British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, October 6, 2004

h1006pm-05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, October 6, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 26, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Advanced Education .......................................................................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations............................................................................. Hon.

Geoff Plant, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ..........................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Services..............................................................................................Hon. Patrick Wong Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ................................................................................................Hon. Brenda Locke Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Susan Brice Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon. John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development.......................................................................................................... Hon.

Armando (Sandy) Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ............................................................................................................................................................................. Dr. John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ..................................................................................................................................................................Joy K.

MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.............................................................................................................................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................... E.

George MacMinn, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 73; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3; Vacant 1 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Rev. Val (L) .......................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) .............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .........................................................

Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Christy (L) .............................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon.

Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon.

Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon. Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon.

Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ..................................................................................... Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)..............................................................

Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................ Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)....................................................................

Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Hon. Brenda (L) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)......................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy K. (NDP) .......................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L)............................................................. New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind.

L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) ....................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon.

Geoff, QC (L).................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................

Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Armando (Sandy) (L) ........................... West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, Dr. John (L) ................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L)............................................. North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, Dr. John (L)........................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Hon.

Patrick (L).....................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................ Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T.

Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North...............................................................................Dr.

John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country ...........................................................Dr. John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ....................................................................Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ........................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant, QC Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers............................................................Hon.

Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge..............................................................................Vacant Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock..........................................................................

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview ..................................................................... Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings.................................................................... Joy K. MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington ........................................................... Hon. Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................

Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara................................................................. Rev. Val Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon.

Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ...................................Hon. Armando (Sandy) Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, October 6, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 11421 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 11421 B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act (Bill 58) Hon. K. Falcon Northern Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 59) Hon. K.

Falcon Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 11422 Preventative health care J. Bray Sale of local power projects by Columbia Basin Trust B. Suffredine Safer communities L. Mayencourt Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 11423 Private liquor stores J. Kwan Hon. R. Coleman J. MacPhail Status of Huckleberry Mines D. MacKay Hon. R.

Thorpe B.C. Rail privatization process E. Brenzinger Hon. K. Falcon Access to post-secondary education R. Nijjar Hon. S. Bond Handling of personal information by non-profit organizations V. Anderson Hon. J.

Murray Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 11426 Auditor general report No. 3, 2004-05, Preventing and Managing Diabetes in British Columbia Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 11426 Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 69) Hon. G. Collins Property Transfer Tax Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 70) Hon. G. Collins J. Bray Hon. G.

Collins Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 62) Hon. G. Plant B. Bennett Hon. G. Plant Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 64) Hon. G. Plant B. Bennett J. Bray Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 11434 Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. S. Hagen Hon. L. Reid R. Lee D. Hayer R. Hawes V. Anderson J.

Bray Reporting of Bills ............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 11447 Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ................................................... 11447 Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45)

11421 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Campbell: Today in the House I am pleased to introduce five local leaders who have joined us in Victoria: Ted Armstron g, who is the chair of the Cariboo regional district; Nate Bello, the mayor of Quesnel; Tom Briggs, the mayor of Mackenzie; Wayne Dahlen, the mayor of Dawson Creek; and Herb Pond, the mayor of Prince Rupert. A l l f i v e m a y o r s h a v e w o r k e d h a r d o n b e h a l f o f their communities, and I hope the House will make them welcome. [1405] R.

Sultan: I would like to introduce to the House one of our skilled staff, Megan Stiles. In the past three years, Megan has taken care of co mmunications for both the lower mainland and the northern MLAs. She built the Premier's ReadOnBC website, and every week she pro- duced Capital Report. She was particularly helpful in producing the mining task force report. Defying the surge of people back to British Columbia from Alberta, Megan is moving back home to Alberta to take up a challenging and, I might say — f r o m w h a t I b e l i e v e — very well paid assignment with TransCanada Pipelines.

Megan, we will miss your keen eye in spotting our communications missteps. I'm sure all of us will join in thanking you for your many services and wishing you good fortune. Hon. R. Harris: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge a very special visitor from Peru. Would the House please join me in welcoming Augusto Freyre. He's the consul general of Peru in Vancouver. The consul general was appointed to his position in April, and this is his first official visit to Victoria. Could we please all make him very welcome. Hon. S.

Hagen: In the galleries today I'm pleased to introduce to the House four friends from the Comox valley: Don and Marie Gordon, super citizens in the valley — Marie is a past citizen of the year; and Richard and Maureen Swift, also from the valley. Maureen is a first-class school teacher in school district 71. Would the House please join me in making them welcome. Hon. I. Chong: Today I have the honour of intro- ducing a couple of constituents from Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Mr. Bert Elliot is here, a government employee who works with the Public Service Agency. He has brought along his 12-year-old son, Luke Elliot.

I know he will enjoy watching question period. I ask the House to make them both very welcome. Hon. G. Bruce: I'm very excited today to introduce a friend. I don't have four, but I do have one. As you're all well aware, we have a very strong dairy industry in the Cowichan Valley. In the House today is a good friend of mine, Wally Smith, who actually represents the province nationally for the dairy farmers of British Columbia. Would you please make him welcome. S. Orr: In the precinct today are my girlfriends — my friends who think I'm crazy doing this but love, support and feed me. They are the best.

We have with us Barb Vuiko — she and her husband are owners of Wendy's and Little Caesar's in town; Anne Gustafson; and a very good friend called Shirley Hunter, who is truly my very best, best friend. Angelica Weyan is here also. Would the House please make them all very welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills B.C. RAIL BENEFITS (FIRST NATIONS) TRUST ACT Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act. Hon. K. Falcon: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. K. Falcon: Mr.

Speaker, less than three months ago, Premier Gordon Campbell announced that this government had finalized a historic billion- dollar investment into our province through the B.C. Rail–CN investment partnership. While the public con- tinues to own the railway's railbeds, rights-of-way and tracks, CN has paid the province $1 billion for the rights to act as the long-term operator. [1410] Now, with the introduction of legislation like the B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act, the legacy of that partnership is starting to be realized. The $15 million B.C.

Rail benefits trust for first nations is just one result of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership. It will bring tremendous benefit in the form of economic develop- ment, educational advancement and cultural renewal to as many as 25 first nations with historic business relationships with B.C. Rail. Participation in this trust program is completely voluntary. Each first nation identified in the legislation will decide for itself whether they wish to take

part in the benefits of the program. The legislation I'm intro- ducing today will enable an independent board of first nations representatives to oversee this $15 million trust and ensure it is spent on first nations priorities — pri- orities such as providing seed capital for aboriginal enterprises and joint partnerships, protecting and pro- moting first nations languages and supporting aborigi- nal youth apprenticeship training. It is going to be a very exciting year as we witness the economic growth and job creation that starts to

11422 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 spring up in northern British Columbia and rail com- munities across B.C. as the direct result of this impor- tant rail partnership. I'm very much looking forward to hearing success stories about how the trust board chooses to invest these funds. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 58 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.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE TRUST ACT Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Northern Development Initiative Trust Act. Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. K. Falcon: When the Premier first announced the billion-dollar B.C. Rail investment partnership in November 2003, he brought new hope to northern Brit- ish Columbians. He brought new hope not only for a strong, revitalized railway but also for a surge in eco- nomic growth and job creation.

Today I'm happy to show northern British Columbians that since that day, government has been working hard to bring them the benefits they've been promised. I introduce today in the House legislation that will enable the $135 million northern development initiative trust. This initiative will give northern communities the funding, control and ability to identify and pursue new opportunities for stimulating sustainable economic growth and job creation in their regions. An independent 13-member board of directors will be appointed to over- see the distribution of the funds.

The board will consist of two representatives from each of the four regions — those being the Peace, Prince George, the northwest, and the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet regions — as well as five provincially appointed representatives. They will have complete discretion to invest in pro- jects as they see fit, making this an initiative that will be truly run by northerners to reflect northern priorities for the benefit of northerners. They might look to stra- tegic investments in forestry, pine beetle recovery, transportation, tourism, mi ning, energy, Olympic op- portunities or small business projects.

The list could go on and on. Again, I want to emphasize that it is totally up to the board to decide how they will invest and pri- oritize their spending. The $135 million represents a lot of opportunity for northerners to bring out the best in their communities. [1415] In addition, the bill contains other appropriations related to renewal as a result of the B.C. Rail invest- ment partnership. These include $200 million for the B.C.

Transportation Financing Authority's multi-year capital plan as well as added support for sport, recrea- tion and volunteer initiatives, Asia-Pacific market de- velopment, fuel cell research and other related initia- tives. None of this would have been possible without the billion-dollar investment partnership. I, for one, am proud that this government is recognizing northern B.C. as one of our province 's most critical economic generators. Mr. Speaker, on that, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE J. Bray: As Canadians and British Columbians con- tinue to discuss and debate the need to reform our health care system, one area of consensus seems to have emerged: the need to increase preventative meas- ures. Many feel we focus too much on acute care and too little on preventative ca re and services. The prob- lem is (1) how to evolve from the increasing demands on the acute care system to preventative care and (2) the fact that we will not immediately see benefits of preventative services except for specific programs like fall prevention for seniors.

I believe we as a society need to recognize that pre- ventative care is a generational shift, not something that provides a quick fix. Th us, we need to start with a new generation. Therefore, I think it is time we intro- duce a comprehensive health promotion and preven- tion curriculum for every child in B.C., starting from birth to graduation from high school.

Children represent one of the only captive audi- ences that we can deliver a comprehensive genera- tional program to, to improve health through wellness promotion, physical activity, developmental stimuli, nutritional awareness, comprehensive drug education, etc. This curriculum — and I use that word purposely — would be published using the best science in all ar- eas of wellness. The curriculum would be used by par- ents, child care providers, teachers, hockey coaches, cub scout leaders and anyone who interacts with chil- dren.

All persons who deal with children would use this blueprint to ensure that right from the start of life, chil- dren receive the comprehensive care that will ensure maximum health during the first 18 years of life and that as adults, they will be fully capable of making the kinds of healthy lifestyle choices that attain the goals we speak of when we talk about prevention. I believe that the science and evidence about early childhood development, right through to the changes

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11423 we've made in the school physical education system, already exist. My proposal recommends the govern- ment publish, like the B.C. HealthGuide , this informa- tion — techniques and strategies that all involved in a child's life, especially parents, can use to provide a generational shift in health promotion. SALE OF LOCAL POWER PROJECTS BY COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST B. Suffredine: The Columbia Basin Trust board of directors recently approached the province and B.C. Hydro with a request to sell their interest in Kootenay power projects to B.C. Hydro. Now B.C.

Hydro has approved the purchase of th ese assets in principle, which will give the Columbia Basin Trust approxi- mately $260 million. The trust anticipates this new deal will allow them to at least double their annual contri- butions to Kootenay communities and organizations from $5 million to about $10 m illion. They'll be able to diversify their investment portfolio and increase their return on investment. The sa le guarantees that three hydroelectric facilities and one development power project involved in the deal will always remain in pub- lic hands.

The previous government limited the trust focus primarily to power projects. Th is restricted their return on investments and failed to fulfil the purpose of the Columbia Basin Trust Act — namely, to create long- term jobs in the region to offset the effects of the dams. The trust was never intended to be a power company, but the power business has absorbed much of the board's time and resources. Carole James is now telling Kootenay residents that this deal signals the end of the trust — a prime exam- ple of how out of touch she is with Kootenay residents and key stakeholders.

It was the trust directors, who are Kootenay residents, who developed the far-sighted proposal we're considering that will result in far greater financial benefits to the region, more long-term stability for the trust and more freedom and flexibility. Carole James claims she's listening to the people, but this makes me wonder who she's been speaking to. She obviously hasn't spoken to the board of directors. [1420] This deal will create the largest investment trust of its kind in the province. Th e board will have more cash t o i n v e s t a n d m o r e t o g i v e t o K o o t e n a y c o m m u n i t i e s .

Board members, all residents in our communities, can use their skills, imagination and creativity to come up with the ideas to expand the Kootenay and Columbia Valley economy and create jobs and stability for our citizens. It's great news for the Kootenays. SAFER COMMUNITIES L. Mayencourt: British Columbians have come to us today and over the last few months asking us to create safer schools, safer streets and safer communi- ties.

That's an important request that has been put for- w a r d t o u s f r o m m a n y d i f f e r e n t p l a c e s — from com- munity citizens, from co mmunity groups, from non- profit agencies, from busi ness organizations. They've come us to and said: "We want to have safer communi- ties." When you look at New Era and you take a look at what we promised people, we said we would do that. I'm proud to be part of a government that is moving in that direction.

It is not always easy to forge partnerships with all of the different community leaders in British Columbia, but I think we have a fairly united group of individuals representing hundreds of thousands and perhaps mil- lions of people in British Columbia calling for new so- lutions to deal with public safety. I was very glad at the UBCM when the Premier announced that he was going to funnel $40 million into public safety initiatives across our province. I was proud of that moment.

I want to say that in addition to law enforcement, which is necessary in British Colum- bia, I was also proud that he noted and committed to working on the issues of homelessness, mental health, addictions and all of the things that make our commu- nity safer and stronger. I'm proud to be part of a government that listens to private citizens, that liste ns to private members and that listens to organizations and people about the kind of legislation they'd like to see brought forward. They have contributed to good public policy. I'm proud to be here and be a part of that. Thank you very much. Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions PRIVATE LIQUOR STORES J. Kwan: A s a r e s u l t o f t h i s g o v e r n m e n t ' s b o t c h e d plans to privatize liquor stores, they gave liquor licen- sees free rein to set up shops wherever they please. They're creating huge problems for many communities. The MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview promised his constituents that he would ask the Solicitor General to take a second look at what the government has done. Can the Solicitor General tell this House what he's do- ing to fulfil the member's promise to his constituents? Hon. R.

Coleman: If the member would like to take the time to review the information available, she'll find that when we did a process of the inherent issue with the liquor licensing from the 19 classes to two and how we dealt with liquor stores and how they could be placed in communities, we said — and we still do to- day — that the liquor store will not be allowed to go where local government doesn't have the zoning in place for it to go. The fact of the matter is that no pri- vate liquor store in British Columbia will be imposed on a community where the zoning doesn't exist. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

11424 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 J. Kwan: The problem, of course, with the gov- ernment's approach is that they forget to talk to the people and to consult with the people. In Chilliwack a private liquor store opened less than a block from a secondary school, despite the vocal protest from par- ents. In Victoria, in South Vancouver, in North Van- couver and in communities across British Columbia, residents are concerned that liquor stores will start popping up like dandelions wi th little public input. To the Solicitor General: what steps is he taking to fix this problem?

Or doesn't he care that parents and communities are pleading with him to change the policy? Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the member opposite is advocating that we should interfere with the processes of local government, because within the zoning…. If in a community a municipality zones a property, they zone it for an allowable use. Maybe we need to give you a lesson on how development takes place in the province… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. R. Coleman: …but you can zone for an allow- able use.

When you zone for an allowable use, every- body in the community has the opportunity to give input at that time. That allowable use can include a retail outlet like a liquor store… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. The Solicitor General has the floor. [1425] Hon. R. Coleman: …if the community says it is allowed in that zoning. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question. J.

Kwan: Maybe the Solicitor General should be giving that lecture to the Minister of Transportation, because the minister actually put forward a piece of legislation that would actually blow over municipali- ties in terms of their au thority on zoning. But you know what? In this instance, on this very important issue, this is about local input and about this govern- ment's downloading to lo cal governments. From the…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. J.

Kwan: For the Solicitor General's benefit, let me quote the member from Fraserview: "If we have fault at the provincial level that on an unintended basis is cre- ating havoc in these communities, then we will need to take a look at it." Mr. Speaker, it is creating havoc and anger. That is why the member from Fraserview was forced to support his constituents — to stop a liquor store from taking advantage of his own government's change to the law. Again to the Solicitor General: parents and com- munities are screaming for action.

Will he at least commit to revisiting this la w and to working with mu- nicipalities, consulting with them to bring in regula- tions that work in creating safer communities? Hon. R. Coleman: We did consult with the UBCM as we went through our liquor changes three years ago. We have been through a variety of processes with this. One of the things those communities said to us is: "Let us deal with the zoning i ssues with regards to com- mercial operations in our communities." We allow them to do that.

If they've already gone and approved the allowable use on a piece of property and some- body's bought that piece of property believing that that's the allowable use, are you saying a municipality now should change the allowable use midway through? Mr. Speaker, the reality is that it is a zoned piece of property for an allowable use. It's been through a pub- lic process. It's approved th at use by council and with public input, and that's the way it is. J. MacPhail: Well, the member from Fraserview says that this is a growing problem, and we need to look at it again.

Today, there are almost a dozen new applications in one city alone for private liquor stores. The Solicitor General won't do a thing, so let me ask… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. J. MacPhail: …the Minister for Addiction Ser- vices, the new minister, the same person who is head of the Neighbourhood Pub Owners Association — who lobbied against laws to restrict secondhand smoke, who lobbied against tougher impaired drunk driving laws — the same person who lobbied for ex- panded gambling in neig hbourhood pubs.

Can she tell parents and communities what she is doing to ensure that a liquor store doesn't pop up on every corner because her government gave the green light to liquor store expansion without consulting commu- nities? It's almost a dozen new applications today alone. Hon. R. Coleman: You know…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Solicitor General has the floor.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11425 Hon. R. Coleman: What absolute nonsense. If peo- ple have a right to go and apply for a liquor store in British Columbia…. If the member would read the rules, she would find out th ey can't be within half a kilometre of each other. They can't be on every corner across from each other to begin with, because we put those rules in place. We also put in place a moratorium on those stores for four years so that they have to actually do their development within the next 12 months or lose their opportunity to develop.

So there can't be any new ap- plications coming in. These have been in process for some time and will continue to be in process. Frankly, I find it absolutely incredible coming from a member opposite who sits in a city that would rather legalize a legal marijuana operation than deal with liquor on a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood basis. J. MacPhail: It is interesting… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. J. MacPhail: …how this government plays favour- ites amongst its own backbench. He just called the member from Fraserview's comments nonsense. That's what he just….

The Solicitor General just said it was nonsense. Interesting. [1430] Let me quote from the letter sent by the chair of the Chilliwack parent advisory council, fighting the open- ing of a liquor store less than a block from the local school. She says, and I quote: "The mayor has informed our parent advisory council in a letter that our local government has no power to stop the establishment of liquor stores in our community." Interesting. Why? Because this government changed the law, download- ing responsibility to local governments without any real consultation.

That's left parents scrambling as new liquor licences get handed out like candy. Again to the minister responsible for addictions: will she stand up to her government, stand up for par- ents and join her colleague from Fraserview to demand the government take a second look at this law that's creating havoc? Hon. R. Coleman: Again, I will say to the member that local government has the right to zone property for allowable uses. If the land is zoned properly, then it's dealt with by local government.

If the member would pay attention to her own city council in the city of Vancouver, she'll know th at they're actually going through a process that has a moratorium on this issue right now. I actually spoke to the member from Fraser- view, who was able to go back and explain to his community the process of zoning versus the licensing procedure, so that he could deal with that in his com- munity. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. STATUS OF HUCKLEBERRY MINES D. MacKay: My question is for the Minister of Pro- vincial Revenue.

Our government has just gone through a loan restructuring for Huckleberry Mines Ltd., which is located south of Houston, British Co- lumbia. As a result of this restructuring, the NDP house leader has voiced her opposition to protecting 175 jobs in the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine. I'd like to ask the Minister of Provincial Revenue: can he explain to my consti tuents and all British Co- lumbians how Huckleberry Mines wound up in this situation? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Hon. R. Thorpe: Once again we are cleaning up an NDP loan from 1996.

Our deci sion is based solely on the business case. The options were clear: put it into bankruptcy or attempt to maximize the return for Brit- ish Columbians through a loan restructuring. Our gov- ernment decided to restructure the loan so that we can maximize the return to British Columbia taxpayers while cleaning up an NDP loan from 1996. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION PROCESS E. Brenzinger: My question is directly to the Pre- mier and not to the Minister of Transportation, as this clearly is not a transportation question.

As early as June 2002, then-CEO of CN Rail, Paul Tellier, discussed with the Vancouver Sun editorial board CN acquiring B.C. Rail, despite the fact that only a year earlier the Premier had promised not to sell B.C. Rail. On November 21, 2003, CP Rail wrote a letter to the Premier stating that the government's handling of the B.C. Rail sale was extremely prejudiced. My question, directly to the Premier, is: will he con- firm that he did in fact meet with then-CEO Paul Tel- lier in Kamloops prior to an RFP being issued regard- ing the sale of B.C.

Rail, and that amongst the matters discussed was the purchase price of CN? Hon. K. Falcon: C l e a r l y , t h i s i s a n i s s u e t h a t t h e member continues to raise, so I might direct the mem- ber to Charles River Associates Inc., the independent r e p o r t t h a t w a s d o n e o n t h e B . C . R a i l – C N i n v e s t m e n t partnership. He actually goes into some detail over that CP letter. You will find that it was canvassed very, very thoroughly, and there was no fault found whatsoever. [1435] I would encourage the member to actually take the time to read the report, and when the member reads

11426 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 that report, she will have all the answers there for her- self. ACCESS TO POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION R. Nijjar: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f A d - vanced Education. The NDP — or should I say the un- ion executives that run the NDP? — continually touted that the raising of the tuition freeze would deny access to post-secondary education, although there is no cor- relation, no report or evidence showing that raising of the freeze would deny access to education.

Now a recent study by the Education Policy Insti- tute ranked Canada third in the world in access to post- secondary education for students from lower socioeco- nomic backgrounds. Furthermore, in Canada, B.C. is ranked third amongst Canadian provinces. Clearly, a lot is being done that is strong. Now there are more students going to post-secondary education. After 2001 m ore stu dents applied to g o t o post-se conda ry edu ca- tion. My question to the Minister of Advanced Educa- tion is: how can we become No. 1? What is she doing to ensure that we continue to improve access and make B.C.

No. 1 in the world, not just No. 3? Hon. S. Bond: We are absolutely delighted… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. S. Bond: …to be able to tell you that in the next six years we are going to add 25,000 seats to the post-secondary education system. We're going to do that all around the province, because we believe that access closer to home is essential. It helps families. It reduces the cost to familie s by an average of $6,000 a year. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. S.

Bond: We have a plan in place that will ensure that if you get a B, you will earn a seat in a post- secondary education institution. That is great news for British Columbians and great news for families. HANDLING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Management Services. With a more community-based approach to service delivery, some organizations are concerned about confidential issues around informa- tion collected from clients.

The Personal Information Protection Act came into force earlier this year to pro- tect personal information collected by non-profit groups such as charitable and religious organizations I'm asking the minister: what legal obligations do volunteer groups — including charitable organizations, religious and community groups — have under the Personal Information Protection Act? Hon. J. Murray: As the member for Vancouver- Langara rightly comments, the Personal Information Protection Act came into forc e in January this year. In fact, we're the first province to introduce legislation of this kind.

That act comes out of our commitment to protect the privacy of indi viduals' personal informa- tion. What PIPA does is to set out the ground rules for how the private sector and non-profit organizations can collect, use or share information about individuals. Essentially, on the one hand, this act, the Personal In- formation Protection Act, gives individuals the right to control access to and use of their own personal infor- mation. On the other hand, PIPA requires organiza- tions to obtain consent when they collect, use or dis- close your personal information.

We're leaders in the protection of privacy, and th is act is just another exam- ple of that. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present report No. 3 of the auditor general, 2004-05: Preventing and Managing Diabetes in British Columbia. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 69. Perhaps we can give the other members a chance to proceed to other business. [1440] Second Reading of Bills FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be now read a sec- ond time.

This bill contains amendments to a number of statutes which deal with the business and financial sectors of the province of British Columbia. The stat- utes amended are the Busine ss Corporations Act; the Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 2004; the Pension Benefits Standards Act; and the Society Act. For the most part these amendments are technical and housekeeping in nature but are essential to these sectors. The Business Corporations Act amendments in this bill are almost entirely technical in nature.

They correct errors, clarify language and address issues identified by the public and by the corporate registry since the implementation of the new act in March of 2004. There are two substa ntive amendments. One amendment will reduce a waiting period to enable more timely restoration of dissolved companies by the

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11427 registrar. This will add to the attractiveness of the new administrative as opposed to the court-ordered restora- tion process under the act. The other amendment re- duces costs and unnecessary paper flow by requiring that the corporate registry mail out paper confirmation of certain electronic corporate filings only upon request of the applicant instead of automatically. This will ad- dress a concern and frustration raised by many that there was too much paper in volved in these transac- tions. Mr.

Speaker, this bill also contains technical amendments to correct a number of drafting errors and oversights in Bill 39, the Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 . Bill 39 was enacted to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of financial services sector regulation by eliminating outdated and unneces- sary restrictions and requir ements, streamlining regu- latory responsibilities and expanding the enforcement tools available to the regulators.

The amendments in this bill will clarify Insurance Council of B.C. powers, including the ability to set fees under an established maximum and to impose condi- tions on licences on a case-by-case basis. The amend- ments will also correct a number of cross-references and omissions and remove

definitions no longer re- quired. This bill also contains a technical amendment to the Society Act requiring that societies make their annual financial statements available to the public and provid- ing that a society may charge a fee for copies of the statements. The amendment al so establishes a process by which disputes between the society and the request- ing party may be resolved. It is essential that the public continues to have access to this important information about a society to ensure proper accountability in the not-for-profit sector.

Finally, this bill contains a technical amendment to the Pension Benefits Standa rds Act. The amendment is necessary in order to accommodate recent changes to the handbook of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. This change means that the accounting standards which apply to annu al financial reports filed by pension plans with the superintendent of pensions must now be established by regulation rather than by policy. This amendment will provide for such a regula- tion, ensuring that the ap propriate accounting stan- dards continue to apply to these annual reports. I move second reading.

Motion approved. Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 69, Finance Statut es Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 70. PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G.

Collins: I move that Bill 70, the Property Transfer Tax Amendment Act, 2004, now be read a second time. [1445] Bill 70 implements chan ges proposed by govern- ment on June 22, 2004, to he lp bring certainty to first- time homebuyers and other purchasers of pre-sold strata lots. Under the Property Transfer Tax Act, tax is payable on the fair market value of a property on the date application is made to register the transfer in the land title office.

For purchase rs of existing properties, this application of tax works well, because there is gen- erally only a short period of time, perhaps days, be- tween the date of purchase and the date of registration, and the amount paid for the property is usually its fair market value. An issue arises, however, in particular with very large condominium projects that can take up to two years or more, in some cases, to build.

In these cases, developers often sell individual strata units long before construction of the project is complete and, in some cases, before it's even begu n, long before purchasers are able to take title to their units. In such cases, par- ticularly in B.C.'s red-hot housing market, the price paid for a property may differ substantially from what its fair market value is when it's eventually registered. The long delay between the date of purchase and registration of pre-sold strata units creates two prob- lems for purchasers.

First, it creates considerable uncer- tainty regarding the fair market value of the unit when it's eventually registered an d, therefore, the amount of property transfer tax that would be payable. Such un- certainty is unfair to the people paying this tax. Second, the long delay can be very unfair to first-time home- buyers, who, after saving their hard-earned money to enter the housing market for the first time, may lose eligibility for the first-time homebuyers exemption simply because the value of their home increased be- tween the date of purchase and the date of registration.

Bill 70 addresses both of these problems by basing tax on most pre-sold strata units on the total considera- tion paid for the unit. For those transfers that are not arm's-length or open market , authority is provided to determine the total consideration that would have been payable if the transaction had been at arm's length and in the open market.

Bill 70 improves fairness by pro- viding all purchasers of pre-sold strata units with cer- tainty about their property transfer tax liability when they make their purchase and allowing first-time homebuyers to purchase a first home with the confi- dence that they will not lose their first-time homebuy- ers exemption solely because of rising prices. The amendments are retroactive to January 1, 2001, to en- sure that all affected purchasers are addressed. I move second reading of Bill 70. Hon. B. Locke: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

11428 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. B. Locke: With us today in the gallery are 50 grade 7 students from Cindri ch Elementary School in my riding. With them, as well, are their teachers Mr. Darien Russell, Mr. Andrew Shook and Ms. Vicki Den Ouden, and Mr. Dave Price, their principal. Will the House please make them very welcome. Debate Continued J. Bray: I rise briefly to speak in support of Bill 70, the Property Transfer Ta x Amendment Act, 2004.

I know this is also a critical issue for the member for Vancouver-Burrard, but for my riding in Victoria we have had a tremendous housing boom over the last couple of years as our economy has turned around and really gone on all engines. For my constituents, many o f t h e m w e r e c a u g h t i n t his cycle where they would pre-buy, often two years before completion of construc- tion, and would find themselv es in the situation that the Minister of Finance has discussed. I know that it had an impact not only on those fami- lies.

Many of them were retirees moving to Victoria from other parts of the province or other parts of the country. Even more critical, because of the economic turnaround in Victoria and the increasing job opportunities for young professionals for the health sciences, a lot of those homebuyers in the downtown core here buying these pre-sold condo units were young families making their first purchase. This is a critical time for young families as they make that first leap into the world of mortgages, and the property purchase tax exemption was a critical part of their financial planning.

I'm really pleased that the Minister of Finance was able to listen to the concerns of first-time homebuyers, developers and real estate agen ts to actually find a fair resolution to this circumstance. It really is indicative of the economy of this province that we are finding, in my case, buildings selling out within the first 24 hours. This is not a rare occurrence anymore. This is actually the common occurrence. [1450] In my riding it is positively impacting hundreds of homeowners, hundreds of se niors, hundreds of first- time homebuyers, young professionals.

And it's going to make a tremendous difference for our continued economic growth in this re gion. It's going to provide more certainty for our housing market to continue its strong growth and, really, to make it clear to the devel- opment community that this is a place where you can develop. This is a place where we're fair to consumers and where we have fair tax policy. I just want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on doing something that is really going to help several hundred of my constituents in a very positive way not only in the past but in the future. Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 70.

The Minis- ter of Finance closes debate. Hon. G. Collins: I want to thank my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill for his comments. I men- tioned yesterday the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who was one of a number who raised this issue with me. At the time, we heard from MLAs in the Okanagan and elsewhere ar ound British Columbia where this had become an issue, and we were very happy. I want to thank the officials in the Ministry of Fi- nance for doing the work required to make this work for British Columbians.

It was clearly, as it existed, a tax that in my opinion was unfair and created all sorts of uncertainty for people, and we were able to make these changes. I think it will address the concerns of British Columbians, particularly first-time homebuy- ers but others as well. The great thing, I guess, is that this issue came to the fore because people are flooding back to British Columbia. People who left are coming back.

People who have been here are tryi ng to get into the housing market for the first time, and we're seeing a super-hot housing market here in British Columbia with hous- ing starts and housing sales leading the country for the last couple of years. Certainly, those are really positive indicators. It's probably appropriate that we are debating this right now. I have a good friend of mine in the visitors' gallery today, Toby Ward, who is from Brit- ish Columbia, who under the previous administra- tion decided to….

There weren't many options here in British Columbia, certainly not the future we all had been accustomed to, and he and his family picked up and moved to Toronto. We won't hold that against him. He has been very successful there. He started an Internet business that has been extremely successful, and now, I know, he has co me back to British Colum- bia. I believe he has purcha sed some property and is looking to see if he can bring his investment and at least start to expand it here in British Columbia.

Hopefully, he'll move back here, as well, and be one of the multitude of young, bright, talented British Columbians who left British Columbia under the dismal decade that was the NDP's reign in office and who are now coming back to British Columbia to build their futures. I want to ask the House, as sort of an introduction, to welcome Toby here today. As well, I move second reading of Bill 70. Motion approved. Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 70, Property Transfer Tax Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sit- ting of the House after today. Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 62.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11429 ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be now read a second time. Bill 62, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, contains a number of miscellaneous amendments to statutes that are within the responsibility of the At- torney General. I will briefly describe the amendments, expanding as I go on the more significant ones.

First, this bill makes an amendment to the Libel and Slander Act to provide that a person sued in defama- tion for publishing the opinion of another person will not lose the benefit of the defence of fair comment. The elements of the defence of fair comment are that the opinion be a comment on a matter of public interest for which there is a basis in fact, stated or referred to, and that it not be made for a dishonest or malicious pur- pose.

Current case law — in fact, it has been around for a while — has the effect that a defendant sued for pub- lishing the opinion of another person cannot have the benefit of the defence of fair comment unless the de- fendant actually agrees with that opinion. One example of the potential effect of this case law is to discourage newspapers from printing letters to the editor where the letter expresses an opinion with which the newspa- per is not in agreement.

The amendment maintains the purpose of the de- fence of fair comment, which is to balance the protec- tion of personal reputation with the protection of the expression and dissemination of a variety of opinions on matters of public interest — specifically, in this case, by ensuring that newspapers and others are not dis- couraged from publishing opinions with which they themselves may happen to disagree. [1455] There is a second amen dment to the Libel and Slander Act.

That amendmen t is intended to provide that there will be no liability for damages in defama- tion with respect to a publication in the collection of a public or educational library. The way the amendments will operate is that should a court — pursuant to pro- ceedings brought against an author or someone else — issue an injunction against the distribution of a particu- lar publication on the basis of a substantiated claim of defamation, a library would then be required to re- move the publication from its lending collection.

The amendment would prevent th e prior constraint in- volved in compelling libraries to remove publications from their collections in ci rcumstances where there has been no judicial determination of defamation. The underlying public policy purpose here is to help ensure that public libraries and educational librar- ies contain material that provides, supports and sup- plies a broad range of view s and opinions.

What we're trying to do is protect public and educational libraries, and their associated local governments and educational institutions, from financially onerous litigation — per- haps financially crippling litigation — while of course maintaining protection for th e rights of plaintiffs who m a y b e t h e v i c t i m o f l i b e l b y e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e y m a y prevent the distribution of publications determined or acknowledged to be defamatory. This part of the bill doesn't say anything about an action for libel against the actual author of the libel.

The victim of the defamation will, of course, have all of their rights against the author or other related pub- lisher of the libel. What we're trying to do here in this amendment is ensure that libraries in public institu- tions, public libraries and educational libraries can have a wide range of books and materials on their shelves, and ensure that we continue to maintain the free flow of ideas in British Columbia. Bill 62 also amends the Estate Administration Act by increasing the value of small estates that are eligible for the simpler

summary administration process from the amount which it now is, which is $10,000, up to $25,000. That $10,000 amount has not actually been changed since 1983. It is past time, I think, to increase the amount to take account of inflation — the effect of inflation over time — and to better reflect current eco- nomic realities. The amendments will also make it clear that the official administrator may apply for

summary admini- stration of small estates wi th a value of $25,000 or less without having to show that the deceased has no rela- tives who are entitled to administer the estate. There is also a consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act that will increase from $10,000 to $25,000 the value of small es tates where an expedited procedure may be used to transfer vehicle ownership to a beneficiary on the death of the vehicle's owner. There are estates where the only asset of any signifi- cance is a motor vehicle.

Until this point, if the motor vehicle was worth more than $10,000, there was the prospect that someone who wished to sell — who was an heir under the estate, perhaps, and wanted to dis- pose of the vehicle — might even have had to follow all of the complex procedures associated with obtaining a grant of letters probate. Really, it no longer makes much sense to do that for an estate where the only asset is a car of modest value. What we're trying to do here is ensure that

summary estate administration procedures are available in a wider range of cases than has been the case until these amendments. Bill 62 makes a minor amendment to the Offence Act to support something called the Contraventions Act agreement between Brit ish Columbia and Canada. That agreement allows for the enforcement of minor federal offences under a provincial ticket scheme that provides both French and English language prosecu- tion and service. [1500] With the amendment, both French and English ver- sions of any added regulations will be equally authori- tative.

I understand that this may be a helpful step forward in ensuring, for example, that certain kinds of regulations that I believe are federal in nature, with respect to the safe operation of speedboats on lakes in the interior of the province, will now be able to be en- forced. I know that's been a concern of the member for

11430 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 Shuswap for a number of years, and I'm glad that I think we're able to take a step forward in addressing that issue with these amendments. Finally, this bill makes some housekeeping amendments to the Admini strative Tribunals Act, which was enacted this spring.

That act modernized British Columbia's administrative justice system by creating the first-ever comprehensive set of standards and practices for British Columbia's administrative tribunals, making those tribunals more accessible to the thousands of British Columbians who use their services every day or every year. The amendments correct some minor drafting er- rors and oversights and prov ide additional clarity on certain provisions of the Ad ministrative Tribunals Act to ensure that the act can be implemented as intended.

For example, minor amendments are made within the general reform provisions of the act and, consequen- tially, to the enabling legislation for five administrative tribunals. Provision is made for the temporary ap- pointment of an acting chai r, similar to the existing provisions for temporary appointment of members. Also, amendments are made to clarify the timing of a tribunal's constitutional jurisdiction.

These amendments enhance and support the goals of the Administrative Tribunals Act to balance and strengthen public accountability with decision-making independence for the province's administrative justice system. B. Bennett: I wanted to briefly rise in support of this legislation, just on one particular aspect of it. You know, I think that this sort of reform lacks the sex ap- peal, so to speak, of a lot of the other things that go on in this chamber.

But in terms of making justice accessi- ble and affordable to people, there is one aspect of this legislation that means a lot to me personally, and that is the change being made to the Estate Administration Act. I was a solicitor at one time, before I became a poli- tician, and I did a lot of estate work. I can't tell you how many times families were faced with a situation where they had to have an estate probated at considerable expense and inconvenience because of the $10,000 limit. So I congratulate the Attorney General and his staff on making this change, amongst the other changes included with Bill 62.

I think this actually will make estate administration accessible and affordable for a lot of folks in British Columbia. It's a good change, and thank you for making it. Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 62. The Attor- ney General closes debate. Hon. G. Plant: Well, I just wanted to say that I ap- preciate those comments. In fa ct, this was an issue that was brought to my attention by a member of the pro- fession who had noticed this anomaly developing over time.

I'm glad we've been able to introduce a bill that will achieve the object that the member speaks about, and I look forward to any further discussion about the details of these amendments as that discussion may arise or occur in committee stage. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 62, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading of Bill 64. JUSTICE MODERNIZATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be now read a second time. [1505] Bill 64 makes amendments to several statutes that will improve the effectiveness of the civil justice system and enhance access to justice for all British Columbi- ans. The first of these amen dments is to the Class Pro- ceedings Act.

Class proceedings legislation is designed to enhance access to the courts and serve the interests of judicial economy by bringing together a number of similar cases, similar claims, into one proceeding — most effectively, I think, in circumstances where the value of an individual claim may not be large, but where there may be hundreds or thousands of citizens who were affected by the same issue. When all of those claims are aggregated together, there is a lawsuit that can be advanced affordably and economically.

Class proceedings legislation is designed to regulate how that kind of litigation is initiated and commenced. One of the first steps in th e initiation of a class pro- ceeding is to take a cause of action and apply to have it certified as a class proceeding in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The amendment we're introducing today is an amendment that will deal with a potential problem that exists in the structure of the Class Pro- ceedings Act by extending th e period of time that limi- tation periods are suspende d when class action pro- ceedings are initiated.

Currently, limitation periods for persons who have individual claims are suspended at the time a class action proceeding is certified. This amendment would extend the suspension period to the time that a class action lawsuit is filed. Th at is, the running of time — which is the lawyer's phrase for the operation of limita- tion periods — will be suspended while an application for certification is being considered by the court.

Certification applications are often complex, and frequently there is a lengthy period between the time the application for certification is filed and the time the issue of whether or not to certify the class is decided by the court. The amendment is intended to ensure, and will ensure, that individuals who reasonably believe

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11431 they are included as members of the potential class are not prejudiced if the class action ultimately is not certi- fied and their limitation periods have expired in the intervening period. It will also eliminate the need to file a multiplicity of individual lawsuits to preserve limitation periods when class proceedings have been commenced.

It means, in effect, that when an application for certifica- tion is made, all those who are potentially members of the class won't have to worry about the running of limitation periods or the running of time until the ap- plication for certification is disposed of or until the other triggering events that are referred to specifically in the provision take place. In this respect, our class proceedings legislation was, I think, anomalous, and I am grateful to the mem- bers of the judiciary and the legal community who brought this issue forward.

It is, in fact, an issue that came forward during the public discussion about civil liability reform, which is usually referred to as the civil liability review. I'm glad to introduce this particular amendment, which I think will help ensure that class proceedings legislation operates as it really should and as it does operate in this re spect, in fact, in Ontario and Saskatchewan. I should say that this amendment will come into effect on royal assent, and it is prospective in applica- tion.

The proposed amendments to the Small Claims Act and Court Rules Act are enabling provisions that pave the way for the possibility of very significant future improvements to the civil ju stice system. Specifically, the amendments to the Small Claims Act will make it possible to increase the monetary jurisdiction of the provincial small claims court, by regulation, up to a maximum of $50,000.

The amendments to the Court Rules Act will enable the creation of different proce- dures for different categories of cases and will allow for the creation of simplified procedure rules for cases under $100,000 in the Supreme Court. [1510] I want to pause to emphasize that what these two amendments do is create a framework within which the monetary limit can be raised. The amendments do not actually raise the monetary jurisdiction of the small claims court, nor do they actually create simplified procedure rules for cases under $100,000.

I mention that because I've seen some news reports that suggest that these amendments go fu rther than they do. I think they're important amendments, because they will en- sure that some civil justice reform work that's under- way can be given effect at the time when we know for a certainty what it is we can do. Let me speak for a minute about the problem that we're trying to fix here. In British Columbia, civil cases are becoming so complex that many people cannot afford to use the court system.

For some time there has been considerable work being done within my minis- try, in collaboration with bo th levels of court and the bar, to look for ways to improve access to courts for civil claims. I have not seen the most recent version of this sta- tistic, but one indication of the problem that is increas- ingly facing British Columbia litigants who are looking for affordable access to justice in civil litigation is the fact that just under one third of all the filings now in small claims court are fo r exactly $10,000. The mone- tary jurisdiction of the smal l claims court is limited to $10,000.

What that means is th at in just about one third of the cases coming before the court, the litigants probably have a claim for significantly more than $10,000 — maybe only slightly more. There is anecdo- tal evidence that suggests that in some cases, the liti- gants actually have a dispute over as much as $40,000 or $50,000. But they can't, for whatever reason — and I'll come to that in a minute — figure out how to make the litigation of that issu e in the Supreme Court an economically viable proposit ion.

So they decide that they want to take advantage of the expedited proce- dure that's there in the sm all claims court, and they waive down their claim to $10,000. That is at least some indi cation that for civil claims of modest but in some cases quite significant to the individuals involved…. For modest size, the court sys- tem is not the accessible place that it ought to be. In this context, I think I want to po int out that the Provincial Court small claims process has for many years offered individuals and businesses a venue for the speedy, just and inexpensive resolution of their disputes.

That $10,000 monetary limit has not changed since 1991, not even to keep pace with inflation. What I hear is a growing demand from the legal community and the larger co mmunity of the province to make the cheaper, the simpler and the more efficient procedures of the small claims court available to a wider range of cases. So this legislation will allow cabi- net to raise the monetary jurisdiction of that court. What we are doing now is working in a number of different ways to try to cons ider the question of just what level of increase will achieve our goals in terms of increasing access to justice.

We may find, for example, that this happens in stages. It may not be an increase from $10,000 to $50,000 in short order. It may be an increase from $10,000 to $25,000. We still have quite a bit of work to do to sort out how we can ensure that we can increase access to justice by increasing the monetary jurisdiction without compromising access to justice by increasing the delay in the time to trial by a significant increase in the workload of the Provincial Court. Again, the theme here is that we are trying to give….

I'm asking the Legislature to give cabinet the tools it needs to implement an increase in the monetary jurisdiction when we get to the point when the work has been done, which will allow us to determine what the level of increase ought to be and on what basis. [1515] The same argument in some respects applies to the Supreme Court, where I find constantly that lawyers and their clients are telling me that the complex and costly processes of the Supreme Court make it virtually impossible for many, many citizens — too many citi-

11432 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 zens — to contemplate making a civil claim in the Su- preme Court. I believe improvements have to be made to those procedures, and I am confident that the work that's underway will lead to reforms that will actually make a difference in how that court reaches a broader sector of the public. In fact, I've been work ing with the Supreme Court Rules Revision Committee to try and develop a new mandatory procedure for civil claims, perhaps up to $50,000 or perhaps even up to $100,000.

The goal is to have a process that is simpler and more affordable, both for litigants who have legal representation and for litigants who don't. As I've said, the amendments to the Small Claims Act and the Court Rules Act will support the work being done to design these reforms so that when that work is complete — and that work includes consultation with the judiciary, with the bar, with the public at large — we'll be able to implement the reforms immediately. There are two other changes in this bill that are important.

First, we are amending the Crown Proceed- ing Act to allow litigation to be commenced against the Crown in the Provincial Court, in small claims court. This prohibition against allowing suits against the pro- vincial government in the Provincial Court is an anach- ronism. It is way past time, in my view, when the gov- ernment should be able to stand up in a court in British Columbia and say: "We're special. You can't sue us here.

You have to go somewhere else to sue us." By providing the Crown with this longstanding procedural protection, which was never available to any other litigant, we're essentially forcing litigants who may have relatively small claims against the pro- vincial government to use those more costly and com- plex procedures in the Supr eme Court. I think that is antithetical to a justice system that has the idea of equality at its root and that works towards achieving a c c e s s t o j u s t i c e .

S o w h a t w e ' r e p r o p o s i n g h e r e i s t o remove that long-outstanding anachronism, and that will permit litigants to sue the provincial government in the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Lastly, this bill contains amendments to the Evi- dence Act to provide greater certainty that electronic court documents will be admitted into court and that a secure electronic signature will be accepted as a signa- ture by the person identified through the signature.

This amendment is necessary, from government's per- spective, to allow us to continue to develop an elec- tronic court case management and tracking system, which will include the piloting of electronic filing of civil court documents in 2005, with the full implemen- tation of electronic court fi ling scheduled to take place in the fall of 2006. The further development of these systems, along with the electronic filing of documents, is all part of helping achieve efficiencies in the justice system through the use of technology.

Those efficiencies, in turn, will help increase access to justice by reducing some of the unnecessary barriers created by traditional rules for the proof of documents that were created long before the electronic age. These amendments are sim ilar to provisions in the Canada Evidence Act. I'm told that other jurisdictions, such as Alberta and Ontario, have also made amend- ments to their provincial evidence acts to be consistent with the Canada Evidence Act.

I should say that this amendment will not affect other existing legislative provisions relating to the creation or use of electronic documents or electronic signatures. In

summary, we deliberately gave this bill the title of Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, because what we are doing here will help mod- ernize our justice system and help expand access to that system so that British Columbians can have confi- dence that there is a justice system that is affordable, that's there for them when they need it, and that will continue to do the work of protecting our rights and responsibilities as British Columbians. [1520] B. Bennett: I rise to speak very briefly in support of the Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

I'm going to focus on two aspects of this legisla- tion. First, the Crown Proceed ing Act changes. I was practising at the bar in Kelowna for a couple of years and in the Kootenays for almo st ten years, and I can't tell you how many times people came into my office and told me stories about the government doing some- thing to them and not being able to take their com- plaint through a legal action to the Provincial Court. For those of my colleagues who aren't familiar with the difference between Provincial and Supreme Court, the Provincial Court process is a small claims process.

It is a very intuitive process requiring some forms but not requiring a lawyer, particularly. It's a process where just about anybody can get in volved in it, and fees are reasonable. It's a more rela xed, less formal process. For most citizens, first of all, to go to court is a rather traumatic experience, I think. Secondly, to take on the government is probably another traumatic ex- perience for most people.

So I think this particular change really opens up a fair opportunity for ordinary people in this province when they feel aggrieved by the provincial government, and it is a relatively modest monetary amount to take their claim into Provincial Court. The changes that are be ing made to the Small Claims Act…. I recognize that the dollar amount of the claims possible right now is set at $10,000. I can cer- tainly confirm from my expe rience what the Attorney General stated a moment ago about at least one-third of the claimants giving up a portion of their claim when they go to small claims court.

I had it happen in my office many, many times. I would advise people. I rarely went to small claims court, because the client couldn't justify the cost. But I would help people fill out their forms and so fort h. Many times they had a claim of $20,000, $25,000 and even $40,000, and they simply gave it up because they could not face the for- mality and the cost and just the complexity of dealing with the Supreme Court.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11433 As this new policy develops, as the regulation is put into place and this all plays out, I think it will be a major improvement, again, in terms of access to justice. We usually think about access to justice in terms of the criminal justice system, but there's access to justice for the civil side as well. It's every bit as important for people who don't come into contact with the criminal justice system to feel that they also have access to the justice system on the civil side.

So, again, my congratu- lations to the Attorney General for these important changes. J. Bray: I want to stand and briefly, strongly, support Bill 64, the Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. You know, the Attorney General spoke at great length about some of the details in this.

I support all of them, especially because it follows the theme that this government has been following since the election of 2001, led by the Attorney General — that is, actu- ally making the justice system more workable for all those involved so that it works better for the judici- ary, for the legal profession , for trial lawyers and for solicitors. But most import antly, it works better for citizens. The courts are actually th ere for citizens. The courts are there to deal with disputes, certainly on the crimi- nal side.

But on the civil side, it has become an impor- tant structure in our system here in British Columbia and Canada. The Attorney General has highlighted quite correctly that, over time, the world has changed. It has changed in terms of monetary values by which somebody might be seeking legal remedy, and it has changed in the complex world that we live in. Both of those issues have become impediments.

Certainly, I've heard from many in my constituency about the barriers that they create — not intentionally — for people to access the courts to actual l y f i n d r e m e d i e s t o t h e i r situations. [1525] I am really standing in support of making the court system more responsive to the needs of ordinary citi- zens to be able to access their grievances and redress as they see they are deserving of in their grievances. I especially do want to commend the Attorney General for what I think is a really important move, which is starting the process by which we can raise the limits for small claims.

The Attorney has highlighted a complaint I've heard, which is that people, in essence, short- change themselves to access the small claims court rather than actually going af ter what they believe is an award to which they're enti tled. That has a very dis- couraging impact on citize ns and on the sense they have that the justice system is actually there to provide them with some remedies.

I strongly encourage the st aff that are working with the Attorney General to look at the mechanisms by which we can increase that threshold to provide more access for ordinary citizens — either with or without counsel, with or without any expertise — to the reme- dies that they feel they have entitlement to so that we can actually make the justice system more available to ordinary citizens. That's something I hear a lot of in my community.

I know that although some of these are slightly techni- cal, my community is going to be very supportive not only of these particular am endments that actually im- prove access to justice but also that it will continue the thrust this government and the Attorney General has brought on to make civil matters more relevant, more accessible, fairer, easier and more efficient for ordinary citizens in every corner of this province. I strongly support Bill 64 and congratulate the At- torney General on this continuing journey of improv- ing civil access for ordinary citizens. Mr.

Speaker: On second reading stage of Bill 64, the Attorney General closes debate. Hon. G. Plant: First, I want to say thank you to my colleagues for their remarks and their support for these initiatives. I also, in closing debate, wanted to just to take a minute or two to say that the journey to reach this point has involved a fair number of folks working hard, working constructively and bringing progressive ideas to the table to consider this question of how we can make our justice system as relevant and as accessi- ble as it can be to British Columbians.

There's been great leadership — leadership from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, leadership from the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, leader ship from their colleagues on those two courts and from members of the bar. One forum in which the issue of civil justice will continue to be studied and which is a very important forum for that purpose is the civil justice working group established, I think, just last week by the Justice Review Task Force. I was pleased to have the opportu- nity to stand with Chief Ju stice Brenner and to intro- duce the public to this important initiative.

It's good to see that lawyers and judges as well as citizens are working together to try to make sure that we make progress down this path. We have more work to do. This is but a stop along the way, but I think it's an important stop. It's certainly an important occasion to re flect on the need for a jus- tice system that is there for all British Columbians when they need it.

I look forward to any discussion about the details of this in committee stage, and I also look forward to the continued support of my colleagues as we try to push this cart down the path towards the destination that I think we all agree on and share. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question is second reading of Bill 64. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

11434 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 Bill 64, Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Com- mittee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Plant: I call continuing committee stage debate of Bill 45. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we'll take a ten- minute recess here while all the participants gather. We'll reconvene at 1540. The House recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:46 p.m. Committee of the Whole House COMMUNITY LIVING AUTHORITY ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; H. Long in the chair. The committee met at 3:46 p.m. On

section 4. J. Kwan:

Section 4 establishes shares in the author- ity at a value of $10 per share. I'm just wondering if the minister could remind the House if this is normal prac- tice with independent authorities. Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, that's true. It is standard word- ing for British Columbia statutes, but it also addresses the point you raised yesterday about making dona- tions. It assists that.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 5 that is in the possession of the Clerk instead of the amendment that is st anding in my name in the orders of the day. [SECTION 5, (

a) in the proposed section (1) by deleting "9 directors" and substituting "11 directors", (

b) in the proposed subsection (2) by adding ", other than a director referred to in subsection (3.1)," after "All direc- tors", (

c) in the proposed subsection (3) by adding "and

section 6 (2) (c)" after "Subject to subsection (2)", and (

d) by adding the following subsection:

(3.1) Subject to

section 6 (2) (c), 2 of the directors must be individuals with a developmental disability.] On the amendment. J. Kwan: First of all, let me say thank you to the minister for this amendmen t. I know that the amend- ment came out of, in part, the second reading debate that we engaged in. I raised this as one of the issues that we have concerns wi th. Certainly, people who have been working on this piece of legislation and have been lobbying for the change had expressed that they have been wanting to see self-advocates as part of the board's composition.

In fact , the original plan was to see that families have a 50-plus-one majority on the board. I know we're not reaching that, although there is some change here with respect to the composition of the board, and that is good news. I do want to ac- knowledge the minister for this change, in recognition of the community's effort in advocating for this. We support the community and raised this issue in second reading debate. I do want to just ask a quick question of the minis- ter, though, for full clarit y. There are two sets of changes.

Although the one that's tabled here today changes the language, incorp orating the term "devel- opmental disability" into the amendment, the original plan was to change the te rm by incorporating "com- munity living support." I know that there is slight dif- ference with respect to that. I do think that this change of incorporating the term "developmental disability" actually allows for fuller scope in terms of opportuni- ties for people to be on the board and that it allows for people who may not be accessing the community liv- ing support services, for example, to be able to serve on the board.

I know that's pa rt of the reason, perhaps, that this change is before us. I do just want it to be clear on the record, so I won- der if the minister could actually state the reasons be- hind the change so that it is actually on record. [1550] Hon. S. Hagen: I am very pleased to do that, and I appreciate the member raising it. We actually recog- nized the invaluable role of self-advocates and other individuals by entrenching th eir voices in this legisla- tion.

We did this one way by requiring the board of directors to establish an advisory committee comprised of people receiving community living support services to help guide the board. That committee will have regular input into the ongoing operations and strate- gies of the new authority once it is established.

While this legislation creates a stronger role for these individuals than can be f o u n d a n y w h e r e e l s e i n the country, we also found, through consultation dur- ing the summer and early fall, that individuals with developmental disabilities made it quite plain that while this was a step in the right direction, it was clearly not enough. Therefore, we are taking steps today, through this amendment, to ensure that those voices are heard and that their counsel is considered, as it should be. The board of directors is current ly mandated at nine mem- bers.

We are increasing that number by two to 11 members on the board. These two additional seats will be held by people with developmental disabilities. People with developmental disabilities now have two approaches to the board. An advisory committee of those receiving services will also have the ability to

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11435 voice their concerns as well as representation on the board. These are not just seats on the board. They are a means of ensuring that the voices of all British Colum- bians living with developmental disabilities will be heard and that the board responds to the many voices on the advisory committee an d the groups they repre- sent within the community. Government is making sure that the people living with these disabilities are part of policy, practice and regulation.

Through the additions to the board and the em- bedding in the legislation, British Columbia is taking a significant step forward and leading the way in Can- ada for community living. We are ensuring that the very people who may need these services are heard on many of the issues for whic h they are the best propo- nents. It is our intention to continue working with the community and its advocates to make sure the author- ity best reflects their concer ns. The board will listen to the community and give weight to that counsel.

We as government will continue to work with both the board and the community and to mo nitor the progress of the authority, the board and it s new members and the ad- visory committee — a task that I personally, as the new minister, look forward to. The authority is a bold undertaking, and by part- nering with the community, we can lead the way for community living. This is the beginning of a new era for all of us — people living with disabilities, the peo- ple who provide services, the authority and my minis- try.

It is only fitting that we create the additional seats on the board in recognition of the importance of the contributions people living with developmental dis- abilities bring to their community. Hon. L. Reid: I, too, would like to add my words of support to this particular amendment. I want to say that it reflects very much the consultation that's been underway across this province over the last number of months. It's vitally important, I believe, to put on the record the voices of those in the city of Richmond who have advocated fiercely for these entities to come for- ward.

I want very much for us to honour that work. This is legislation that will continue to live and breathe in every single community in British Columbia — vi- tally important. I had the absolute privilege last Saturday to stand on a platform with my two colleagues from Richmond Centre and Richmond-Steveston when they talked about honouring Community Living Month in British Columbia. If we want to honour that work, this legisla- tion needs to speak to those communities, and in fact, it does speak to those communities.

For all of those families and providers who tire- lessly consulted with us over the summer and who continued to have this dialogue with us over the sum- mer, I simply want to say thanks. It's vitally important that we do that. Two souls, particularly — Marie Glaze from Richmond and Janice Nelson from Richmond — continue to provide us enormous insight as we go for- ward on these questions. It's really, really important that we continue to build capacity and community, that we continue to build respectful engagement into the process. That's why I rise today.

I want us very much to acknowledge that those with developmenta l disabilities in British Columbia today do speak for themselves and that this government is prepared to listen. Thank you very much. [1555] R. Lee: I am pleased to rise in the House to support the amendment to

section 5 of Bill 45. For the past few months I have had the opportunity to have meetings with the members, staff and also self-advocates — people with developmental disabilities and their fami- lies — at the Burnaby Association for Community In- clusion and on other occasions, listening to their con- cerns and challenges, includin g the issues of individu- alized funding, training, microboard, more involve- ment of the local communities and also the families. I am pleased that the government has introduced this bill to establish the community living British Columbia authority.

After we wrote the proposed act, one question re- mained, which is how to ensu re that the stakeholders, the self-advocates, have a direct voice and also the op- portunity to participate in the decision-making process in the board governing the authority. Today the amendment will increase the number of directors from nine to 11, including two individuals with develop- mental disabilities. This will certainly address the con- cerns expressed by the community, and I commend the Minister of Children and Family Development for lis- tening to their concerns an d for putting in this amend- ment. J. Kwan: Hon.

Chair, I'm sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear with my question to the minister earlier. I was going to let it go. Then I thought, no, I'd better try and clarify it, given that we now actually have a bit of a debate about this amendment that we're all in support of. The amendment, as the mi nister says, is amending the composition of the board from nine to 11 to allow for two more representations at the board, to include the definition of "developmental disability" on this board.

Formerly, the orig inal amendment, which I know is not on the public record but was brought to my attention yesterday by both the minister — and I thank the minister for that — and the deputy minister, was to put forward the expansion of the board by two to the makeup of 11 but using the definition of "com- munity living support." Today we're actually seeing the actual amendment moved by the minister using the term "developmental disability." I was seeking for the minister to clarify that change from yesterday.

There are a number of reasons, but part of the reason, as I understand, is to allow, for ex- ample, people who might not be using community living support services to be able to be on the board. They may well be individuals identified as someone

11436 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 with a developmental disability, for example. That's one reason. Then I know that advocates in the community have also expressed to me — and this is part of the self- advocacy component — that recognizing and utilizing the term itself in the composition of the board was ac- tually important as well. Th at might be another reason why we see that change today. I just want to hear that from the minister's words and to put that on record — why there's a slight change from yesterday's proposed amendment. Hon. S. Hagen: Mr.

Chair, through to the hon. member, she's absolutely correct in her assessment. We found that in re-looking at this amendment, we felt it was too restrictive. We really wanted to open it up and ensure that all people with disabilities could partici- pate. D. Hayer: I also want to commend the minister for making this amendment. I had heard from many of my constituents over the summe r months about including the members from the spec ial needs disability commu- nity. Without taking much mo re time, I just wanted to thank you very much for listening to the MLAs and our constituents. R.

Hawes: I , t o o , r i s e t o s p e a k i n f a v o u r o f t h e amendment and to thank th e minister for listening. Over the summer I know there was a considerable amount of feedback from the community that was re- ceived in the ministry from the self-advocate commu- nity particularly. I'm very pleased that you've listened. I just want to take this opportunity once again to thank my constituent Bryce Schaufelberger, who served on the original in terim board and who I know has had many conversations with me personally about the role of the self-advocate on the board.

I have talked to other members of the interim board, who have veri- fied to me the vital role that Bryce and the self- advocates play on a board like that. On behalf of all the self-advocates and on behalf of my constituent Bryce Shaufelberger, thank you very much for listening. I'm highly supporting this amendment. [1600] V. Anderson: I also would like to give my com- mendation for the inclusion of this amendment on the board, because I think it is very important that it brings a new culture, a new awareness and a new inclusive- ness into this particular act.

I think the self-advocates have worked for years and demonstrated their ability to bring their own messages and to share them with others. I'm glad that this recognition is being given. J. Bray: I , t o o , r i s e t o s p e a k i n f a v o u r o f t h e amendment for the reasons that others in this House have voiced. But it is a further recognition of the direc- tion that our society is mo ving, in terms of providing the opportunity for everyone in our society to be as independent as possible and recognizing that every member of our community has the opportunity to make a contribution.

That includes those with devel- opmental disabilities and those who act as self- advocates. I know that in the meetings I've had over the last year with those in the community living sector, that is a very critical component to the furthering of the whole community living movement. Having representation on the community living board is critical for all people liv- ing with developmental disabilities and their families to get the recognition that we ar en't just saying we want them to participate, but we're actually giving them the meaningful tools by which they can participate.

Ultimately, by having these two additional mem- bers from the self-advocat e community who now will be sitting on this board as a result of this amendment, the ultimate beneficiaries of that experience and of that input are going to be persons with developmental dis- abilities, their families and their caregivers, so I strongly support the amendment. I believe that in my community, those involved with community living are going to be very pleased and very supportive of this, because it continues to work toward that integration of every member of our society being able to participate.

I know that the minis- ter had lots of people knocking on his door, and I am very appreciative of the fact that he met and discussed this. We found a way to further strengthen this bill, and I strongly support the amendment. Amendment approved. On

section 5 as amended. J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair, then back to

section 5. I have some questions on

section 5 and an amend- ment to possibly make relating to this

section as well. I wonder if the minister could explain to me, in

section 5(3)(b), where it uses the language: "significant connection." Why was that language chosen over, for example, "family member"? Hon. S. Hagen: Another good question. It was a question that came up in all of the consultations, and it is certainly is a question that came up from some of the advocacy groups.

There isn't really a shor t answer, but I guess what we chose to do was rather than restricting membership of the majority of the board to family members, which is what your question is, the act allows for a broader range of concerned and involved individuals to be con- sidered and, hence, a wider range of perspectives to be present to inform decision-making.

Individuals who are not family members but have a valuable insight to offer include close friends of an individual with a developmental disabilities or the individual's family; employers of an individual with developmental disabilities; retired caregivers; indi- viduals who have served as a committee or representa- tive of an individual with developmental disabilities; professionals who have specialized in serving people

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11437 with developmental disabili ties, and those might be lawyers, doctors, nurses or therapists; and lastly, for- mer executive directors or employees of agencies that have served people with developmental disabilities. [1605] J. Kwan: I think it is almost like a definition the minister has just put on record, actually, relating to a significant connection or what that means when he referred to the numbers of different people that would fit into this category. In th at sense, why is that term "significant connection" not defined in

section 1 of the act, then, so that we're clear as to what it means? Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by the people who write legislation that it's almost impossible to give a defini- tion to that and that it's better to have it more open than more closed. J. Kwan: Through the minister's consultation did the minister at any point in time hear from the com- munity that they thought it was important to actually, instead of using the term "significant connection to," rather have the actual term "a family member of" in this

section because people were of the view that it is very different if you're actually a family member of someone with a developmental disability? It's not just partial understanding. I don't want to minimize, by any stretch of the imagination, the people who work in this sphere who might be a friend of an individual who has a develop- mental disability and so on — to minimize their under- standing. However, we did hear feedback from people that it is different to have a family member versus some- one who has a significant connection to an individual with a developmental disability.

They felt it was impor- tant that the language be changed to reflect that and, in fact, for the language to incorporate "a family member" versus "significant connection to." Did the minister hear any of this kind of feedback during the consultation that the ministry undertook regarding this bill? Hon. S. Hagen: It's a good question. Yes, that point was made, certainly, during the consultation. I guess one point is that not everybody has family.

Also, the majority of the board as it is presently constituted are family members, but we fe lt, through the discussion leading up to the legislation, that it was better not to restrict this portion of the membership of the board. It was better to make it more inclusive so that groups like the ones that I mentioned might have an opportunity at some time to serve on the board. J. Kwan: There is a way to get around that. We could have people who are not family members of an individual with a developmental disability be on the board.

It is not to exclude, potentially, executive direc- tors or people who are retired and who used to provide services to people with developmental disabilities. It doesn't necessarily have to exclude them, but there is a possibility to change the language to include it so that the majority of the board are individuals who are fam- ily members of an individual with a developmental disability. So we can actually, in some ways, have our cake and eat it too. I recognize that, certainly, not every individual with a developmental disability woul

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h1006pm-05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h1006pm 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5dc8f568ea5d84ea70b29f921f05d1b796f80f47

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).