British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 19, 2004

h0519pm-17

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 25, Number 17 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon.

Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

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

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

Party Standings: Liberal 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

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

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

Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Gulzar S. (L).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon.

Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) .....................................................................................

Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L).............................................................. Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L).................................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ...........................................................

Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) ..............................................

West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).......................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)..............................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)..............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North..................................................................................... John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon.

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers.....................................................................Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge............................................................ Gulzar S.

Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock.......................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................................

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

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

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

CONTENTS Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 11233 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 11233 Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45) Hon. C.

Clark Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 11234 Events and accomplishments in Burnaby North R. Lee Health care services in rural B.C. B. Bennett Men's Trauma Centre J. Bray Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 11235 Open Learning Agency severance payments J. Kwan Hon. G.

Collins Government severance payments and ministry contract spending J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Hon. C. Clark Arbitration option in legislation on health support workers R. Hawes Hon. G. Bruce Sight testing by opticians P. Nettleton Hon. C. Hansen Skilled trades training E. Brenzinger Hon. S.

Bond Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 11238 Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2003 Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................. 11238 K.

Krueger Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 11238 Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2003 Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................. 11238 D.

MacKay Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 11238 Annual report on multiculturalism, 2002-03 Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, statements Industry Training Authority, service plan

Reports from Committees........................................................................................................ ............................................. 11238 Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts Annual Review of Auditor General Reports J. Kwan Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Enhancing the Province's Public Sector Access and Privacy Law B.

Lekstrom Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 11239 Administrative Tribunals Act (Bill 56) J. Kwan Hon. G.

Plant Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 11245 Administrative Tribunals Act (Bill 56) Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 11246 Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued) J. Kwan J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell

11233 WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Prayers. [1405] Introductions by Members Hon. R. Neufeld: I would like to acknowledge spe- cial visitors from Korea in the members' gallery today. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Sung-joon Yim, the newly appointed ambassador of the Republic of Korea to Canada, and his wife, Madam Kwee-joo Yim. This is the ambassador's first official visit to Brit- ish Columbia, and I am plea sed that he has travelled here to discover the many opportunities our beautiful province presents. He is accompanied by Mr.

Bom-yon Lee from the Korean embassy in Ottawa and Mr. Jae-won Jun from the Korean consulate in Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted today to have in the gallery two very special members of my staff. They help make my world a much more organized place and make sure I'm doing my homework on a regular basis. I hope the House will help me not only make them welcome but thank them for a job extremely well done. Please welcome Kara Houston and Erin Bowman. J. Bray: Joining us in the House today are Stacy Jensen and Alana Samson.

Stacy is a board member of the Men's Trauma Centre, and Alana is their executive director. The Men's Trauma Centre will be having an open house on June 10 from three to six, and they are located at 1420 Quadra Street. Would the House please make these guests very welcome. J. Nuraney: We have today in the gallery a contin- gent of students from Eugene Reimer School in Abbots- ford. With them there is a young member of my family, Zakim Nuraney. He is bright, smart and a shining star of our family, and I would like the House to please join me in offering him a special welcome. D.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to this House Anter Pamma, a close friend of all Surrey MLAs and a prominent member of the Surrey commu- nity. He is also the owner of Bear Creek plaza, located off King George Highway at 88th and 140th Street. Also joining us today is Sarbjit Singh Taggar, who is the owner of Speedy Homes Ltd. and has done a terrific job building a stronger sense of community in Fleetwood in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. Would the House please make them very welcome. J. Wilson: Today is one of those rare occasions when I actually have someone down from the riding.

A good friend and a longtime acquaintance, Duncan Bar- nett, is here today. He is doing business on behalf of the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association. I had lunch with him, and we had a wonderful chat over lunch. I ask the House to make him feel at home. L. Mayencourt: In the gallery today we have a most distinguished guest. Chief Inspector Dave Jones has served the Vancouver polic e department for a very long time. He has now mo ved into community work and is one of the people behind the Trespass to Prop- erty Act and the Safe Streets Act, called the Safe Streets Coalition.

Dave is here to speak with media and to visit with Victoria-area groups that are part of the coalition to ensure that people understand the law enforcement side of these two pieces of legislation. Dave, I haven't had a chance to talk to you, but that's the public response from the Safe Streets Act in the last seven days. So, you're doing good work. Thank you very much. Would the House please make him welcome. Hon. T.

Christensen: The member earlier intro- duced one of the students fr om Eugene Reimer School, but I want to join with the House in welcoming all the students from Eugene Reimer. [1410] I know that very good things are happening at Eugene Reimer Elementary School in Abbotsford, be- cause I had an opportunity — not to visit the school, unfortunately — w h e n I w a s i n A b b o t s f o r d t o d i s c u s s some of the things that were going on with their literacy programs with a couple of teachers from Eugene Reimer. It's a multicultural school that presents some real challenges on a literacy front.

I know that the teach- ers at Eugene Reimer and all the students are working very hard and doing great things. Please join me in wel- coming all of these students to the House today. D. Hayer: After the Minister of Education, I'd like to announce that it gives me great pleasure to introduce 60 grades 5 and 6 students fr om Coast Meridian Elemen- tary School, who will be visiting the Legislature later. Accompanying them will be their teachers, Mrs. Simone Lawrence and Mrs. Jas Cruise, as well as several parent volunteers who have taken time away from their fami- lies and busy schedules to accompany them.

This is a very special school for me, because my daughter Katrina Hayer graduated from there last year, from grade 7. Would the House please make them very welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills COMMUNITY LIVING AUTHORITY ACT Hon. C. Clark presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governo r: a bill intituled Commu- nity Living Authority Act. Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 45 — a bill that the government intends to pass in the fall — entitled the

11234 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 Community Living Authority Act, be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. C. Clark: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 45, the Community Living Authority Act. This bill introduces groundbreaking legislation which will transform how community living services are provided to individuals with developmental disabilities in British Columbia. It will create a legislative framework for community- based delivery of services currently provided by gov- ernment.

This transition to community-based services is the next step in a process begun by the Community Services Interim Authorit ies Act and the Community Services Labour Relations Act, proclaimed in 2002 and 2003 respectively, of the thirty-seventh parliament. The bill establishes Commu nity Living British Co- lumbia as the permanent pr ovincial authority respon- sible for providing support to adults and children with developmental disabilities and their families.

This bill, which will be debated in the fall, will enable the trans- fer of services from the Mi nistry of Children and Fam- ily Development to this permanent authority. With this legislation, the ministry remains respon- sible for setting standards for how services will be pro- vided, and it retains the power to monitor and assess the new authority. Creati ng a community-based au- thority to provide fundamental services will respond to the wishes of individuals and families who have been working for decades to make this change happen.

This legislation gives British Columbians with de- velopmental disabilities and their families better op- tions and more opportunities in their communities. They'll be able to look forward to a safer, healthier and better quality of life. I move that the bill be placed as an exposure bill on the orders of the day for debate and passage in the fall session of the Legislature. Bill 45 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) EVENTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN BURNABY NORTH R. Lee: The fifth session of the thirty-seventh par- liament will end this week according to the schedule. Thanks to this government's policy of a fixed legisla- tive calendar, MLAs can have some certainty in plan- ning activities in our constituencies. In Burnaby North we have the sixteenth Hats Off Day taking place on Saturday , June 5, thanks to the collaborative effort involving many organizations, in- cluding the Heights Merchants Association, The Heights Neighbourhood Association, Volunteer Bur- naby and Gilmore Community School.

This event will provide an opportunity for the merchants to thank their clients and for the residents to celebrate their community. I would like to encourage my colleagues to join in with over 10,000 people to enjoy a day of festiv- ity. [1415] Mr. Speaker, if you have some spare time on May 29, you may also want to come to the seventh annual European Festival held at the Scandinavian Commu- nity Centre in Burnaby North, where visitors will find the food, music, dance and displays representing more than 20 European countries. Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to give you an impression that the people in Burnaby North are partying all the time. We study and work diligently as well. Many stu- dents in Burnaby's schools and post-secondary insti- tutes have excelled in arts and science. For example, I recently had the pleasure to personally congratulate two students from North Burnaby, Grace Leung and Elaine Deng, who won the second and third place in the Canada Day Poster Challenge in this province.

In the next few weeks, I have the privilege to attend g r a d u a t i o n c e r e m o n i e s a t S F U , B C I T , U B C , D o u g l a s College, Capilano College, Alpha Secondary and Bur- naby North Secondary. My son Jarek is graduating from Burnaby North Secondar y this year, and he is planning to attend UBC. I wi sh him all the best in his studies. I also would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the gradua tes for their successes in reaching an important milestone. HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN RURAL B.C. B.

Bennett: Many of the very positive changes the government has made to heal th services in rural B.C. are not well known. We now train more nurses in B.C. and recruit more nurses to B.C. than before, and B.C. nurses are the highest paid in Canada. We are increas- ing the spaces for training doctors in B.C., including the new university medical school spaces for physi- cians at the University of Northern B.C., where young doctors can get experience working and living in a smaller town atmosphere. Our doctors are amongst the highest paid in Canada as well.

We have created the rural subsidy agreement which identifies rural communi ties that need help to recruit and retain physicians. My communities of Elk- ford, Sparwood and Fernie ar e all on that list. Because of this special provincial fu nding, the interior health authority has recently recruited two new doctors into the Elk Valley. We are spending $23 million on capital funding for the East Kootenay Regional Hospital. We've already spent $6 million. We have also recruited nine new specialists at the East Kootenay Regional Hospital because of this government.

Patients from all over the East Kootenay region can now access special- ist care in their home region for the first time ever. This i s h i g h - q u a l i t y h e a l t h c a r e c l o s e r t o h o m e t h a t w e d i d not have before. We also have some new subsidized assisted-living units happening in Cranbrook and Fernie. We have the

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11235 new long-term residential care home in Fernie, which is half completed, and one announced for Cranbrook. Despite all these very positive initiatives that make health care more accessible in rural British Columbia, it's important to acknowledge that there is much more work to be done. Specifically, remote communities and remote worksites must have access to a high level of paramedic service. B.C. Ambulance Service has re- cently raised the level of paramedic training and plans to raise the expertise of rural paramedics even further.

This is a very positive development. We as government must support those paramedics in their desire to im- prove their skill level and ensure that patients from remote worksites like the mines north of Elkford re- ceive the necessary care on their way to our improved hospitals. Regardless of all the improvements we make, the quality of health care is something we should never be satisfied with. We will continue to strive to improve health care in our rural communities. MEN'S TRAUMA CENTRE J. Bray: The World Health Organization, in 1999, called child abuse a major health threat.

Research sug- gests that between 20 and 30 percent of all male chil- dren are sexually abused before the age of 18. A 1990 study in Ontario found that 31 percent of males re- ported suffering some form of abuse — emotional, physical or sexual — as children. These plus other studies suggest that in an area the size of greater Victo- ria, between 4,700 and 46,000 males have been subject to some form of abuse at some point in their lives. The need for support services to male survivors of sexual abuse is clear.

This is why I'm so pleased to advise this House and my community about the newly established not-for-profit society, the Men's Trauma Centre. [1420] Their mission statement is: "To provide treatment and support services to adult and late adolescent males who are survivors of physical, emotional or sexual trauma as well as support for our cli- ents' significant others. To acquire and develop educa- tional materials concerning the traumatization of males and to gather statistics for dissemination to professionals and the community at large.

To assist other agencies through educational outreach to improve their responses to their own male clients who may also be survivors of trauma. To work in cooperation with other service agen- cies and professionals to ensure comprehensive case management with respect to male survivors who seek treatment or support from whatever source.

To consult with community and government groups in the areas of prevention, treatment, legal issues and other matters re- lating to sexual violation of males." The Men's Trauma Centre staff actively strive to ensure accessibility to all adult and late adolescent males, regardless of ethnic origin, physical or intellec- tual ability, or sexual orient ation. The centre has regis- tered clinical counsellors and a victim services coordi- nator with seven years' experience working with this client group.

Because the emotional, physical and sex- ual traumatization of males has such a wide-reaching impact on family stability, drug and alcohol addiction, employment and criminal behaviour, it is essential that we all become informed about this important social issue and the services at the Men's Trauma Centre. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions OPEN LEARNING AGENCY SEVERANCE PAYMENTS J. Kwan: At the beginning of this session we asked about severance packages at the Open Learning Agency that appear to ha ve been deliberately struc- tured to contravene government guidelines.

The Minis- ter of Finance promised a swift investigation. Later he said he needed just a few more pieces of information from the Open Learning Ag ency, and then he would have all the facts. What on earth is taking so long? Did the minister's letter to the Open Learning Agency get lost in the mail? Or is he de liberately stalling until this session is over? Hon. G. Collins: Unlike the opposition, I think it's important to get all of the facts on this matter. There are people…. Interjections. Hon. G.

Collins: As is usual with the matters brought to the attention of this House by the opposi- tion, they're rarely based in fact, so I want to check the facts. In fact, that's exactly w h a t I ' v e b e e n d o i n g . I ' v e had a dialogue with the board of the Open Learning Agency. I'm also awaiting an additional piece of corre- spondence from an individual who is impacted by the matter. We're dealing with individuals who have done good public service in the province of British Colum- bia, and I think it's important they be treated fairly.

All of the severance arrangements will need to be made within the parameters of Bill 66. I've said that publicly. I expect that will be the case, and as soon as… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Collins: …we have all the facts, I'll be making those public. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: My oh my, the Minister of Finance is op- erating at the speed of lightning in trying to get this information here.

I remind the minister that we're talk- ing about the potential abuse of tax dollars to pad sev- erance payments for Open Learning Agency execu- tives. This is a very serious matter, but it appears that

11236 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 the Minister of Finance doesn't seem to be in a hurry to get the money back. This is not rocket science, Mr. Speaker. Either the Open Learning Agency brok e the guidelines or they didn't. How is it possible that a person in charge of a $30 billion budget can't get quick answers to simple questions? What is he trying to hide? Hon. G. Collins: Rather than cast the aspersions, as we've heard from the member opposite, I thought it was important to get all the facts.

The reality is that some of the people who used to work at the Open Learning Agency don't wo rk there anymore. They don't work for us. The effort is to try and get the facts from them in as timely a fa shion as possible, and that's what we've been doing. It is important to get th e facts for a number of rea- sons. The most important one is that the NDP gov- ernment, when they were in government, repeatedly engaged in what I would call political firings, only to find that the court came back and rapped their fingers very hard.

In fact, we paid something like over $500,000 — I think it was — in punitive damages with regard to the firing of a CEO at B.C. Transit. The comments…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Fi- nance has the floor. Hon. G. Collins: The noise level goes up when they don't like the facts. The fact of the matter is that when they were in government, they repeatedly engaged in political fir- ings, only to find that taxpayers were left holding the bag when they received a reprimand from the court. Mr. Speaker, it's important to get the facts.

When we have all the facts, we'll be making those public. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question. J. Kwan: Isn't that interesting, from the Minister of Finance. He can't get the info rmation. He says he can't arrive at a conclusion on whether or not the OLA guidelines were violated, but that's our fault. It's the NDP 's fault — right. Okay. [1425] GOVERNMENT SEVERANCE PAYMENTS AND MINISTRY CONTRACT SPENDING J. Kwan: Mr.

Speaker, while we're waiting for an answer on the severance package to the OLA execu- tives, the government is also hiding the legal opinion that it says required the B.C. Liberals to hand out to Chris Haynes a severance payout worth more than a half-million dollars. Can the Premier explain why he won't release a legal opinion granting half a million dollars to a guy who blew $2.3 million in the budget for children in this province? Hon. G.

Plant: You know, I sat in opposition when those members were in government, and they rou- tinely relied upon the fact that when lawyers advise their clients, they do so on the basis that the advice is kept privileged. That's a very important principle of our society. It's an important principle for private citi- zens. It's an important principle for government. We generally rely upon it also. It makes it possible for us to get the best possible advice and for us to act on that advice in the best possible way. So there's nothing unusual happening here.

We're following the procedures that we should follow — that good governments, that competent governments should follow — and that we as a good and competent government will continue to follow to protect the pub- lic interest of the people of British Columbia. J. MacPhail: In the past when this government was in opposition, they never let legal opinions or the facts get in their way when they were railing about sever- ance packages — n e v e r . A n d w e k n o w h ow s e r i o u s l y the Premier takes his contractual obligations to work- ers making $30,000 a year.

But heaven forbid we step on the toes of a $200,000-a-year deputy who helped a B.C. Liberal insider run o ff with hundreds of thou- sands — millions — of dollars in taxpayer money. For those folks there's a higher principle at stake. We've got to get the facts. We need legal advice. But it's contained in a legal opinion that no one can see. This is a charade. Can the Premier explain why the public should accept that a government that can rip up contracts and override Supreme Court decisions at whim can't find a way to get $500,000 back from a deputy who let the Premier's cousin run half his ministry? Hon. G.

Collins: I'll be glad to do my best to get that back, as we have, if th at member can go out there and get back the $1.2 million we paid to Marc Eliesen from B.C. Hydro when she was in government. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. J. MacPhail: I love the standard this government is setting. I wonder if the public is getting tired of the standard that this government is setting. Hmm, I won- der if they've had any say in that. The Walls audit leaves a lot of questions unan- swered.

British Columbians want those questions an- swered, but the government is refusing to do anything other than stonewall and obfuscate. The only way we're going to get to the bottom of this scandal is to have an independent investigation. Mr. Parks notes that the Minister of Finance has the power to order an investigation under the Society Act. Will the Premier direct the Minister of Finance to order that investigation today into $2.3 million of lost

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11237 taxpayer money, or will he continue to bluster and spin, hoping that the issue will just go away? Hon. C. Clark: The member would know, if she'd read the report, that that has already been done. That was already a part of the report that was issued. It is a little rich to hear the NDP stand up and talk about ac- countability when they have a leader who is afraid to even run for office. You look at the bizarre world of British Columbia politics.

Here we've got a province where Glen Clark goes to work for Jimmy Pattison, where Ujjal Dosanjh goes to work for Paul Martin, and Carole James won't even show up to work. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. [1430] [Mr. Speaker rose.] Mr. Speaker: Let us have some decorum in the chamber, please, or we'll be extending question period to make up for injury time. [Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.] ARBITRATION OPTION IN LEGISLATION ON HEALTH SUPPORT WORKERS R.

Hawes: Yesterday I spoke about the HEU's re- fusal to allow its membership to vote on whether or not they would have arbitration to take benefits reduction in their contract. Since then I've had numbers of calls in my office — and I know many of my colleagues have had the same calls — from members of the HEU ex- pressing both outrage and real concern about what's going to happen with their paycheques and the fact that they have not been allowed to have a vote within their own union.

In fact, I note on their website — the way I read it — that the union is telling its membership they weren't allowed time to have a vote, even though we know they were offered 60 days to allow a vote to take place. M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f S k i l l s D e v e l o p - ment and Labour. My constituents are crying out for help, and I know a number of other members here have the same thing happening. Is there anything that the minister can do to help our constituents get what they need from their union? Hon. G.

Bruce: It was unfortunate that the leader- ship didn't allow the membership to have a vote. A process had been worked out for them also, which they could have gone through. Everybody within that bar- gaining group could then have had an opportunity to express how best they wanted to deal with this particu- lar issue. But they have a process internally within their union and then in front of the Labour Relations Board if it is that members have difficulty with the de- cisions that have been taken by their leadership. SIGHT TESTING BY OPTICIANS P.

Nettleton: On April 19 the College of Physicians and Surgeons asked this government to reconsider enacting a regulation that would allow opticians to prescribe eyeglasses without medical supervision. The college claimed this regulation would "introduce a sig- nificant element of risk to patients." My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Will the minister heed the advice of this respected medical authority and fully review this proposed regulation? Hon. C. Hansen: I welcome the question. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that automated sight testing is in any way harmful or inaccurate.

That is an admission that comes from, I think, everyone in- volved in this field — whether it's the ophthalmolo- gists, the optometrists or th e opticians. The fact of the matter is that for the last number of years, there have been opticians using automated sight-testing equip- ment in this province. What we are bringing in are regulations which manage that, so that the interests of the individual are protected and people understand the importance of an eye heal th exam to determine the other issues that they may be faced with.

I've certainly had lots of meetings with different groups that are involved in this issue. I think the more people understand what's behind it, the more they real- ize that this is a very sound direction that government is going. SKILLED TRADES TRAINING E. Brenzinger: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Several different automotive trade groups in my constituen cy have raised concerns about the disturbing effects of the new model for trades training proposed by this government. The deficiency that this training proposal being developed creates is that the B.C.

Automotive Re tailers Association and the B.C. New Car Dealers group are the only contributors to this proposal. As these business groups do not rep- resent a cross-section of the whole industry, it leaves approximately 75 percent of the automotive industries unrepresented in this proposal. [1435] My question is: will the minister guarantee that before the Industry Traini ng Authority endorses any proposals put forward, all stakeholders will have an equal opportunity to participate in the process?

Will the minister install a safeguard to ensure that special interest groups do not use our publicly funded post- secondary education system to their sole benefit?

11238 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 Hon. S. Bond: The whole point in revitalizing the industry training system in British Columbia is to en- sure that we have a skilled and trained workforce to meet the needs of the future of British Columbia. That's exactly what we're doing. Just recently — as a matter of fact, on Monday — the first certification in the province under the new system was announced. It's a framing certification that was rigorously reviewed before it was actually approved.

In fact, that's the process that the Industry Training Authority will continue to use as it looks at skills training programs across the province. [End of question period.] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Please. One gets the distinct feeling that this place is about to wind down. The Minister of Forests has the floor. Hon. M. de Jong: Or wind up, Mr. Speaker. Tabling Documents Hon. M. de Jong: I have a report, the Forest Ap- peals Commission annual repo rt for 2003, that I table today. Petitions K. Krueger: I table a petition, Mr. Speaker.

This is a petition by 395 citizens, deli vered to your constituency office, the constituency of Kamloops, with regard to laboratory reform. Tabling Documents Hon. G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to present the 2003 annual report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board. D. MacKay: I seek leave to file a petition. Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. Petitions D. MacKay: I have a petition here signed on behalf of 180 constituents who live in the village of Granisle, who are concerned about the proposed closure of their RCMP detachment. Tabling Documents Hon. M.

Coell: It's my honour to present the 2002- 03 annual report on multiculturalism to the Legislature. Hon. S. Bond: I have two documents to table. One is the final set of statements tabled in relationship to the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commis- sion. Secondly, I committed in the House earlier to bring- ing the new Industry Traini ng Authority service plan before the end of May, and I table those documents today. Reports from Committees J.

Kwan: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Ac- counts for the fourth session of the thirty-seventh par- liament, entitled Annual Review of Auditor General Re- ports. I move that the report be taken as read and re- ceived. Motion approved. J. Kwan: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of the motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. J. Kwan: I move that the report be adopted. The report. During the session, the committee con- sidered six main reports and ten follow-ups and pro- gress reports.

It also approved the auditor general's Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan and his ap- pointment as auditor of the two organizations outside the government reporting entity. The details of the work of the committee are contained therein. Motion approved. B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the re- port of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the fifth session of the thirty-seventh parliament, titled Enhancing the Province's Pub lic Sector Access and Privacy Law. I move that the report be taken as read and re- ceived. Motion approved. B.

Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. [1440] B. Lekstrom: I move the report be adopted, and in moving the adoption of the report, I wish to make the following comments. This report reflects the work of the Special Commit- tee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protec- tion of Privacy Act and our consultations with British Columbians. Based on this input, the committee's re- port makes 28 recommendations to improve the func- tioning of the act.

Our report concludes that the act is generally working well in providing British Columbi-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11239 ans with an appropriate balance between openness and privacy protection. However, the committee also concluded that there is a need to modernize parts of the act and to clarify the purpose of certain provisions. Our report reaffirms that all British Columbians have the right to expect that their information requests for records will be treated equally, impartially and in a timely manner. It was an honour to serve as the Chair of this com- mittee.

I believe that the principles of information ac- cess and protection of priv acy, which are enshrined in this legislation, are fundamentally important in a func- tioning democracy. In closing, I would like to thank all British Colum- bians who took the time to provide us with their thoughts. I would also like to extend my sincere appre- ciation to all members of the committee for their input and dedication throughout this important process. I would also sincerely like to thank the staff of the office of the Clerk of Committees and Hansard staff for their work in support of the committee.

In particular, I would like to thank our Cler k, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, and our researchers, Josie Schofield and Mary Walter. This report was unanimously accepted by the committee, and it's a privilege. I move that this report be adopted. Motion approved. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 56. Committee of the Whole House ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 56; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:44 p.m. G. Halsey-Brandt: I seek leave of the House to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members G. Halsey-Brandt: It's my pleasure to recognize in the visitors' gallery a group of high school students, grade 10 students from J. N. Burnett Secondary in Richmond, along with several parents and two of their teachers. The delegation is led by Mrs. Morelli. They're here today to observe question period in the Legisla- ture and the debate that's going to follow, and to study history and government.

I can assure that it's an out- standing high school in Richmond, which four of my children had the privilege to graduate from. Would the members please make them all welcome to the House today. Debate Continued On

section 1. J. Kwan: The Administrative Tribunals Act sets out rules for administrative tribunals in B.C. We have more than 30 administrative tribunals in British Columbia, including the Agricultural Land Commission, the Em- ployment Standards Tribunal and the Workers Com- pensation Appeal Tribunal. [1445] I do want to clarify for the benefit of the House as well, Mr. Chair, that the bill does not apply in totality, as far as I understand, to any tribunal in British Co- lumbia. The bill does not form the comprehensive set of rules for any particular tribunal in B.C.

Only sections of this bill are used to amend the existing legislation that the various tribunals are enabled by. This is impor- tant clarification that needs to be made. It is also impor- tant to note that while Bill 56 amends the enabling leg- islation for 25 existing tribunals, it does not at all affect 12 other tribunals and regulatory boards in British Co- lumbia. Again, this is as far as we understand. I recognize that Bill 56 is the product of many years' work and considerable effort by the ministry in conjunction with various tribunals in British Colum- bia.

Accordingly, Bill 56 is a complex piece of legisla- tion, most notably because its implementation takes place through consequential amendments to existing legislation for each administrative tribunal. To make things more complicated, much of the existing ena- bling legislation for each tribunal already contains similar provisions to those contained in Bill 56, the Administrative Tribunals Act. Bill 56 therefore re- quires careful reading, as it cannot be read in isolation from existent legislation respective to administrative tribunals in B.C.

Each of the various tribun als in B.C. has unique and individual needs, powers and mandates. It is true that one shoe does not fit all, and I do not believe this legis- lation attempts to do that. In that light, in that context, I do have questions for the minister. Under

section 1, in the

definitions section, the ter- minology is: "'appointing authority' means the person or the Lieutenant Governor in Council who, under an- other Act, has the power to appoint the chair, vice chair and members, or any of them , to the tribunal." I just want to clarify that "another Act" refers to existent leg- islation that a tribunal woul d be subject to. Is that the right reading and

interpretation of that language? Hon. G. Plant: Yes. J. Kwan: I think this is the correct answer as well. Presumably, that's for all of my opening statements about it referring to all of the tribunals — some 30 ad- ministrative tribunals in British Columbia. That is in reference to some 30 tribunals and the respective legis-

11240 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 lation attached to them. Am I correct in making that assumption? Hon. G. Plant: Yes.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. Kwan: Now, sections 2 through 10 are the same as those listed in Bill 68, the Administrative Tribunals Ap- pointment and Administration Act.

Section 2(1) defines the rules for the appointment of the chair, and this sec- tion states: "The chair of the tribunal may be appointed by the appointing authority, after a merit based process, to hold office for an initial term of 3 to 5 years." What would a merit-based process consist of? Hon. G. Plant: Well, first of all, to follow up on an aspect of the member's questi on, she's quite right. This

section is not new. We debated it last year when it ap- peared in last year's bill. Or we had the opportunity to debate it; I don't remember if there was an actual de- bate. I think the important part of that phrase "a merit- based process" is not to prescribe the particular kind of process but, rather, to ensu re that the process focuses on identifying the best-qualified candidates. The process could include advertising. It could include formal or informal interviews.

There are a number of different ways that tribunals — or, in this particular case, tribu- nal appointing authorities — could go about looking for a chair. The important point of the subsection at issue here is that whatever the process is that is used, it needs to focus on finding a candidate that is qualified for the position. [1450] J. Kwan: I'm curious, then, how this

section is sup- posed to work. The chair of the tribunal may be ap- pointed by the appointing authority through a merit- based process. Who the appo inting authority is, how- ever, is defined by the existing legislation. The reason why I want to point this out is that not all of the existing legislation which this bill amends contains a merit-based system for appointment. Take, for example, the Media- tion and Arbitration Board enabled by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Under this act, the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council can ap point the Mediation and Arbitration Board without any merit-based process.

Perhaps the minister could clarify this for me. Is a new merit-based process going to be established or part of Bill 68, which appointing authorities will then need to follow? Hon. G. Plant: Yes, and I believe that process has already been established by the board resourcing and development office. J. Kwan: Would it then be brought into force by regulation? Bill 56 makes no further reference as to what the process might entail. Is the assumption that it's going to be brought in by regulation? Hon. G. Plant: There's no requirement that this be done by regulation. It can be done by policy.

I think what's important is that if you were to go to a statute that created a tribunal and find in the statute that there is a power to appoint, the power to appoint may reside with cabinet, for example, and it may be in the ena- bling act, unconstrained by any particular process re- quirement. What happens now, as a result of the introduction of this provision last year, is that those tribunals or government would be required to undertake some process to ensure that they were findin g a candidate for the position on the basis of merit.

But there's no requirement that there be a specific regulation to define the process for appointment. J. Kwan: Okay, so it may not be brought in by regu- lation. It might be just general policy that would apply. W h e n d o w e e x p e c t t h a t t h i s s e t o f p o l i c i e s o r r e g u l a - tions — whatever route that the government chooses — would be in effect? Hon. G. Plant: They already are in effect. This pro- vision is not new. It's been in effect for a while. J.

Kwan: Given the situation that now, though, not all the tribunal appointments have merit-based processes built into their enabling legislation…. In those circumstances, is it expected that the policy would apply for these authorities? Hon. G. Plant: Yes. J. Kwan: All right.

Section 2 also establishes office terms. I have not examined the enabling legislation for every tribunal, as there are many, but I've noticed that the stated term durations will be new to some of the tribunals. Is this correct? Hon. G. Plant: Yes. J. Kwan: Some tribunal members could hold posi- tions indefinitely. Is that correct? Hon. G. Plant: There were many appointments for- merly that could be made at pleasure, which would be without any duration of term specified in the appoint- ment. Under this regime, there is a term of appointment.

But in most cases, although not all — I don't want to say "in all cases" without having a chance to consult with help — there is an opportunity for reappointment so that a tribunal chair — this would also be the case for tribu- nal members, which are provided for in

section 3 — could be reappointed for a series of terms. But each of those appointments would be for a fixed term of years. [1455]

Section 2 approved.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11241 On

section 3. J. Kwan:

Section 3 deals with a member's initial term and reappointment, and it reads: "

(1) A member, other than the chair, may be appointed by the appoint- ing authority, after a merit based process and consulta- tion with the chair, to hold office for an initial term of 2 to 4 years." Now, the notion of merit-based process — am I assuming correctly that the policy that exists ap- plies in the same way that we canvassed earlier? Hon. G. Plant: Yes. Sections 3 to 11 inclusive approved. On

section 12. J. Kwan:

Section 12 states: "12(1) The tribunal must issue practice directives respecting (

a) the usual time period for completing an application and for complet- ing the procedural steps with in an application, and (

b) the usual time period within which the tribunal's final decision and reasons are to be released after the hear- ing of the application is completed." Now, I'm wondering about the term "usual." How are usual time periods going to be established? How is that defined? Hon. G. Plant: Let me come to that question by first stepping back from this

section to talk for just a minute about the policy issues at play here. When we started to get the administrative justice project underway, one of the issues that I wanted to be put on the table is that aspect of customer service or citizen service which has to do with the extent to which tribunals build confi- dence by operating in a timely way. In practical terms, that means making decisions in a timely way and tak- ing each step of the process in a timely way.

While most tribunals across the province have a tradition of doing the best they can to meet the needs of the people they serve, from time to time I certainly did hear concerns about whet her or not tribunals were issuing decisions quickly enough — remembering that we are talking about what is by and large a more in- formal part of the justice system. One of the character- istics, I think, of an effective informal system is that it is capable of making decisions quickly and providing the certainty that people need from fast decisions.

Then the question is: how do you give effect to that as kind of a general policy thrust? One way to look at it o r d o i t w o u l d b e t o i m p o s e t i m e r e q u i r e m e n t s a s a matter of law. Another would be — at the other end of the scale, I suppose — not to impose any time require- ments but to allow tribunals to continue to do the best they could. What we tried to do here is strike sort of a middle- ground approach.

That is th at the tribunals themselves will be expected to give some thought to what repre- sents a reasonable time frame within which they s h o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o d o t h e w o r k t h e y h a v e t o d o . Then, having given some th ought to that, they must issue practice directives. I think the practice directives are intended to sort of set an expectation threshold so that the people who use the tribunals have some sense of how the tribunals are going to make decisions in most cases.

The tribunal will organize its own work- load management in a way to make sure that in the majority of cases, it can do just that. We have been pretty careful here. We've talked about practice directives as opposed to mandatory rules. We've also made it clear in subsection (2) that the tribunal is not bound by its practice directives in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties.

I think what we want to do is recognize that while there are probably some general standards of practice that tribunals should attempt to adhere to, there will always be the possibility of exceptional or unusual cases that are going to take a lot longer because of the issues or the parties or the circumstances. [1500] We tried to avoid being excessively prescriptive here. I think the "usual time period" language is really intended to mean exactly what it says.

It's intended to say that for most cases, the time period for completing an application or for completing procedural steps or for rendering a decision will be whatever the practice directive says. I expect that practice directives would be issued by tribunals that provide them with the opportunity to deviate from those general guidelines in exceptional circumstances. It's not really intended to be, I think, a lot more complex than that. J.

Kwan: What I gather from the minister's answer is that it allows, for each of the respective tribunals, some flexibility to make their determination of what the term "usual" would mean in terms of what the time period would be and for them to then engage in estab- lishing that. I can understand that. Different tribunals have different mandates an d different issues that they're dealing with, so I can accept that.

It is interesting to note, though, that I think part of the premise here around the usual time periods — the term that is being used — and its application would really be to ensure matters are dealt with in an expedi- tious manner and in a way which one could say would be reasonable in terms of the time period. The Workers Compensation Act adopts

section 1 and then sections 13 and 15, but not this

section — not

section 12, the practice directives tribunal issue. Now, according to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tri- bunal website, the number of backlogged cases on De- cember 31, 2003, was some 13,000. I think, generally, people would agree that there is a huge delay with respect to WCB cases. It's complex — fair enough — but

section 12 does not apply to the WCB. Why not? Hon. G. Plant: When we speak of the workers compensation scheme in this context, we're not talking about the board as a whole. We're only talking about the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. The member is right.

Section 12 of this bill does not apply to

11242 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. I'm ad- vised that that is because time lines for decision, in respect of WCAT decisions, are provided for in the workers compensation legislation. So in this particular case the workers compensation legislation sets out the time lines, and therefore there is no need for

section 12. Sections 12 to 23 inclusive approved. On

section 24. J. Kwan:

Section 24 states the time limit for appeals.

Section 24(1) reads: "A notice of appeal respecting a decision must be filed within 30 days of the decision being appealed, unless the tribunal's enabling Act pro- vides otherwise." Could the Attorney General please advise how this

section would apply in the case of an enabling act which does not specify a time limit for filing an appeal? Hon. G. Plant: In that case, the 30-day time line in this provision would apply. J. Kwan: That would be for all cases? It would just default to a 30-day time line, then? Hon. G. Plant: That's right. There may be statutes where the time limit for appeals is actually set out in terms of days, in which case the enabling act time line would apply. This provision generally would apply only where there is not already an expressed time limit in the enabling act. J. Kwan: Okay. Now,

section 24(2) states that a tri- bunal may extend the time to appeal. How would one go about getting an extension to file an appeal? Hon. G. Plant: By application to the tribunal. I ex- pect most tribunals will have rules governing the mak- ing of such applications. [1505] J. Kwan: So the process of appeal would then de- fault back to the original act related to each of the re- spective tribunals in terms of what their process would be with respect to a time line for appealing? Hon. G. Plant: I'm reminded that here we're deal- ing with appeal tribunals.

I think the process for mak- ing application would be defined by the rules of the tribunal. Those rules may be made either under the rule-making authority in this act or perhaps in the rule- making authority that exists in the act creating the ap- peal tribunal. J. Kwan: This sort of jumps into another section, but it is related to

section 24. I want to know that sec- tion 31(1)(

b) allows a tribunal to reject an application if it is not filed within the appropriate time limit. There are issues about time limits, which is why I'm asking this question here under

section 24. Considering this, what sort of process would a tribunal go through in considering extending the time limit for filing appeals? Hon. G. Plant: I think the fundamental question in any case where someone is asking a tribunal to extend a time limit is: what do the interests of justice require in a particular case? There are a variety of considerations that could come to bear on that determination.

I know that in the days when I used to practise litigation a bit more actively, one of the considerations that courts were always interested in ta king into account in decid- ing whether or not to extend a time limit or enforce a time limit was whether or not the delay had caused any prejudice to the person on the other side. If there was no particular prejudice caused to the other side, then that was a factor that made it slightly more likely that the time extension would be granted. I think the interrelationship between these two provisions that the member is referring to,

section 24 and then the provision in

section 31, really is just intended to give a tribunal the power to dismiss an application if it's filed outside the time limit. I think that, generally, the scheme is that tribunals have the authority to create exceptions as long as they're sat- isfied that the interests of justice require…. These matters will come before the tribunal by way of ap- plication. I expect that sometimes the application would be an application for an extension of time, and that would be where the argument would happen.

Other times there might be an application made by a respondent in a matter saying that the tr ibunal should dismiss an application because it wasn't filed within the applicable time limit. Then there would be some argument about the issues, and the same considerations would proba- bly come into play in that argument. Sections 24 to 40 inclusive approved. On

section 41. J. Kwan:

Section 41(1) states: "An oral hearing must be open to the public." Subsection (2) states: "Despite subsection (1), the tribunal may direct that all or part of the information be received to the exclusion of the pub- lic if the tribunal is of the opinion that (

a) the desirabil- ity of avoiding disclosure in the interests of any person or party affected or in the public interest outweighs the desirability of adhering to the principle that hearings be open to the public." Can the minister please provide some examples in which av oiding disclosure would be above the interests of a hearing being made public? [1510] Hon. G. Plant: Examples where the issue would be raised would be where there is particularly sensitive or confidential or private business information that would be talked about in the course of the hearing.

Then the tribunal would have to make a decision about weigh- ing the competing interests in whether or not to ex- clude the public from the hearing.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11243 J. Kwan: Are there specific guidelines or policies, if you will, to guide what matters would be determined to be above interest for the purpose of disclosure — I'm not putting this clearly — or policies that would actu- ally provide some guidance to tribunals so that they can better understand when matters should be dis- closed and when they should not be disclosed? Hon. G. Plant: We're not intending to issue a spe- cific policy statement about this.

I think the general law is well understood that hearings of tribunals, like courts, should be open to the public. Therefore, the starting point in any discu ssion of this would be a s t r o n g p r e d i s p o s i t i o n i n f a v o u r o f a n o p e n a n d t r a n s - parent process. Then there is a body of law out there — general law — where issues that are said to be particularly confi- dential or sensitive are raised in support of arguments that the public should be excluded from a particular part of a proceeding. I expect that tribunals have re- course to that body of law.

I also expect that across the landscape of tribunals, there are probably some tribu- nals that have a great deal of experience with these sorts of things already and draw on that experience on a case-by-case basis when issues arise to make a deci- sion. This provision, like most of the provisions in this bill, is not intended to change the law as much as to set the law out as clearly as possible so that when tribunals make these kinds of decisions, they're doing so on the basis of a very secure statutory foundation. Hon. G. Abbott: I ask leave to make an introduc- tion. Leave granted.

Introductions by Members Hon. G. Abbott: I make this introduction on behalf of our colleague. I guess I shouldn't use her name in here — the member from Kelowna-Westside, is it? At any rate, what we have in the gallery today is a group of 80 students from Kelowna Christian School who are visiting the Legislature and in the gallery. They're ac- companied by their teacher, Mr. MacArthur. I ask the House to make them all welcome. Debate Continued J. Kwan: Actually, I'm fine with the minister's an- swer on

section 41, and I'm ready to go to

section 43. Sections 41 and 42 approved. On

section 43. J. Kwan:

Section 43 covers the discretion to refer questions of law to court. Subsection (2) states: "If a question of law, including a constitutional question, is raised by a party in a tribunal proceeding, on the re- quest of a party or on its own initiative, at any stage of an application the tribunal may refer that question to the court in the form of a stated case." Does this mean that the obligation would solely be on the party to identify and raise any matter that in- fringes on constitutional questions? Hon. G. Plant: No, I don't think so.

Strictly speak- ing, on its terms this proces s in this subsection could arise when a question of law is raised by a party. It also could arise, though, if the qu estion of law arises or is identified at the initiative of the tribunal. That's what the words "or on its own initiative" are intended to mean. [1515] J. Kwan: Thank you for that explanation. Who de- termines if a raised question is in fact of constitutional nature or not? Who makes that determination? Hon. G. Plant: I think the tribunal will in most cases have to make the determination.

Sometimes a party could identify an issue that they would say is constitutional but that perh aps isn't. Alternatively, I suppose an issue or a question could arise during the course of a hearing where the tribunal says to the par- ties: "Well, I think you're now raising a question that really is a question of constitutional law." However you get to that point, I think it is going to be the tribunal that in these cases is going to have to decide whether in fact a question of law has actually arisen. Remember that in this case we're dealing with the power to refer, not necessarily the requirement to refer.

In this particu- lar subsection, that power may be exercised not just on the basis of constitutional questions but on any ques- tion of law. I take this one step further, and the member may want to pursue the constitutional question side of this. It is certainly possible that in the course of a hearing in front of a tribunal that deals every day with subject matter X or Y, an issue might be raised that has to do with some fine point of expropriation law or something that is a pure question of law that the tribunal has no particular occasion to have to look at.

It may be those are the sorts of questions that could arise that are not co nstitutional questions, where the tribunal says: "Let's refer that question to the court in the form of a stated case." The parties would go off and argue that point. The court would say, "Here's the answer," and then the matter would come back to the tribunal to proceed on the basis of the answer to the legal question. J. Kwan: If the tribunal makes the decision on this, on the question around cons titutional matters or not and on other issues as well…. But let's focus on the constitutional issue for the ti me being.

If the tribunal makes that decision and the tribunal could also raise the issue, isn't that a confli ct? How could it be that the tribunal that raises it also gets to make the decision on whether or not it is a constitutional issue?

11244 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 Hon. G. Plant: The tribunal is not answering the constitutional question. The tr ibunal is only stating it, is only describing the questi on. The idea that a lower tribunal would have the ability to define a legal ques- tion in the form of what lawyers call a stated case is not a new procedure. It has happened, and it is part of court and tribunal process.

It does mean that some- times you can have a bit of a discussion at the tribunal level about what the right question is, but it's not a conflict to ask the tribunal to define the question which the parties will then go and argue in the higher court. J. Kwan: So the decision is made by a higher court, then. I appreciate that clarification. Hon. G. Plant: That's right. The answer to the ques- tion will be an answer provided by the higher court, not by the tribunal. J. Kwan: Moving it to the higher court….

One would assume, then, that what ever decision the higher court makes and if either party agrees or disagrees with the decision of the high er court, they would then follow the normal procedures of appeal within the court system. Hon. G. Plant: That's correct. [1520] J. Kwan:

Section 43(3) states: "If a constitutional question is raised by a party in an application, on the request of the Attorney General, the tribunal must refer that question to the court in the form of a stated case." Could the minister please cl arify exactly what his role is in this process? Hon. G. Plant: The Attorney General would receive a notice that a constitutional question had been raised under the Constitutional Qu estions Determination Act.

Then, having been told that there was a constitutional question that had been ra ised, the Attorney General would have to decide whether or not to request that the question be referred to the higher court. J. Kwan: The application would then be contingent on the Attorney General's decision in approving the matter to go to a higher court. Hon. G.

Plant: Under this subsection that may be so, but I think it needs to be put in the context that what's really involved here is a recognition that when constitutional questions are raised, the implications of the decision extend beyond the parties to the dispute and usually involve important matters of public inter- est.

The statute law in British Columbia has long recog- nized that whenever parties want to challenge the con- stitutionality of a law in proceedings in the courts in British Columbia, they have to give notice to the Attor- ney General of British Columbia or to the Attorney General of Canada or both, depending on the nature of the challenge. The reason for that, again, is to give the Attorney General the opportunity to participate in the decision in the case to ensu re that the public interest considerations are brought to bear by the tribunal or by the court hearing the matter.

This is sort of an additional element of protecting the public interest in tribunal proceedings in cases where constitutional questions are raised. It's not the only way those questions might get to a court, but it's a way of getting the Attorney General as, I suppose, the representative of the public interest both notice of and an opportunity to direct consideration in the courts of the constitutional question that has been raised. Sections 43 to 49 inclusive approved. On

section 50. J. Kwan:

Section 50(4) states: "The tribunal must make its decisions accessible to the public." You can read this letter if you…. Well, actually, let me just read this letter. I was going to pass this letter on over, but no, let me just put the letter on record and then get the minister's response. It actually came from the broader community with concerns about this. The document reads: "I see this bill is moving to second read- ing.

There has been some concern expressed among poverty advocates about the implications of this bill re- garding the employment and assistance tribunals — for example, restrictions on hearing Charter arguments." It goes on to say that the Attorney General "talks about there being a great danger of inconsistent deci- sions regarding Charter arguments, and that is why restrictions are necessary." The person wants to point out that in this context, po inting out the superiority of the old B.C. Benefits Appeal Board process established over the current appeal system…. "Because the B.C.

Benefits Appeal Board decisions were published and because the written quality of those decisions was high with respect to a full consideration of the law — the welfare law and case law — there was an ability to use BCBAB decisions in arguing a case before a tribunal with the goal of moving toward consistency, which was working. The BCBAB itself would refer to its own library of decisions, posted on the web and search- able.

Those decisions are still useful, albeit not accessible, because the current government took them away even before they said they would." I know that people try to frantically download this information before the deadline, but some people have run into problems with that. [1525] "Currently, the employment and assistance appeal office does not publish decisions. They would probably be useless anyway, given the way they are written. There is no way to review for consistency or anything else in these decisions, which affect some of the most vulnerable people over basic benefits.

Therefore the issue of going to judicial review and having to argue something as unrea- sonable at a court level, as opposed to at the tribunal level, is that much more difficult. They also don't publish the materials used to train and guide tribunal members for scrutiny.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11245 "If we're really going to have a workable administra- tive justice system, there should be minimum training and accountability standards applying to all systems." The person actually referre d to a number of issues here in this e-mail. I'd like the minister to address this issue around the notion of accessibility under

section 54 and the concerns raised by the individual. The indi- vidual, by the way, had asked me to keep it anony- mous, so I'm not going to put on record who sent us the e-mail. Hon. G. Plant: The

section we have in front of us,

section 50(4), which is the obligation on the tribunal to make its decisions accessible to the public, does not apply to the employment and assistance tribunal. That is a deliberate decision, and it is, in part, because the employment and assistance…. The Chair: Member. Attorney General. Sorry, would you just repeat that again. Hon. G. Plant: It does not apply to the employment and assistance tribunal.

Section 50(4) will not be made applicable to the employment and assistance tribunal. Interjection. Hon. G. Plant: This was a deliberate decision, I think is what I said. Interjection. Hon. G. Plant: I'll start again.

Section 50(4), the requirement that a tribunal make its decisions acces- sible to the public, does no t apply to the employment and assistance tribunal. That is a deliberate decision. We made that decision because at this point, the em- ployment and assistance tribunal is still in an early stage of developing its approach to decision-making. I am advised that it attempts to make its decisions as informally as possible.

I think there is going to con- tinue to be a dialogue between the administrative justice office and the employment and assistance tri- bunal about how to ensure that some of the public policy objectives around transparency can be met appropriately within a framework that also allows that tribunal to do its work as informally as possible. This framework here in

section 50 is a fairly formal framework. I have to say that I think, while the author of that letter makes some good points about the fact that there is a value in building up a body of decisions that estab- lish a common approach to frequently raised issues — that is, to use the lawyer's term, a body of precedent — generally speaking, the tribunals are not, as a matter of law, bound by their own decisions. I'm not convinced that it's always in the public interest to encourage tri- bunals to develop libraries full of decisions.

What that tends to do over time is legalize and formalize processes and procedures that are intended to be accessible and informal. [1530] When you go into the libraries of some law firms and find there are virtually rooms filled with books of administrative tribunal decisions and lawyers who routinely spend hours scourin g those decisions trying to get answers to some questions that are quite often, ultimately, fairly practical, I'm not sure that the inter- ests of the public are being met in a truly affordable, accessible and efficient justice system. This is a continuing discussion.

I also think, though, it needs to be pointed out that the employment and assistance tribunal is still a relatively new tribunal, and there is probably work that needs to be done on an ongoing basis to ensure that that tribunal does the best job it can do. At this point in that evolution there will not be imposed upon that tribunal — by this subsec- tion, anyway — a requirement to make its decisions accessible to the public. J. Kwan: I don't want to argue the point whether or not that's the right decision. Suffice it to say that there are varying opinions, as the Attorney General had acknowledged, about that.

Perhaps that's some- thing the government would actually review from time to time to see what makes sense as things evolve and as this new system with the welfare tribunals…. I actually don't know what…. I think it's called the B.C. Benefits Appeal Board. I think that's the right term that's used. Anyway, it's the new system that's been adopted, and as we learn about how it is operating, we can review that matter to see whether or not that's the right decision or whether or not changes should be made. Just a quick question on this, then. The employment assistance appeal tribunal act. Does

section 50(4) apply to the employment assistance appeal tribunal act? Hon. G. Plant: It does not. J. Kwan: Then another quick follow-up question on that. That's presumably for the same reasons that the minister had put on record around the welfare tribu- nals? Hon. G. Plant: That's actually exactly what I was explaining — why that

section doesn't apply to the employment and assistance tribunal and the act that creates that tribunal. Sections 50 to 173 inclusive approved. On

section 174. J. Kwan:

Section 174 lists the amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. I understand that the WCB has its own in-house review board in addition to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. I know this falls under the Minister of Skills Development and Labour, but I'm also wondering if this minister can tell me if Bill 56 would have a bearing on the WCB in- house review board.

11246 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that the provisions in this bill that deal with constitutional questions will apply to the internal review process, but none of the other provisions of the bill will apply to that internal process. From the point of view of the system as a whole, it's the external appeal process, the WCAT process, which is the process that we would refer to as the tribunal part of that system. That would explain that approach. Sections 174 to 191 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:34 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 56, Administrative Tribunals Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. [1535] Hon. G. Abbott: I call estimates debate for the of- fice of the Premier. Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:38 p.m. ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER (continued) On vote 8: office of the Premier, $44,129,000 (contin- ued).

J. Kwan: Yesterday we were canvassing with the Premier about the Doug Walls scandal. The Chair: Member, before we start here…. Take your seat, please. I believe this issue has been well can- vassed in a number of ministries, and I would ask you now to move on. J. Kwan: I have a lot of questions about the Doug Walls issue to which I did not get answers… The Chair: Member. Member, take your seat, please. J. Kwan: …from the Minister of Children and Fam- ily Development. The Chair: Member, take your seat, please. Take your seat, please. Member, this issue has been thor- oughly canvassed in a number of ministries.

I ask you now to move on. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, with resp ect, the report has come out only in the last few days. I'm not sure what the Chair means. I respectfully offer this. The report has only been released in the last week, and so the report has not been canvassed. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will limit her questions to the Parks report. That has only been released in the last few days and has not been canvassed in any estimates. She will limit her questions to the Parks report, Mr. Chair. The Chair: As it relates to the office of the Premier. Proceed. J.

Kwan: Yesterday we were canvassing with the Premier about the draft repo rt, which no one from the opposition has seen. There is a 17-day gap between the arrival of the PricewaterhouseCoopers draft report and the acceptance by the government of the final report. Could the Premier please tell this House who got a look at the draft report and what happened to it during this 17-day period? [1540] Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by saying I recog- nize that yesterday the members opposite asked that the draft report be released. The government does not release these draft reports, and it will not.

They know that the report is a report of PricewaterhouseCoopers. It is not a government report; it is a report from Price- waterhouseCoopers. It was also stated in the press re- lease when the report was released that Mr. Parks would be available to answer any questions. It is Mr. Parks's report from PricewaterhouseCoopers. I never saw any version of the report. However, let me be clear that the report was submitted to my dep- uty; the comptroller general, who commissioned the report initially; and the executive finance officer from the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

All of those people were requested by Mr. Parks to do a fact check. The fact check was done, and Mr. Parks then wrote his final report. The process for this revi ew, I should remind you and the members of the House, Mr. Chair, was indeed exemplary. There was a request for qualifications for its conduct. The terms of reference were open. It is clear about what they were in the report. The report was made. It was reviewed according to freedom-of- information and privacy protections. There was mini- mal severing that took place in the report, as is obvious to anyone who has read the report.

I believe the report speaks for itself.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11247 J. Kwan: Were the three people the Premier men- tioned who were asked to review the facts contained within the report the only three people who saw the report? Hon. G. Campbell: There were no elected officials, as I highlighted, that saw the report. There were no political support staff that saw the report. There may have been staff in the comptroller general's office that saw the report; I do not know. I can inform the member of this. The deputy minis- ter to the Premier requested no changes to the report, no factual changes to the report.

Whatever requests were made, were made to Mr. Parks, and Mr. Parks did his final report. J. Kwan: Did the deputy to the Premier communi- cate the contents of the report to the Premier? Hon. G. Campbell: I received copies of the report, I believe, two days — perhaps the Monday…. I think it was released publicly on a Wednesday. I received the report on a Monday. J. Kwan: What about the financial officer of the Ministry of Children and Family Development? The communications from the people who saw the re- port….

Did they engage in any discussions about the report to any of the elected officials or politically ap- pointed staff members? Hon. G. Campbell: No, Mr. Chair. [1545] J. Kwan: The final report, as we understand, was accepted on May 7, but the report was not made public until May 12. Could the Premier please tell this House what was done with the report between those days? Hon. G. Campbell: On May 7 the report was received, as is pointed out in the press release. The deputy minister received th e report on May 7. Copies were provided to ministers on Monday, May 10. The deputy minister read it over the weekend.

So on Mon- day, May 10, the copies were made available to minis- ters, and on Wednesday, May 12, the report in its en- tirety was released. J. Kwan: Now let's go to the contents of the report. I n t h e d o c u m e n t , i t r e f e r s t o a n e - m a i l , a n d i n t h a t e - mail, it refers to meeting with Doug Walls, Martyn Brown and Ken Dobell. The date of that meeting was July 21. Was the Premier present at this meeting? Hon. G. Campbell: No, I was not present at that meeting with regard to Mr. Walls — or any other meet- ings, for that matter, since I have become Premier. But let me ask the member….

If she's referring di- rectly to the report, it would probably be helpful if she gives us the page reference so we can respond directly to her. J. Kwan: I'll endeavour to do that. The report's page-numbering system is kind of difficult to refer to, but anyway, we'll try to do that. The Premier said he was not at that meeting. Did his staff report back to him about that meeting? Hon. G. Campbell: I was answering the question with regard to my attendance. I was not there. I'm not aware that any such meeting took place. That's why I need to see the reference in the report. J. Kwan: I found the page.

It's appendix D.12, page 1. Interjection. J. Kwan: Yeah. There are several e-mails that have been referenced. Page 1 references the e-mail, as well as page 3, under that appendix. The subject matter is con- sistent. It says "meeting with Ken" in all three of these e-mails. Hon. G. Campbell: At least the document I have in front of me is quite straightforward. This was a meet- ing that was requested by Sam Sullivan. It was at- tended by Sam Sullivan and Dave Driscoll. My deputy was there. I'm assuming the other people that are men- tioned in the e-mail — Cam Doré and Jordan Thurston — were also in attendance.

My deputy has no recollec- tion of Mr. Walls being in attendance at all. He may have been, but he has no recollection of it. [1550] J. Kwan: It's listed in here that Mr. Walls attended this meeting. It lists the number of attending individu- als, and Mr. Walls is one individual that's listed. Hon. G. Campbell: My deputy recalls that at this meeting there were four people in attendance. He cer- tainly recalls meeting with Sam Sullivan and Dave Driscoll. [H. Long in the chair.] He does not recollect meeting with Mr. Walls at that time. However, Mr. Walls may well have been at the meeting.

He certainly doesn't recall it. J. Kwan: It is only in this report here, in the e-mail from Doug Walls to Sam Sullivan, Cam Doré, Jordan Thurston and Dave Driscoll. It's regarding the meeting w i t h K e n . I t s a y s : " G o o d m o r n i n g . T h i s i s t o c o n f i r m the meeting with Ken Dobell, deputy minister to the Premier. The meeting will be held at government cabi- net offices in Vancouver." It lists the address and then the time and the date, and then lists the people who attended.

How could it be that for a meeting that's been spe- cifically arranged with the deputy minister to the Pre- mier, the deputy minister to the Premier does not re- member the attendance of the individual who e-mailed

11248 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 this and confirmed the meeting? It's quite incredible, really. Hon. G. Campbell: The meeting took place, as I can read it here, on July 18, 2001. My deputy has a personal acquaintance with Sam Sullivan. He recalls that. He has known David Driscoll for a number of years. He recalls that. He does not recall the other people that were at the meeting. J. Kwan: Except that according to the e-mail docu- ment from Doug Walls, which I suppose one could say that this e-mail document partially would be the min- utes of the meeting….

It highlights and lists some of the things that were talked about, who attended, where it took place and so on. The person who wrote this e- mail presumably was there. Interestingly, the person who is at the heart of the controversy about this scan- dal, who arranged the meet ing with the deputy minis- ter to the Premier…. The deputy minister to the Pre- mier does not recall the attendance of this person at this meeting? I'm quite sorry. I do find that response quite incredible. Hon. G. Campbell: I just wanted to comment on that.

My recollection is even now, only a few minutes ago, we were talking about a meeting on July 21. Is that not correct? Interjection. Hon. G. Campbell: When the member started her questioning, she was asking about a meeting on July 21. J. Kwan: No, I said July 2001. Hon. G. Campbell: If the member reads this, she will see that this is a proscriptive memo. "We have also arranged a pre-meeting to discuss…." It's not a ques- tion of minutes. It reads, to me, at least — and this is the first time I've seen this memo — like sort of an out- line of what may be discussed.

I can tell the member opposite that my deputy, as he said, did meet with Sam Sullivan. He did meet with Dave Driscoll. He does recall meeting with four people. He doesn't recall meeting with one, two, three, four, five people. However, he may well have. Those are the facts. J. Kwan: Okay. The Premier says that his deputy does not remember meeting with this particular per- son, irrespective that the e-mail actually says this per- son attended this meeting.

According to the e-mail, Doug Walls, director of social enterprise, Planned Life- time Social Advocacy Network, is listed in the docu- ment as a person who attended this meeting. [1555] We'll go not on the basis of someone's memory but rather what's listed in this document and through this e-mail. I would go on the as sumption that Doug Walls was at this meeting and not on the assumption of the deputy to the Premier's memory. Having said that, did the Premier's staff report back to the Premier about this meeting? If so, what was re- ported back about this meeting? Hon. G.

Campbell: First, I'm glad to have the member look at the e-mail once more. If you read the e- mail, it is not minutes. There are discussions about what will take place. "Will" is something that takes place in the future, not something that takes place now and not something that takes place in the past. "This meeting will be in the restaurant off the lobby level of the Pan Pacific. We'll meet for coffee and share thoughts on strategy." It is a prospective e-mail. The fact of the matter is that my deputy recollects having a meeting with Sam Sullivan, with Dave Dris- coll.

At the meeting there were four people in atten- dance. It may well have been the meeting that was go- ing to take place in the futu re, after this e-mail. That's possible. I'm not saying that it isn't possible. I can tell you that there were no reports back from the meeting to me or anyone else that I'm aware of. J. Kwan: Maybe we can start with this. Did the deputy to the Premier meet with Doug Walls at any time, and if so, when? Hon. G. Campbell: Other than the meeting that is being discussed here, which the deputy does not recall Mr. Walls being in attendance at, the answer is no.

I would refer the member opposite to page 70 of the report. This is Mr. Parks's report. There's not anyone editing it. It's Mr. Parks's report. "Mr. Walls told us…he had no discussions with Ken Dobell about appoint- ments, he 'didn't know Ken Dobell,' he couldn't 'imag- ine sending him an e-mail,' he 'never did telephone him,' and he 'honestly can't recall talking to Ken Do- bell….'" That's what is on page 70 of this report. J. Kwan: Let me just get this straight. The Premier is saying that the deputy to the Premier did not at any time meet with Doug Walls. Is that correct? Hon. G.

Campbell: Other than the possibility that Mr. Walls may have been in attendance at the meeting with Sam Sullivan and Dave Driscoll that the deputy minister attended, he has not met with Doug Walls. J. Kwan: Did the deputy to the Premier have con- versations with Doug Walls? Hon. G. Campbell: With the previous caveat, the answer is no. J. Kwan: E-mail exchange? Hon. G. Campbell: No. J. Kwan: How about Martyn Brown — for all of the questions that I asked?

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11249 [1600] Hon. G. Campbell: I hope it's all right with the member opposite, but I'm going to do this from mem- ory. I believe it will be reflected in the report for cer- tain. Mr. Brown met with Mr. Walls with a ministerial assistant to the former minister at one point. That is the only time that he met with Mr. Walls that I am aware of. There was one e-mail that was sent from Mr. Brown to Mr. Walls, probably three years ago. J. Kwan: The last part of the Premier's answer — three years ago. Mr. Brown met with Mr. Walls once? Is that what the Premier said? Hon.

G. Campbell: The e-mail was three years ago. I believe that Mr. Brown met with Mr. Walls in April of…. I believe it was a year ago, maybe April 2003. But I want to say, to be candid , that I'm not intending to read the entire report. The report is there. It is com- plete. It is thorough. It's an independent investigation that has been carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and I think the report speaks for itself. J. Kwan: Yes, the report outlines a number of in- formation…. There are also a number of questions that, in my view, have not been answered by the report.

So I would like to canvass these questions with the Premier. Did anybody from the Premier's office meet with Doug Walls? Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me say that the re- port does speak for itself. Mr. Dobell…. Again, let me refer the member op- posite to page 70. Mr. Parks says that he reviewed the e-mail dated July 18 from Doug Walls to Sam Sullivan, Cam Doré, Jordan Thurston and Dave Driscoll. All right? The meeting was on, not…. It wasn't minutes of a meeting. You will see from page 70 that the meeting with Ken Dobell was on July 19, which the three recipi- ents were to attend.

Those are the facts from the report. Mr. Brown did meet with Mr. Walls, I believe, in 2003, and those are the only potential times that members of my office could have possibly met with Mr. Walls. I can confirm that Mr. Brown did meet. I can confirm that Mr. Dobell did go to a meeting on July 19. I cannot confirm that Mr. Walls was at that meeting on July 19. J. Kwan: So the Premier is saying that nobody from his office had met with Doug Walls other than what's been identified in this report, and nobody from his office talked to or e-mailed Doug Walls outside of what's been identified in this report.

This is what I heard in the Premier's answer so far. I'd like to get a confirmation from the Premier. Hon. G. Campbell: No political staff from the Pre- mier's office met with Doug Walls. I've already an- swered the questions with regard to the deputy. J. Kwan: The issue around individualized funding that was being promoted by Doug Walls — when did the Premier's office first learn of this concept of indi- vidualized funding? And who did they learn this con- cept from? Hon. G. Campbell: I can't speak for the entire gov- ernment. In terms of our government, we were brought into government in June 2001.

The meeting we have been discussing on July 19, 2001, may have been the first time my deputy was made aware of this, but it may have been going on in Children and Families prior to that. [1605] I would say to the member opposite, though, that this is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination.

For example, a letter we received from the president of the British Columbia Association for Community Liv- ing in June 2002 points this out: "While the community living movement has long called for restructuring of funding and services to meet principles of individualized funding, self-determination and community inclusion, the vehicles and structures to manage large-scale transformation remain largely unde- veloped. With the initiative you have now underway, B.C. is providing a real example and important leader- ship to governments and the disability movement across the country." This was not a new idea.

It was an idea that had not been picked up by governments across the country. It w a s a n i d e a t h a t w a s p i c k e d u p b y t h i s g o v e r n m e n t because we believed that people who had some of these difficulties and disabilities deserved to have a right to have a sense of personal dignity. Their families had a right to have a sense of personal direction for what was taking place in their families and with their children and their siblings. It was an important under- taking. It is an important transformation, as is men- tioned by the society for community living.

I t w a s a t h r u s t o f w h a t w e w e r e t r y i n g t o a c c o m - plish. It's a thrust that I think we should be proud of, and it's a thrust that we will continue to pursue as we develop the proposal in the months ahead. J. Kwan: W e l l , l e t m e j u s t a d d r e s s t h i s w i t h t h e Premier. I have before me a set of notes regarding a meeting that took place on August 13, 2001 — an indi- vidualized funding information-sharing meeting. The purpose of the meeting….

It reads: "David Driscoll outlined the purposes of the meeting as an opportunity to share information about recent meetings with Chris Haynes, the deputy minister, Minis- try of Children and Family Development" — MCFD — "and Ken Dobell, deputy to the Premier, to analyze what opportunities there may be to promote individualized funding in MCFD." Then the document goes on to say: "Opportunities for individualized funding with MCFD. Doug Walls reported on the current situation w i t h i n t h e M i n i s t r y o f C h i l d r e n a n d F a m i l y D e v e l o p - ment.

The senior management assistant deputy ministers are gone. There is a new minister." It names the former Minister of Children and Fam- ily Development, who has been a member of a com- munity living agency board, and a new deputy minis-

11250 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 ter, Chris Haynes, formerly an Assistant Deputy Minis- ter of Human Resources. "A core services review is being undertaken in the ministry, and David Young, who has had experience with individualized funding, is leading it. These changes may provide a real opportunity because the leadership is knowledgable and open to looking at how individual- ized funding can be incorporated into the ministry." It goes on to say: "Doug Walls and David Driscoll jointly reported on a meeting that they attended in mid-July with Ken Dobell, deputy to the Premier.

Jordan Thurston and Cam Doré also attended this meeting." It goes on to talk about the purpose of the meeting. Then the document goes on to say: "The outcome of the meeting was positive. Ken Do- bell said that if the MCFD put forward a proposal for in- dividualized funding, it would be well received in the Premier's office. He subsequently contacted the MCFD and expressed his support for an individualized funding approach. "In

summary, Doug Walls and David Driscoll as- serted that there is a clear window of opportunity for in- dividualized funding that is linked to the core review and, as a consequence, will need to be organized very quickly. A first-stage proposal will need to be ready by September 15 with a more detailed proposal ready for October 15. "It was emphasized that the pressure on the ministry to cut up to $160 million by February 2002 is real. The core services review will restructure the ministry.

This crisis may also be an opportunity for families to reorgan- ize, to put forward their own vision of how individual- ized funding could restructure the Ministry of Children and Family Development." [1610] This is the document that I have — notes contained within this meeting outlin ing several things. There was, in fact, a meeting with Mr. Dobell and Mr. Doug Walls, amongst others, in mi d-July. The minutes of the meeting, not before the meeting took place, although the e-mail in the audit document says that Doug Walls was to be attending this meeting….

After the fact, in reporting out to various people, it says that in fact Doug Walls met with Mr. Dobell. That's number one in terms of discrepancy. Second, it talked about optimizing a window of opportunity, if you will, in trying to push through in- dividualized funding and that Mr. Dobell had put for- ward a proposal for individualized funding and sup- ported this proposal to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Let me then ask this question: did Mr. Dobell re- ceive an individualized funding document from any- body? Hon. G.

Campbell: There's nothing that the mem- ber opposite has said that is inconsistent with my an- swers earlier today, in the last few minutes, Mr. Chair. First of all, let's be clear about this. I think we should be pleased that we have a public service that is known for leadership, that is knowledgable. I think certainly, when we were a government that had been elected, we were looking for ways that we could pro- vide better services to young people in British Co- lumbia. We watched as young people were being taken from their homes at record rates, at rates that were far beyond anything that was found in Canada.

We wanted to be sure that in fact the Ministry of Children and Family Development was working with families. You know, if it's a surprise to the member opposite, it's maybe because her government was in government for ten years and didn't do anything with these families who were calling out for individualized funding, who were calling out for the great institution of government to think of their family and the people that were part of it. Yes, we had knowledgable leadership. I could cer- tainly concur with that. I don't know what the member opposite is referring to. If she'd l

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0519pm-17
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0519pm 17
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	654e300f552217f85e9da3a3f5d5622414e8b777

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