2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Elgin Park Secondary School Orcas basketball team

Hon. G. Hogg

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13)

Hon. O. Ilich

Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 11)

Hon. R. Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Rotary Club of West Vancouver

J. McIntyre

Kidney health

D. Cubberley

Port Kells Community Association

D. Hayer

Ryan Street greenway project

R. Fleming

BID Group in Vanderhoof

J. Rustad

Farmworker safety

C. Puchmayr

Oral Questions

Government response to actions of Ken Dobell

C. James

Hon. W. Oppal

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

B. Ralston

Government response to actions of Ken Dobell and Jessica McDonald

R. Fleming

Hon. M. de Jong

Government response to actions of Ken Dobell

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. de Jong

J. Kwan

Petitions

L. Krog

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, first report

B. Bennett

Petitions

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 12) (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Fraser

S. Simpson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 12)

Committee of the Whole House

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 9)

S. Fraser

Hon. P. Bell

R. Sultan

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 9)

Committee of the Whole House

Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 10)

D. Thorne

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Simpson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 10)

Committee of the Whole House

Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act (Bill 6) (continued)

J. Horgan

Hon. W. Oppal

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. O. Ilich

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)

Hon. K. Falcon

M. Karagianis

[ Page 10553 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Richmond: We have guests in the House today from

the First Nations Human Resource and Labour Council who are conferencing in

Victoria this week and who I had the pleasure of having lunch with, and some of

them will be visiting in my office later.

First of all, there's Murray Ned, the Stó:lô Nation, human

resource development; Harvey McLeod from the central interior partners of human

resource development; and Karen Abramsen from the Okanagan human resource

development.

I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

D. Cubberley: Earlier this morning I made the House aware

that today is World Kidney Day and that as part of our collective effort to

raise awareness of kidney health, we've joined with the Kidney Foundation of

Canada to host an event here at the Legislature. I want to thank the

foundation's volunteers for their efforts to give voice to kidney health.

I also want to introduce a number of important people who have put

their energies into making this happen today. Today in the gallery and in the

precincts we're joined by Ken Merkley, who is president of the B.C. branch;

Lorraine Gerard, the executive director; Mary Grebinsky, senior development

officer; Maurine Hobbs, president of the Victoria local.

They are capably seconded by Sarah Peterson and Angela Robertson,

who are nursing assistants and who were reading our blood pressure today, as

well as our own nurse, Mailis Beazley. I would be remiss in not mentioning

Sidney the Kidney, who also joined us for the event.

Will the House please join me in thanking them and make them feel

welcome here today.

Hon. S. Bond: As members in the House would certainly know,

this year is actually B.C.'s sesquicentennial, or 150th anniversary. Last night

I was delighted to join the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts at the Royal

B.C. Museum to open an amazing exhibit that is called "Free Spirit." There are

fabulous pictures and stories of British Columbians and British Columbia's

history.

What was most personally exciting for me was that we have a number

of northern representatives in a display that's called "The Party," and it's

beautiful. It's actually life-size photographs of people who have contributed to

the history of British Columbia.

I am delighted to say that one of the faces…. There are numbers

from northern British Columbia, including Ben Ginter, Dr. Peter Newbury and Bob

Harkins, who has a very special place in our hearts in Prince George.

[1335]

But someone who is actually here in the gallery with us today, and

whose face is also captured in the Royal B.C. Museum exhibit, is Dr. Charles

Jago. He's accompanied by his wife Mary. I can tell you that not only are they

great friends personally, but they are enormous contributors to northern British

Columbia. At the University of Northern B.C., the Northern Sports Centre is

named after Charles. He is a great northerner and a wonderful friend.

I urge you all to go and see "Free Spirit" and see how many of

those faces and names you recognize. Please join me in welcoming them.

C. Wyse: Today I had the privilege of joining Kerry Ebuson

from Kelowna for lunch, along with two other individuals, Jane Berry from

Victoria and Lois Shannon, likewise from Victoria. I would like the House to

join in making them feel welcome.

R. Lee: Joining us in the gallery today are 29 grade 6

students from Westridge Elementary School in Burnaby, accompanied by their

teacher Ms. Janet Pritchard and also by the parents. They have come here to

learn about the Legislature and how government works. Would the House please

give them the warmest welcome.

J. McIntyre: I just wanted to mention that in the precincts

today is Susie Gimse, who is a constituent of mine. She is electoral area C

representative on the Squamish-Lillooet regional district and also this year's

president of UBCM. I had the pleasure of having lunch with her today, and I'd

just like the House to make her feel welcome.

K. Whittred: Just a few minutes ago I had the pleasure of

meeting a number of students from Bodwell School in my community. These were

high school students here, of course, to learn about how this Legislature works.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today we have Dennis Chawrun.

Dennis is a retired IT manager who worked for 31 years with the B.C. Assessment

Authority. He is joined in the gallery by his son Marc. Marc is one of our

legislative assistants who is working in my office. For those of you who would

be interested in some lessons, Marc is a former member of the Canadian

Professional Golfers Association. I'd like to congratulate Dennis for raising a

son with such fine political instinct, and I'd ask the House to make them both

welcome today.

Tributes

ELGIN PARK SECONDARY SCHOOL

ORCAS BASKETBALL TEAM

Hon. G. Hogg: On March 8 at the B.C. girls triple-A high

school basketball championships, the Elgin Park Orcas of Surrey were victorious

at an exciting overtime game where they beat Riverside of Poco. I hope this

House will join me in congratulating the Elgin Park

[ Page 10554 ]

Orcas, their coach Stu Graham and the citizens of Surrey for a great victory

again in basketball.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

LABOUR AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. O. Ilich presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. O. Ilich: I move that Bill 13 be introduced and read

for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. O. Ilich: Bill 13 amends the Employment Standards Act,

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Labour Relations

Code and the Workers Compensation Act.

It is appropriate that during Farm Safety Week, these legislative

initiatives are the final phase of the package I announced last May to address

protection for farmworkers. This legislation includes tough new requirements

involving farm labour contractors. Changes to the Employment Standards Act will

allow for the suspension or cancellation of a farm labour contractor's licence

for significant WorkSafe B.C. or motor vehicle violations. If a contractor

violates safety rules, they will be out of business.

[1340]

As well, if a farm labour contractor's vehicle is found unsafe

during a roadside check, the contractor will be required to pay for alternative

transportation to get the farmworkers to the worksite. This will be done through

an administrative fee payable to the province to recoup expenses for that

alternative transportation.

A further change to the Employment Standards Act will prohibit a

producer from using an unlicensed farm labour contractor. Those who do will be

subject to mandatory escalating financial penalties.

The amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act address recommendations of the special committee that reviewed the

act. They also include a number of other changes and amendments that will

streamline certain provisions. These amendments have been the subject of

consultations with the Privacy Commissioner's office, which has endorsed these

changes that will enhance privacy protection and strengthen the act by improving

disclosure and consistency. The amendments enhance the act's privacy and access

provisions to ensure that it remains the strongest legislation of its kind in

Canada.

The change to the Labour Relations Code introduces a new

requirement for the Labour Relations Board to make decisions on complaints or

applications within time periods prescribed by regulation.

The change to the Workers Compensation Act provides that workers'

advisers and employers' advisers will be appointed as employees of the Ministry

of Labour and Citizens' Services under the Public Service Act rather than by

order-in-council.

I move that Bill 13 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act,

2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

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

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 11, entitled Small

Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be introduced and read for a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Thorpe: This bill proposes amendments to the

assessment and taxation statutes administered by the Ministry of Small Business

and Revenue. The amendments of this bill reflect our commitment to continuous

improvement in customer service, streamlining and simplifying legislation, and

promoting fair and efficient tax administration.

The bill proposes amendments to the Assessment Act, the Hotel Room

Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Social Service

Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these

amendments during second reading of the bill.

I move that Bill 11 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008,

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) ROTARY CLUB OF WEST VANCOUVER

J. McIntyre: Today I'd like to salute the Rotary Club, West

Vancouver Sunrise. The Sunrise club has served the North Shore and the

international community since 1989 with their terrific hands-on work and

fundraising initiatives.

On March 1, I was pleased to be invited to their Spring Fling

fundraiser, particularly as all proceeds raised are going to the Lions Gate

Hospital's campaign to realize their dream to create a freestanding hospice.

[ Page 10555 ]

The '50s-and-'60s-themed Spring Fling was truly a fun, refreshing

event where we were entertained with a deejay spinning our favourite old-time

hits. To add to the entertainment, I found myself selected as a contestant in a

rock 'n' roll trivia game versus the mayor of West Vancouver. It looks like my

rock 'n' roll days finally paid off when my trivia skills caught everyone off

guard and carried me to victory, much to the guests' amusement.

Not only did I have a great time, but I'm honoured to participate

in a cause that is near and dear to North Shore residents' hearts, sponsored by

a group that works every day for positive change and optimism both at home and

abroad.

The Sunrise club really shone recently with their hard work and

commitment in assisting to reopen the North Shore Safe House. As one of a number

of local community supporters, the Rotary clubs of the North Shore provided

capital funding and assisted in rallying both the federal and provincial

governments to get on board to fund this great cause to protect our youth at

risk and keep them on the North Shore.

[1345]

I'd like to thank all the members involved in the organization,

including their president, Vicki Haller, for their contributions to the

community. I'd also like to make special mention of Val Stephenson, who has

undergone surgery recently, and credit her for both the successful Spring Fling

as well as her ongoing commitment as the community service director. In her

duties she also ensures that the senior shut-ins of West Van have Christmas

lunch every year. She personifies the term "volunteer."

The Rotary Club of West Vancouver Sunrise has raised the bar in

community standards and certainly lives up to the Rotary motto of "Service above

self."

KIDNEY HEALTH

D. Cubberley: Last year on World Kidney Day I used humour

to make a serious point about kidney health. This year, focusing attention on

this obscure organ we rely on to detoxify ourselves, the Kidney Foundation of

Canada is taking blood pressure readings in our reception hall.

What's the connection? Hypertension is a risk factor for chronic

kidney disease and type 2 diabetes, which some 325,000 of us will have by 2010.

The end stage of type 2 diabetes is chronic kidney disease and renal failure.

Hypertension doesn't mean that we're doomed, but we should pay

attention; 46 percent of women and 38 percent of men over 60 have to go on blood

pressure–reducing drugs. Excessively salty foods, the norm for industrial eaters

like us, spike blood pressure. The body reacts to it with thirst. That brings

liquids, which it uses to dilute and expel the salt. Over time, this assault on

the kidneys causes damage.

Consider the current diabetes epidemic and the convergence of

three vectors in the United States, now the world's fattest nation. Between 1988

and '94 alone, the prevalence of obesity rose 61 percent amongst men and 52

percent amongst women. Between 1983 and 1998, per-capita salt use rose by 55

percent while the consumption of carbonated soft drinks rose nearly 50 percent.

Salty food — thirst. Energy-dense drinks — weight gain.

Exaggeration of the hypertensive effect of salt — spike in chronic kidney

disease and type 2 diabetes. It's not a pretty picture. That's why we're trying

to bring kidney health out of the closet.

What should be done? I say: let's get serious about our diet —

individually, for sure. But how about societally? Kidney care means being

salt-aware. It's as simple as that. So let's try something novel, and think like

a legislature about how we can raise salt awareness and reduce salt use in

restaurant and packaged food.

PORT KELLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

D. Hayer: The city of Surrey will soon be the largest city

in the province, but there is a real sense of community within it — a sense of

community that goes back to the days of our pioneers. Port Kells, in my Surrey-Tynehead

riding, has existed for more than 120 years. Despite its image as an industrial

and commercial hub, it remains a very strong community association and an

agricultural route, which first attracted our pioneers to settle the banks of

Fraser River.

Port Kells was established in 1885 by two brothers-in-law, both

remarkably having the same name of Henry Kells. That pioneer spirit still lives

on today, embodied in Port Kells Community Association — active for more than 80

years. It's working in the best interests of all Port Kells residents.

One of the association's strongest assets is former president

Wally Sandvoss, who developed the Port Kells historic walking tour; saved the

Baron Von Mackensen heritage house; and designed the Port Kells cenotaph, which

since 1998 has paid homage to those brave soldiers from Port Kells and other

parts of my Surrey-Tynehead riding who gave their lives in the two world wars

and worked as peacekeepers around the world to preserve the freedom we enjoy

today.

The Port Kells Community Association is strong, due to the

outstanding leadership of previous past presidents, directors and volunteers.

That positive influence will continue with the current president Darlene Bowyer,

aided by executives and directors Doug Wiebe, Sandy Cattermole, Elsie Preedy and

Steve Greenly, and many other great volunteers who are working on many projects

including the community benches, art banners, bicycle jumps and Port Kells Park.

Please join me in saluting the outstanding volunteers, both past

and present, who work tirelessly to preserve the community spirit.

[1350]

RYAN STREET GREENWAY PROJECT

R. Fleming: I rise today to recognize a wonderful community

project underway in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside. I'm referring to the

Ryan Street greenway project. The Ryan Street greenway is a project

[ Page 10556 ]

to enhance an undeveloped road allowance. This neglected area still boasts an

impressive stand of large, mature Garry oak trees, some of which are a century

old or more.

The new greenway will connect to Ryan Hill park, which is the

city's newest neighbourhood park preservation area. This park and the greenway

are designed to showcase the unique ecosystem, indigenous to the southern

island, of arbutus trees, Garry oak, camas and other wild vegetation. This was

the ecosystem that Songhees and Esquimalt people lived off for thousands of

years. The vast tree canopy, a natural environment, is one that Captain Cook

marvelled at and described in paradise-like terms in his diary.

Though still underway, the Oaklands Community Association's parks

committee has made enormous progress with the Ryan greenway project, and it is

becoming even more evident with the advent of spring.

The committee's visible accomplishments today are the result of

thoughtful planning and fundraising going back almost two years. It's a great

collaboration with the city of Victoria's parks department that involves a

number of community partners, including St. Alban's Church and students at

Oaklands Elementary and the nearby preschool.

To ensure that the Garry oak meadow continues in perpetuity, these

kids were involved in planting new trees among existing trees that are the age

of their great-grandparents. The upshot of all this hard work is, of course, the

beautification it now provides and its interpretive value.

The Oaklands area now has a wonderful, interesting natural place

to walk. Volunteers will continue throughout 2008 to reintroduce native plant

ecosystems to restore indigenous insects, birds and animal species.

I invite all the members of this House to join me in thanking the

Oaklands Community Association parks committee for their extraordinary volunteer

work. I'd like to extend special recognition to two of my constituents, Mr. Ludo

Birch and Peter Ireland, who were instrumental in getting the Ryan Street

greenway project established. These two worked tirelessly with the city of

Victoria.

BID GROUP IN VANDERHOOF

J. Rustad: I rise today to highlight a Vanderhoof success

story. The BID Group of Companies is an incredibly innovative corporation that's

always been a leader. BID has an enormous amount of expertise to offer its

clients, especially in the forest industry. Principals Brian and David Fehr

always look for new opportunities, and recent changes in northern B.C. have

literally opened up the world to the BID Group.

Over the past few months BID has undertaken a $4 million contract

to supply engineering and equipment for the Russian forest industry. Russia has

mandated the halt to most log exports, and this has created a market for our

companies to take advantage of. B.C. has some of the top technology and

equipment builders in the world, so it's a natural fit to meet the Russian

demand.

BID was successful in receiving a contract that has kept 50 people

busy for months building and engineering products. They're aggressively going

after additional contracts, and with their track record, I'm confident they'll

continue to open up new opportunities.

But one of the big reasons the BID Group has been able to expand

its global opportunities is because of the new container port in Prince Rupert

and subsequent inland container port in Prince George.

BID is able to be successful because of their ability to access

containers and load cargo through Prince George. This transportation advantage

has played a huge role for BID, as I'm sure it will for many other companies

throughout the Highway 16 corridor.

BID's example shows that the commitment to expand the Port of

Prince Rupert will pay dividends for northern B.C. as well as the province.

Please join me in thanking manager Keith Spencer, shop manager

John Simoes, Ken Yorston and all of the staff at BID for their efforts in making

the BID Group successful and in showing B.C.'s leadership on the world stage.

FARMWORKER SAFETY

C. Puchmayr: This week is Canadian Agricultural Safety

Week. It is a theme supported by more than 500 farm safety advocates across

Canada.

Every year farming mishaps in Canada lead to over 100 deaths and

1,500 serious injuries. What is truly alarming is that 15 percent of fatalities

and injuries are to children under the age of 16. We need to ensure that

farmworkers have the necessary protections and safeguards required to allow them

to work in the safest possible manner. We also need to implement a

zero-tolerance policy when it comes to exposing children to hazards in the farm.

This province has over 19,000 registered farms. Some are small

family farms, and some are large, industrious, hothouse operations employing

more than hundreds of people.

[1355]

I know many farmers, and farming is certainly a noble profession.

It can be hard work and long hours. There are many potential hazards on farms,

from confined-space oxygen deficiency, machinery rollover, entanglement,

chemical exposure and — what I will never forget — transportation of farmworkers

to and from work.

These hazards lurk in the wings daily and expose farmworkers. The

risks contribute to death and injury of farmworkers every year. We must ensure

that we use all preventative measures to eliminate all hazards in the workplace.

I once lived on a farm as a young boy, and I remember playing in

the grain silos. Kids, do not do this at home. I also remember the tortuous milk

run that we made every day with my brothers, packing that pail of milk up the

long driveway, which seems like miles when you're five years old.

Whether working or living on a farm, education and vigilance are

key to protecting lives and preventing

[ Page 10557 ]

injuries. So let's not just make this week Canadian Agricultural Safety Week.

Let's make every week Canadian Agricultural Safety Week.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO ACTIONS OF KEN DOBELL

C. James: Yesterday Ken Dobell, the Premier's closest

friend and adviser, pled guilty to violating B.C.'s lobbyist laws. Today the

case is no longer before the courts, so perhaps the feeble non-answers from

government will actually be put to rest today.

But British Columbians are still waiting. They're still waiting

for the Premier to come clean on his role. British Columbians are still waiting

for the Premier to take personal responsibility for the ethical breach that

occurred in his office.

Will the Deputy Premier or someone — anyone on that side — finally

admit that the B.C. Liberals caused this mess? Will they hold someone

accountable, and will they actually stand up and apologize?

Hon. W. Oppal: We are fortunate to live in a democracy

which has as its fundamental principle the rule of law. The rule of law embodies

an independent judiciary. We're fortunate in that we have independent judges who

decide cases fairly, objectively, on a clinical weighing of the evidence,

without any bias, without any prejudice, without any salacious reference to any

kind of conduct.

In this case, Judge Joe Galati, a highly respected judge of the

Provincial Court, concluded that Mr. Dobell's violation of the act was trivial.

He spoke repeatedly of Mr. Dobell's integrity and of his unblemished past. He

said that this was an honest but mistaken violation of the statute, and he

imposed an absolute discharge.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: Even Mr. Dobell had to write an essay admitting

that he was wrong. The Premier hasn't even gone that far. We haven't even had an

apology or anything from him.

The Premier and his office created the arrangement, personally

signed off on Ken Dobell's contracts. The special prosecutor called this scheme

influence-peddling. Ken Dobell admitted his mistake. He actually pled guilty.

But the B.C. Liberals are just too wrapped up in their arrogance

to admit that they played any

part in this. The Premier's unwillingness to

acknowledge his breach and his role in this is reprehensible.

Again to the Deputy Premier: will someone take personal

responsibility on that side of the Legislature, live up to the Premier's big

talk around accountability and apologize to British Columbians?

[1400]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, what's really at play here today is

the expression of profound disappointment on the part of the Leader of the

Opposition who, as justice is dispensed by that body that is responsible for

doing so in an independent and unbiased way, has now removed the ability….

And it should have registered with the Leader of the Opposition.

To continue to smear individuals, to continue to make reprehensible references

to the conduct of well-intentioned public servants…. You know who should go back

to their office? You know who should engage in a little bit of…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I wouldn't call it a detention, but

maybe the Leader of the Opposition should go back to her office and write a

thousand times, "I will respect the independence of the courts," and see if she

can figure that out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I shouldn't be surprised. I shouldn't be

surprised at the response from this government, because it's very clear that

over the last seven years they have taken no responsibility for accountability

and integrity for British Columbians.

They can no longer stand up…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …and say that the issue is before the courts, so

now they say that there is no issue. That's the response from the government.

"There is absolutely no issue here." Well, that's extraordinary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: It's extraordinary that the government would say

that there's no issue here when you have Ken Dobell, the Premier's closest

friend, pleading guilty and a special prosecutor who calls it

influence-peddling.

The Premier and his office are tainted, and no one on that side of

the Legislature will take responsibility. They won't fire anyone responsible.

They won't even admit that there's a problem, and not only that, they're

rewarding Ken Dobell by having him continue to work with government. They're

allowing him to stay — after he's pled guilty — and continue to do business.

[ Page 10558 ]

To anyone on that side of the Legislature: if the Premier won't

take responsibility, if he won't hold anyone accountable, if he'll continue to

let Ken Dobell work with all of you on that side of the Legislature, how can

British Columbians have any kind of faith that the Premier even understands

integrity?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: You can hear the disappointment dripping

from the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Dobell appears before the court.

Submissions are made, and the court imposes an absolute discharge and in the

process of so doing, we are advised, characterizes the matter as trivial and

technical. In the immediate aftermath of that, this Leader of the Opposition

comes into this chamber and maligns the character of the deputy to the Premier,

the Deputy Attorney General, the deputy minister of the Public Service Agency —

all of whom have had their conduct in this validated. No one has said anything

contrary to the work they did.

The Leader of the Opposition doesn't like it, and the opposition

doesn't like it because in their insatiable lust for political blood, they have

been dealt a blow today by the justice system itself.

[1405]

Interjections.

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

M. Farnworth: This is a serious issue, and all we hear are

diversionary tactics and arrogance from the government benches.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: I wish they'd saved the Britney

Spears–supporter act for YouTube, because this is about arrogance — government

arrogance.

This is about a Premier who signed off on a contract, who signed

off on the conditions. This is about the Premier's closest friend and adviser,

who pled guilty and broke the law. This is about a government that wants to hide

behind and not answer questions, saying that it's before the courts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: The members opposite may think it's trivial

to violate the law. They may think it's trivial that words such as

"influence-peddling" are contained in a special prosecutor's report.

We don't. We believe there should be accountability. We believe

the buck stops on the Premier's desk.

My question to the Attorney General is: when is the Premier going

to stand up in this House and apologize to the people of this province?

Hon. M. de Jong: It was disturbing enough to learn how

readily the opposition was prepared to dismiss the advice and counsel that was

received from the Deputy Attorney General, from the deputy responsible for the

Public Service Agency. But here today, to hear how readily they are prepared to

dismiss outright the findings and commentary of the court — that body which is

charged with dispensing justice — speaks volumes about the attitude and

behaviour of this opposition. I find it very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: What's disturbing is that this government

will not learn from this incident. It has made no commitment to changing and

dealing with the issues raised in the Lobbyists Registration Act. It has made no

effort to explain the role of the Premier. The Premier has not stood up and

explained his actions.

What we have seen is continued arrogance from a government that

feels it can do what it wants, when it wants, with complete impunity and no

accountability. That is not right.

This is about the relationship between the Premier and his closest

adviser, how it was handled and how it continues to be handled.

My question again to the Attorney General is: when is someone on

that side going to stand up and take accountability? The buck stops at the

Premier's desk. When is he going to stand up and apologize to the people of

British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: We have canvassed at length in this

chamber the work that was undertaken at the crucial time where advice was sought

by the deputy to the Premier from the Deputy Attorney General, from the deputy….

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Members opposite increasingly probably

wonder why not just members of this chamber but the public don't take them

seriously. It is because…

Interjections.

[ Page 10559 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: …of the kind of comment we just heard a

moment ago from the opposition benches that their relevance and the seriousness

with which the public takes them is continuing to decline.

In addition to the advice that the deputy to the Premier sought,

which influenced her in the preparation of the memo that has been discussed in

this chamber, I note that there was a letter received, and is now in the public

domain, that was produced sometime thereafter — June 5, 2007 — from one of the

leading lawyers in British Columbia, Mr. Richard C. Peck, QC. Here's what he

says, having analyzed all of the circumstances.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. de Jong: "As already explained, my view is that Mr.

Dobell has taken adequate steps to disclose the potential for conflict and

obtained both governments' informed consent to this state of affairs. In my

opinion, these measures are sufficient to dispel any allegations of impropriety

which have been or might in the future be lodged against Mr. Dobell."

B. Ralston: Those who know the Premier well speak of his

tendency to micromanage. It's inconceivable that he wasn't aware of Mr. Dobell's

conflicting roles and his lobbying duties. In fact, the Premier himself

personally signed off on Mr. Dobell's contract. This is the conduct that the

Government House Leader now wrongly describes as validated.

Will the Deputy Premier ask the Premier, in all good conscience

and with a sense of honour, to come forward to this Legislature and apologize to

the people of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: This member, as an officer of the court,

has not distinguished himself throughout the discussions that have taken place

in this chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member.

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe this member, upon reflection, will

be able to convene with his colleagues in the opposition and explain to them

what it means for a court to adjudicate a matter, for a judge to hear

submissions and for a judge to render decision, and how inappropriate it is —

notwithstanding whatever the political interest is in trying to extract an extra

ounce of blood — for this opposition, as they have tried to do all week, to

intervene in that judicial process and in the process of so doing malign the

good character of honourable public servants in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: It's significant that the Government House

Leader, as a sometime member of the bar, has come forward with a very garbled

legal explanation of what took place in the court.

The issue here, now, is about the conduct of the Premier in this

matter. The court matter is dealt with. The issue is about the conduct of the

Premier. So why will the Deputy Premier…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: …not ask the Premier to come forward and level

with the people of British Columbia and offer an apology for his role in this

scheme?

[1415]

Hon. M. de Jong: No one is going to apologize for the fact

that we sought advice from the Deputy Attorney General. No one is going to

apologize for the fact that we sought advice from the deputy of the Public

Service Agency. But maybe in the aftermath of the findings of the court today

and the commentary from the judge and the imposition of an absolute discharge,

this member or one member of the opposition will stand up and apologize to the

public servants they have maligned during the course of this debate this week.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ACTIONS

OF KEN DOBELL AND JESSICA McDONALD

R. Fleming: Yesterday and again today we received an

interesting lecture from the Government House Leader. He says, in effect, that

we should not question Ms. McDonald's decisions or judgments in dealing with her

mentor Mr. Dobell, because in clearing him, she sought advice from the Deputy

Attorney General and the head of the Public Service Agency.

It would appear, according to the Government House Leader, that

the B.C. Liberals have turned the notion of public service accountability on its

head. According to the Government House Leader, now senior civil servants won't

be held responsible for their actions, provided they first seek the advice of

people who report to them.

My question is to the Minister of Labour and public services.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: Has she communicated this new policy to the

heads of all government agencies?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, any reasonable person listening to

the hon. member in forming that question just a moment ago would be obliged to

conclude that he believes that the Deputy Attorney General did not proffer a

legitimate opinion, did not exercise due discretion,

[ Page 10560 ]

but was somehow influenced or part of some deliberate attempt….

That seems to be very much on par with what another member of the

official opposition tried to do just a week ago. It is becoming a disturbing

trend on the part of this opposition.

If he doesn't believe the Deputy Attorney General, if he doesn't

believe the deputy to the Public Service Agency, I'll read it again — from Mr.

Richard Peck: "As already explained, my view is that Mr. Dobell has taken

adequate steps to disclose the potential for conflict and obtained both

governments' informed consent to this state of affairs. In my opinion, these

measures are sufficient to dispel any allegations of impropriety which have been

or might in the future be lodged against Mr. Dobell with respect to his work for

the city or the province."

So there it is.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO ACTIONS OF KEN DOBELL

M. Karagianis: I'm trying to wrap my….

Interjections.

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

take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: I'm trying to wrap my head around the logic

here. So the government is saying: "Wait. We peddled influence, but the

opposition has to apologize." Is that what this logic is here?

I'll tell you what's inappropriate. What is inappropriate in this

House is a government that will not take responsibility for its own conduct. For

days now, the government has refused to do the right thing and sever their ties

with Mr. Ken Dobell. Mr. Dobell is registered as a lobbyist and is right now

lobbying on behalf of Cubic Transportation Systems to the Minister of

Transportation. The minister has admitted that he's met with staff.

The minister is great at being very vocal back there when the

question is not directed to him, so I will direct a question to him so he can be

vocal on his feet here. Mr. Dobell has pled guilty to breaking the lobbyist law.

Will the minister do the right thing and refrain from letting his ministry meet

with Mr. Dobell in the future?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, maybe the member could be less

cryptic. Maybe she could stand up in this chamber and make it absolutely clear

that she is dissatisfied with the justice that has been dispensed by the court

in British Columbia and believes additional sanction needs to be imposed against

the individual involved.

Why doesn't she say that — say that she's still dissatisfied, say

that she believes her opinion on this matter is more important and more

applicable and more relevant than the courts in British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, I will tell the hon. House Leader of

the government that what this side of the House is dissatisfied with is the

ethical breach on that side of the House and that government's behaviour. That's

what we're dissatisfied with.

This is a government that does not seem to have any problem

dealing with a lobbyist who has pled guilty to breaking the law and who has,

according to the special prosecutor, engaged in influence-peddling. This

government sees no ethical dilemma with continuing to meet with him.

Do the right thing. Cease meeting with Mr. Dobell in all

ministries, and do it today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it is only now becoming apparent to

me that we are basking in such brilliant judicial thought over on that side of

the bench, where members feel qualified to substitute their opinion….

The member should just say it. The member should just stand up and

say, "I don't believe the court has done a good job," because that's what she's

saying. "I'm not satisfied," she says, "with the sanction that's imposed." She

is saying: "I reject the characterization of this matter by the presiding judge…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. de Jong: …and I believe it's more appropriate for

politicians in this chamber to substitute their view in the place of the court."

That's what divides this side of the House from that side of the

House. We believe in the rule of law. We have, we do, and we always will. That's

something this member will never be able to say.

J. Kwan: I'll tell you what we reject.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue.

J. Kwan: What we reject on this side of the House is the

lack of accountability from this Premier and from this government.

In Ken Dobell's mea culpa essay, he stated: "Over the course of my

work in government and since leaving it,

[ Page 10561 ]

I now recognize that I've encountered a number of individuals doing work that

would likely fall under the ambit of the legislation who may not be registered."

My question is to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General

tell this House if Mr. Dobell has reported those names to the proper

authorities?

Hon. M. de Jong: I alluded earlier to the fact that maybe

what the hon. member and her colleagues will want to do is take a page from Mr.

Dobell's essay and write one of their own, and start with the principle of

judicial independence. It's a concept that seems very elusive in their minds.

The matter has been….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: The matter….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: I know this is difficult for the

opposition — the very notion of justice having been done in the province. It's

stripped from them a tool they hoped to extract political advantage from — must

be terribly disappointing. But that's what the administration of justice is all

about, and we intend to respect that process.

[1425]

Sadly, throughout this debate the opposition and the opposition

leader have made it very clear that they do not respect that process.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General is the top attorney in this

province. He has been advised by the Premier's friend and adviser Ken Dobell

that he knows of others who may be in violation of the government's own law. No

one should be above the law.

Has the Attorney General directed his staff…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: Has the Attorney General directed his office to

ask Mr. Dobell to report those names to the proper authority?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, Mr. Dobell, in his material, does

make it clear. He has a very clear message — that people need to understand what

their obligations are under the Lobbyists Registration Act and abide by them.

They need to abide by the law.

But, Mr. Speaker, they….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: They need to abide by the law as it is

developed and created in this chamber, and they need to abide by the law as it

is adjudicated by the courts, independent of political interference, independent

of the kind of rhetoric we have heard over the last week or two weeks in this

chamber.

I'm sorry that as this…. [Applause.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat. Sit down.

Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker…

[Applause.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: …that this opposition has revealed itself

to have such a fundamental lack of understanding of one of the fundamental

precepts of our society. And as….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Oh, I think there's another applause line

in this somewhere, Mr. Speaker.

So I hope the members will leave this chamber, go back to their

offices, reflect upon what has taken place and understand that when it comes to

preserving the independence of the judiciary, this government will do it, the

Attorney General will do it and the Premier will do it. We'll all do it. They

can take a lesson from that, and I hope they'll reflect upon that over the next

two weeks.

[End of question period.]

L. Krog: I rise to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

L. Krog: I rise to table a petition signed by 931 Gabriola

Islanders calling on the government to place a moratorium on ferry fare

increases until a special legislative committee is enacted to review the Coastal

Ferry Act.

[ Page 10562 ]

Reports from Committees

B. Bennett: I have the honour to present the first report

of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the

fourth session of the current parliament. This brief report summarizes the

committee's endorsement of a request for supplementary funding by the

Information and Privacy Commissioner.

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

[1430]

Motion approved.

B. Bennett: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

B. Bennett: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing

so, I wish to note that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services met on March 5, 2008, and endorsed the request of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner to seek an additional $75,000 funding for fiscal year

2007-2008.

The purpose of these funds is to defray unanticipated costs

incurred by his office with respect to legal proceedings. As these funds will be

allocated from existing contingency funds for this fiscal year, I understand

that there is no requirement for a formal supplementary funding process to be

undertaken by the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

Hon. C. Hansen: This actually just literally arrived on my

desk in the last 30 seconds, and I was anxious to table this before the break.

It's a petition signed by 2,338 citizens with regard to preserving land in

Pacific Spirit Park.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in Committee A, Committee of

Supply, continuing with the debates of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens'

Services, to be followed at some point, I'm sure, by the Ministry of

Transportation, and in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill

12, the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement

Implementation Act, to be followed at some point by Bill 9.

Committee of the Whole House

MUSQUEAM RECONCILIATION, SETTLEMENT

AND BENEFITS AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

section 3 (continued) .

Hon. M. de Jong: I feel particularly obliged to correct

something I said earlier this morning in this debate, relating to the state of

the constitutional law at the time that Pacific Spirit Park was created. Of

course, that was 1989, not 1979. Therefore, the constitution had been

repatriated, and existing aboriginal rights were very much a part of the

constitutional mix at that time.

I wanted to correct that and point out that, in part, my ability

to make that correction is due to the fact that one of the assistants that serve

us so well served on the flight that brought the Queen and the constitution to

Canada in 1982. So we have a little bit of history here in the building as well.

But I did want to correct that on the record, Madam Chair.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that correction on

constitutional history.

section 3, which is the last

section I will be dealing with, on

subsection (3), so

section 3(3)…. Then I'm going to turn a few questions over to

my colleague to the right here.

It says: "On the effective date, and despite the University

Endowment Land Act , the minister responsible for the administration of that

Act may, on behalf of the government, indicate in writing his or her support for

the addition of Block K to Musqueam Indian Reserve No. 2."

[1435]

I need some clarification, if I could, on the term "may." I

understand there's probably a legal standard reason for using the word "may."

But "may" to me always means…. It could also mean "may not." It's not a very

definitive statement. Can the minister maybe explain the wording of that

section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can, hopefully, do even more than that.

We actually contemplate that with respect to block K…. Because of its location

on the south side of Marine Drive, adjacent to the existing reserve, we

anticipate an application being made by the Musqueam to have that parcel joined

to their present reserve.

The language in this bill contemplates that. In the agreement it

is even more explicit. We will be supportive of their application to have the

lands joined. When they make application to the federal government, we will be

supportive of that application.

[ Page 10563 ]

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that and am comforted

by the answer.

The Chair: One second, Member. The Chair has to recognize

you.

Member.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that.

I will turn the next line of questioning over to my colleague.

S. Simpson: I've just got a couple of questions that relate

to the official community plan in the UEL and the impacts particularly around

block F, but the impacts on the official community plan. Could the minister tell

us what consultation or discussion was had around the official community plan,

particularly with the Community Advisory Council and those people who have been

involved in the development of the plan in terms of the impacts of these changes

on the plan?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm happy to answer the questions. I think

they're more appropriate to

section 4 of the bill.

S. Simpson: I'm happy to take the minister's advice on that

and discuss them in

section

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

S. Simpson: Again, I'll just re-put the question. Could the

minister tell us what discussions have been had around the official community

plan, particularly with the Community Advisory Council in the area and those

people who have worked on the development of the plan, and what the impacts of

these changes will mean for that?

[1440]

Hon. M. de Jong: The agreement from which the legislation

derives is predicated on the assumption and expectation and guarantee, as it

were, that the lands we're dealing with here will be rezoned, and this act does

that. So to that extent, there is no public consultation. This deems those lands

rezoned.

What flows from that with respect to any subsequent subdivision or

building permit applications is a process that is discretionary and that engages

the public officials who, I am advised, would then engage with community input

and the community association. Insofar as the actual rezoning of the land is

concerned, this act deems that to have occurred.

S. Simpson: My question to the minister on this is really a

process question. I appreciate that the law is what it is, and it will make some

changes that supersede other things that have preceded it. That's not the point

of discussion here. The discussion is the process here and how those….

Obviously, because of the nature of this case, the primary

discussions were between the government and the Musqueam to sort out a

settlement that was acceptable to everybody. I acknowledge that. I am more

concerned about where we go now and what this means for now.

I know there has been a significant amount of work done around the

official community plan in the UEL — a significant amount of community

engagement around that. I have spoken to members of the Community Advisory

Council there, who have contacted me — frustrations they've had about…. Plans

get signed off. Changes are made. They're not in that discussion, even if

they're not decision-makers.

The question I have is: what happens now in terms of the potential

implications of this plan? For example, there has been a discussion around the

swap of lands around what will be parkland, as it relates to the area where the

golf course is now, versus a block of land that's coming out for other uses. Who

is going to be involved in the discussion around what those boundaries actually

look like on that parkland, what is an allowable use in that park space and how

it gets managed as part of a plan?

I'm trying to figure out how — other than the Musqueam, who

obviously have an integral role in these discussions — the rest of the community

that's been involved in these OCP processes has a role to play in these

discussions.

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of questions there. I'll try to

answer all of them if I can.

With respect to the parkland, those boundaries are defined in the

actual agreement, so the boundaries are known now. The fact that they will be

jointly managed, I think — the area that we are discussing here…. There will be

work taking place between the Musqueam and Metro, as it's now called, to

establish the protocols for that.

With respect to the UEL and the lands there, there are probably

two answers and two mechanisms I can think of that would engage the public on a

continuing basis.

[1445]

Firstly, an application for either a subdivision or a development

permit would engage discussion between the authorities and the Community

Advisory Council. Then in a broader way…. I've got the agreement. It's

article

6.06, which speaks to the fact that there is a land use bylaw review being

embarked upon within the University Endowment Lands.

The most relevant portion of this

section is as follows. I hope

this will provide the member with some of the answer and comfort he's looking

for: "Musqueam further acknowledges and agrees that any of the lands within the

University Endowment Land as defined by the University Endowment Land Act and

not held as reserve land will be subject to and benefit from the terms of the

land use bylaw and the OCP as these enactments may be amended from time to

time."

So they are very much captured by that ongoing review process

that, as I understand, is on the verge of being launched and will continue as

the years pass.

[ Page 10564 ]

S. Simpson: Am I to take from the minister's answer that

questions related to activity within the parkland, the new park space that's

created…? Maybe more importantly, as we look at block F and potential

development in block F of residential…. We know that already we're hearing all

the time about, in the university lands, pressures of growth and population

growth and pressures around new schools. There's a significant debate going on

related to that in Vancouver right now, about new schools in the UEL land.

Am I to take from the agreement that it's the government's

position that any discussions around the consultation around that need to occur

and need to involve the Community Advisory Council, and that changes to the

official community plan — if they're made — that need to come back to the

government…? That whole process will continue as it is today and will come back

for changes to the plan as it relates to developments on block F?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the point I want to emphasize is

that the agreement in this legislation — that flows from it — does not supplant

the usual processes for the approval of the official community plan, as changes

may be proposed from time to time. Nothing in either of these documents acts to

supplant that process. I think that's what the member's question related to.

S. Simpson: The reality is — and I understand this because

it's an essential part of putting the agreement in place — that the plan has

been changed by the nature of the legislation. That's a decision the government

has made in order to be able to honour the agreement that has been reached with

the Musqueam. I understand that.

What I'm looking for is assurances that as we get past Bill 12,

the future for uses on block F and other uses in the community will, for lack of

a better term, revert back to what has been the standing processes around

changes to the OCP — around Metro's role and around the need for the community

to be fully engaged through its advisory council — and that all of that process

will be kept whole once we get past the changes that have been made through this

piece of legislation. Then we'll be back to a process that will look more like

that. The government endorses that and will only consider changes to the OCP

which come through that kind of a process, where everybody has played the role

they're supposed to play.

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe the member has accurately

described how we believe this is to operate by virtue of what is set out in

section 4(3).

[1450]

S. Simpson: Maybe this is a question that comes a little

bit outside of this, but I know it's important for the community. In the

conversations I've had with folks involved in the Community Advisory Council,

they've expressed concern to me that they've made some efforts to have

discussions with the minister and with the Premier, who is their MLA, in

January. They've not been satisfied as to how those efforts to have those

discussions have occurred. I understand that while this was being written, there

may be reasons why that didn't occur.

I would ask at this time to the minister: in relation to

section 4

and how the community plan work plays out, would the minister be open to having

some discussion with the people involved at the Community Advisory Council, who

have responsibility in the community for representing their neighbours, around

their specific concerns about the plan — not about revisiting what we've gone

through here but about the impacts on the plan, moving forward?

Certainly, we can ask this of the Premier, as well, at another

time. But will the minister have some discussion with those folks so that they

directly get the comfort that they're not going to have their planning process

supplanted in future by decisions made around this, once we get past this piece

of legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have had some limited discussions in the

lead-up to the signing of the agreement and the introduction of the legislation.

I think it's entirely appropriate, now that the package is here

and the agreement has been finalized — hopefully, soon the bill will be passed —

that we sit down and, maybe as importantly, as politicians, move through the

agreement and the legislation technically so that everyone understands how it is

designed to operate, how it is designed to preserve the decision-making matrix

that is in place. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the member that it's

appropriate for that to happen, and I think it's a good idea.

S. Simpson: To the minister. I thank him for the answer,

and I'm very hopeful. Certainly, of the people who have spoken to me in the last

couple of days in regard to this, my sense is that the concern that I've heard

the most has been around the process question. I'm hopeful, if the minister

finds the opportunity and affords the time to these folks to sit down and have

some of that discussion, that maybe some of those issues or questions can be

resolved in a way that is satisfactory to everybody.

The last question that I'm looking for here relates a little bit

back to questions around the parkland that is implicated here. One of the

concerns that has been raised to me is…. As the discussions go forward with the

Musqueam, have there been any commitments made or discussions around any

additional lands that fall within the park to be on the table? Or is that a

matter for future consideration and not something for talking about here?

As the minister will note, that anxiety is out there. When the

minister fulfils his commitment that he's just made here to speak to people in

the community, they will raise this question with him, without doubt. So I

thought I would just raise it now and get started.

Hon. M. de Jong: Nothing specific. The member is astute

enough to know that we have not settled

[ Page 10565 ]

absolutely the issue of Musqueam land claims, but there have been no specific

discussions about a phase 2 or anything of that sort.

S. Fraser: On

section 4(3) — that's the last item I have on

my sheet here: "Subsection (2) does not operate and must not be interpreted to

prevent the enactment or variation of a bylaw under the authority of the

University Endowment Land Act after the effective date, including, without

limitation, a bylaw or variation of a bylaw that applies to Block F."

Can the minister just help me here? Can I get a Cole's Notes

version of what that is stating?

[1455]

Hon. M. de Jong: What this does is ensure that the zoning

designation for block F that is created by this bill, this legislation, is not

frozen in perpetuity. It flows from the questions that the member's colleague

was asking. It clarifies that these zoning changes that we are enacting here do

not restrict or prevent future amendments to the bylaw or the official community

plan in regards to block F. That is the impact of this subsection.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

S. Fraser: We were on a roll, I know, but I have a few

questions around the compensation section,

section 7. "On the effective date,

the amount of $20.8 million is payable to the University of British Columbia by

the government as compensation for the vesting referred to in

section 2."

Essentially, the government — and correct me if I'm wrong — has

expropriated that land. Is that an appropriate term? Was this a negotiation with

the university as far as the amount involved?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know that earlier there

was a negotiation between UBC and the province that was designed to lead to a

sale and transfer of the property to UBC. At the behest of the Musqueam, the

courts intervened and determined that that transaction was not going to proceed

on the basis that was negotiated. So this statutory attempt to address that

issue addresses the fact that the earlier contract between the province and UBC

is frustrated.

Later in the bill, the member will note, there is a specific

provision — I can't remember what

section — that determines that the

Expropriation Act itself does not apply. This is a provision that derives from

the fact that the earlier contract between the province and UBC was not followed

through upon, following the intervention of the court.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that clarification.

Just a little bit further on that. I'm surprised that that is in

this bill. I mean, it isn't directly related to the Musqueam. This is

compensation to a third party, essentially.

Just a clarification. Is there some legal reason this is in the

bill? This is a reconciliation act for the Musqueam. So what's the rationale for

having this level of detail of compensation to another party in the body of this

bill?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the agreement we seek to clarify the

schedule by which the various components of the agreement will be in place and

executed upon.

[1500]

I think the member has identified a key provision. This is the

amount the Crown will pay to UBC. So there is certainty about the amount and

therefore certainty in accordance with the bill and the agreement about when the

transfer will occur. It is with the objective of establishing with certainty

what the various components are that this

section appears here.

S. Fraser: The amount of $20.8 million…. How was that

established? Was that a negotiated settlement with officials from UBC, or was it

based on some sort of market value calculation? Possibly the minister could

edify us on that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised and reminded that the amount

derives from an appraisal that was completed late in the summer of 2007.

S. Fraser: On

section 3, moving on just down here. "No

compensation is payable to the Greater Vancouver Regional District as a

consequence of the vestings referred to in

section 3 and any and all claims by

the Greater Vancouver Regional District in relation to the vestings referred to

section 3 are extinguished." Are we referring to the parkland acquisition? I

see the minister is nodding.

I'll just continue here. What's the rationale for…? Obviously, the

university is receiving compensation in this instance, yet the Greater Vancouver

regional district is not.

Hon. M. de Jong: Unlike the university, which at the time

of the original transaction had sought to pay just in excess of $11 million for

the land, the GVRD, as it then was in 1989, received the lands that comprised

Pacific Spirit Park for a dollar. As we talked about earlier in these

proceedings, at that time the transaction and transfer was completed in full

knowledge of the fact that there was an unresolved issue involving the Musqueam.

What flows from that is the transfer here.

The determination is that, recognizing that everyone was aware

this was an issue that was going to have to be dealt with at the time the land

was transferred for a dollar, there wouldn't be compensation payable at this

time.

S. Fraser: Again, clarification is…. Essentially, with the

original transfer of these lands to the regional district as parkland

dedication, they were not receiving this as fee simple? There was a specific

caveat on this that this may well be a temporary situation? I'm just not sure I

understand.

[ Page 10566 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: At the time, two things occurred. The GVRD

received what is termed a modified fee simple in terms of the Crown grant

restricted to park use, but at the same time that took place it was done so in

contemplation of the fact, as set out in the affidavit that was presented to the

court, that the transfer took place without prejudice to the unresolved claim

involving the Musqueam, which we are in part dealing with today.

S. Fraser: So no compensation for the withdrawal of the

lands subsequent. I understand that.

As my colleagues mentioned earlier, there were other issues that

happened with the removal of this land from the regional district. Certainly it

had an effect to really change the official community plan. That was

section 4,

but it's still germane to this question, so I hope I'll get some leeway here.

There is a cost associated with official community planning. Has

there been any discussion or contemplation of some sort of compensation — not

for the land as such. You've explained that well, I think.

[1505]

The regional district has arguably used the land in good faith for

the purposes intended, as parkland. We are seeing that it's having an impact on

the community and the residents and certainly on the official community planning

process, which is not without its costs. Have there been any discussions about

possible compensation — not for the land, but for the processes that fall out of

that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I do think it's fair to contemplate that

there would be discussions with respect to costs that might accrue relative to

the jointly managed parklands that emerge as a result of the agreement in the

legislation.

I don't ever want to mislead anyone, though. I don't know that

there would be, in terms of the work that would be taking place around the land

use plan or OCP reviews. That is work that would be taking place irrespective of

block F or block K, so I don't want to suggest to the member that there have

been specific conversations about additional compensation on that front. But

there will certainly be a discussion around how to deal with any costs that

accrue from the jointly managed parkland.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

S. Fraser: Just a quick clarification. I am assuming that

the "No legal proceeding"

section here,

section 8, is pretty much boilerplate.

The only term in here that I'd just like a little clarification on…. It's

referring to the Musqueam Indian band or a designated company. Is such a

designated company anticipated? Was this discussed? Perhaps the minister could

clarify.

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things flow from the member's

question. The designated company, which is a defined term, is necessary — I am

reminded — because under our land titles system, it's not actually possible for

the band to take a fee simple interest in the property.

So what they would do is incorporate a company, a designated

company under the

definitions contained in both the statute and the agreement —

a company controlled by the band. But it would be a corporate entity that would

technically hold the title to the land, and that's why you see the reference to

"designated company" in this and a few other sections.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. The land,

though, is essentially now fee simple, with the owner being the Musqueam band.

Is that essentially…? This is not treaty land. This was not derived through

treaty. So I just need to finish this off.

The question arises for me…. The autonomy that the Musqueam have

on this land is the same autonomy that a private land owner would have. The

minister is nodding on that. So this does not supplant treaty. The bill doesn't

invoke any of the considerations that happen around land through the treaty

process, which is in some ways different than just fee simple land for the

general public.

Could the minister just make that comment so I have something on

Hansard ?

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: No, the member has characterized this

correctly. The Musqueam will hold this land as fee simple land via a Musqueam-controlled

company and will therefore be in a position to deal with it as they wish, as

would any other owner of a fee simple property.

S. Fraser: Just following that, to close this off, I

believe. We've touched on this earlier, but does this, then, in any way

prejudice the treaty discussions that we all hope will occur subsequent to this?

We know that they've been to some extent stalled, partially, certainly, because

of the court case, the decision and this bill that has been a product of that.

But is this something that will now come back to the treaty table, and we'll

say: "Look, land has already been achieved, therefore that will have an effect

on what can be negotiated through the treaty process"?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the most accurate way I can

address the member's point is to refer back to

article 6 of the agreement. It's

short, so I'll read it into the record again.

"6.01 Reconciliation. Musqueam acknowledges and

agrees that in the spirit of the new relationship, the lands acquired by one

or more designated companies" — there's that term again — "in accordance with

this agreement constitute a contribution by the province towards the

reconciliation of the province's and Musqueam's interests and the settlement

of Musqueam's aboriginal rights and title claims through treaty or other

negotiations. In this regard the province confirms its continued commitment to

resolve Musqueam's unresolved aboriginal rights and title issues."

Section 8 approved.

[ Page 10567 ]

section 9.

S. Fraser: I'm a little bit concerned about the wording of

this

section 9. It's suggesting that the Financial Administration Act…. "The

minister may" — again the word "may" — "pay out of the consolidated revenue fund

amounts required for the purposes of…." They're listed quite clearly here. The

way this is worded, this seems to give the minister essentially free rein on

spending. There are no qualifications here. Please comment.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, though I am tempted by the

prospect he paints, I can assure him that this has been drafted in a very

specific way to ensure that there is a statutory appropriation for just those

costs associated with this transaction as contemplated by this legislation and

the agreement. So the cash transfer and the land costs — but just those things.

It does not extend beyond this transaction in any way.

S. Fraser: Okay. But I mean, it allows the minister to draw

from the consolidated revenue fund for implementing the agreement and fulfilling

the obligations of government under the agreement of this act. It's still pretty

much a blanket statement allowing….

[1515]

Does it allow spending at will? It's not a very tight statement as

far as accounting for whatever funds might be entailed in fulfilling the

obligations of government under the agreement of this act, especially for those

of us who haven't been involved. None of us has been involved in the discussions

that led up to this.

Hon. M. de Jong: No, it certainly does not allow or provide

for spending at will — quite the contrary. It is limited to those costs

associated with the implementation of the agreement. It might help if I alert

the hon. member to something I've learned, and that is, that with respect to

spending on matters of this sort, there must always be an appropriation. The

cost associated with agreements of this must be provided for somewhere in

government. There must be a statutory authorization for those costs and covering

those costs. So it is restricted to the costs associated with the facets of this

legislation and the agreement and is in no way open-ended.

S. Fraser: It must be provided for somewhere. I mean, it's

sometimes difficult to follow the trail of money in any bureaucracy. Certainly,

in the realms of government, that can be a pretty daunting task to try to

follow. So I like to see these things a little clearer.

What defines implementation of the agreement? What exactly are the

obligations, and how would the government or the minister be accountable, and

where would the minister be accountable? So a lot of questions: what defines the

implementation of the agreement, and what exactly are the obligations that the

minister has referred to?

Hon. M. de Jong: Essentially, this. These are the

components: the cash to the Musqueam; the cash to UBC, accounting for the land

costs and the value of the land. The last, hopefully, bit of comfort that I can

add to the member is that all of those must be laid out and disclosed in the

public accounts. So it doesn't sort of mysteriously disappear somewhere, never

to be heard from again. There is a proper accounting of what those amounts are,

who they were paid to, and how much must be disclosed as part of the public

accounts process.

S. Fraser: Okay, the accounting for this is maybe best

handled in the next section.

The cash element of this settlement. The land settlement is

quite…. I think we all understand the importance of land, the traditional

territory. In many urban first nations situations there's very limited land. So

we've seen how that's been acquired, and I understand that.

The cash end that the minister was just referring to — how is that

established? Certainly, there was never any amount specified through the courts,

so was there a basis, a formula, as there is, arguably, in the treaty process?

Hon. M. de Jong: Very much a product of the negotiation,

and that's why this is called a reconciliation and benefits agreement, because

in addition to settling the outstanding litigation, there was also an attempt

being made to address some of the other concerns that the Musqueam have.

I mean, it does go beyond merely settling litigation in that

sense, so it was a product of the negotiation, and we end up with a package that

is here before us for consideration.

[1520]

S. Fraser: I respect and appreciate the fact that

negotiations that led us to Bill 12 were all subsequent to the court, basically,

ordering meaningful consultation to occur.

We've got land and cash as part of this compensation package

through Bill 12. We have the Musqueam, who are involved in the treaty process,

stage 4. The treaty process is designed to address accommodation in itself

through a tripartite agreement — federal government, provincial government and,

in this case, the Musqueam first nation — in a

government-to-government-to-government negotiation.

There is a formula laid out in that process that I think is

outdated and is not spoken of much in the public. This is an arbitrary,

negotiated reconciliation settlement that was ordered by the courts. Does this

reflect in any way the normal process that would happen through the treaty

process?

I'm talking about, specifically…. There is a certain cap, a limit

that is placed on per-capita, if you wish, per-head-count type of thing that

happens through the treaty process. Was that contemplated during this

discussion?

I don't need the minister to quote that

section 6 again. We have

two processes happening here. One seems to have usurped the other. The treaty

process seems to have been set aside, and there is a formula there.

[ Page 10568 ]

Will the minister have the negotiators go back to that formula?

How do these two fit together in a process that other first nations and

non–first nations can look at throughout the province and see as an example? The

minister has called this a new era of reconciliation. That's what Bill 12 is or

represents. For me it's a confusing era, if this is how we're starting.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is right. This is not a treaty.

There are no provisions in here dealing with self-government, drawdown of

powers, concurrent jurisdictions, paramount jurisdictions and anything like

that. It is the product of a negotiation that began, in part, in response to

pronouncements from the court on a series of fronts and extended, I think,

somewhat beyond that.

I think it is wise for the member and me to be having this

discussion. I think, though, it is more confusing if one is of the view that

each agreement must look a certain way. I don't think the member believes that.

I think the member has said in the past that there needs to be a flexibility

around the manner in which we arrive at agreements and reconciliation and the

journey we take to get there. I think this is the evidence of that. It does not

supplant entirely the treaty process, because there are a lot of things missing

from this agreement that you would expect to see in a treaty.

[1525]

I hope, the government hopes and, actually, I think the member

hopes that by taking this first step with a partner we have heretofore generally

only met in court, we will be able to create a dynamic and a landscape that will

allow for the additional discussions that need to take place to move towards

treaty.

Now, the member is also correct. Our negotiators, when we embark

upon treaty negotiations, operate within a certain mandate that they're handled.

I won't repeat

article 6, but at some point, one will take account of that, and

it will influence those negotiations to a certain degree. I can't tell the

member today what that would be or how that would be, but it does all become

part of a mix and part of the puzzle.

I prefer to look at this as a first step that will help facilitate

a next step that the member refers to insofar as a broader treaty discussion.

But it does highlight the fact that there will be necessarily different

approaches to hopefully getting to something that resembles the same

destination.

S. Fraser: Just to finish off on this section, I thank the

minister for those comments. Again, I applaud the Musqueam people for actually

taking the step of using the courts. It's unfortunate, but it has led to a form

of reconciliation that may not have happened had they not stuck to a hard line

and forced the government of the day — through the courts — to negotiate in good

faith in this case.

I, too, look forward to true reconciliation through the treaty

process to finalize this. The pieces that are missing — the self-governance

aspect and those sorts of things — are an essential

part in closing that

socioeconomic gap and, certainly, essential to recognition of the Musqueam

people, and with respect.

I'm now finished with

section 9, but I will, as I've warned, stand

up again momentarily for

section

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

S. Fraser: It's a short comment here, but I just want to

read it to refresh my own memory. I've put a big star around this one. "Amounts

of money required to be provided or paid under

section 9 (1)" — which we've just

discussed — "are not to be taken into account for the purposes of calculating

the actual amounts of operating expenses under

section 5 (1) of the Balanced

Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act ."

I guess this leads to the next question, which we've touched on

already.

Section 10 provides that all the moneys spent under

section 9(1) are

not subject — the way I read it — to ministerial calculations for the Balanced

Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. Again, where is the accountability?

Where is the accounting on this?

How do you find this if you're looking for…? If this is

specifically exempt from the act — which is there for transparency, I believe,

and accountability — I need to know the rationale for this and then what the

options are for anyone wishing to scrutinize, rightly so, the government

expenditures.

Hon. M. de Jong: A fair question. I think we've established

via

section 9 that the costs authorized by this are restricted to the

transactional costs for the agreement and the legislation.

Section 10 exists for the following reason. We would not have

known — did not know, actually — when the negotiations began, how they were

going to be resolved or what the final cost was. Therefore, no specific

funding…. The member and I did the estimates last year for 2007-2008. He'll

recall that we didn't include an appropriation or provision that would cover the

cost of this agreement — didn't know we would have an agreement.

[1530]

What we are doing — and this works in concert with

section 9 — is

that there is a statutory appropriation. I'll tell the member that the absence

section 10 would only mean this. We would still fund the agreement, by virtue

section 9. All of those costs will be disclosed via the public accounts

system. But the minister — me — then would be in a position where, for this

fiscal year, we would have spent more than the amount that the member and I

discussed through the estimates. Therefore, there would be a sanction imposed on

me as the minister for having done so. This

section excuses the imposition of

that sanction.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The minister

has answered, I guess, where I was going, question-wise. I wanted to know how

that would relate to, among other things, a bonus.

[ Page 10569 ]

I understand what the minister is saying, but under the pretty

blanket statements of

section 9, the minister can spend…. Well, it doesn't say.

It says any amount, really, from the consolidated fund, under the blanket

statements of

section 9, and still be in budget. Like the whole idea of the….

Doesn't that fly in the face of the ministerial accountability act? This is very

open-ended. There are no numbers. There are no ceilings. The statements for the

criteria for spending are very broad and blanket statements.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

So again, how do we even pursue this in estimates — the normal

processes that we have to deal with this? How will we be able to deal with this?

How will I as the critic be able to deal with this? Again, how does the minister

reconcile this with the spirit and intent of the ministerial accountability act?

I'm not saying this in any way that suggests that he's going to go

to town and spend a whole bunch of money that he's not supposed to spend. But

the way this is laid out, by all appearances, you could. It's very broad. There

are not very many tight constraints here.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's only the last part of the

member's statement that I probably disagree with. If it were, as the member is

suggesting, open-ended, then I think it would be problematic. Then I think it

would fly in the face of the rigour that we are trying to impose on the

budgeting process.

But in the same way that I tried to offer with respect to

section

9, the only authorization that this statutory appropriation relates to is

specific transactional costs, and they must be accounted for. I can assure the

member that, through the budgeting process and ultimately the public accounts

reporting process, they will have to be scrupulously accounted for.

As I have indicated, insofar as we did not know, at the time we

discussed the estimates for 2007-2008, that we would be in a position to

conclude this agreement, we did not make provision.

So in those circumstances, had we been of the view — I think the

answer to the member's question is — we might have had a discussion, because the

member would have looked at that portion of the budget and said, "Hmm, I wonder

what that money is for," and I would have offered an explanation. It gets

tricky, because of course you're dealing with negotiating mandates that you may

or may not want to disclose too early in the negotiating process. It gets tricky

that way.

Then subsequent to that, the member would have cross-referenced

and said: "Well, I wonder where the minister and the government came in around

that, or whether an agreement was negotiated at all."

[1535]

If it were as open-ended as the member is concerned it is, and I'm

suggesting that it's not, then I would appreciate the point he's making. I am

trying as best I can to assure the member that it is not open-ended, that the

only expenditures being authorized and captured by sections 9 and 10 are those

which specifically relate to giving this agreement and this act effect.

S. Fraser: I'm not overly comforted yet, because I and the

public still have a very limited written statement about limits or guidelines of

where the money is. I think it's always of concern when you're seeing a

ministerial accountability act waived. It does require this sort of scrutiny —

maybe less so if we're not seeing this trend towards losing our ability also in

estimates, timewise. We've seen, again, another instance where we've had,

arguably, close to 60 hours of our estimates process removed by some pretty

arbitrary changes that used to be done by full agreement of both sides of the

House.

So when you combine that with waiving of ministerial

accountability acts and pretty blanket statements…. It's the combination. I mean

this with no criticism to the staff that negotiated this. I'm sure there's good

rationale for it, but the combination of all these things does leave the

appearance of something less than total accountability and transparency.

Certainly, when you consider our more limited ability through the

estimates processes, through initiatives taken by this government to restrict

that — our access and our time as the opposition to do our job in the estimates

process…. It's that combination that certainly raises concerns for me and will

for others, I'm sure, too.

With that being said, I have no further questions on

section 10.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

S. Fraser: The act "does not apply to an expropriation

under the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement

Implementation Act ." Could that be explained for me? To me, that seems

almost like a redundant statement, so I just need some clarification on it. If

you could put that into layman's terms, I would appreciate it.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've just, fortunately, been reminded. I

wonder if the confusion is the same one that I had when I re-read it quickly.

This is the phrase or the language that would be included in the

Expropriation Act. So moving forward, following the passage of this bill, within

the Expropriation Act will be that statement: "This Act does not apply to an

expropriation under the Musqueam …." And that's how we ensure that the

transactions occur via the provisions of this legislation and not the

Expropriation Act, as the member referred to earlier.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That goes a

long way.

Just for further clarification, will we see the Expropriation Act,

then, brought forward also subsequent to this?

Hon. M. de Jong: This does that.

[ Page 10570 ]

S. Fraser: This does that. All right.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:40 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

MUSQUEAM RECONCILIATION, SETTLEMENT

AND BENEFITS AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Bill 12, Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits

Agreement Implementation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage of Bill 9, the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2008.

Committee of the Whole House

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 3:44 p.m.

section 1.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for bringing this

forward. Welcome, staff person.

section 1, the changes here are certainly critical. The wording

seems quite small, but it makes a major difference in the ability of the BCSPCA

to do their job and protect animals from suffering, in this case.

[1545]

For me, where this rings out is certainly in automobiles and cars

in the summertime where we see animals…. Previously they were having a hard time

actually getting to the animals and legally having access to them before they

were, in some cases, beyond help. So I think this was a long time coming.

I guess the question to the minister…. I thought I heard him say

this has been two years in the working, or maybe it was the SPCA. But can the

minister…? With these types of issues — certainly the one we're dealing with,

section 1, the amendment…. How long has this been in the works for?

Hon. P. Bell: I will just take time to introduce Mark

Parsons, who is with my ministry and helped work through the development of this

legislation with the BCSPCA.

We first started working with the BCSPCA when they approached us

about two years ago on this particular piece of legislation.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I didn't have a

chance on second reading — I was not here — so I just want to say that this is a

bill that will be supported by the opposition. As the lead on this, I am happy

that this is coming forward.

I have a question, though. It is two years, and that's fine. Why

so long? I've tried to look back in records. I've gone back, I think, as far as

2001. I just haven't gone back further than that. The BCSPCA has been lobbying

for changes like this, for beefing up the legislation to give it some more teeth

and allow them to do their jobs. That has been happening…. I found it back to

2001. Why the lag time there? The last two years — that's good, but what about

the other five years? What happened there?

Hon. P. Bell: What I can tell the member is that when we

first engaged with the BCSPCA, they advised us that their expectation was for a

2008 legislative session and that they were hopeful that could be achieved. We

have more than met that objective by tabling and, hopefully, passing this

legislation in this session.

It does take time to go through the process. We wanted to work

with the BCSPCA in detail in the development of this legislation. They were very

much engaged in the process. Mark Parsons, who's with me here today, met with

them on an ongoing basis, and we think we've got a piece of legislation that

makes sense here for them.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the minister's answer. I certainly

appreciate the work that has gone into this and where it's leading us. These

legislative changes, I know, in that exploration of the past, have been

supported since 2001 or before — I'm not sure; I didn't go back further than

that — by the opposition. So I don't think you're going to see a lot of

controversy from this side of the House on it.

Along with this very simple wording change that makes a

significant difference, I've got, I guess, a technical question. When it comes

to rescuing animals from…. I'll use the example I used previously. It's a change

because of the "ventilation" statements made here. Officers from the SPCA will

be accessing personal vehicles to, hopefully, rescue animals that very negligent

owners have left in there to overheat and, potentially, die. Is it anticipated,

with this change, that there will be more acquisition of animals and/or more

charges being laid?

Hon. P. Bell: The BCSPCA has had the ability to enter

vehicles for some time now in the event of the animal being in critical

distress. The issue that has been resolved here is the definition around

"distress." I

[ Page 10571 ]

wouldn't suggest to the member opposite that the BCSPCA would necessarily be

entering more vehicles, but it gives them, to enter the vehicle prior to the

animal being virtually on death's door…. Hopefully, they will be in a position

to recover the animal when it is in better health and bring it back to

reasonable health prior to that "critical distress" definition being reached.

That was the objective of this particular amendment.

[1550]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. On that, physically, how

will this be done? If you get up to a car, authorization to…. Obviously, the

SPCA officer will not have a key. Presumably they're permitted to, if necessary,

under the law, get in by whatever means? I've been a volunteer firefighter. It's

not very hard to pop a window. Is that what's anticipated here?

Hon. P. Bell: Normally the BCSPCA would work with the local

police force in the event of a forced entry of that nature. The tools,

obviously, would vary depending on the type of vehicle. I don't have any

particular expertise with opening locked vehicles, so I'm unable to enlighten

the member opposite on how one might perform that entry. Perhaps he could share

some strategies he's aware of. I don't know.

S. Fraser: I don't want to discuss my sordid past. I worked

for a rent-a-car company as a kid. I know how to get into a car. A window is

very easy to break — a screwdriver just tapped in the right spot, and the

windshield will disintegrate. There are ways to get in.

I'm curious about the legislation. I didn't see it here, but is

there any accommodation for the public? If you or I were to come across a

situation where you're seeing an animal obviously dying, in distress in a

vehicle…. Any thoughts on how that might be dealt with, if this legislative

change has any effect on that?

Hon. P. Bell: No, this doesn't apply to people who are not

BCSPCA officers or police officers in the event it's in a location where the

SPCA does not provide service.

S. Fraser: Anticipated cost implications from this change.

I guess enforcement cost is what I'm looking at here. I think it opens the door

for more potential charges to be laid. There are certainly costs associated with

that. Any change you make here is really only effective if there are some

budgetary considerations that go with that.

Hon. P. Bell: We're actually jumping a bit ahead here, but

perhaps it will resolve having to answer this question. In

section 9 of the

amendment, which refers to

section 20 of the actual act — it's amending the

actual act,

section 20 — it allows the BCSPCA for the first time to recover

costs for bringing seized animals back to health.

This is a first step, and it allows the BCSPCA to recover their

costs in the event that they do occur. This is something that was very important

to the BCSPCA.

S. Fraser: Thank you very much to the minister for that.

Should I wait until that section? How will costs be…? We can deal with it as we

get further on, probably, and there's a number of sections here where the same

question will apply. Maybe it will be more expedient for me to just wait for the

later

section here.

[1555]

Now, obviously, Minister, your staff has been working with the

SPCA closely on this. The legislation is important for them to do their job.

It's important to protect…. I think we all have a responsibility, in a civil

society, to ensure that suffering — cruelty to animals — is prevented, and if

it's not able to be prevented, that appropriate action is allowed to be taken.

These changes are certainly helping the SPCA do that job.

BCSPCA has been around for a long time, over 100 years, so they

know what they're talking about. They've also been talking about…. There is a

very cruel way of dying for an animal — mostly domestic animals, but not

exclusively; wildlife and farm animals and such too — and that's by coming in

contact with, in some cases, antifreeze. It is probably the cruellest way to go

for an animal. Essentially, a teaspoon will eat a cat's kidneys out in a few

hours, while it's conscious. The same happens with dogs in small amounts.

The SPCA, I'm sure, has raised this, and certainly you've heard it

in this House. I'm still submitting petitions, and other members are submitting

petitions, also, around antifreeze and trying to protect against that horrible

way of dying, which happens, according to the BCSPCA, to thousands of animals

every year in the province.

Was there ever any anticipation? I raise this because in

section 1

of the act itself, there is potential room for consideration and acknowledgment

of this problem as it affects the suffering of animals.

Hon. P. Bell: I respect that the member has brought this

issue forward to the floor previously, but the BCSPCA did not flag this as a

possible amendment for this particular act. I understand that it maybe would be

possible in a different act, but it was not one of the topics of discussion that

was raised by the BCSPCA in their consultations with them.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Regardless, it

is an issue that they have taken a major role on, a lead role in the province.

For anyone who goes to their website, it figures very prominently there.

Their attempts at education for the public on this have been

valiant. They have failed to address the issue, and it continues to be one of

the most…. I know the American SPCA have done more work on this statistically,

but one of the prime, I think, most prevalent cause of death — and a suffering

death it is — for companion animals is ingestion of antifreeze. It's everywhere

in society.

There are safe alternatives. They're relatively cheap. I've

certainly done a private member's bill which has not been successful. I'm going

to sit down because I'm finished with

section 1. I will be proposing an

amendment immediately following

section 1. I'll go on notice now.

[ Page 10572 ]

Section 1 approved.

S. Fraser: I propose an amendment. I move an amendment by

adding a new

section to the bill. That would be

section 1.1.

The amendment will say that a new

section 1.1 is added as follows:

[That

section 1(2) of Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Amendment Act, 2008, is amended by adding

section (d) "…exposed to or

has access to ethylene glycol–based antifreeze."]

Do you need a copy? I can quickly get a copy made, though.

[1600]

The Chair: Members, I think we'll continue while we're

getting a copy of the amendment made for the minister, if that's agreeable.

Interjection.

The Chair: No, I want to have the amendment spoken to.

Member, did you plan to speak to your amendment?

On the amendment.

S. Fraser: Every year thousands of companion animals die a

horrendous death by coming into contact with ethylene glycol–based antifreeze.

Ethylene glycol is the prime ingredient in most antifreeze used in the province

and, for that matter, on the continent. It is, in its own right, an attractant

for animals. When animals come in contact with an antifreeze spill — whether it

be a leak; whether it be somebody doing home garage work, automobile work;

whether it's from an accident; whether it's from improper disposal — ethylene

glycol will be consumed by the animal.

Cats and dogs I'll talk about first. It takes almost nothing. This

is a very, very toxic substance, and it has poisoned hundreds of children too.

It's very, very dangerous. But it's dangerous especially because a teaspoon is

all it takes to kill a cat. A cat just has to walk through a puddle of it from

your car that has a leaking hose. It will lick that off of its paws, and that

antifreeze will hit the animal's liver, which will attempt to deal with it. It

forms oxalic acid, which immediately attacks the kidneys of the animal, causing

it to die in a very horrible way and very, very quickly — in hours.

This issue is fully supported by the BCSPCA — to move away from

this dangerous form of antifreeze in favour of propylene glycol–based

antifreeze. It's very similar chemically, but the product does not taste like

candy. It's not an attractant, and it is not anywhere near the toxicity that

we're talking about. It would prevent immediately the horrendous and agonizing

deaths of thousands of animals a year in the province.

The statistics on this are woefully inadequate. It does not

include the animals that have not returned home and, therefore, have never

received the benefit of a veterinarian's analysis. It doesn't include what

happens to feral cats, and it does not include what happens to wildlife, farm

animals, fish and ducks.

It's a major problem that the BCSPCA, who we are listening to here

and bringing a bill forward here…. It's based on their advice, and their advice

is to proceed. I think the simplest way is to acknowledge that it is a problem.

There is no more agonizing way — I'm going to repeat that again — for an animal

to go than to ingest this stuff.

Any substance this widely used in our society that is a highly

toxic substance, that is everywhere, that is its own attractant for animals, for

people…. I have had people contact me who have had their adult children die from

ingesting this by mistake — because they had a Mountain Dew spiked, in one case.

That's relatively rare, but the incidence of poisoning with children is not.

This is a tasty, sweet, deadly combination. The canary in the mine

shaft on this one is our companion animals. Dogs will chew the lid off of the

plastic container of this stuff that you can get for $12 at Canadian Tire. It

will kill them, and it will kill them quickly, before you even know it.

[1605]

Having this recognized in

section 1 of the act — having this

amendment in the act and having the bill reflect it — is a friendly amendment. I

say that it's a friendly amendment because it is, for the first time, bringing

some official recognition under legislation that this is a problem. It will help

lead to the solution, I hope. I urge all members of this House to support this

friendly amendment.

Again, this is supported by the BCSPCA. They've had a major

campaign on this for years. Tens of thousands of individuals in British Columbia

have sent in petitions, have signed petitions, have sent in letters to the

Minister of Environment, to the Premier's office. This is widely supported. It's

supported by the Sierra Club. It's supported by the Western Canada Wilderness

Committee. It's supported by the Pacific Assistance Dogs Society. It's supported

by all major environmental groups and, of course, those that know the most about

suffering and cruelty to animals, the BCSPCA.

Incorporating acknowledgment of the dangers of ethylene

glycol–based antifreeze is essential, because it is about cruelty. I note that

in the definition portion of the bill, there is no definition of cruelty or

cruel. I'm surprised, because "cruelty" is actually incorporated into the name

of the act, which is appropriate.

I went to Webster's as a fallback position. Cruel is "causing or

conducive to injury or suffering, grief or pain." That's it. That's what happens

when animals are exposed to ethylene glycol–based antifreeze. And propylene

glycol–based antifreeze, which I have in my car, costs $3 more a gallon.

I understand that members — probably from both sides of the House,

but certainly the government members — have been lobbied against this. They've

been lobbied by industry, who claim things like, "There is no evidence that

antifreeze causes death," which is a foolish statement by industry and is

patently false. They also state spurious arguments such as, "We'll have to

[ Page 10573 ]

set up roadblocks at the borders to stop cars and drain the antifreeze out,"

and that is a spurious argument.

We need to move ahead on this. The BCSPCA is demanding that we

move ahead on this. I haven't got any formal response from the Minister of

Environment, except initial acknowledgment that this was an important issue.

This is a bill that's coming forward now through the BCSPCA, dealing with

cruelty. This is an issue about cruelty, by the definition of cruel.

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the member opposite's passion

over this issue. Clearly, he has very, very strong feelings, as do many people.

I just wish to point out a couple of things to the member opposite.

He was referring to that there is not a definition of cruelty in

the act. Actually, the act refers to distress. The definition of distress is

actually the definition that's used, and that's why that model is currently

used.

The member opposite also referred to examples where humans have

ingested antifreeze and, as a result, passed away from that ingestion. Putting

this amendment in this particular act would not resolve that issue. In fact, it

would not resolve the issue of this particular type of antifreeze being sold

into the public.

I do know that my colleague the Minister of Environment has been

investigating this issue, and I know the member opposite has a keen interest in

it. I would suggest that the member opposite speak with the Minister of

Environment on this issue.

An amendment of this nature would not, in my view, be appropriate

in this particular act, although the notion of looking at a model for dealing

with antifreeze issues going forward is certainly something that I think

everyone is interested in. For the purposes of this act, we don't think this

amendment would make sense.

However, we're certainly willing to work with the member in terms

of advancing the overall issue. It is one that is important to many people.

[1610-1615]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Thorne

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Robertson

Karagianis

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 37

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

R. Sultan: I have some comments on

section 2. Is that in

order?

[1620]

The Chair: It is in order.

section 2.

R. Sultan: I'm delighted to have an opportunity to talk to

Bill 9 in general terms, just to give you a very brief

preamble.

Section 2 of

Bill 9 is a fairly technical clause, and it really explains my involvement in

this act in the first place.

My attention was first drawn to the inadequacies of the existing

act by a friend of mine, chartered accountant Andrew Williams. He had pretty

much on a volunteer basis gone to work for the SPCA British Columbia

organization to resolve some serious accounting issues that had taken quite a

long time to address. He discovered that the way the act was written and the way

company law and regulation in British Columbia had evolved, it was in fact

legally impossible to comply with the registration requirements of this

government — in particular, as the amendment points out, the registrar of

companies — within the strictures of the existing act.

I might point out in this regard the peculiarities of the Society

for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is a private society funded in the

main by individual contributions, typically by people concerned about cruelty to

pets and small animals. But of course their responsibilities extend far beyond

that to all animals in the province, including these bustling and very vibrant

commercial beef cattle, sheep and other animals grown commercially.

So we had a kind of bifurcated organization here funded in the

main by…. Well, I hate to use any stereotypes, but shall we say funded persons

like me, concerned about my pet dog. Many of their enforcement officers were out

in the field endeavouring to maintain standards of humanity in the treatment of

farm animals. So that was one problem.

Mr. Williams came in and, I think, resolved many of the financial

and reporting issues, reporting to the new president who came in and provided

leadership in this regard. I just want to acknowledge the work that Craig

Daniell, the new CEO, did.

[ Page 10574 ]

The funding issue nevertheless remained and remains to this day.

The peculiarity of the organization and why the government is properly concerned

about the structure of this statute is that by law, they have been charged with

what we might call police duties. It is almost as if we had the RCMP in British

Columbia funded by private donations but charged with the enforcement of

criminal law. That is a bit of a stretch, but there are some parallels to the

peculiarity of the situation. That's why the proposed amendment in

section 2 is

so important.

I could go on and talk about the other sections of the bill. It

would not be appropriate for me to do so. Clearly, the enforcement improvements

embodied in this act are also measures that the SPCA has been asking for, for a

number of years. I would commend the minister in the fashion in which he has

responded to virtually — not 100 percent, but virtually — all of the needs of

the society — in a very appropriate fashion.

[1625]

I would also congratulate him on that wonderful demonstration with

the dogs on the front steps, which we all enjoyed so much about a week ago.

My question to the minister is: in terms of

section 2, are you

confident that the accounting dilemma that my friend the chartered accountant

Andrew Williams had — namely, he could not submit a proper set of accounts that

was certifiable and acceptable to the registrar of corporations and at the same

time operate within the act…? Has that government- and regulatory-created

dilemma been solved?

Hon. P. Bell: I would just like to acknowledge that the

member actually had flagged this some time ago to my office and requested that

we look at how we could correct this issue. So his initial identification of

this problem is what led to this particular

section of the bill.

I am told by the registrar and by the accountants association that

we have met the need for the SPCA to be able to fulfil their obligations. I

appreciate his work in bringing this forward as well.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Fraser: On the

section on abandoned animals, I see the

amendments include "is apparently ownerless" and "is found straying." These are

fairly subjective statements, I understand.

I'm presuming that if an animal is seen wandering, that's the

discretion of the BCSPCA. I mean, if there's an animal that has come out…. If

your gate was left open from the back yard and the animal is in your front yard,

is that anticipated to be covered in this?

Hon. P. Bell: It is a discretionary authority that the

BCSPCA has, and it makes decisions as would other law enforcement officers in

terms of the nature of whether or not this particular animal was straying.

S. Fraser: Subsection (c): "…is found in a rental unit

after expiry of the tenancy agreement in respect of the rental unit." We're

presuming that the tenant has left and has abandoned the animal. The whole

section is about abandonment.

This doesn't allow for if the tenant is still there at the end of

a tenancy agreement. There might be a dispute, but we're not talking about

taking the animal from a tenant who is present?

Hon. P. Bell: If the tenant was actually still occupying

the property and the animal was in distress, then the SPCA would act under the

distress provision. But if the tenant is still occupying and the animal is not

in distress, then they wouldn't be seizing the animal.

S. Fraser: Next section: "(

d) if a person agreed to care

for the animal, is not retrieved from the person within 4 days following the end

of that agreement." I'm curious about this. It's quite specific — four days. I

just don't understand how it is supposed to be interpreted.

Hon. P. Bell: The principle behind this was if someone were

to leave an animal in the care of an individual for an extensive period of time.

Previously that individual was obligated to continue to care for that animal.

[1630]

This

section allows the BCSPCA to step in. Four days was seen to

be a reasonable amount of time past the period that the individual had agreed to

look after that particular pet. But of course, if the owner were to call and

identify by phone and there was ongoing agreement to look after the pet, then

the BCSPCA would not necessarily step in.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. So this

section

on abandonment — is it consistent with other jurisdictions, other provinces?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, it is. In fact, it's modelled after the

1999 amendment to Alberta's legislation.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Just closing

off this section…. This may be dealt with later. I'm sure we will. There are

certainly cost implications with this section. Any changes made here may,

indeed, increase the ability of the BCSPCA, rightly so, to be able to acquire

and take into care abandoned animals — which we all approve of, and I applaud

this — but there are cost implications for that.

I'll ask the minister now so that I don't miss the opportunity

later. Will there be a point where we can address that question in a larger

context?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: That would be bill

section 9 and, actually,

section 20 in the act, when we get to that.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

[ Page 10575 ]

section 5.

R. Sultan: This section, as I understand it, allows an

authorized agent of the SPCA, where it is impractical to appear personally

before a justice, to apply for a warrant by telephone, swearing an oath by

telephone or by some other means of telecommunication.

Could the minister clarify for us the circumstances under which

this revision to the act would be helpful in the cause of protecting animals in

this province?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the BCSPCA had a circumstance where

the location they were attending and reviewing the potential seizure of animals

was in a very remote location, and they had to travel, I believe, in the order

of eight hours to get to a place where they could swear a warrant in front of a

justice and then travel back.

Fortunately, the animals were rescued and were saved in that

particular circumstance, but they flagged this as a significant issue and one

that they wanted dealt with. So that would be a good example of where this

particular

section of the act would apply.

R. Sultan: I suppose a parallel might be to find in a car

an animal which was becoming overheated eight hours from the justice of the

peace. Would that be a parallel situation?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, likely that would be a critical

distress situation, where a warrant would not be required for entry, and they

would work with the local police detachment to enter the vehicle.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

S. Fraser: There is a series of amendments in this

section

that deal with fines and levying those fines. I'm curious about the proceeds of

these fines. Once they're levied, where would those moneys go?

[1635]

Hon. P. Bell: They continue, as they have in the past, to

go into the consolidated revenue fund.

S. Fraser: Was there any discussion about whether or not

some of the proceeds of these fines could be used as maybe core funding…? I

guess it wouldn't work as core funding, since it's a transient thing. Did that

come up in the discussions with the BCSPCA?

Hon. P. Bell: No, there wasn't. I think everyone should at

least understand that there would be a potential for a deemed conflict in the

event of fines going directly back to the organization that placed those fines.

No, it wasn't an area that was talked about.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that, and I agree with the

minister's statement that it would be inappropriate. Just the perception would

be inappropriate.

I'm just curious as to how this works. The decision of whether or

not to fine or how much — is that now definitive, or is it something that

there's a subjective nature there? If so, how would that be applied?

Hon. P. Bell: The courts make that decision. Typically in

the event of a first offence it might be on the lower end, depending on the

nature of the offence. But there is the flexibility, even in the event of a

first offence, to have a fine of up to $5,000 per animal or per event. So it is

a multiplier and could be a very large fine in the event of a situation we saw

recently — as an example, in Surrey — or an alleged situation.

S. Fraser: The minister is actually touching on something

that I'm going to go to now. In the instances of inhumane treatment in puppy

mills — that sort of thing — where you've potentially got a large number of

animals being exploit