2008 Legislative Session: Fourth 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, MAY 28, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Statements

Prince George firefighters and

Canfor millworkers

C. James

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Brian Greer

Hon. M.

de Jong

Speaker's Statement

Rules for public bills in the

hands of private members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Farm Workers Fairness Act, 2008

(Bill M218)

Puchmayr

Funding Stability for Boards of

Education Act, 2008 (Bill M219)

Cubberley

Accountability Act, 2008 (Bill

M220)

L. Krog

Residential Tenancy Act Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill M221)

J. Kwan

Home Inspection Act, 2008 (Bill

M222)

Thorne

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Urban forest stewardship

initiative

Horgan

West Vancouver Youth Band

McIntyre

Zaklan farm

H. Bains

Gordon Greenwood Elementary

School BumbleBeez

M. Polak

100th anniversary of Queen

Alexandra Elementary School

J. Kwan

911 service in East Kootenays

Bennett

Oral Questions

MRI waiting times in Interior

Health Authority

C. James

Hon. G.

Abbott

A. Dix

Mammography services

Thorne

Hon. G.

Abbott

Tree farm licence land removals

in Interior B.C.

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Government response to tree farm

licence land removals

Fraser

Hon. R.

Coleman

Horgan

Government support for forest

workers

Trevena

Hon. R.

Coleman

Petitions

Fraser

Tabling Documents

B.C. Assessment, annual report,

2007, and audited financial statements for the period ended December

31, 2007

Petitions

J. Horgan

B. Bennett

J. Kwan

Tabling Documents

B.C. Lottery Corporation, letter

from the chair of the board of directors

Petitions

N. Simons

R. Austin

D. Chudnovsky

Tabling Documents

Revised

schedule I, fiscal

year ended March 31, 2008

Statement of 2007-2008 borrowings

Hon. C.

Taylor

Labour Relations Board, annual

report, 2007

Hon. O.

Ilich

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts, first report

Fleming

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 33) (continued)

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Reporting of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 33)

Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 33)

Committee of the Whole House

Social Workers Act (Bill 35)

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Social Workers Act (Bill 35)

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Reporting of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18)

Third Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

Sather

Hon. G.

Abbott

Trevena

Ralston

C. Wyse

Conroy

Gentner

Cubberley

A. Dix

[ Page 13027 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2008

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Statements

PRINCE GEORGE FIREFIGHTERS

AND CANFOR MILLWORKERS

C. James: I'd like to take a moment in this Legislature to

pay tribute to the people of Prince George and the firefighters who battled the

massive blaze that broke out on Monday evening.

The fire — as we know, the largest in Prince George's history —

consumed Canfor's plywood plant. Fire Capt. Mark Hill likened its sound to that

of a jet engine taking off. At one point the fire threatened to surround the

firefighters at the centre of the blaze, but owing to their training, bravery

and skill, everyone escaped unharmed.

As we know, firefighters give of themselves so that we can all be

safe, and their dedication and courage are extraordinary. We must also pledge

our support not only for the firefighters but for the 285 Canfor workers who

lost their jobs and now wonder what the future holds.

The Canfor plywood plant was a bright spot in an industry that's

been hit hard. "It's devastating," said Gord Kay, a 32-year veteran. The Canfor

plant must be rebuilt, and its workers must have a future in Prince George.

In this difficult time I would ask the government to join the

opposition in offering Prince George workers and their families and their

community our help and our full support in this time of need. The fire destroyed

a plant, but it cannot be allowed to destroy the future and the spirit of Prince

George forest workers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Thorpe: It gives me great pleasure today to

introduce a grade 12 student from Summerland Secondary School. KelsieRai

Skoreyko is spending the day touring the Legislature, and I hope the House will

join me in making her feel very welcome.

Also, I'd like the House to welcome my administrative assistant,

Devon Stokes, to the House. Would the House please make both of them very

welcome.

R. Chouhan: Today we have 90 students from my community's

secondary school, Burnaby South Secondary. Thirty of them, I believe, are

sitting in the gallery. With them are four wonderful teachers: Ms. Moore, Mr.

Jackson, Mr. Cividino and Ms. Gonzelis. Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. I. Chong: In the gallery today are a number of people

who work in our Ministry of Community Services. Two in particular are new to our

ministry. I would like to introduce Robin Grantner, who is a third-year

political science student at the University of Victoria. She's working with the

local government–first nation relations program. She's doing research on

aboriginal governance.

Also, we have Ainslie Avery, who is graduating next week from the

University of Victoria and has joined the local government department of

advisory services as a program analyst. Joining them is a more long-term

employee of our ministry, Grace Van den Brink, our program analyst, who is with

the local government–first nation relations program. I hope the House will

please make them all very welcome.

M. Farnworth: Watching from the constituency office today

is my constituency assistant Brad West, who is celebrating his 23rd birthday.

Upon telling me that, he also then proceeded to tell me that he feels old at 23.

I told him that he would get no sympathy from me on that comment, nor any

sympathy from any member of this House. But I did say that I'm sure every member

of this House would wish him a very happy 23rd birthday.

J. Nuraney: I, too, want to welcome the students from

Burnaby Secondary, and I would like the House to please once again offer them

our warm welcome.

D. Routley: Would the House help me welcome my CAs Leanne

Baird and Debra Toporowski and also Patty McNamara and her daughter Athena

Maurer, who have brought along the youngest visitor I've ever had the honour of

greeting in this House, young Linden Maurer, Athena's son. He's two months old.

A special welcome not only to that young man but to someone who I

consider very dear, Betty Iverson. She's a volunteer in our office, and she

cycles across town to volunteer and help the people of the Cowichan Valley every

day. I really appreciate all the service that she gives to our community, so

please help me thank her.

[1340]

R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today is Robin Steudel,

who is an active student at Simon Fraser University where she serves on the

student society board as well as a number of boards of the university. She's

with us here in the gallery, I believe. Would the House please join me in

welcoming her here.

Tributes

BRIAN GREER

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't often introduce public servants to

the House, not because I don't think they are worthy of our thanks and

attention, but I find that they're generally very modest and don't wish to be

singled out. That is certainly the case with respect to Brian Greer, who since

1992 has served a variety of administrations, governments, in the capacity of

chief legislative counsel.

[ Page 13028 ]

The Attorney General and I want to bring the House's attention to

his presence here today. He has served with distinction, as I say, a variety of

governments. He is that person who is responsible for providing counsel and

advice around a wide range of issues — guidance and counsel with respect to the

preparation of legislation, the laws by which we ask British Columbians to

govern themselves. He has done so with distinction.

I know this sounds like one of those farewell speeches. He is not

actually leaving the service of British Columbians and government, but he is

stepping down from his demanding post as chief legislative counsel.

I wanted to take the opportunity today, on behalf of all members

and all British Columbians, to say to Brian Greer — and to his family, who has

lent him to us these past 16 years — thank you. The laws of this province are

stronger, better because of the work Brian Greer has rendered. On behalf of all

members, I want to thank him and pay tribute to him for the work he has done.

Speaker's Statement

RULES FOR PUBLIC BILLS

IN THE HANDS OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have had the opportunity to

review Bill M215, the Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2008, which was introduced in

the House by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

The bill would require an expenditure of public funds, contrary to

Standing Order 67, and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private

member and will not proceed to second reading.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FARM WORKERS FAIRNESS ACT, 2008

C. Puchmayr presented a bill intituled Farm Workers Fairness Act,

C. Puchmayr: I move introduction of a bill intituled Farm

Workers Fairness Act, 2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

C. Puchmayr: This bill, through amendments to the

Employment Standards Act, will introduce fairness back to the farm-working

community and industry. It restores overtime pay, statutory holiday pay and

minimum-wage protection.

This bill also reverses the atrocious trend of children as young

as 12 working in industry in British Columbia with virtually no protection. It

restores protection for those young people working in industry today.

I move that this bill be placed on the order paper for second

reading after the next sitting of the House.

Bill M218, Farm Workers Fairness Act, 2008, 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.

FUNDING STABILITY FOR

BOARDS OF EDUCATION ACT, 2008

D. Cubberley presented a bill intituled Funding Stability for

Boards of Education Act, 2008.

D. Cubberley: I move introduction of the Funding Stability

for Boards of Education Act, 2008, for first reading now.

Motion approved.

D. Cubberley: It's my pleasure today to introduce

legislation that will provide boards of education with greater certainty. This

bill seeks to ensure that all children in British Columbia receive the

educational program their board of education has approved for the year in

progress.

Part of a good educational program is sound planning for the

school year. Teachers have to prepare materials and strategies in advance of the

school year. Boards of education must ensure that teachers, administrators and

other educators are properly equipped to deliver the mandated program. Part of

equipping our educators is ensuring that they have access throughout the course

of the year to the resources committed and approved at the beginning of the

year.

[1345]

This bill will make it impossible to remove resources from boards

of education once those resources have been duly approved. Planning, consistency

and predictability are all vital to a successful education. This bill will

ensure each plays its role.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M219, Funding Stability for Boards of Education Act, 2008,

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.

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2008

L. Krog presented a bill intituled Accountability Act, 2008.

L. Krog: I move that a bill intituled Accountability Act,

2008, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

L. Krog: The Accountability Act, 2008, introduces

amendments to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbyists

Registration Act that will extend conflict-of-interest laws and strengthen rules

governing the activity of government lobbyists.

[ Page 13029 ]

These amendments take into account the recently enacted Federal

Accountability Act. Like the federal legislation, one of the bill's key

commitments is to clean up lobbying and ensure that lobbying activities are

carried out in an ethical and transparent manner.

The amendments also align with recent recommendations made by the

Information and Privacy Commissioner. The amendments to the Lobbyists

Registration Act provide clear rules to ensure lobbying is done ethically and

transparently. They introduce a two-year lobbying ban on former ministers,

senior political aides and deputy ministers and a two-year prohibition on all

lobbying activities for people convicted of violating the Lobbyists Registration

Act.

They establish clear reporting responsibilities, including monthly

disclosure obligations for lobbyists, employers of in-house lobbyists, and

public officials. The Information and Privacy Commissioner is granted expanded

powers to conduct investigations.

The amended act protects the public interest by ensuring that

British Columbians have access to adequate information about who is lobbying

public officeholders and in what context. The Members' Conflict of Interest Act

is renamed the Conflict of Interest Act and sets out clear conflict-of-interest

and post-employment rules for public officeholders.

The amendments extend current conflict-of-interest laws to cover

all government appointees. They also extend the two-year moratorium on former

members of the executive council from accepting a contract or benefit from

government to include deputy ministers.

Members of this House will recall the many commitments to openness

and transparency made by the government. Somewhere along the way, these

principles have been abandoned, much to the detriment of the integrity of this

place and the interests of the people of the province of British Columbia. This

act establishes a stronger, more open and transparent regime for the ethical

conduct of lobbyists, public officeholders and former public officeholders in

this province.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M220, Accountability Act, 2008, 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.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

J. Kwan presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Act

Amendment Act, 2008.

J. Kwan: I move the bill intituled Residential Tenancy Act

Amendment Act, 2008, be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Kwan: I'm very pleased to introduce the Residential

Tenancy Act Amendment Act, 2008. Since the 2010 Olympic Games were awarded to

Vancouver, over 1,300 single-room-occupancy units have converted to other uses,

displacing long-term low-income tenants in the vicious cycle of shelters,

homelessness and temporary living situations.

The uncertainty of having a place to stay for those at the margins

of society should be dealt with as a human right. The human right to adequate

housing is clearly defined by Canada's signing of the optional international

protocols such as the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Since SROs represent the housing of last resort, this bill seeks

to amend the Residential Tenancy Act to protect these units in this particular

period. These SRO conversions have been the subject of the recent

section 1503

complaint by three civil society organizations. The Geneva-based Centre on

Housing Rights and Evictions supports tenancy protection prior to the hosting of

mega-events.

The Residential Tenancy Act Amendment Act seeks to address these

concerns to level the playing field and to ensure that the public interest

always comes first. The principle underlying this bill is simple. It allows for

rent protection for low-income tenants, for SRO residents, during this

speculative period.

Every British Columbian should have the right to adequate housing,

just as Miloon Kothari, the UN special rapporteur on housing, stated when he

visited Vancouver in October of 2007.

With that, I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

the next sitting of the House after today.

[1350]

Bill M221, Residential Tenancy Act Amendment Act, 2008,

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.

HOME INSPECTION ACT, 2008

D. Thorne presented a bill intituled Home Inspection Act, 2008.

D. Thorne: I move introduction of the Home Inspection Act,

2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

D. Thorne: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a

piece of legislation that will help homeowners across British Columbia. This

bill provides greater consumer protection for those homebuyers by prohibiting

persons from inspecting a home without a licence and setting out the basic

requirements for obtaining such a licence.

The purchase of a new home is the largest transaction most

consumers will ever make, and the quality and durability of a home is integral

to the consumer's physical, mental and financial well-being. Few homebuyers have

the technical knowledge for a complete assessment of a new home or homebuilder,

particularly

[ Page 13030 ]

given the complexity of the current construction methods and codes.

B.C. homebuyers hire home inspectors to tell them if their new

home is a good, solid investment. Unfortunately, because B.C. still has no home

inspection regulations, anyone can claim to be a certified home inspector.

That's a very big risk for consumers.

This bill will establish a home inspection board, which will be

responsible for licensing home inspections. The board will also establish

standards for the education, training and experience requirements for home

inspectors and adopt a code of ethics and standards of practice for licensed

home inspectors.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M222, Home Inspection Act, 2008, 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.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) URBAN FOREST

STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE

J. Horgan: I had the pleasure recently of meeting with

Judith Cullington, Adam Taylor and Jeremy Guy of the urban forest stewardship

initiative. Established by the Habitat Acquisition Trust, the UFSI is a

partnership of individuals, organizations and government entities dedicated to

conservation, restoration and sustainable use of greater Victoria's urban

forests.

With an estimated population increase of approximately 33 percent

over the next 20 years, our challenge will be to protect the living forests

found in our community, old-growth remnants, backyard fruit trees, urban parks

and trail systems, Garry oak meadows and treed boulevards. The UFSI is aiming to

increase the public awareness of the benefits of urban forests and the

importance of implementing land use planning to promote the sustainable

development of our region.

As little information existed on the amount of urban forest within

our region, a critical first step was to undertake a project to map the changes

in tree cover and impervious surface area in greater Victoria. The goal was to

start gathering quantitative data about the urban forests in our region, develop

an estimate of the green infrastructure benefits provided by our urban forests

and create a baseline that could be used to track future changes of the urban

forest.

The results of the mapping project revealed that between 1986 and

2005, from North Saanich to Sooke we lost 8 percent of our overall tree cover.

That's about 2,500 hectares, or six and a half times the area of Goldstream

Provincial Park.

People in the capital region are increasingly aware of the role

our urban forest plays in maintaining healthy and vibrant neighbourhoods.

I would like to congratulate and thank the USFI for doing a

magnificent job in providing a baseline to assist communities in making smart

planning decisions now to ensure that our urban forests are there in the future.

To find out more, I encourage all those watching to visit www.hat.bc.ca and

learn more about urban forest stewardship initiatives.

WEST VANCOUVER YOUTH BAND

J. McIntyre: I'd like to pay tribute to a terrific

fundraising event last Saturday night on behalf of the West Van Youth Band. It's

a non-profit society with a long, successful history in the community. Since

1931 it's been providing excellence in music education for young people nine to

19 years. The graduates leave the program with a great appreciation of music,

skill in playing an instrument and the experience of being part of this unique

community band.

[1355]

The youth band actually added a very special touch to the

Premier's announcement last July of the $500,000 Spirit Square award for the

atrium in West Van's new rec centre, which will be the new home of the band, in

an innovative private-public partnership.

Last Saturday's big band cabaret and silent auction was held in

the West Van arena. It was all decorated like a big nightclub. There was a huge

dance floor and a stage for a 100-piece band. They put on just a terrific

performance. They had everybody up dancing their shoes off.

They were accompanied by some great acts: the band Wednesday at

Ernie's, a Blues Brothers act, and a stunning finale with Colin James — who, I

have to add, is a constituent of mine. They ended the last set with a big band

performance of Van Morrison's classic Into the Mystic . The parents and

friends of the band members were all incredibly proud of a very professional

performance, particularly by the soloists.

Before I can even pay tribute to them and to Doug Macaulay, their

talented music director and band leader…. He appeared on the front steps of the

Leg. yesterday with the Vancouver Firefighters Band, leading another great group

of musicians. I just want to say hats off to Doug and a great team who worked

countless hours to showcase the talented West Van youth. It was a night to

remember.

ZAKLAN FARM

H. Bains: In a world of escalating real estate prices, if

your property is surrounded by new development, for most it is a dream come

true. Most will sell or have it developed and retire to some beachside bungalow.

Not George Zaklan.

The Zaklan family bought two ten-acre parcels of land in the 1920s

from the Green Timbers forest reserve. This property is now surrounded on all

sides by

[ Page 13031 ]

new development. It is literally a breath of fresh air to drive by this green

space in the middle of residential houses and industrial buildings.

The Zaklan family worked this farm for decades, pulling stumps and

rocks and plowing fields so that they were able to raise animals and make a

living off this land. Today when you drive by, you can still see cattle grazing

and the original farmhouse, barns and outbuildings, which have been maintained

perfectly. The family has planted and nurtured many native trees on the property

to enhance the area and benefit our environment.

Despite George's intentions to continue maintaining this as

farmland, our system in place will eventually force him out, and we will lose

this green space. You see, Mr. Speaker, under our property assessment process

each piece of property must meet the requirement to gain farm status. This land

has two separate deeds. Back in the day, the property was one piece with just a

cattle trail to access it. Today it is separated by 132nd Street, a very busy

street in Surrey. This makes it incredibly difficult to transfer cattle to the

west side of this farm.

Therefore, under our rules there are higher taxes for that piece

of land, which George may not be able to pay. In order to pay, he must turn part

of his land into a revenue-generating entity or sell — in either case, the loss

of farmland. I urge this House to work with farmers such as Mr. Zaklan and find

a way to preserve small farmers in the urban areas.

GORDON GREENWOOD

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BUMBLEBEEZ

M. Polak: On Friday, May 30, Gordon Greenwood Elementary in

Langley will gather to recognize a team of award-winning students. Members of

the Gordon Greenwood BumbleBeez will celebrate their return from the global

challenge round of the Reading Link Challenge, where they placed second ahead of

teams from Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Seattle, Washington.

The Beez worked hard to get to this international reading

competition, where students from grades 4 and 5 are asked to read a selection of

novels about which they must answer trivia questions designed to test their

knowledge about the assigned books.

After winning the Langley districtwide competition, the Beez went

on to beat out 266 teams in order to advance to the global challenge round. As

one of only two Canadian teams in the final, students Claire Bauer, Michelle

Hong, Kaitlyn Lentsch, Breanna Owen, Colton Pearce, Jenny Song and Emmilee Wass

celebrated their success by joining their first place counterparts from the

Tri-Cities area to sing O Canada .

I know that the school's namesake, the late school trustee Gordon

Greenwood, would be very proud of this impressive performance. I also know that

he would want us to acknowledge the invaluable leadership role of Ms. Smitty

Miller, the literacy coordinator for the Fraser Valley Regional Library.

Together with the dedicated teaching staff at Gordon Greenwood, they have made

reading come alive for their students.

It is a testament to the legacy of Mr. Gordon Greenwood that the

trophy presentation for the BumbleBeez team will take place at a memorial

assembly in his honour. Please join me in congratulating the Gordon Greenwood

Elementary BumbleBeez team.

[1400]

100th ANNIVERSARY OF

QUEEN ALEXANDRA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

J. Kwan: Queen Alexandra of Denmark, born in 1844, was

queen consort to Edward VII of the United Kingdom and Empress of India during

her husband's reign. Prior to that she was the Princess of Wales from 1863 to

1901, the longest anyone has ever held that title. From 1910 until her death,

she was the Queen Mother — being both the Queen and the mother of the reigning

monarch, George V, of the United Kingdom — though she was more generally styled

as Her Majesty Queen Alexandra.

It was in this era in this young province, long before seismic

upgrading and the preservation of heritage values would become issues, that

Queen Alexandra Elementary School was founded and named in her honour. This year

is the 100th anniversary of this grade school, which has graduated so many in

our constituency. It's located in the 1300 block East Broadway at the

intersection with Clark Drive in East Vancouver.

The little one-room wooden schoolhouse on the northwest corner of

Queen Alexandra School grounds opened its doors in September of 1908 as a

division of the Vancouver–Mount Pleasant School, with Miss Caroline Baynes in

charge of the 80 pupils enrolled that year. A class picture from that year

showed little Hughie Bird, who became fire chief of the city of Vancouver.

The main building of Queen Alexandra was built during 1908 and

opened in time for the 1909 school year. In 1933 children from the school joined

the annual May Day parade to protest the high rate of unemployment. They marched

all the way to Brockton Point in Stanley Park to hear speeches, and the banner

of the school was in the papers the next morning. To this very day they still

keep the progressive East Vancouver tradition alive. In 1948 a gymnasium and

auditorium were added to the building.

Today I would like to ask all members of this House to join me in

wishing the students, the teachers, the parents and the alumni of Queen

Alexandra School a happy 100th birthday.

911 SERVICE IN EAST KOOTENAYS

B. Bennett: On the night of December 17, 2007, Tammy Lee

Ellis was shot to death in her Cranbrook home. Tammy's roommate witnessed that

murder. She fled to another part of the House. She hid under the bed, and she

frantically dialed 911 on her cell phone. To her absolute horror, she was unable

to get through to the 911 dispatch centre.

This tragic and incredibly unsatisfactory series of events led Don

Michalsky, a bear of a man with an iron will and a superhuman dedication and the

father of

[ Page 13032 ]

Tammy Lee Ellis, to take action. Mr. Michalsky is determined to honour his

daughter's memory. He has been circulating a petition since December of 2007

that asks the provincial coroner to undertake an independent inquiry into the

death of his daughter and, in particular, to find out why 911 service was not

there for the victims of that crime.

Every day for the past five months, people from around the region

have dropped off their petitions at my office in Cranbrook. Later this afternoon

I'm tabling this petition with over 16,000 signatures, and Mr. Michalsky tells

me there are several thousand more signatures signed electronically and also on

paper that he has not been able to get in to me yet.

The sheer number of signatories to this petition illustrates the

degree of anxiety over the reliability of 911 service where I live. I want to

thank Don Michalsky for his perseverance in raising the profile of 911 emergency

service in our area and for his outstanding dedication to the memory of his

daughter Tammy. These are the people speaking — not the corporations, not the

businesses, not the unions and not the political parties. These are the people

who are concerned about 911 service in the East Kootenay.

I'm concerned as well. I have spoken in detail to the Solicitor

General, who I have confidence in, and in that context I ask the government to

ensure that we have 911 service in the East Kootenay that we can rely on.

Oral Questions

MRI WAITING TIMES IN

INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY

C. James: Information produced by the Interior Health

Authority and posted on their own website shows the government is failing to get

a handle on unacceptable MRI wait times. The data shows there was absolutely no

improvement for patients over the 2007-2008 fiscal year.

Can the Minister of Health explain why patients at Kelowna General

were forced to wait up to 273 days for an MRI?

[1405]

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the things I'm very pleased to

advise the Leader of the Opposition is that when we came into office, there were

nine MRI machines in the province of British Columbia. Today there are 19 MRI

machines.

With respect to Interior Health Authority specifically, when we

came into office in 2001, IHA had one…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …mobile MRI to share across the Interior

and north of British Columbia. Today we have three MRIs in Interior Health — a

333 percent increase in the number of MRI procedures as a result of that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It appears the minister is just fine with the

wait times for patients. Well, I can tell you that patients in Interior Health

and across this province are not fine with the wait times that this government

has.

Let's take a look at some more numbers. The wait time in Kelowna

was as high as 273 days for an MRI. The Canadian Medical Association says the

standard is 30 days. In Penticton the wait was 252 days — 222 days longer than

the standard. We have hundreds of patients waiting for MRIs across the province,

and after seven years of mismanagement, the problem in the Interior Health

region is worse than ever.

So again to the Minister of Health: how bad does it have to get

before he'll admit that his health care plan is failing?

Hon. G. Abbott: That certainly goes to the division of

labour in this House. They talk; we act. The year we took office — 2,585 MRI

procedures. Last year — and it will be higher again this year — 11,136 MRI

procedures, a 333 percent increase.

It was even larger, because they now have an MRI in Prince George

where they never had one before — a 373 percent increase in the number of MRI

procedures undertaken in the Northern Health Authority as a result of the

investment that this government has made.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I can't believe that the Minister of Health is

standing up, faced with the kind of wait times that patients are faced with, and

saying that everything is fine. It just fits with his earlier comment that he

made a month or so ago that people are dreaming if they think they can fix

health care.

Well, we will fix health care, unlike this government over there.

Let's take a look….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

C. James: Let's see how proud the minister is of these

waiting times. Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops — 105 days for an MRI. East

Kootenay Regional Hospital — 182 days for an MRI. Kootenay Boundary

[ Page 13033 ]

Regional Hospital — 280 days. That's how long patients are waiting and

suffering, and all this minister does is deny, deny.

Well, these aren't numbers. These are people. These are people who

are waiting in pain, who are waiting to get back to work, who are waiting to get

back to school, who are waiting to get on with their lives.

Can the Minister of Health explain to these people how a 280-day

wait is health care where and when you need it?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're dedicated to continuous improvement

in this area as well as every other area. But we should also note that if you

need….

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: If one needs an urgent or emergent MRI, it

is done today in Interior Health and everywhere else in British Columbia. I know

they don't like to talk about…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. G. Abbott: …the past, but in 2001 we had a mobile MRI

that toured around between Prince George, Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops,

Kelowna General Hospital and Cranbrook. It did the circuit around interior and

northern B.C.

Today it's three permanent MRIs in the Interior of British

Columbia — first time ever. We are going to be seeing hundreds of millions of

dollars invested at Kelowna General Hospital, Vernon Jubilee Hospital and

Shuswap Lake General Hospital. For the first time ever, we are going to have a

CAT scan at Shuswap Lake General Hospital. We're constantly improving the

system, unlike the opposition that can only talk about it.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, you'd think that maybe, when the

minister gets data like 252 days wait time for an MRI in Penticton…

Hon. K. Falcon: Not for urgent cases.

A. Dix: …273 days in Kelowna and 280 days in the East

Kootenay….

You know, the Minister of Transportation says: "Not for urgent

cases." I guess he's not waiting for an MRI. I guess he's not waiting in pain

for an MRI. It's shameful. The Minister of Health talks about constant

improvement. Period one, a year ago — an 84-day average wait in Penticton, now

252 days. I guess his idea of continuous improvement…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …is different from everybody else's. Why doesn't he

just get on with it? It's a scandal, the wait times for MRIs. It's 30 days in

Ontario, but an 84-day average in British Columbia and in his own region, 250

days. Talk about it. The Minister of Advanced Education made this diagnosis. I

think it applies here. Maybe it's code red-in-the-face.

Let me ask the minister: when is he going to get on with it and

reduce wait times for MRIs in his own health region?

Hon. G. Abbott: What's a scandal is the absolutely reckless

and relentless fearmongering that this opposition does on a constant basis

around British Columbia — a constant basis. Nine MRIs….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: Nine MRI machines when we took office. In

August we will celebrate the 20th MRI at the new Abbotsford regional hospital

and cancer centre. I know that maybe these members have concocted some utopian

vision about how things were under their leadership, but the facts don't lie.

In 2001, 2,585 MRIs were done in Interior Health. Last year 11,136

— an improvement of 330 percent in that short period of time. The reason why

we've had that improvement in that short period of time is because we made the

investment. They talk; we made the investment.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the Canadian Medical Association….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

A. Dix: The Canadian Medical Association says that the

average wait time for an MRI is 30 days in Ontario. The Interior Health

Authority…. Who does the Interior Health Authority report to? Does it report to

the member for Vancouver-Kensington? No. Does it report to the Leader of the

Opposition? No.

It reports to the Minister of Health. What do they say about

Kelowna General Hospital? Hon. Speaker, 210 days — is that more than 30 days? I

think it's more than 30 days.

The Interior Health Authority — what do they say? They report to

the Minister of Health. Penticton Regional Hospital — 323 days. Is that more

than 30 days, hon. Members? You bet it's more than 30 days.

It's outrageous. If you're waiting in pain, 323 days is

outrageous. And the Minister of Health is talking about an announcement in

Abbotsford in four months.

[ Page 13034 ]

Why doesn't he get down to it in his own health region and do something about

this scandalous situation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, more empty talk, more empty promises

from an opposition that had ten years to deliver and delivered nothing in that

ten years.

You know, in addition to the increased number of MRI scanners that

we have in the province, what we've also seen since 2001 is an increase from 16

CT scanners in 2001 to 47 CT scanners today.

So what does that mean? The members want to talk about the number

of procedures. Again, we can listen to this empty rhetoric from the socialists

opposite all day, but the facts remain the same — 240,000…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …CT scans in 2001. Last year 389,000 CT

scans — a 62 percent increase over that period of time.

MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICES

D. Thorne: Not only is there a shortage of MRI

technologists, but a recent

article in the B.C. Medical Journal shows

there is a serious shortage of mammography technologists as well. That shortage

is affecting mammogram participation rates.

Since 2005 the Canadian benchmark for participation rate among

women between 50 and 69 years of age is 70 percent. Unfortunately, we are

nowhere near that in British Columbia. In the East Kootenays, for example,

participation rates are as low as 30 percent. The problem is access.

My question to the Minister of Health today is: what is he doing

or going to do to ensure that women right across this province have fair and

equitable access to screening — screening that will save lives?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. I read

the Vancouver Sun

article with interest, as I understand the opposition

member may have this morning. I'm pleased to advise the member that we have a

very, very good screening mammography program in the province of British

Columbia.

We are working with the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and

other partners to make it an even better screening program in British Columbia.

That is why we made an unprecedented $4 million investment over the past two

years in the Go Have One campaign in partnership with the Canadian Breast Cancer

Foundation.

This is a letter from the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation,

B.C.-Yukon region, and they note…. This is them: "In the first year of the

campaign, we increased the number of women booking their mammograms for the

first time by 10,677 women, or a 22 percent increase. Second year, a 24 percent

increase in women booking for the first time — 11,724. Over the two years 46

percent more B.C. women now in the system — 22,401. Once they're in the system,

we know they're there to stay."

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[1420]

D. Thorne: With all due respect to the minister, of course

the number of mammograms is up, but not nearly keeping pace with the population

growth and the need in British Columbia, as the waiting times say the numbers.

The problem is not just rural; it's a suburban issue too. Wait

times are deterring women in the suburbs from getting mammograms done. In Surrey

the wait time is still up to 14 weeks. In Coquitlam — and I know this personally

— it is over three months. In Burnaby, unbelievably, some women are waiting up

to six months for a mammogram. So if we want to improve participation rates and

save more lives, we obviously need to improve these wait times. Much more needs

to be done than the minister is saying is being done.

Again, I ask the Minister of Health: what will he do today to

reduce these waiting times and save the lives of more women?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, the member is confused

between screening for screening purposes and mammograms for diagnostic purposes.

There is no wait time in the province of British Columbia for mammograms for

diagnostic purposes — none. There is none. There is no delay for diagnostic

screening processes in British Columbia. There is none.

The members don't understand the distinction between screening and

diagnostic purposes. If someone wants a screen for diagnostic purposes, they

will get it immediately. If women are concerned, even though it's only for a

screening purpose, and they want to get in earlier, the number to call is

1-888-GO-HAVE-1. The organization will ensure that regardless of where you live

in British Columbia, you will get your screening done on a very prompt basis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

IN INTERIOR B.C.

B. Simpson: Tolko Industries in the Okanagan has indicated

that they're going to be asking the minister to release their lands from tree

farm licence 49 in the Enderby and Monte Lake regions. These are lakeshore

properties, and the Central Okanagan regional district has already indicated

that they have concerns about development on those properties.

Will the Minister of Forests commit today that he will immediately

begin consultations in the Okanagan

[ Page 13035 ]

with the affected communities so that he does not repeat the mistakes made on

Vancouver Island?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under

section 39.1 of the Forest Act,

companies are entitled to ask the minister to have private forest land returned

to private forest management. They're allowed to do this. When a request comes

through, it will be processed accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: That's why yesterday I tabled a 2,500-signature

petition in this House asking for this minister's resignation — for that exact

reason. He persistently fails to protect the public trust in these land

transactions.

As a result of pressure from the opposition and the people of

Vancouver Island, and of an Auditor General's investigation, it appears the

minister is doing some kind of consultation in the Pope and Talbot tree farm

licence land releases in the Kootenays. That consultation involves

PricewaterhouseCoopers, the monitor for Pope and Talbot's bankruptcy deal. The

private lands are already sold. It's on the webpage. There are documents there

that say those lands are already sold.

What is the point of consulting with those communities on lands

that have already sold? What is the minister attempting to do in the Kootenays —

kid the people that he's actually consulting with them?

Hon. R. Coleman: If you do a little more research, you will

find that the sale is subject to the removal from the tree farm licence.

[1425]

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

S. Fraser: So we've got an after-the-fact consultation

process after the lands are removed from the tree farm licence — sort of a

postmortem or an autopsy on disastrous Liberal forest policy. That's great. I've

got to tell that to the people in Port Alberni.

This Liberal government has given away over 500 square miles of

valuable timberland just on Vancouver Island. Liquidation forestry is the name

of the game here. This is raw log exports, job loss — the works.

Do the forest communities and the first nations on Vancouver

Island…? Did they also get an opportunity to engage in a postmortem of the

disastrous land giveaways on Vancouver Island?

Hon. R. Coleman: This isn't a postmortem. The lands have

not been removed.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Well, there seem to be some contradictions here,

and that's not good enough. I asked this question of the minister. The minister

has no consistency….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: The minister has no consistency in policies

here. There's no plan at all. The forest land giveaways have been devastating on

Vancouver Island to first nations and to forest communities, and they've led to

watershed destruction and job losses — you name it.

Will the minister offer the same opportunity — this is an

after-the-fact opportunity for these communities and first nations on Vancouver

Island — to have a postmortem of the damage done by those land removals by this

government?

Hon. R. Coleman: Statutory decisions have been made. We

will not go back on the process. Those are complete. The ones on TFL 23 in the

Kootenays are having some process to them. There's no removal of those lands

from the TFL as yet.

J. Horgan: Well, after ignoring community groups, local

governments and first nations in my community, I'm heartened to hear that the

minister is having a reversal of fortune, and he's going to discuss ripping

lands out of tree farm licences in the Kootenays.

My question to him is similar to the one from the member from Port

Alberni. Will the Minister of Forests come to my community and talk to first

nations, talk to community groups, talk to displaced forest workers and explain

to them how giving a gift to Western Forest Products has somehow revitalized

forestry on Vancouver Island?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member brought up this issue in the

House a while back, as he knows. As we came through the process with regards to

the Western Forest lands, there was initially no public response with regards to

the removal. It was when some of those lands were put up for sale, about eight

or nine months after the fact, that the public got excited about it and we were

hearing about it.

So when I had the conversation with the member on this one, and as

we were coming through this and at the same time….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I said that we would add some public

meetings with regards to any future TFL removals, and that's what we've done.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, it's certainly disingenuous of the

minister to say there was no response. There was no response because the

minister stood in this House and said that the land would remain in forest

production.

The opposite has happened. The regional growth strategy for

southern Vancouver Island has been

[ Page 13036 ]

thrown out the window. Hundreds of thousands of people are now questioning

how we're going to develop, how we're going to grow, how we're going to deal

with climate change in the Premier's brave new world. The Minister of Forests

sits and says that nobody cares. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Will the minister come to Jordan River and speak to community

members, speak to first nations — the Beecher Bay band — for the first time and

say: how are you going to fix this?

[1430]

Hon. R. Coleman: We believe in private property rights, and

you don't. You don't believe that people should….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: These were private lands that were in a

TFL. The statutory decision….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The statutory decision was made in January

of 2007 with regards to the ones that the member opposite is talking about. With

regards to the ones in TFL 23, the process is still ongoing. A decision will be

made one way or the other at the appropriate time, after the process and a

recommendation is brought back by my staff.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR FOREST WORKERS

C. Trevena: I think this minister doesn't realize that we

believe in the public interest and want to protect the public interest, and this

government does not.

Despite repeated efforts by the CEP from the TimberWest mill in

Elk Falls and Campbell River, the Forests Minister never supported them in their

attempt to get a buyer for their viable mill and save more than 270 jobs. Once

again the minister didn't do his job. Now the workers at Catalyst pulp mill are

losing their jobs, despite the hottest pulp market in decades. This didn't have

to happen.

The Ministry of Forests round table is supposedly coming back to

Campbell River. Since the Minister of Forests will be in the city sometime soon,

will he commit today to have a special meeting with all the laid-off workers in

the city so he can explain to them directly why he didn't show the leadership

needed to save their jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe you will start by also telling the

workers in Campbell River the truth. The fact is that you as an opposition might

decide to quit being disingenuous with regard….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Why don't you mention the fact that

there's a sub-prime mortgage problem in the United States? Why don't you mention

the fact that the dollar has gone up by 15 cents in just a little over a year

and a half, which has taken $130 million per penny out of the forest sector? Why

don't you tell them the truth about the fact that…? The reality is that the

housing market is in a tank in the United States.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, I would advise you to just choose

your words a little bit more carefully.

Hon. R. Coleman: I agree, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Why don't you actually let the people that…? I have met with

forest workers across British Columbia. They actually have been through cycles

before. They understand this.

You go out there, and all you do is spew negativity towards

forestry and forest workers and their future in the province of British

Columbia, and we're not going to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: This minister has let down the workers in

Campbell River. He made promises to them which he didn't live up to. Every time

he speaks or acts, he again shows why he shouldn't have this file.

My supplemental is to the Minister of Economic Development.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Trevena: The Minister of Economic Development stated

that Mackenzie is getting a special team to make sure that the federal money for

forest workers will "flow as fast as possible for the benefit of individual

forest workers."

Instead of picking winners and losers, will the minister commit

today that all impacted communities, including Campbell River, get this special

treatment?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was the leadership of this government

and under this minister that a pulp mill in Port Alice was actually put back

into operation and to work. Do you know how that was accomplished?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Minister.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

[ Page 13037 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: That was accomplished by getting together

the parties that had an interest in the mill, working through the issues for

them…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[1435]

Hon. R. Coleman: …environmental and other issues, and

speaking to investors — exactly what is actually going on in two of the closed

pulp mills in British Columbia today as we try and attract investment into those

particular operations for the future of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: I'd like to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have a petition from thousands of British

Columbians again urging the government to move ahead with safe antifreeze

legislation to protect the environment. This brings it up to over 30,000 — over

300,000 if you include the various organizations that support this.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the B.C.

Assessment annual report for 2007 and the audited financial statements for the

period ended December 31, 2007.

Petitions

J. Horgan: I'd like to table an electronic petition signed

by 1,436 residents urging the government to revisit its misguided decision to

remove forest lands from tree farm licence 25, which will affect forestry jobs,

reduce recreation opportunities and lead to runaway development on the rugged

west coast.

B. Bennett: I'm presenting a petition from over 16,000

residents of the East Kootenay in relation to 911 emergency service in the East

Kootenay.

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition that contains

approximately 1,500 signatures. It calls on the government to adopt the 23

recommendations of the inner-city inclusivity housing table that was tabled in

March of 2007, including the building and construction of 3,200 units of

affordable housing, raising welfare rates by 50 percent and ending the barriers

that keep people in need from accessing welfare.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise to table a letter from the

chairman of the board of directors of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Mr. Speaker: Members, leave has to be granted to present

that.

Leave granted.

Petitions

N. Simons: I would like to present a petition from

residents of the Powell River region who are concerned about the meat

regulations and the impact on farmers. I'd like to also present a petition from

members of the Powell River region who are concerned about the cost of having to

travel on the ferries to go buy meat.

R. Austin: I'd like to present a petition with 93

signatures of people living in northwest B.C. opposing the development of

coalbed methane in the Sacred Headwaters of the Nass, Stikine and Skeena rivers.

D. Chudnovsky: I have a series of petitions. The first one

is from 2,782 British Columbians who are concerned about the government's

failure to deal with the homelessness crisis. The second is from 60 residents

who are looking for an increase to welfare and minimum wage rates and concerned

about the lack of resources for social housing. The third is from 25 residents

concerned about the minimum wage and the low welfare rates.

K. Conroy: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

K. Conroy: I'd like to introduce, acknowledge and thank,

actually, our legal co-op student Karalyn MacWilliams for all her drafting

assistance with all of our private members' bills. She's done an excellent job.

On behalf of all of us in opposition, I'd like to thank her.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Taylor: I have two reports to table: first of all,

the revised

schedule I for fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

Second, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased

to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008, on all the amounts

borrowed by government and all the amounts loaned to government bodies. These

reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity, fiscal

2007-2008.

[1440]

Hon. O. Ilich: I table the 2007 annual report for the

Labour Relations Board.

Reports from Committees

R. Fleming: I have the honour to present the first report

of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of

the current parliament.

[ Page 13038 ]

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Fleming: I move that the report be adopted.

This report relates to the retention and disposal of government

records. It summarizes the committee's review of nine resolutions for record

retention and disposal authorities presented to the Public Accounts Committee by

the public documents committee.

The public documents committee reviews each year the records

retention

schedule created by the line ministries and central agencies according

to the legal, operational and financial obligations inherent in the records.

If the records have long-term value to the corporate government,

then the public documents committee recommends the retention by the government

archives. If their value is limited, the public documents committee recommends

that the records be kept in ministry storage for a period of time and then, once

the obligations have lapsed, be confidentially destroyed.

Under

section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, the Legislative

Assembly is required to approve the destruction of government records on the

recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued committee

stage debate of Bill 33, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued

estimates debate for the Ministry of Health.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 33; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

The Chair: We will go to sections 14 through 28, as they

had been deferred.

section 14.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the opportunity to take a look at

these sections. The first

section is an amendment to the Forest Act,

part 10,

section 127. For the record I just want to be clear — because sometimes it's

hard to tell whether I've got the current version of the bill in front of me —

on the actual act that this is being substituted for.

The current version I have says: "Unless exempted under this Part,

timber that is harvested from Crown land, from land granted by the government

after March 12, 1906 or from land granted by the government before March 12,

1906 in a tree farm licence area, and wood residue produced from the timber,

must be (

a) used in British Columbia, or (

b) manufactured in British Columbia

into wood products to the extent of manufacture specified by regulation."

Is that what we are removing from the act and replacing, or adding

this to that section?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're not touching that section. We're

adding to it.

B. Simpson: That's what I meant. I misspoke in my

statement. This is an addendum to that.

Section 127.1 is what we'll be adding to

it. This clause is with respect to people attempting to remove from British

Columbia timber that is harvested from Crown land or the land granted after

March 12, before March 12, and wood residue, unless the timber wood residue is

exempted.

What's the need for this to be added? If the minister could give

us an example of why we have to add this into the act.

Hon. R. Coleman: As I understand it, under the present

section 127 it's when it leaves the province that we can enforce. This actually

allows us to enhance our ability to enforce export restrictions by providing

clear authority to sanction persons who attempt to circumvent export

restrictions in cases where the attempt is discovered within the province.

B. Simpson: Again, I'm going to have to admit my ignorance

here and ask for more clarification. I get the minister's point. The existing

section, he indicated, is after it leaves the province, and this

section allows

the minister to intervene in-province.

[1450]

If I understand the minister correctly, if someone is caught in

the attempt or suspected of attempting to remove logs or wood residue from

British Columbia, then we can intervene now.

Whereas the way the act is just

now, you have to actually have proof that it's already left. Is that what the

minister is saying?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct, Madam Chair.

B. Simpson: Is there an accrual of circumstances? Is this

something that's happening more and more? Do we need to have more leverage and

need to clarify it so we can catch people in the act, so to speak? Is this a

circumstance that we're trying to address that's real and emergent and growing?

[ Page 13039 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's not because something is

happening more and more. But we did do an enforcement audit in the Vancouver

port and found some wood that had gone through customs but hadn't left yet.

Although we still use this

section of the act, it became clear at

that time that we needed to amend the legislation to make sure we had the power

really clear within the act to be able to do that.

B. Simpson: Again, just so I'm clear, the amendment just

puts in bullets the descriptors of the material coming off of British Columbia

lands. In

section 127.1(a)(ii) and (iii), are those effectively now designated

private lands? Or are these some of the lands that would have been released on

the Vancouver Island releases and the kinds of things that we've discussed

today?

Just so I'm clear that that's what we're talking about. There will

be lands now that predominantly are outside of tree farm licences and are

designated as de facto private lands and subjected to federal restrictions on

log exports. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Private lands that are in tree farm

licences are governed by this. Private lands that are not in a tree farm licence

are governed under the federal statute.

[1455]

B. Simpson: So the few remaining portions of private lands

in tree farm licences like the one we canvassed today with TFL 49 and TFL 23

would come under this as long as they are still in those tree farm licences. But

if the minister released those lands, like the Vancouver Island lands, they

would then not come under this amendment. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: So land that would be in a tree farm

licence granted by government pre-1906…. Let me get this straight. Anything

granted by government after March 12, 1906, that is private land is still

governed under the provincial statute. Pre-1906 is governed under the Notice 102

provisions, under the federal statute, when it's in private hands if it's not in

a tree farm licence. Today there would be about 11,000 hectares left in that

sort of category in B.C.

B. Simpson: As opposed to the well over 100,000 that were

there pre-2004 — almost 200,000, I think, is what it was.

Again just for the record. The lands that have been released by

the minister and his predecessor, and the potential lands that will be

released…. They get then excluded from provincial government oversight, whether

it's under this amendment or the

section 127 that's already in the act.

Part of what the government does when they release those lands is

release them from the provincial government oversight, and they release them

from this new legislative authority with respect to attempting to remove

materials from those lands. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's correct. Any export of

anything off of those lands is governed by the federal statutes.

B. Simpson: With respect, just for clarity, when the lands

are removed and come out from under this new authority that's been granted, does

the federal government do compliance and enforcement on their Notice 102

restrictions? Or is it still provincial compliance and enforcement? Is there a

memorandum of understanding there? Who actually does the work of enforcing the

constraints on log exports on those lands that have been removed?

Hon. R. Coleman: My staff that are here don't have the

answer to that question, with regards…. Because it's the legislation, it would

have to be someone in the ministry. So we'll endeavour to get you that answer.

We think that probably the federal do their own enforcement, and we do ours. But

there may be a relationship between our C-and-E guys and them, which I wouldn't

be surprised.

B. Simpson: We would appreciate that clarification. It is a

question that we are being asked. So if that could be clarified by way of e-mail

or something.

Then just a final question on this section: will this add

additional burdens to compliance and enforcement? We canvassed compliance and

enforcement very briefly in estimates. There were concerns raised about the

level of staffing capabilities in compliance and enforcement, especially with

respect to promises made under FRPA, that there would be an increased compliance

and enforcement regime to make sure the results-based approach actually works.

We're now adding another potential contravention, or clarifying the

contravention, to catch it earlier.

[1500]

Will we be doing an increased compliance and enforcement in the

early days of this coming into being to make sure that we understand what's

happening and can start nipping things in the bud if there are problems with it?

Hon. R. Coleman: It won't add any extra burden to our

people. It just clarifies what they can do while they're out there already.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 16.

B. Simpson: With the minister's permission, I have some

general questions about this whole range section. What we're going to do now is

go through to…. I believe it's

section 24. Sections 16 to 24 are range in the

Forest and Range Practices Act, and it's clarifying some issues around range —

compliance and enforcement, range plans. If I could ask some general questions,

then we can maybe do this as a block and move on. I don't have specific

questions, necessarily.

[ Page 13040 ]

My understanding is that this

section of Bill 33 was originally

included in Bill 8, which we debated previously in the House, but was pulled

from Bill 8 and is now coming in, in this bill. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, that's correct.

B. Simpson: What was the reason that it was pulled from

Bill 8 in the first place?

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason it was done is because the B.C.

Cattlemen and the stakeholders asked for more time to do a bit more consultation

with the ministry as we developed this part of the legislation.

B. Simpson: That's my understanding as well. It caught some

folks by surprise in a last-minute conference call or some last-minute

consultation, so it was delayed.

Would the minister comment as to the satisfaction of the B.C.

Cattlemen's Association with this

section now? Were their concerns addressed,

and does this

section now satisfy the original concerns they had, which caused

it to be pulled out of Bill 8?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it does. There are also two House

amendments. So when we do these sections, because we're going to have a general

discussion about all of them, let's make sure we stop at the right

section for

the House amendment. The House amendments are also a result of that

consultation.

B. Simpson: So there are a couple of other amendments here

as a result of that consultation that didn't make it into the original document.

Again, part of what the B.C. Cattlemen's Association was doing and

part of where I think things got disconnected a little bit is that the B.C.

Cattlemen's Association was conducting a consultation process on range

management. It's entitled Improving Range Management Under the Forest and

Range Practices Act: Issues and Recommendations . The report was authored by

J. Brian Nyberg. It's dated February 2008.

There are a host of issues in here — a big component to do with

range stewardship plans, the role of compliance and enforcement, etc.

[1505]

The feedback I've been given is that this

section still does not

address a fundamental problem that the cattlemen have with these range

stewardship plans. That is, we're trying to make range stewardship plans align

with forest stewardship plans — that timber type of a pre-eminence. The focus is

on making those two plans look as closely as possible for compliance and

enforcement to have an easier job enforcing both range stewardship plans and

forest stewardship plans, because the same C-and-E officers have to enforce the

compliance with those plans and with the act.

I'm being told by folks that this still does not address that. It

still does not clean that up. In fact, there are clauses throughout here that

state categorically that this is creating consistency with forest stewardship

plans.

The B.C. Cattlemen's Association may be signing off on this. But

is the minister getting feedback from other cattlemen who are actually trying to

put in range stewardship plans and who have the continued concern that what

we're doing is setting up a timber-like forest stewardship plan approach for

range when what we in fact need is much more clarity in the act to recognize the

issues of range-invasive plants, wayward cattle — all kinds of things that they

need to try and capture in their range stewardship plans — and that doesn't

fully satisfy the needs of the range licensees for their desire to get unique

range stewardship plans under the Forest and Range Practices Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, in every area I've been with the

round table — I think at about eight or nine of them — there has been a

cattlemen's representative at them. They haven't brought that up as an issue.

The biggest concern is the loss of forage for their cattle in the forest, it

seems, for most of them.

But all of these amendments give basic legal structure for the

plans. That's what they do. We recognize the difference, and we've worked with

the B.C. Cattlemen on that thing. That's why, once we get the legal structure in

place, the development of regulation will be made in full consultation with them

to make sure it relates back to plans that have focused more or recognize the

difference between the range plan and the FSP-type plan.

B. Simpson: Well, the Nyberg report is pretty explicit

about the issues arising under the FRPA legislation that I'm being told this

does not address. Again, for the record:

"One of the issues is that forestry plans and

operational activities sometimes do not adequately address range resources and

the rights to forage that are granted to holders of agreements under the Range

Act.

"The FRPA model was largely designed for major

forest licences and may not be a good one for the majority of range licensees.

Range stewardship plans are of uncertain value and are widely seen as

providing no advantage to either ranchers or government as compared to the

older range use plans. Vague wording of the objectives set by government for

range may cause problems both for government and range licensees.

"They don't have formal and informal dispute

resolution processes that work well, and the FRPA legislation and business

practices are complex, difficult to understand and add unnecessarily to

administrative burden for ranchers and government staff."

There's a certain irony to that problem, because what the

government was supposed to be attempting to do was streamline the legislation,

streamline the process and get the administrative burden off of licence holders.

Instead the ranchers are saying that's not the case; the reverse is true.

So my question to the minister is: if these are not being

addressed in this legislation, does the legislation give sufficient freedom to

the minister to address them

[ Page 13041 ]

in regulation? Is that what the minister was meaning by his last comment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's what it does. It puts a legal

foundation in place, but we do have the flexibility in terms of the range

stewardship plans to work with the cattlemen and devise something that's more

streamlined and works better for them.

[1510]

B. Simpson: One last question on this as a general

question, and then we can go into the sections that the minister needs to put

amendments to.

Because the government has undertaken this review of the Forest

and Range Practices Act with respect to range, and as the minister's contention

is that this

section of changes to the act will enable him to make the

adjustments necessary that came out of the Nyberg report, will there be a

follow-up consultation process at an appropriate time to make sure that these

recommendations in this fairly extensive and useful report have in fact been

achieved?

Will we close the loop and make sure we get out and consult with

these range holders to make sure that we did achieve their desires through both

the changes to the legislation and the regulation that will follow?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're going to go out and consult with

regards to the development of the regs. It's quite possible that in the future,

as we develop the regs and as we deal with the Nyberg report going forward,

there may be additional legislation after consultation with the industry.

Not everything in the Nyberg report necessarily works for us, but

it's certainly a foundation to work on with the cattlemen with regards to the

future of the cattle industry. Basically, we'll consult on the regs, make sure

they adapt and be flexible for them. Then going forward, the continued

consultation with the cattlemen will be ongoing.

Sections 16 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 23

standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 23, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

Minor amendments to range use and range stewardship plans

(1) Despite

section 37 (1) or (1.1) and unless

otherwise prescribed, an approval is not required to amend a range use plan or

range stewardship plan if its holder determines that

(

a) the proposed amendment

(

i) to a range use plan

(

A) conforms to

section 33 or 34, whichever is

applicable, and

(

B) does not materially change the strategies

specified in the plan, or

(ii) to a range stewardship plan

(

A) conforms to

section 35, and

(

B) does not materially change

(

I) the strategies actions

specified in the plan to deal with the issues identified by the minister under

section 45.2 , or

(II) the intended results or strategies specified in

the plan, or

(

b) the proposed amendment conforms to prescribed

requirements.

(2) The holder of a range use plan or a

range stewardship plan must provide the district manager with a copy of the

amendment as soon as practicable after it has been incorporated in the plan.

(3) The minister may take action in

accordance with the regulations if he or she considers that the decision under

subsection (1) was wrongly made.]

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Coleman: The amendment harmonizes terminology of

this

section with similar language found in the provisions elsewhere in the act

that deal with range use plans and range stewardship plans.

B. Simpson: If I could just ask the minister to give some

more clarification. Again, we've had this pulled from Bill 8. We've had it

inserted into Bill 33. We're now making another amendment to it. What are the

circumstances that have forced yet another change to something that was already

in the works a couple of times?

[1515]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is a direct request from the

cattlemen. Subsection (

I) of this

section used to read: "the strategies

specified in the plan to deal with the issues identified by the minister under

section 45.2." They didn't like the word "strategies." They asked us if we would

consider changing it to "actions" as part of the consultation process. After

they'd seen the act, they wanted us to change that one word. We're fine with it,

so that's why it's here.

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

section 24.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 24

standing in my name on the orders of the day.

SECTION 24,

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

Compliance with plans

45.1

(1) The holder of a range

use plan must ensure that the strategies described actions

specified in the plan are carried out.

(2) The holder of a range stewardship plan must

ensure that the

(

a) actions specified in the plan are carried

out, and

(

b) intended results specified in the plan are

achieved and the strategies described in the plan are carried out.

[ Page 13042 ]

(3) Despite the expiry of a range use plan or a

range stewardship plan, subsection (1) or (2) continues to apply to the holder

of the expired plan if, in relation to any action, result, strategy or

other provision of the plan that was in effect immediately before the expiry of

the plan, there is no provision in another plan, applicable to that holder for

the same area to which the expired plan applied, that is identified as being a

replacement for the action, result, strategy or other provision.

(4) For the purpose of the continued

application of subsection (1) or (2) required by subsection (3), a range use

plan or a range stewardship plan may be amended as if unexpired.]

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment harmonizes the terminology

of this

section with similar language found in the provisions elsewhere in the

act that deal with range use plans and range stewardship plans.

B. Simpson: Again, as I understand the minister's comments

on the previous amendment, this is the same thing. It's exchanging "strategies"

for "actions."

I did have a quick question under this one. It's more for my own

edification. On 45.1(3), when a range use plan expires, it seems like there's

some extended liability to the range use holders. If the minister could give me

an explanation of that. Is it in fact an extended liability to the range use

holders? Is that new, as a result of this amendment — so not the amendment we're

amending but the sense of what it is we're doing in this case — to the Forest

and Range Practices Act? Do we have a similar extended liability under forest

stewardship plans as we have in these range plans?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we do have a similar one under the

forest stewardship plans. Basically, this provides that range obligations and

plans remain in effect beyond the expiry of the plan. This provides for

operational continuity when replacing a plan by allowing the plan holder to

continue working under the expired plan until a replacement plan is approved.

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

section 27.

B. Simpson: If I can get a clarification from the minister

before I ask questions on this. The explanatory notes for

section 27 say — and

this is a change to the Forest and Range Practices Act,

section 122: "…clarifies

when the board becomes authorized to audit or investigate compliance of persons

acting for or at the direction of a party if the party's own compliance is not

in issue as a result of due diligence…." Is the board here the Forest Practices

Board? Is that the reference?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that clarification.

Could the minister please give a broader explanation? Again, it's

one of these things where the amendment is making a very minor change, but the

implications of the explanatory note may be that the change is more significant,

because it's adding a due-diligence defence in advance of the complaint being

investigated. That's what it seems to me.

Due diligence as a defence is nice to have in the case of safety

or infractions when you're actually in the court system, when the complaint is

being investigated either judicially or through a governing body. But you still

have to show that you have done your due diligence, and you have to provide your

proof of due diligence.

It seems to me that what we're doing is being presumptive of the

existence of due diligence for the Forest Practices Board actually being able to

initiate an investigation. If there's a presumption of due diligence, will that

then stop the Forest Practices Board from being able to conduct investigations?

Is that what this small amendment is actually doing?

[1520]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll read another note into the record. It

may help here. Basically….

"Section 122 of the Forest and Range Practices Act sets out

the power of the Forest Practices Board to carry out audits and special

investigations in respect of forest and range tenure holders and the

appropriateness of government enforcement. Under

section 122(2), the board can

also audit or investigate the actions of a person acting for, or at the

direction of, a tenure holder in the special circumstances described in

section

122(b).

"The amendment clarifies that the board can only

audit or investigate that third party if the original audit or investigation was

of the tenure holder and not of the appropriateness of government enforcement

generally. This limits the circumstances in which a third party associated with

the tenure holder can be audited or investigated to situations where the tenure

holder's conduct is specifically at issue. The amendment is consistent with the

government policy for this matter and resolves doubts that may have arisen as a

result of a recent amendment to this section."

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

B. Simpson: I wish my brain wasn't as tired, being late in

the session, but I will go and look at Hansard and see if I understand

that. I appreciate the minister reading his explanatory note into the record for

folks who may have a question here.

section 28. Again, I thought we did a bunch of this work in

Bill 8. So is this a tidy-up of something that is residual from Bill 8 or just

another portion of the act? What it's doing, again, is to do with the rollover

[ Page 13043 ]

forest stewardship plans, and we canvassed that — whether that was an

automatic rollover from five years to ten years, what the review process was,

whether the public would be consulted, etc.

This again is substituting "may grant one extension" for "may

grant one or more extensions," but the explanatory note says "subject to an

overall 10 year limit." My understanding is that these are five-year plans. So

if I grant one extension of five years…. Five and five equals ten, so I'm not

sure how you could grant one or more extensions that add up to ten the way that

the plans are currently configured.

Hon. R. Coleman: This allows for not exceeding five years,

but if an extension of two was given, another extension would be allowed for

another two, but not to exceed five. So the maximum extension is five years.

But if we extended the plan for two and then we wanted to do it

again for another two, this allows us to do it as long as we stay within the

five-year period.

B. Simpson: I just want to clarify. I get what the minister

is saying. An extension could possibly be for a shorter duration than five

years, but the total extension that will be allowed would be a consecutive ten

years for that one licensee to have a forest stewardship plan. Is that correct?

[1525]

Hon. R. Coleman: The total can't be more than ten, and the

extension can't be more than five. If you have two smaller extensions, two and a

half and two and a half add up to five, and you would have two extensions. This

accounts for that flexibility.

B. Simpson: Hopefully, the final one on this section. It

was something that came to me after we canvassed Bill 8. Because this

section is

in here, it allows me to ask the question. We canvassed at length the nature of

the consultation that would be required on the forest stewardship plan at its

five-year renewal date.

Our concern was that it would be an automatic renewal. The

minister indicated that by regulation, it will be a renewal that requires public

consultation and does require some feedback from the public.

But what struck me is that it gets capped at ten years. What will

the process look like post–ten years? If the forest stewardship plan gets

approved at five years or when it expires, it has to go through some kind of

public consultation process again anyway. Then after the ten-year limit, will we

be undertaking a completely new start to the forest stewardship plans? What's

the thinking of government when you reach that ten-year mark? Do we start from

ground zero again?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it's a new application. Obviously,

if they have a history and it's on the same land base, they should have the

history that makes it more simple for them to make their application. But it's a

new application after ten years.

Section 28 approved.

The Chair: Members, this concludes consideration of the

deferred sections of the bill.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 33, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported

complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?

Hon. R. Coleman: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 33, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a third

time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee stage of Bill 35,

intituled Social Workers Act, in the hands of the hon. Minister of Children and

Family Development.

Committee of the Whole House

SOCIAL WORKERS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 3:30 p.m.

The Chair: Members, the committee will recess for a minute

or two.

The committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:31 p.m.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

section 1.

N. Simons: In

section 1 there are a number of

definitions,

and throughout the act there's a reference to

[ Page 13044 ]

prescribed people. Is there a definition of "prescribed person" under the

act?

Hon. T. Christensen: By virtue of including the word

"prescribed," it means that it would be somebody set out in regulations, so

there doesn't need to be an actual definition here in the

definitions section.

N. Simons: The definition would be in the regulations.

Maybe I'll get back to that when we discuss that further. So I'm fine on

section

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

N. Simons:

Section 9 outlines the bylaws for registration

under the new Social Worker Act. Under paragraph (

b) there's a reference to

"classes of registrants." I'm wondering if the minister can actually tell us

what some of those classes would be and if that is a decision made by the board

itself or if that is established through legislation.

Hon. T. Christensen: What this would allow is for the

college itself to establish different classes of registrants. They would do that

on their own, and they would then make the argument to the minister as to why

they felt it was necessary to have those different classes, because a bylaw

under

section 9 is subject to approval of the minister.

[1535]

For example, it would be expected that the nature of the different

classes would be based potentially on the nature of different aspects of social

work. This doesn't obligate them to establish different classes, but it does

provide that option to do so by bylaw.

N. Simons: Are there other jurisdictions that use this type

of classification within social work — what particular specialty they have? Is

that a system used other places?

Hon. T. Christensen: The answer is yes. There is the ability

to differentiate between classes in other provinces. But the legislative

mechanism by which they do that may be different than what we've enabled here in

British Columbia.

We're enabling it for the college of social workers to do it by

bylaw. In other jurisdictions it may be by virtue of the legislation itself or

more than one piece of legislation. So the capacity is there to make the

distinction elsewhere, but the vehicle by which you get there may be a little

bit different.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain how that use of the

class of registrants system will influence practice? The purpose could perhaps

be what I'm looking for.

Hon. T. Christensen: I need to correct an oversight. I have

yet to introduce the staff I have here with me, and I apologize for that,

because they are very ably helping with answering these questions.

[1540]

I'm joined by the assistant deputy minister of integrated policy

and legislation, Mark Sieben, as well as the director of legislation, Leah

Bailey. I'm thankful to have them here. I understand they were able to give the

member opposite a bit of a briefing earlier in terms of some clarification

around certain aspects of the act.

In terms of the last question, it is ultimately up to the college

itself to develop what it believes would be the basis for different classes of

registration. The expectation at this point is that the purpose of doing that

would be to recognize a particular specialty, a special set of skills that a

certain class of social workers would hold — really, to enlighten the public in

terms of the fact that somebody has particular qualifications. For example, we

could contemplate that in terms of a social worker dealing specifically with

mental health or perhaps child welfare.

There could be a host of different opportunities there. It will

really be up to the college itself to determine where it believes that would be

something that was positive in terms of serving the public best.

N. Simons: Continuing on with subsection 9(1)(i). It reads:

"…authorize a committee established under

section 8 (1) to determine if an

academic program meets the requirement of paragraph (

h) of this subsection."

Would this committee be responsible for assessing the value of

programs interprovincially? Would they be looking at other programs across the

country or in fact internationally? Would this committee for registration under

the college be responsible for looking at regulations in other provinces?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's important that paragraphs (

h) and

(

i) be read together. So what paragraph (

h) allows is for the college to

establish the qualifications required for registration. In establishing a bylaw

that sets out the qualifications to become registered as a member of the

college…. That's a bylaw that is subject to approval of the minister.

Ultimately, if government believed that they were setting the qualifications far

too high or far too low, we would be able to say, "No, we don't believe that the

bylaw should be approved," and they would have to rework it.

They set out the qualifications required to become a member of the

college. Then under paragraph (i), what the college is allowed to do is

establish a committee of the college that would be entitled to review any

particular academic program to determine whether or not going through that

academic program actually meets the qualifications set out by paragraph (h).

The committee itself doesn't get to determine the qualifications.

The committee can only determine whether a particular academic program enables a

person to meet those qualifications.

Section 9 approved.

[ Page 13045 ]

section 10.

[1545]

N. Simons:

Section 10 deals with the application of the

college's bylaws. Subsection 10(3): "The minister may request the board to amend

or repeal an existing bylaw for the college…."

Can the minister explain under what circumstance that would ever

occur?

Hon. T. Christensen: What paragraph 3 in

section 10 really

is directed towards is ensuring that there is ultimate oversight in terms of

there being a legislative framework to allow for a self-governing profession. In

applying that subsection (3), it would really be driven by

section 7, paragraph

3, of the act, which sets out the board's responsibilities, as well as

section 3

of the act, which sets out the objects of the act as a whole.

N. Simons: Can the minister confirm that it is possible

that the direction of government may be to encapsulate more than just registered

social workers? Is it possible that by having that oversight on the college's

decisions…? Is that any sort of an infringement, or is that something that is

usual in these kinds of circumstances when there are independent colleges?

Hon. T. Christensen: This is a standard power that is

retained for government in respect of its relationship with most self-governing

bodies. I can't think of one offhand that it's not applicable to, in other

legislation.

It is a limited power, though, because government couldn't ask

them to repeal or amend a bylaw or to create a bylaw if it was inconsistent with

the objects of the act as set out in

section 3 of the act. It doesn't give

government a wide-ranging power. What it does is ensure that there's an ability

to ensure that the board is acting in compliance with

section 3, which sets out

the duties and objects of the legislation as a whole.

[1550]

N. Simons: That was what was really confusing me — when the

duty and objects of the college to carry out are to serve and protect the

public, how any bylaws that they duly enacted would ever be repealed or

overturned by the minister. I'm just trying to think of any examples where that

could occur.

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member has actually hit

the purpose of the

section on the head, and that is to ensure that ultimately,

if the college is acting beyond its scope of responsibility and purporting to

pass a bylaw that is beyond its scope of responsibility, the minister can say:

"No, you can't do that."

As I say, it's consistent with that balance, actually, that is

struck in enabling a self-governing profession that ultimately government has a

responsibility relative to the public interest and needs some oversight of what

the college is doing.

I can't, quite frankly, anticipate that this

section would ever be

necessary. The expectation is that the college will be very careful in ensuring

that it is acting within the bounds of the act and the bounds of regulating

social work practice as opposed to something else, but it is really a fail-safe

provision that's necessary for this type of legislation.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

N. Simons:

Section 11 deals with interjurisdictional

cooperation, and

section 11(1) speaks specifically to governing bodies, meaning

"the governing body of a social work profession in another province or a foreign

jurisdiction."

So my question comes under subsection (2)(c), which speaks to

these governing bodies entering into information-sharing agreements, including

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Is it possible that

this sharing of information would include the transfer of information, personal

information, from one jurisdiction to the next without that individual having

any say over the matter?

Hon. T. Christensen: Again, this is a provision that's

common with other legislation governing self-governing professions. It would in

certain circumstances allow information to be shared without the consent of the

registrant. The best example of that would be if a registrant had been

disciplined, and that discipline had been noted on their record with the

college.

In the public interest, we want to ensure that a college in

another province can be aware of that information in the absence of consent of

the registrant, in case the registrant — himself or herself — moves to that

jurisdiction. So it does come down to ensuring that if you've somehow

contravened the standards of practice and been in disciplinary trouble, for

example, in Ontario….

If you're then here in B.C., certainly here in B.C. we want to

know that and vice versa. So it's really focused on that type of restriction.

[1555]

N. Simons: My concern is more specific to foreign

jurisdictions. I wasn't so concerned if someone in Nova Scotia was aware of the

disciplinary history of a social worker moving from a province to a province.

Specifically, I'm concerned with the information-sharing that may occur between

national governments. Perhaps if our information is stored on a database that is

accessed by the United States or any other non-Canadian jurisdiction, is there

any provision to protect the private information of individuals?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, it's necessary that this

ability extend beyond jurisdictions within Canada simply by virtue of the fact

that there are professional social workers from jurisdictions around the world,

actually, that we hope are coming to British Columbia, because we're always

trying to recruit them.

[ Page 13046 ]

It is necessary to be able to enter into those agreements with

colleges of social work or similar bodies in other jurisdictions, whether they

might be in the United Kingdom or Australia or states of the United States. So

the provision is necessary.

It is, though, important to note that subsection 11(3) requires

that an information-sharing agreement must be approved by the minister. So the

college would develop these agreements, and they would not be effective under

subsection (4) until approved by the minister. The intention certainly would be

to minimize the information that is being shared and ensure that only such

information as was absolutely necessary would in fact be shared between

jurisdictions.

Again, it's driven at ensuring that we can determine

qualifications and protect the public interest through recording disciplinary

matters from other jurisdictions.

N. Simons: Has this

section been vetted with the

Information and Privacy Commissioner with respect to the sharing of information

with foreign governments and the storage of personal information potentially

outside Canada?

Hon. T. Christensen: There aren't any specific agreements

that we've been asked to approve yet, so we haven't consulted around any

particular agreement with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

[1600]

I can advise the member that we certainly consulted with the

Information and Privacy Commissioner's office about the bill as a whole. In the

event that the college were to come forward with a proposed information-sharing

agreement and be asking the minister to approve it, we would be consulting with

the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office at that time with respect to

the specific agreement and would fully expect that the commissioner's office

would comment in the event that we were missing the mark in terms of the nature

of information we were allowing the agreement to share.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister for those answers.

Section 12 deals with…. It's the beginning of

part 2, which is the

"Registration" part. There are some concerns about mandatory registration. Is

there any provision in this act, in

section 12 or otherwise, where it is

possible to foresee a group of workers in the social service sector being

required to register?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member's question was

whether there was some notion of mandatory registration in the future. The

answer to that is no.

N. Simons: Will that be a decision that is made by the

college, or will it be a decision that is made by the minister? There seems to

be provision, when you establish classes, that you could establish a class for

which a large number of people already work. Whether they are going to be then

brought into the college by a regulation that requires all those who are working

in that particular sector to be registered by the college….

[1605]

Hon. T. Christensen: It gets a little bit convoluted

through a number of sections in the act here, but the intention is essentially

to maintain the status quo in terms of who is required to be a registrant of the

college. Currently, under

section 8 of the existing Social Workers Act, there

are a number of people who are typically employed by government who are doing

social work — who are social workers, who can call themselves social workers —

yet are not required to be registered with the college of social workers by

virtue of an exemption provided in

section 8 of the act.

Under

section 18 of this bill…. What it's going to allow is for

those persons who are exempted to be prescribed by regulation. What that would

enable is that if there were a group that currently practises social work but is

not required to be registered and at some point in the future it is believed by

the college and government they should be members of the college, you could

change the regulation much more effectively and quickly than having to come back

to the Legislature to remove an exemption that is set out in the act itself.

But at this point in time we don't contemplate changing the

parties who are exempted from being required to be registered. I hope that

answers the member's question.

N. Simons: It does to a certain degree. But what it does is

explain that

whereas previously it would require government to make that

decision as to whether or not to include those people who are currently not

required to be registered, under the new regime it would be up to the college.

That seemed to be the answer. I will appreciate some clarification on that, just

to make sure that in fact the people who are practising outside of the college

will not be put in a position where they'll be required to register because of

the changes in the college.

Hon. T. Christensen: I can confirm that for the member.

Somebody who is not currently required to be registered won't be required to be

registered, and the college on its own would not be able to change that. The

exemptions will be prescribed by regulation, so it will be government that has

to change that regulation, in the event that we no longer wanted somebody to be

exempted.

In terms of the bylaws that the college will be entitled to

develop, those will ultimately be subject to ministerial approval as well. So

there are really two balances there in terms of where government would actually

have to make the conscious decision around any broadening in scope of who is

required to be registered.

[1610]

Sections 12 to 17 inclusive approved.

[ Page 13047 ]

section 18.

N. Simons: I do have some questions about

section

Section 18 is a short section. It deals specifically with who is able to call

themselves a social worker. So my question is once again…. Subsection 18(1)

describes: "…no person other than a registrant may use (

a) the title 'social

worker' or 'registered social worker.…'" But then there's subsection (2), which

also describes the fact that people who work with the title currently may do so

if they work for a prescribed person. Who is the prescribed person there?

Hon. T. Christensen: The prescribed persons will be those

who are currently covered by the exemption in

section 8 of the current act.

That's how we intend to, through regulation, maintain those exemptions. It may

be that the word "person" is creating some challenge for the member. We'd simply

note that the definition of the word "person" is much broader than an

individual. It includes government entities. It includes corporations. It's the

legal definition of "person."

N. Simons: I suppose this

section just highlights the fact

that there's another decision that's going to be made by regulation rather than

legislation, which implies a speeding-up of the process. Many times, that's the

appropriate approach. Sometimes it can be seen as a relaxation of the

enforcement or legislative mechanism. I'm just concerned that by this being

within the regulations, the ability to change that part of the regulations makes

it less permanent, so to speak.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the member is correct that

by virtue of this act, we're dealing with the exemptions from the requirement to

be a member of the college in a manner different than the previous act. But this

is consistent with the modernization of the statute. The reality of having those

exemptions set out in the act itself is a bit dated. More recent legislation

would provide for such a power by regulation.

[1615]

It certainly would still be subject — in actual, practical

exercise of the power — to considerable discussion and consultation with anybody

or any group that might be affected, before the exemptions were ever changed.

It wouldn't, in many cases, be in government's interest to be

broadly expanding who is required to be registered, just by virtue of the pool

of people that we currently have doing social work on a day-to-day basis and

serving British Columbians well.

Sections 18 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

N. Simons: This just caught my eye with the reference to

indictable offence. A conviction for a

summary offence is sometimes a conviction

on an offence that can be a hybrid offence. I'm just wondering if that's just

the standard wording for this type of provision.

Hon. T. Christensen: This provision is consistent, I

understand, with similar provisions in other legislation governing

self-governing professions. What it essentially enables is for the inquiry

committee to initiate an investigation in the event that somebody is convicted

of an indictable offence. The fact that they're convicted is what triggers the

ability to launch the investigation.

That's in contrast to a

summary conviction offence, which tends to

be much less serious, where it would actually be the nature of the offence that

would be taken into account in triggering whether or not an investigation could

be commenced. So if the nature of the

summary conviction offence was one that

suggested, on the facts, that it would constitute professional misconduct, then

certainly, the inquiry committee could launch an investigation.

But if the nature of the

summary conviction offence was such that

it really had no impact whatsoever on a person's ability to effectively practise

social work, then the inquiry committee would be limited.

Sections 27 and 28 approved.

section 29.

N. Simons: This

section deals with the necessity to take

extraordinary action, on some occasions, to protect the public. Can the minister

describe, when this action is taken, what the possible process is for protecting

the rights of the social worker, to ensure that they're protected in

circumstances such as this?

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

The Chair: Proceed, Member.

[1620]

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Visiting us today, we have nine students from

Roots and Wings Montessori School located at Highway 10 and 152nd Street. They

represent grades 4 to 6. They're also accompanied by the principal of the

school, Kristine Cassie, and a teacher, Pam Branco. I would like to ask every

member to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. T. Christensen:

Section 29 is…. Well, it's exactly as

the title suggests. It's extraordinary action to protect the public. An extreme

example, perhaps, could be where a registrant of the college was arrested for a

sexual assault. The college would likely want to act quickly, particularly if it

was a serious sexual assault, and suspend the registration of the member pending

a full hearing by the college, potentially pending the result of any criminal

proceedings as well.

[ Page 13048 ]

It is necessary that the college have the ability to take

immediate action in extraordinary circumstances and not be required to go fully

through the disciplinary process for taking that action. The sort of fail-safe,

I guess, around that is subsection (5), which enables the registrant…. If they

feel the college has acted inappropriately or hastily and that the action wasn't

necessary to protect the public interest, they can take an immediate appeal to

the Supreme Court to have the action of the college overturned.

Sections 29 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

N. Simons:

Section 34 deals with the discipline committee

of the college of social workers. In subsection (1), on completion of a hearing,

the discipline committee has an option of a number of possible responses to that

particular infraction. One is to dismiss the matter completely.

I note that there are a number of possible sanctions and

dispositions. On the occasion where an investigation has resulted in the

committee deciding that no action is taken, is that a finding of wrongdoing or

not wrongdoing? And does that social worker have any sort of mechanism in order

to — not necessarily for compensation — remediate what action the college may

have taken if there was no finding of fault?

[1625]

Hon. T. Christensen: In the event that a member of the

college is accused of something and the college investigates that and the

discipline committee holds a hearing and at the end of reviewing the evidence

finds that the member hasn't been in breach of the act or of professional

standards and dismisses the matter, then the discipline committee itself

actually could award them costs to help defray the costs that they may have

incurred in having to go to a hearing. That's set out in subsections (2) and

(3).

Beyond that, no, there's not any particular entitlement that the

registrant has except for, probably, an extreme circumstance where, if the

registrant were able to demonstrate that the college had acted far beyond its

mandate or in a malicious manner, they may have some civil remedy. But as I say,

that's a pretty extreme case and highly unlikely.

The nature of this provision is certainly consistent with other

self-governing professions. Part of the nature of being a professional, in fact,

is that you are going to be subject to standards, and if you breach them or are

alleged to have breached them, you are going to be entitled to due process in

terms of a hearing around that. Once you go through that experience, even if

you've done nothing wrong, it's very difficult to make you feel, at least, that

you haven't lost something.

Sections 34 and 35 approved.

section 36.

N. Simons:

Section 36 deals with public notification. My

question has to do with the definition of "in the public interest." Who makes

that determination, and how is that determination made?

Hon. T. Christensen: The determination of whether or not

it's in the public interest is the discipline committee's to make. They are

guided by

section 3 of the act, which sets out the duties and objects of the act

overall in determining that public interest. It is they who ultimately make that

determination. If they were to make it in a manner that, it could be argued,

they weren't serving the public interest, then they would certainly be subject

to challenge.

N. Simons: Still on

section 36. So there's no way for the

particular registered social worker to influence any sort of decision. It'll be

set out, I would imagine, in the college's own internal policies and bylaws,

when to invoke this public interest clause.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, there would be nothing

limiting a registrant who was subject to a disciplinary hearing — and the

college — in making arguments before that disciplinary hearing as to what they

believed would be in the public interest around notification.

[1630]

Subsection (2) contemplates circumstances in which the public

interest in fact would weigh against disclosure — where it would cause

significant hardship to a person who had been harmed by the registrant. It's

open to make those arguments, but ultimately it would be the discipline

committee who makes that determination as to whether or not notification is in

the public interest.

N. Simons: Is there any indication as to how long that

public on-line notification would be on the system? Will it apply to all

disciplinary action? How will that determination be made?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member's question may be

answered by

section 37, which allows for establishment of an on-line registry

that would be required to record certain information including a record of

disciplinary action and does provide provision for a registrant, after a

five-year period, to apply to have certain information removed.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Whether they can simply apply to have it removed…. It wouldn't be

removed by right, and it would be subject to the college determining whether or

not they felt it was in the public interest to remove it.

Section 36 approved.

section 37.

N. Simons: I think we were actually sort of letting those

two flow together.

[ Page 13049 ]

In fact, yes, the issue around concern of the protection of

privacy and the protection of…. You know, in the social work profession, it's a

significant allegation when anything is made against the character of that

individual performing that work.

I just think that extreme caution always needs to be taken in

these cases. I think we need to make sure that the actions taken shouldn't be

punitive, unless they are supposed to be punitive, and that social workers and

people who are affected by this legislation know that it is intended to protect

the public interest primarily.

So under the on-line registry, there's going to be a record of any

suspension or cancellation of a registrant's certificate of registration. In

some of those cases, the infraction might be minor. Is there any provision for

ensuring that the general public or whoever has access to this information will

be able to determine the nature of that allegation?

Will they be able to determine whether or not it was this

jurisdiction that made the finding or the investigation and the finding? Or

will, for example, a social worker from another jurisdiction who gets set up

here…? Will their record be included on that? Will it be automatically included

in their identification on line?

Hon. T. Christensen: The information that might be included

from another jurisdiction would be subject to the information-sharing agreements

that we talked about before. I certainly would contemplate at this point that

the type of information that the college would be looking to share with its

college counterparts in other jurisdictions would be similar to the nature of

information that's required to be posted here so that the public, in looking at

the on-line registry, has fulsome information about the particular registrant's

involvement in British Columbia but also in other jurisdictions.

[1635]

What I would note that responds specifically to the first part of

the member's question is subsection (2), which requires that the on-line

registry — in sending out a record of any suspension or cancellation of the

registrant's certificate of registration — must state the reasons why the

disciplinary action was taken so that there is a clear explanation for the

public to know and judge for themselves whether the infraction was minor or

something that was not minor.

Sections 37 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Christensen: I would ask that the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:37 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SOCIAL WORKERS ACT

Bill 35, Social Workers Act, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee stage on Bill 18,

intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, in the hands of the hon.

Minister of Environment.

[1640]

Committee of the Whole House

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(CAP AND TRADE) ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 4:42 p.m.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

S. Simpson:

Section 9, the emission reduction projects —

proposal, acceptance, verification and emission reduction units issuance — is

the

section that lays out how this works, essentially, to get an emission

reduction project put in place. Maybe we'll start here. Maybe the minister could

just give some explanation of what kinds of projects might constitute an

emission reduction project for this section.

Hon. B. Penner: We did have a chance to canvass this at

some length yesterday and, I think, maybe even the first day that we touched on

this in committee stage.

We're talking about the B.C. emission reduction units, which are

offsets within the province of British Columbia. I've said that they would have

to be incremental — that is, in addition to what would otherwise have taken

place in British Columbia.

Some of the examples that I've cited previously include the

opportunities for small hydro, or micro-hydro, projects to help rural

communities displace their dependence on diesel-generated electricity for their

communities and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions and probably costs, too,

in the long run — anaerobic digesters to help capture the methane and other

greenhouse gas emissions that can come from the decomposition of various organic

wastes and convert that potentially into electricity to meet our growing

electricity needs here in the province of British Columbia.

Of course, people have talked about the concept of afforestation.

That is planting trees or other forms of plant life in areas that have not

previously, or at least not for a considerable period of time, been forested. So

[ Page 13050 ]

those are all specific examples, and it's what we were talking about

yesterday.

[1645]

S. Simpson: When a proposal comes forward or somebody makes

a proposition to establish an emission reduction project, how is the assessment

of whether and how that project meets the standards of government to qualify for

emission reduction units going to be done?

Hon. B. Penner: As noted in

section 9(2)(

a) of the act, the

proponent would have to meet prescribed eligibility criteria in order to

qualify.

S. Simpson: I'm suspecting — and I'm sure the minister will

be happy to either confirm or disavow this — that the prescribed eligibility

criteria will be done under regulation at some time in the future. Having said

that, could the minister tell us what kinds of criteria would be considered for

eligibility?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, we canvassed this issue at some

length yesterday. I'd be happy to provide the member with