests. This amendment, however, removes the possibility of government — whoever they may be — taking the interests of local residents behind closed doors, in secret, without necessarily any input by locally elected individuals at the municipal or the provincial level and in secret making the decisions on behalf of those areas.

This amendment ensures that that will not happen. That is what we believe is the intent of the Community Charter passed by this House. We believe that it is in line with other proposed parts of this bill, whether it be

section 18 or other sections dealing with the Vancouver Charter. It has the bill staying in step with the intent and flavour of ensuring that the interests, when they are in conflict between the two levels of government, will be done fully in the open with the full input of the local levels of government that are affected.

C. Puchmayr: I rise in support of the amendment. No one should take this too lightly, as we head towards this road of secrecy where decisions are no longer made by the public and decisions are made more by an elite group of people in the Premier's office or by the cabinet themselves.

For many years as councillors in New Westminster, we worked very hard to achieve a community charter to work towards getting some of the respect that the Vancouver Charter had, to create some autonomy, to create some ability to have more control over how our communities are developed. I know some of the frustrations with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs through both governments. The frustrations were continually having to apply variances to the old act in order to proceed with certain provisions and certain directions that municipalities wanted to go.

There was a lot of work that went into creating a working relationship, a respectful relationship where both sides more clearly defined what the roles of the senior levels of government were with respect to the roles of the municipal governments. There was a lot of fanfare. I know that the work began under the previous government, under the NDP.

The end result of a document that was also endorsed by the members from the other side was a document that really created, for the first time in many years, a clear vision of where the roles between senior levels of government and municipalities should lie. It eliminated many variances that used to have to be signed off on a daily basis by the Municipal Affairs ministry in order to proceed with the daily functions of the community.

In the new charter, it starts off by saying that municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within jurisdiction that is democratically elected; is autonomous, responsible and accountable; is established by the will of the residents of their communities; and provides for the municipal services of their communities.

Citizens of B.C. are best served under this relationship. It's true. This is a relationship that establishes some growth patterns. It establishes the direction your community wants to go. It establishes what amenities are required in your community. To take the direction that this government is now taking, by removing the ability for a municipality to actually have the final say on this type of initiative, is very alarming.

I think the people of British Columbia need to understand the impacts that may have. I'll give you just one impact. If you look at some of the areas that are experiencing problems with water, with the water crisis, where a certain development will not be sustainable through the aquifers and the reservoirs and the water that is remaining….

[1635]

Let's talk about mountainous areas or areas that use a lot of water in the summer, for instance. This development could go in, and of course the regional district or the municipality would express concerns using those arguments. But the final say of that decision will not be made by those most greatly affected. They are the citizens that live there year-round.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

A lot of the tourist venues we have in British Columbia are seasonal. Some are seasonal summer; some are seasonal winter. Of course, this beautiful province also has tourist opportunities year-round. But having the impacts on those very seasonal areas, where the greatest demand could be on a resource that is not sustainable for the rest of the community, has some very serious impacts on the affordability of your community, on the value of the residences in your community. The value of your very home could be in jeopardy because of the adverse impact this resort would have on the long term.

The decision-making process would be as simple as a sign-off by an order-in-council by the Premier's office.

[ Page 6551 ]

A simple sign-off could create havoc on investments of people that decided they wanted to live in an area, invest in an area and have their children go to school in that area. That could be in jeopardy simply because there is no ability for them to stand up and say that this does not work in our community.

That's frightening. That is frightening that we are heading towards a type of zoning, a type of amendment that would actually create very significant financial impacts on people who have chosen to live there and have lived there for many years.

We have to remember the goodwill that was in the Community Charter when it was developed. That goodwill can't just be re-legislated because somebody has attempted to bring a proposal forward, or has gone to the regional district or to the municipality and has had their proposals rejected, or has not come to the table with an adequate accommodation for that proposal or a mitigation for that proposal, or hasn't taken into account the serious impacts of the community.

Because a developer is not able to come to the table with a district or with the citizens of an area and make a compromise to create that investment in that area…. Because they're not able to do that shouldn't allow them now to come to this place here, in Victoria, and meet in an office somewhere — outside of the scrutiny of anybody — in what is supposed to be the most open and transparent government in the history of British Columbia.

I'm afraid I don't buy into that. That is not grass-roots democracy. That's not how this province was built. This province was built with the grass-roots local autonomy first, with some dusted-off rules from Great Britain. Here's a template. Get the people in your community, elect a mayor, elect a council, and start to grow and build your community. But they built the community to fit their needs — their economic needs. They didn't build a community against their own basic economic needs, and that's what sustainable development and sustainable growth are.

For instance, if this resort wanted to come in — and they've already attempted it three or four times — they would come to the table again and say: "Look, we really want to do this, but there is a significant impact. I know you're experiencing an impact, so here's what we propose." They try to partner up with the community. If they succeed, then there's a say.

The people elect their local officials, and if the people aren't satisfied with their local officials for the decisions they make — we see it over and over again — they're gone, next election. Or there is such an outcry at a public process, which is now a mandatory process for any such development, where people can come there and speak. They can speak for as long as they want and for as many days as they want. They can speak passionately for or against a specific proposal. At the end of the day, there has to be a vote on that proposal.

[1640]

That's all gone, and it scares me. I know that members on the other side applauded Bill 30,

section 56. They applauded it. They're applauding taking away local autonomy on growth in your community. They are applauding.

You've got the Minister of Environment who says that he will sacrifice local autonomy. For what? For his own wishes? So that they can sell power at elevated prices for a period of, I think, 30 or 40 years. Then that power becomes a commodity that can be traded anywhere. So at the end of these contracts, we could be in the biggest power crisis in this province that we have ever experienced, and we would still have, in some cases possibly, some unsightly developments or coal-fired generators going that are just unacceptable in the community. He applauds that.

I'm sure I can get applause from the other side when I talk about the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement. You know, here is something that should come to the House, that should get debated, that should go through a process where we have an ability to ask questions, to analyze it in committee stage, and it's being done behind closed doors.

That, my friends, is an alarming trend. That is not open. That is not transparent. That is what we are up against, and that's why I support this amendment. I support it strongly because what it is saying now is: "Okay, if that's not your intention, if your intention isn't already precast, then here is a relief valve." Here is something that is an amendment to this that says: "There will be a final say by the community." My friends, that is what it's all about.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to this matter. I do believe that the amendment makes sense. The amendment is sound, as my colleagues who spoke before me have said. This makes the process more open. It makes the process more transparent. For those people who have been involved around local government and have looked at the experience of local government, they'll also know that it often makes the planning more sound and more complete as well.

What we know about the planning process in general…. I know that much of my experience before coming to this place revolved around local government and local government processes. Much of it revolved around land use issues in local communities and how those decisions got made — mostly by municipal councils, sometimes by regional districts. They tended to be the political, governing bodies that drove those processes.

There always was a process of public hearing. There always was a process that went on of dialogue with those elected officials. There always was a process where staff who were working for those municipalities and regional districts engaged directly with citizens who had concerns, who had issues, and tried to sort those issues through. There were substantive discussions around finding solutions that still allowed processes government wanted to proceed with to go ahead but that met the needs of communities, that addressed the needs of communities, that looked at those communities and tried to find solutions in a positive way.

[ Page 6552 ]

It didn't always happen. Sometimes decisions made people unhappy, but in most cases, the process was substantive and efforts were made by all parties to find solutions. We know that when that goes on, citizens also respond in a different way. If citizens believe that they are in a meaningful process, that they are being listened to, that they are being heard and that their contribution is reflected in the final result and they can see that in the final result, then, quite frankly, they are more often there to try to find those solutions.

If they feel like they're being railroaded, if they feel like they're not being heard, if they feel like the decisions are being made by government officials behind closed doors — often with industry interests — and that they're being shut out, then they have no choice but to be as adversarial as they can be to try to protect what interests they have.

[1645]

Frankly, that's not a healthy situation. That's what I believe the current bill does with the wording that it has. What this amendment does is change that. It brings it back to the local level, much more so, and the local level is the place where these decisions are best made, where these processes work best.

One of the things I've learned about this place is that senior governments don't always plan that well. It's not the fault of this government — or any government, necessarily — but government is mighty big. You have these massive ministries, and they often function in silos. We know there are deputy ministers, committees and ADM committees and that, but ministries don't move quickly. They kind of chug along, and they're big. There is a little bit of time periodically between an idea and resolution of that idea — a couple of years here, a couple of years there — and they operate in silos.

I understand why that happens. These are big, big organizations, and big organizations don't communicate as well as smaller organizations. The reality is that at the local government level they have a more holistic and, I think, a more integrated approach to planning. They're able to look at a whole range of issues in a much more complete way than senior levels of government are. Because of that, they're able to apply staff who cross over those areas and staff who actually can work in a more integrated way in planning and dealing with issues that communities have.

My inclination is to think that the smaller, more direct, more front-line, closer-to-the-ground levels of government do a better job of that. I think it has to do with scale of government as much as anything. So I'm very much inclined to try to bring this stuff down to that scale, whether it be a municipality or a regional district.

I think, as my friend from New Westminster said, that those local politicians, if they start doing stuff that doesn't work for their citizens, well, a couple of years down the road, they're gone. Here at our level the reality is that as individual members we can distance ourselves, and governments can distance themselves, from these decisions in ways that don't allow the electorate, politically, to get at the people they want to get at. The minister may have no direct connection to the area where something is being conducted.

The citizens there may be very angry with the minister, and they'd like to be able to reprimand the minister by taking their vote away from him or her. But the reality is they don't get to do that, because the minister represents some other place. And they may not necessarily want to do a deal with the government, but they want to deal with the minister. They can't do that.

They may like their MLA. They may not be happy about the government decision. So they have a conundrum. If you're at the local l