2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Edward Patrick O'Connor

G. Halsey-Brandt

Experience of Sons Of Freedom Doukhobor children

in New Denver

Hon. G. Plant

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

University Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 60)

Hon. S. Bond

Range Act (Bill 57)

Hon. R. Harris

Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 64)

Hon. G. Plant

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 62)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Food banks in Vancouver

J. Nuraney

UBCM meeting and offshore oil and gas exploration

B. Belsey

Roadkill tax

B. Bennett

Oral Questions

Freight service between Prince George and Vancouver and B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Falcon

Needles bridge construction

B. Suffredine

Hon. K. Falcon

Access to beetle-infested wood for salvage operations

W. Cobb

Hon. R. Harris

Gravel extraction from Fraser River

R. Hawes

Hon. G. Abbott

Petitions

K. Krueger

Second Reading of Bills

Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45)

Hon. S. Hagen

J. Kwan

J. Bray

M. Hunter

J. Nuraney

D. Jarvis

G. Halsey-Brandt

G. Trumper

R. Stewart

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 65)

Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45) (continued)

V. Anderson

R. Hawes

L. Mayencourt

B. Penner

[ Page 11343 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Harris: Joining us in the House today is Ken

Belaski. I am very pleased to be able to welcome him here today. Although he is

now retired, Ken previously served the B.C. government as manager of the B.C.

Forest Service range program and was instrumental in developing changes to some

legislation that I will be introducing today. Would the House please make him

feel welcome.

B. Belsey: I have the pleasure of introducing someone who is

here from Prince Rupert, the manager of the chamber in Prince Rupert and also

the manager for the visitors information centre. Not only that, she manages my

house and my apartment down here, so if you would all join me in making my wife

welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: In the House today is a good friend of mine,

Bruce Kehler. He's from the Comox Valley but also has businesses around British

Columbia and is an entrepreneur of note and very active in the building supply

business, taking advantage of the growth in the economy in the province and the

new houses being built. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

K. Stewart: It is my pleasure to introduce a gentleman who

has a law practice in Maple Ridge, who's been a very good advocate for youth in

our community. He happens to be the past president of our riding association and

the brother of the aforementioned guest. Would the House please welcome Mr. Gord Kehler.

Hon. S. Bond: It is my privilege today to welcome a friend

to the gallery. He's someone that I worked with for a significant period of time

on the school board in Prince George. It's a pleasure to have with us today Mr.

Bill Christie.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today is someone that

I've introduced several times before. He is a community mental health advocate,

and he is here again to witness the proceedings. I would ask the House to please

welcome Terry Colburn to the Legislature.

H. Bloy: It is an honour for me to introduce someone today

that's a friend of a colleague of ours from Burnaby-Edmonds. We have Roy Arjun

and his girlfriend Nafissa Khan with us today. Roy has worked very hard for

Patty in her riding, and he is quite an entrepreneur himself. I'd like the House

to please make them welcome.

B. Kerr: I was told by the member's legislative assistant

that I wouldn't get any birthday cake unless I wished him a happy birthday in

the House today. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway is celebrating his birthday

today, and I ask the House to wish him a happy birthday.

S. Orr: I have three very, very special guests in the House

today. First is a gentleman called Gerald Dirks, and he served with the national

board of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind for many years and is

currently a member of the board of Blindness International. The second person is

no stranger in Victoria. He is very well known and very well liked. It's Albert

Ruel, and he's been on staff with CNIB since losing his sight 12 years ago. With

them, they have a sighted person helping them, and her name is Patricia Dirks.

Would the House please make these three very special people welcome.

Tributes

EDWARD PATRICK O'CONNOR

G. Halsey-Brandt: It is with sadness that I report that the

founding president of the union that grew into today's B.C. Government and

Service Employees Union has died in Richmond at the age of 96.

Edward Patrick O'Connor served as the first president of the B.C.

Government Employees Association from 1942 until 1945 and then as its general

secretary until 1967, the year he received the Canadian Centennial medal. He

then retired and, as usual when people retire, worked even harder as he took on

an 11-year appointment as labour's representative on the Public Service Staff

Relations Board. We express our thanks for the work he did on behalf of all

British Columbians.

[1410]

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House we're joined by members

of the B.C. Trucking Association. As members of this House know full well,

truckers play an important role in our economy, moving important goods and

products for small businesses right across the province. I would ask my

colleagues to please make them all feel welcome today.

Tributes

EXPERIENCE OF SONS OF FREEDOM

DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN IN NEW DENVER

Hon. G. Plant: I rise in the House with the honour of

paying tribute to some very special guests who are joining us here today. They

are Irene Popoff, Elsie Eriksen, William Sherstobitoff, Shirley Sherstobitoff,

Joe Sherstobitoff, Fred Konkin, Walter Swetlishoff, Naida Hamoline, Georgina

Kootnikoff, Naida Stoochnoff and Grace Worrall.

They are representatives of a very special group of British

Columbians known as the New Denver Sons of

[ Page 11344 ]

Freedom Doukhobor children. I would like to take a few moments to talk about

a sad

chapter in B.C. history that concerns them.

The provincial ombudsman brought this

chapter to the attention of

government and the public in her 1999 report entitled Righting the Wrong: the

Confinement of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobor Children . This report details

the events that occurred some 50 years ago, when 104 Sons of Freedom Doukhobor

children were removed from their parents, who were arrested during a protest in

the West Kootenays.

In 1953 some 104 children were taken by bus to New Denver, where

those of school age were kept in a residential care facility and those who were

not of school age were returned to their families. Over the next six years, from

1953 to 1959, the government enforced a policy of mandatory school attendance.

Approximately 200 children were placed in the New Denver institution during this

period. Many Sons of Freedom parents, determined not to surrender their

children, hid them from the police. Initially, the children went to school in

the institution, but eventually they were integrated into the local public

school in New Denver.

No doubt the New Denver experience affected these children and

their families in profound ways. In many cases, these children were kept from

their parents for extraordinary periods of time. Some children were not allowed

to return home during the summer or at Christmas because of uncertainty that

their parents would return them to New Denver.

This was not an easy story to hear, nor is it an easy story to

tell. I commend all those who came forward after all these years to talk about

what must be extremely personal and painful memories. Many of these people, we

have since come to learn, have buried their past, and they even felt it

necessary to hide their Sons of Freedom background and their association with

New Denver from their friends, their neighbours and their employers.

The challenge that we as government today face in understanding

what happened half a century ago is not as simple as one might expect. What we

do know is that these were frightening times for the residents of the Kootenay

and Boundary regions of British Columbia. Bombings and burnings had been

occurring throughout this part of the province for over three decades. Fear and

anger had escalated among both the Doukhobor and the non-Doukhobor communities.

To this end, the government of the day was under tremendous pressure to do

something to end the violence.

We can't fully understand or explain the motives of a government

of 50 years ago. We can, though, recognize the circumstances under which these

events occurred and acknowledge how things might be done differently if we were

to do them today.

I would like to thank those who had the courage to come forward to

remind British Columbians about this history. Many of us were unaware or had

forgotten about the conflicting values and political turmoil that involved the

government and these communities over half a century ago. In particular, too

many of us were unaware that you, as innocent children, were taken from your

homes, your families and your communities.

[1415]

We recognize that as children, you were caught in this conflict

through no fault of your own. On behalf of the government of British Columbia, I

extend my sincere, complete and deep regret for the pain and suffering you

experienced during the prolonged separation from your families. We recognize and

regret that you were deprived of the day-to-day contact with your parents and

the love and support of your families. We recognize and we regret the anguish

that this must have caused. We will continue to offer counselling to former

residents and to your relatives — including your siblings, your offspring and

your spouses — who wish to access this service.

We hope that this acknowledgment will enable you to work with us

toward continued reconciliation and healing.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled University Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 60 be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: On March 17 the Premier announced that the

new Okanagan campus of the University of British Columbia would have a separate

senate to govern local affairs. As well, we committed to expanding the

university's board of governors to provide representation from the Okanagan

region.

Under the existing University Act, each university is allowed only

one senate, which makes decisions regarding the academic governance of the

institution. As well, the act details the exact composition of the boards. The

amendments being made to the University Act by Bill 60 will allow the University

of British Columbia to establish an additional autonomous senate for the

Okanagan.

When government consulted with stakeholders regarding the proposed

UBC Okanagan university model, a core concern was the ability for the region to

guide the development of the university to meet its very unique needs. So with

the formation of UBC Okanagan, it was promised that a distinct senate for the

Okanagan region would be a part of the new university. The amendments being

introduced today will also expand the UBC board of governors to guarantee local

representation for the Okanagan campus of the university on the overall UBC

board of governors.

[ Page 11345 ]

Finally, Bill 60 will make two deregulation amendments to the

University Act. These two changes involve reducing the red tape surrounding the

disposition of university lands and granting the powers of a natural person to

the public universities governed by the act.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 60 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.

RANGE ACT

Hon. R. Harris presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Range Act.

Hon. R. Harris: I move that Bill 57 be introduced and read

for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Harris: Today I am introducing Bill 57, the Range

Act. This bill provides the first substantial update in 25 years to the

management of Crown range lands. The bill was developed with government

ministries and range users and reflects the changes necessary to ensure Crown

range lands are managed for the best interest of British Columbians. This bill

brings range use into the twenty-first century and provides government with the

ability to ensure that range land is used efficiently. Under the bill,

flexibility for both the district manager and range tenure applicants is

improved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House.

[1420]

Bill 57 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.

JUSTICE MODERNIZATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill

64, the Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. This bill amends a

number of statutes intended to support our continuing effort as government in

ensuring that our justice system is fair, equitable and efficient for all

British Columbians.

We're amending the Small Claims Act and the Court Rules Act by

introducing enabling amendments that will pave the way for future improvements

to the civil justice system by making it possible to increase the monetary

jurisdiction of the small claims court to as high as $50,000 and to establish

simplified procedures for cases under $100,000 in the Supreme Court. These

changes will enhance access to justice by supporting work that is already

underway to make simpler and more affordable processes available to the public

in both courts.

This bill amends the Crown Proceeding Act to allow the Crown to be

sued in provincial small claims court. This amendment complements the amendments

I have already described.

We are amending the Class Proceedings Act to suspend the

limitation period during an application for class certification. This should

reduce the pressure on judges to certify classes and in turn may decrease the

number of class proceedings.

We are amending the Evidence Act to provide certainty regarding

admissibility in court of electronic court documents and to set standards for

electronic documents and signatures. These amendments are urgently required to

enable government to move forward with the implementation of court automation

projects.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 64 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.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Plant: This bill, the Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004, makes amendments to a number of acts. It makes some

housekeeping amendments to correct some minor drafting errors and oversights and

to clarify some provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which was passed

earlier this year.

These amendments, which have come to light as that act is being

implemented, include consequential amendments to the Financial Institutions Act

and the Forest and Range Practices Act and a transitional provision to the

Mental Health Act.

Bill 62 also modernizes the Estate Administration Act by

increasing the value of small estates that will be

[ Page 11346 ]

eligible for simpler

summary administration processes from $10,000 up to

$25,000. A consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act applies the same

threshold to the expedited transfer of vehicle ownership to a beneficiary on the

death of the vehicle's owner.

Bill 62 also makes two amendments to the Libel and Slander Act.

First, the act will be amended so that a person sued in defamation for

publishing the opinion of another person will not have to agree with that

opinion in order to have the benefit of the defence of fair comment. The second

amendment will provide that there is no liability for damages in defamation with

respect to a publication in the collection of a public or educational library.

This will protect educational libraries and their associated local governments

and educational institutions from financially onerous litigation, while

protecting the rights of plaintiffs by ensuring that they may prevent the

distribution of publications that have been determined or acknowledged to be

defamatory.

[1425]

Finally, this bill makes minor amendments to the Offence Act to

support something called the Contraventions Act agreement between British

Columbia and Canada. That agreement allows for the enforcement of minor federal

language prosecution and service.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 62 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) FOOD BANKS IN VANCOUVER

J. Nuraney: Some time ago, Pat Tracy, the editor of

Burnaby Now , asked the residents of Burnaby to help the food bank. She said

that whether it is summertime or winter, there is never a right time for folks

to go hungry.

I was quite touched by her remarks and took up the challenge to

help the food bank. Over the past weeks I have had the privilege of observing

food banks' operations and meeting some of the most dedicated individuals who do

so much to provide our communities with this invaluable service.

The Greater Vancouver Food Bank operates 18 distribution depots

that presently feed up to 9,000 people each week. More than 100 agencies depend

on the food bank to provide 16,000 meals every week. Sadly, the most troubling

statistic is that 40 percent of the food bank's recipients are children. The

bank's Basics for Babies program provides food, formula and diapers to help with

the challenges of raising a young infant. Under the program, Kids Picks provides

healthy snacks and nutritional information to preschoolers aged 18 months to

five years.

I'm very happy to say that last weekend, I launched an appeal that

was successful in sending six carloads of food to the food bank. We also managed

to collect some cash donations — over $2,000. As our government works through

various ministries' initiatives to reduce poverty and hopefully some day to

eradicate it, I want to assure the House that the spirit of our community to

help achieve this goal is very much alive.

UBCM MEETING AND

OFFSHORE OIL AND

GAS EXPLORATION

B. Belsey: Last month British Columbians witnessed one of

the best-attended Union of B.C. Municipalities meetings ever held. Municipal

governments, regional districts and some first nations communities participated

in what is always a great opportunity for MLAs to meet with local

representatives around their ridings. The business discussed was as diversified

as the representation in attendance.

One issue near and dear to the hearts of many in attendance was a

motion brought forward by the Prince Rupert city council calling on the federal

government to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration in the

Queen Charlotte basin. The motion was carried by a two-thirds majority of

delegates representing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. It must be

noted that it was not, and I repeat not, with reckless abandon that the UBCM

delegates approved this motion. It was after months of debate within

communities, in the resource sector committee meetings, in the rooms and

hallways at the convention and ultimately on the convention floor.

What this means to the Pacific Northwest region in which I live is

that we are one step closer to revitalization — revitalization and seeing more

jobs than there are locals to fill them, just like in Alberta, in the northeast

corner of this province; revitalization for revenue surpluses to build new

hospitals, schools, airports, bridges, roads, highways; revitalization of a

sustainable society safety network that provides for early childhood years,

K-to-12, advanced education, adults and senior programs, and sustainable

solutions to homelessness for the underprivileged and most vulnerable in our

communities.

Imagine the revitalization that could take place in our province

if our Premier could hand out $3 billion for infrastructure improvements just

like Ralph Klein did last month in Alberta. The NDP says no to oil and gas

exploration and development — not now, not ever. That's like saying no to

revitalization in my riding.

[1430]

ROADKILL TAX

B. Bennett: For decades, as a matter of course, British

Columbia trappers made use of dead wildlife found at the side of the road.

However, in September 2000 the parsimonious government of the day radically in-

[ Page 11347 ]

creased the tariff charged on

this benign and functional rural practice. A dead elk or moose cost $71; a deer

or black bear, $61; a red-tailed hawk, $65; a dead bison, $116; and any species

not listed, $25. Presumably, if you found a dead or mortally wounded mouse and

wanted to feed it to your cat, you would be required to travel to the nearest

government office, fill out the forms, pay your $25 and quickly journey home to

satiate your eagerly waiting carnivorous kitty. Of course, you might decide to

stop at the general store and pick up a $10 bag of cat food, but that would be

your choice.

Trappers back in the year 2000, not being intimate with the

infinite ingenuity of governments in the field of fees and permits, could not

quite recognize the government's logic. At a Finance Committee meeting in

Cranbrook before the last election, a constituent of mine, Carmen Purdy,

inquired as to the sanity of this particular regulatory endeavour. One of our

distinguished journalists, Mr. Leyne, wrote at the time: "Is this proud province

in such reduced circumstances that government inspectors have to roam the

roadside ditches looking for people who are looking for roadkill in order to

levy a tax on them?"

I'm exceedingly proud to inform the House today that this

government has cast the shackles off our enterprising and industrious trappers.

Although we do continue to charge fees to British Columbians who wish to utilize

roadkill for lunch, a fur coat or living room rug — and I hope we can repeal

that tax as well — trappers can now avail themselves, without cost, of the

spoils of highway carnage, which no doubt will be compounding as a result of the

strengthening economy and increased movement of goods and services.

Now, although this isn't quite on a scale with the Magna Carta,

let us rejoice at the democratic spectacle of free trappers all over this

heavenly province scooping up dead animals from our roadside ditches, no longer

living in fear a tax collector may be lurking in nearby bushes. At long last the

roadkill tax, if not completely snuffed out, is at least gimpy and on its last

legs.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

FREIGHT SERVICE BETWEEN

PRINCE GEORGE AND VANCOUVER

AND B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT

J. Kwan: On our first day back I have a question for the

Deputy Premier on an issue that just isn't going away for this government. Can

the Deputy Premier tell this House how much service the new owner of B.C. Rail

is providing on the Prince-George-to-North-Vancouver corridor?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, this is more good news coming out

of this partnership transaction. One of the things we're very excited about is

that under this partnership arrangement, the private sector will be making the

kind of significant capital investments that the government, frankly, couldn't

divert scarce dollars away from health care and education…. We know, for

example, that they've already added, thus far today, 400 additional centre-beam

cars that will be used to move goods and services from Prince George down to

Vancouver and to Chicago much more efficiently and effectively than we have in

the past. We already know that their transit times have increased so

dramatically in the short time they have taken over the line that they have

already got some excess capacity in Prince George, and they're already out

beating the bushes looking for new shippers. As usual, it is more good news out

of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

supplementary question.

J. Kwan: As usual, this minister has just proven to this House

that he doesn't know what he is talking about. This minister needs to take the

time to learn his file. First, the Premier broke his promise not to sell B.C.

Rail. Then he sold it to his big campaign donor, CN, for a pittance of what it's

worth. The opposition has learned that CN is in fact reducing service on the

Prince George corridor by a full two-thirds.

After promising that this promise — this broken promise — would

benefit communities, how can the Deputy Premier and the Minister of

Transportation expect northerners to trust this government when we now know that

CN is cutting its freight service?

[1435]

Hon. K. Falcon: One thing I have learned after long

experience listening to questions in this House is that, inevitably, the

information that the members have is false, misleading or just not exactly

accurate. What I will say to this member — this may be a surprise to the member

— is this: actually, CN as a private company generally doesn't spend a billion

dollars so they can reduce services and not increase the opportunities for

themselves. They are actually investing in the rail line. They are investing

significant dollars already, as I mentioned. Almost 400 of the 600 cars they've

committed to, they've already acquired. They are already increasing the transit

times that are running from Prince George to Vancouver, so that shippers are

realizing a benefit. Of course the average shipping rate has been reduced by 7

percent — again, another benefit for interline shippers.

I have absolutely no doubt in saying this. This is going to be the

foundation for the revitalization of northern British Columbia, and that member

and that NDP government just do not understand that this is going to be great

news for northern British Columbia and the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

further supplementary.

J. Kwan: I see the shadows of Martyn Brown's choke chains

coming on.

[ Page 11348 ]

Let me quote a letter of September 29 from CN's corporate

vice-president.

Hon. K. Falcon: Is it secret?

J. Kwan: Maybe the Minister of Transportation would want to

listen up just so that the Minister of Transportation has the facts. "CN plans

to reduce freight service on the Prince-George-to-North-Vancouver corridor from

the present three trains per day to one train per day." This is a letter from

the vice-president of CN dated September 29, 2004.

The Deputy Premier told her local newspaper that the fate of

employees is her number one priority. Let me ask the question to the Deputy

Premier: will she stand up and explain to her constituents why CN is cutting

service to her community and laying off workers, when she said she was fighting

for them?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, as it always is with this opposition,

they only look at one side of the ledger, and the side of the ledger they look

on, of course, is full of gloom and doom. There is nothing that could ever go

right, and goodness knows, this most successful rail organization in North

America somehow is going to screw up their portion here in B.C. That's the way

the opposition looks at it.

But what is the reality? The reality is that there are going to be

enormous new job opportunities opening up — they kind of forget to talk about

that side of the ledger, so I will talk about that — for example, the

containerization at the port of Prince Rupert. We've already got a private

sector port operator that's willing to invest up to half a billion dollars —

hundreds of new jobs potentially being created. We have the restoration of

commercially viable passenger tourism services now being recently announced,

which is going to create new job opportunities up and down that corridor —

again, revitalizing northern communities. Of course, we've got jobs in the new

regional district head office, the wheel shop, etc. As usual, that member is

just looking at one side. There is always another side, and it's very positive.

J. Kwan: You know what? This government's schemes have been

shrouded in secrecy. Whether it is B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries or ICBC, it doesn't

matter. The fact of the matter is…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan: …that this government is not telling British

Columbians what's going on. What we now know is that CN is cutting freight

services.

The sale of B.C. Rail is a question of trust. How can you trust a

Premier who's broken his promise to the north, who sold a profitable company?

How can you trust a Premier who said that service will improve on the line, when

CN is in fact cutting services? The government blacked out page after page of

the contract with CN to sell B.C. Rail. Will the Deputy Premier stand up today

and release the entire agreement with CN so that we know how deep this

boondoggle actually is?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not even sure where to start, so why

don't I start with the most recent part….

J. Kwan: Release the documents.

Hon. K. Falcon: "Release the documents," the member of the

opposition cries. Well, Mr. Speaker, actually, that's exactly what we did. And I

will remind the member of the opposition that there was no requirement

whatsoever for government to release any of that information. In fact we

decided…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[1440]

Hon. K. Falcon: …to do that voluntarily. Both ourselves and

CN released all of the information that wasn't commercially sensitive. I'm sure

that member wouldn't want us releasing confidential shipping documents,

arrangements with shippers and the information that had to do with personal

privacy. Of course we're not going to release the personal privacy information

related to employees, how much they earn and their social insurance numbers.

Maybe that member would do that kind of thing, but this government won't.

So what we did was release everything. We followed the strictures

of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act even though we

didn't need to. We released all of the information that was most relevant to the

folks out in the public who needed to know what was happening, and that kept our

commitment to do exactly that.

J. Kwan: That's what we've heard for over a year from this

government. Every time another piece of this ripoff puzzle falls into place, the

B.C. Liberals spin the same old tired line. This broken promise is why

northerners have had enough of this government.

If the Deputy Premier doesn't trust British Columbians with the

contract, why won't she hand it over to the auditor general so that British

Columbians can get an independent verdict on whether the government is telling

the truth? To the Deputy Premier.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm sorry, but it's essentially a rehashing

of exactly the same question she continues to ask, so I continue to share with

her the good news that's happening. I recognize that this particular member

feels she knows how to run a railway more efficiently than the number one

railway operator in North America.

Interjection.

[ Page 11349 ]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's perhaps not altogether surprising,

because this is a member whose government oversaw losses of well over a billion

dollars in that railway, which they had the opportunity to operate. That's why,

Mr. Speaker, what we've done is actually kept the commitment of the Premier. The

rail lines and the public rights-of-way all continue to be held in public hands.

What we've done is brought in the most successful private sector operator in

North America to actually run the railway, because they know how to run a

railway. That is going to result in lower rates, improved transit times and a

revitalization of the northern economies.

NEEDLES BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

B. Suffredine: The Minister of Transportation is having

such a good day today that I am going to give him another chance.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please, order. Let us hear the question.

B. Suffredine: In the 1960s the valleys of the Arrow Lakes

region were flooded to enable power dams to be built in the Columbia River and

to fulfil the Columbia River Treaty obligations. Now, people in that area were

promised a fixed link at Needles, and construction of that bridge actually began

in the early 1960s and then was halted when construction estimates came in at

double the expected cost.

Constituents in this area strongly support the construction of the

bridge, but they're a little bit cynical about whether it's actually going to

happen. Our government took a huge step forward this spring when Buckland and

Taylor were selected to complete a detailed bridge design, but I still get

inquiries on a regular basis by people wondering if it's actually going to

happen this time. Could the Minister of Transportation tell my constituents when

they can expect to see real evidence of construction of a new bridge at Needles?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member well knows, the Premier made

a commitment to the folks in the Kootenays that the Needles bridge would be a

priority of this government, something that this government will be doing. I had

the opportunity along with the member to visit with many of the residents from

Fauquier, in the Kootenays, to talk about the Needles bridge. I am pleased to

let the member know that detailed design work on that bridge should be completed

by December of this year, when we will then review all that information. I'm

pleased to say that we should have construction starting on the new Needles

bridge by the summer of next year.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[1445]

ACCESS TO BEETLE-INFESTED WOOD

FOR SALVAGE OPERATIONS

W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of State for

Forestry Operations. We as a provincial government just recently announced an

increase in the AAC for salvage and pine beetle–infested trees. However, many of

my small operators, like woodlot owners and salvage loggers, are concerned about

not getting access to this beetle wood.

Can the minister explain if there is anything being done to ensure

that these smaller operators actually do have access to the wood as well?

Hon. R. Harris: Thank you to the member for the question. I

was recently in his riding. We met with a number of salvagers and small

operators in the 100 Mile House area, and I know it's a big concern for a lot of

his constituents. Back in April of this year we announced a pine beetle plan,

and part of that was a process where we went out for expressions of interest. To

date we've received over 66 different expressions of interest. They range from

everything from small sales for a lot of the small operators he represents and

is speaking about today, as well as some larger projects.

I'm pleased to say that as of last week, we've started to act on

some of that information. While I was in Prince George we announced that we were

going into the marketplace to tenure three new tenures. All of them would be for

ten years: two of them in the Quesnel district — one for 50,000 cubic metres

annually and one for 25,000 — and one in the Vanderhoof region for 50,000 cubic

metres. These size tenures are actually aimed specifically at the small

operators.

Another aspect that we've done in terms of trying to revitalize

this industry is the reallocation process. Through the reallocation process

we're moving 8 million cubic metres from major licensees into, in fact, a whole

bunch of avenues for small tenure operators to access timber. Just recently we

announced the first community salvage licence in Lumby, as well as a number of

community forest licences around this province. We are working to ensure that

those folks do in fact get access, and we'll continue to do that.

GRAVEL EXTRACTION FROM FRASER RIVER

R. Hawes: My question is to the Minister of Sustainable

Resource Management. I'm asking it, actually, on behalf of all of my colleagues

in the Fraser Valley and the people in the Fraser Valley.

For years a moratorium on the removal of gravel from the Fraser

River has caused the bottom of the river to come up, to the point that there is

a real danger of flooding. The dikes, in the event of a real heavy downpour, are

not likely to able to sustain the river. A historic agreement was reached in the

last month between DFO and this government to remove a consider-

[ Page 11350 ]

able amount of gravel over the next five years. This is just tremendous news.

For that, I would like to congratulate the minister and thank the minister and

his predecessor for the hard work they did.

But my question is this. The people in the valley still remain

somewhat cynical because they don't really trust the DFO folks. We want to know

when we will begin seeing gravel taken out of the river. Luckily, this

government is the one that's working on it — not the previous one, who actually

worked on putting the moratorium in place. Perhaps the minister can tell us:

when will we see gravel coming out of the river?

Hon. G. Abbott: The agreement we recently signed, I think, is

rightly a historical agreement. To set the member at ease, we expect that come

January we will see something like half a million cubic metres of gravel

extracted from the Fraser River. That's an important step in a number of ways

towards better flood protection, better habitat management, safer navigation and

better fisheries protection.

There are a lot of benefits that come from a constructive

relationship between our government, through Land and Water B.C. and the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I know we have had, at times, a difficult

relationship in the past between provincial and federal authorities, but I think

we are into a stage of what could be called cooperative federalism in respect of

resource management.

I do want to thank the member for his advocacy and all of the

Fraser Valley members for their advocacy, which was a very big part of getting

this agreement in place. Local governments, the Fraser Basin Council and first

nations have all played a very important role in putting this agreement

together, so it's a great win-win-win. It provides that five years of certainty

for the Fraser River and its management, and I congratulate all who were a part

of putting that deal together.

[End of question period.]

[1450]

Petitions

K. Krueger: I rise to table a petition signed by

approximately 1,100 people concerning the cutback in hours at the liquor

distribution store in Barriere, B.C.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Plant: I call second reading of Bill 45.

Second Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY LIVING AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the bill now be read a second

time, and I'm pleased to open debate on second reading.

This bill, the Community Living Authority Act, represents an

important step forward in the way our province delivers services to individuals

with developmental disabilities. During the fall and winter of 2001, the

Ministry of Children and Family Development consulted with families, staff and

stakeholders. Many of these people said that the old system was rigid, overly

bureaucratic and unsustainable over the long term. We were told that providing

community-based services through regional authorities was the preferred option

for effective and efficient delivery of supports, and we listened.

The community told us they want to create an environment where

adults with developmental disabilities can participate in and contribute to

their communities and live a full and valued life. These communities would be

communities where adults with developmental disabilities and their families have

access to choice, to shared responsibility and to community-based services,

where families are central to this vision and would be involved in

decision-making. As many adults with developmental disabilities as possible can

remain in their families' homes or live semi-independently in their communities.

Services are delivered through locally based agencies sensitive to community

capacities.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Building on the Community Services Interim Authorities Act

established in October of 2002, this bill responds directly to the needs of

people with developmental disabilities, their families and advocates by paving

the way for community-based delivery of services. As this October has been

proclaimed Community Living Month in British Columbia, it is an appropriate

occasion for me to present this historic bill for its second reading.

The proposed act provides the legal framework needed to establish

a single permanent authority, the Community Living British Columbia Authority,

to plan, develop and oversee the delivery of services for individuals who have

developmental disabilities and their families. The passage of this act

represents a momentous occasion for thousands of families and caregivers. This

means more choice, greater flexibility and ultimately improved services. Our

goal with the introduction of the act and the development of the authority is

that services and supports will increasingly reflect the needs of the community.

Most importantly, these resources will better address the individual needs of

those participating in the programs and their families.

The creation of a permanent authority has been a dream of people

with developmental disabilities and their families, advocates and care providers

for more than 20 years. For most of those 20 years, they have been telling us

basically that they know best, that those with the firsthand day-to-day

knowledge of their needs and challenges should be the ones guiding the

development of community living in British Columbia, and they're right.

[1455]

With the introduction of this act we are showing all British

Columbians with developmental disabilities

[ Page 11351 ]

and their families that we are listening, and what's more, we are responding.

We're moving closer to a system of care that families have asked for and another

step away from the institutions of the past.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development consulted with

families, staff and stakeholders. Many of these people said that the old system

was rigid, overly bureaucratic and unsustainable over the long term. Our review

found that providing community-based services through regional authorities was

the preferred option for effective and efficient delivery of supports. That's

what this act provides.

The Community Living Authority Act establishes a new authority,

community living British Columbia. The authority will be responsible for

delivering some of the community living services currently delivered by the

Ministry of Children and Family Development. These include a wide variety of

services and programs, such as the residential programs which promote

independence while meeting the clients' needs in their communities. Programs

like community residences, which vary in size from small family homes to larger

residential facilities — they all provide care and support as needed — or

semi-independent living, which assists clients to live either alone or in small

groups in homes or apartments…. Here people can live as independently as

possible with the help of in-home support staff as required. These services are

tailored to the needs of the individual.

We offer respite and relief services. These programs provide

emergency or short-term care for adults in community residences and give their

families and caregivers periodic relief from their responsibilities. Respite

provides temporary care outside the home, while relief services provide

alternate in-home care. Intensive adult care programs provide short-term,

community-based care for adults with challenging behaviours or unique needs that

cannot be served by the existing respite or temporary care facilities.

The ministry also offers training programs, like the self-help

skills that provide training in personal care, social integration and job

readiness. Individuals may receive one-to-one or group assistance under these

programs, and they are encouraged to progress towards more demanding or

challenging activities as they are able. Our home support programs assist

individuals to maintain independent or semi-independent living by offering

direct homemaking or household management services or by providing training in

these skill sets.

The supported work programs provide a combination of work

experience, training and support that help individuals find and maintain work

experience placements and employment. Professional support services provide

assessment, support, consultation and planning to individuals or those who

support them to ensure continued success in community placements. These

professional support services also help service providers, ministry staff and

families to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate programs and services related

to community living, including training for caregivers.

One of the key pieces of the act is the provision that the

governing board of community living British Columbia will be led by a majority

of people who have a close connection to people with developmental disabilities.

An advisory committee comprising individuals with developmental disabilities who

are currently receiving community living support will be established to help

guide the board's work. This advisory committee of self-advocates will have a

regular input into the ongoing operations and strategies of the new authority.

In addition to providing more options for those accessing

services, the act clearly outlines the powers and duties of the new authority,

including multiple levels of accountability and performance monitoring. Under

the legislation, the Ministry of Children and Family Development will continue

to protect the public trust by maintaining provincial standards for service

delivery and monitoring service delivery.

[1500]

The legislation also ensures continued protection to all people

receiving community living services. The Ministry of Children and Family

Development will provide this protection through its power to establish

provincial standards for the delivery of community living support; approve

community living B.C.'s service, budget and capital plans; monitor and access

the authority's performance; and provide support and assistance to community

living British Columbia. In addition, the government will have the authority to

regulate conflicts or potential conflicts of interest.

Community living British Columbia will have a board of directors

appointed by government on the basis of merit. The board will reflect the

authority's provincial scope and its mandate. A majority of directors must be

individuals who qualify for services from the new authority or who have a

significant connection to those individuals. Board members will also have a

demonstrated ability and the expertise to run an organization that will manage a

budget of more than $600 million a year and ensure the continued safety and

protection of the more than 9,000 persons currently served through community

living services.

Just last week we appointed a new assistant deputy minister for

community living. He will become the CEO, or chief executive officer, of the

authority when it's established, ensuring a smooth transition of services from

government to the authority. Community living British Columbia will be guided by

its service plan and will be required to meet provincial standards relating to

service delivery. The role of the ministry is to ensure that the authority

fulfils its obligations to provide improved services for British Columbians with

developmental disabilities and their families.

Over the past several decades, community living advocates have

worked hard to make sure that anyone with a developmental disability is able to

live as fully and independently as possible in their communities. The proposed

Community Living Authority Act allows us to build on that progress, bringing

services closer to those who need them the most.

[ Page 11352 ]

J. Kwan: I rise today on the first day of this fall session

to respond to Bill 45. This bill, the Community Living Authority Act, was

introduced in May by the former minister in what is becoming a revolving door of

ministers responsible for Children and Family Development. Even this past May,

the long-promised legislation was way behind the government's own schedule.

The legislation is another victim of this B.C. government's

cost-cutting agenda and the chaos this government has created in the Children

and Family Development ministry through its deep cuts in its budgeting, insider

scandals and endless bureaucratic restructuring. In particular, plans for

creating a community living authority suffered badly from the fallout of the

Doug Walls scandal — a faulty, secretive process that was set in motion almost

as soon as this government was elected.

In debating this bill, it is useful to review what a twisted,

tortured path this long-promised legislation has faced under the mismanagement

of this government. In June 2001, B.C. Liberal insider Doug Walls met with Ken

Dobell, the Premier's senior deputy, and this small group laid down the plans

for community living and the model of individualized funding long before the

core review process for the Ministry of Children and Family Development was even

started. Then on October 12, 2001, we know, cabinet approved a government model

based on Doug Walls's proposal — a full six days before the minister's core

review was completed and without the full support of community living

stakeholders. The following two years were then earmarked not with progress

towards a new authority for community living but instead with scandal, budget

cuts and a series of delays and with the resignations of key Community Living

Coalition members when the concerns over Doug Walls's roles…. The process was

ignored by this government.

[1505]

As a result of the damaging Doug Walls scandal, the minister in

charge had no choice but to resign, and after several months of total chaos, the

Premier named a new minister on January 27 of this year. That minister, of

course, only lasted nine months, presiding over a series of attempts to get the

ministry in general and the community living sector specifically back on to some

kind of even keel — from the independent audit into the Doug Walls insider

scandal to a series of community living readiness panels and reports.

On January 31, 2004, the readiness panel missed a self-imposed

deadline necessary to meet the target transition deadline of June. The new

minister instead stated that the Bert Boyd panel would come up with a revised

time line for devolution by February 27. But wrong again. Another deadline was

missed. Instead, the government chose to hang on to the Bert Boyd report so that

it could drop it at the same time as the Doug Walls audit, allowing this

important development to get buried in the fallout from the scandal.

The government may not like what I'm saying, so instead of taking

my word for it, here's what legislative columnist Paul Willcocks had to say at

the time:

"But the Doug Walls audit, ugly as it was, wasn't

even the worst news released by the ministry. Rather cynically, the government

chose the same day to release an assessment of their efforts to restructure the

ministry. The readiness report revealed that, after more than two years and tens

of millions of dollars, remarkably little progress has been made.

"The ministry unveiled its big plans in

January

2002. The government would slash spending on Children and Families and save

money by moving to 11 new semi-independent authorities. Ten regional authorities

— five aboriginal and five non-aboriginal — would take over children's services.

A community living authority with a $600 million budget would provide services

to mentally disabled British Columbians and their families.

"The transition work was always going

great

according to the former minister" — I should say the former, former minister —

"ahead of

schedule even. A year ago he said the community living authority and

the first two regional child protection authorities would be up and running by

last fall. He was wrong. The regional authorities won't be ready until 2006.

"After the bleak readiness report on the

community

living authority, the new former minister said the target start date for it now

is late 2005 — two years later than the first minister promised. The report

reveals that the most basic questions haven't been answered. The minister

doesn't know how services will be delivered. It hasn't developed the

organization systems or the management team to make the authority work. It

doesn't know how it will cope with transition costs or even rising demands,

given this current reduced budget. It hasn't figured out what's going to happen

to staff.

"It is shocking that so much time and money

could

have been spent so ineffectually without anyone in government noticing — not

MLAs, government caucus committees, the Premier, cabinet, the top bureaucrats.

It's a grimly incompetent performance. It's also a betrayal. The Liberals

promised an end to endless bureaucratic restructuring in the ministry during the

campaign. The Premier spoke passionately of the need for more money, but what

they have actually been delivered is arbitrary budget cuts and a botched and

mismanaged reorganization.

"Footnote. The failure is hardly a surprise.

The

Liberals were warned repeatedly that the idea of simultaneously restructuring

the ministry while cutting the budget by more than 10 percent was reckless. They

chose to ignore the warnings and apparently also chose to ignore the fumbling in

the ministry's restructuring plans."

That was from a column by Paul Willcocks in the Kelowna

Daily Courier , May 18, 2004.

Then finally, on May

19, the former minister, or at least the most

recent former minister…. I know I've referenced that a couple of times, but as

we've noted, the government has changed the ministers — well, actually, more

than once — twice over the last few months. The most recent former minister

introduced an exposure bill, Bill 45. That's what we have before us today.

[1510]

The intent of an exposure bill, the government likes to claim, is

to allow public input and consultation. Yet here is an interesting thing. If the

consultation is to be real, then surely there is the possibility that the bill

might actually change as a result of that process and of the public's input. We

have in British Columbia dedi-

[ Page 11353 ]

cated professionals, volunteers, family members and self-advocates in the

community living sector — people who work tirelessly with and on behalf of the

developmentally disabled. I know they have important things and important

insights and input to offer.

Of course, talk of consultation is just talk. A member of my staff

spoke with a key stakeholder group, the B.C. Association for Community Living,

and she was told that there was apparently a chance to send input in to the

ministry's website. But unfortunately, they hadn't been informed of it. Imagine

that. The government does its consultation by website and then doesn't even

inform a stakeholder — a key stakeholder in the sector, the B.C. Association for

Community Living — that there was a way to ensure that the input is provided to

the government. Perhaps the reason is that the community living sector —

including the B.C. Association for Community Living, which has worked closely

with this government towards this legislation — is deeply unhappy with key

aspects of the bill.

The community living sector is particularly angry at the

government's refusal to include a self-advocate on the board of the authority

and to allow family members to have a 50-percent-plus-one majority on the board.

This is viewed as a complete betrayal by self-advocates and family members and

the community living sector as a whole.

Here's what the B.C. Association for Community Living put on its

news release yesterday:

"We are pleased that this legislation

is finally coming forward, but we are concerned about the lack of consultation

on its content and about some of its shortcomings. For example, while it creates

a provincial board and enables family members to be represented, it does not

specifically require any representation by people with developmental

disabilities. This has always been one of the pillars of our vision, and we will

continue to work towards getting that representation.

"The B.C. Association for Community

Living also

remains concerned about the much-reduced budget for the services that will come

under the new community living B.C. We welcome the legislation but remind the

government that there are growing numbers of people on wait-lists for services

and increasing numbers of children, youth, adults and families who are

experiencing crisis as a result of being unable to access services when they

need them. It's not much help to have your child on a wait list for 'early'

childhood intervention if it takes three years to get the service. It is time

for this government to reinvest so that individuals and families can get the

supports they need, when they are needed."

Lack of consultation, the refusal to provide the family

and self-advocate representation on the board, and the chaos and crisis created

by continued budget cuts are, of course, the hallmarks of this Liberal

government. This B.C. Liberal government has tried to balance the budget through

deep cuts to two ministries — Children and Family Development, and Human

Resources — in a very mean-spirited attack on the most vulnerable in this

province.

Under this B.C. Liberal government, the percentage of the budget

that the B.C. government spends on programs for families and kids has never been

lower. When this year's budget kicked in on April 1, $63 million worth of

programs were eliminated from the Ministry of Children and Family Development,

along with 152 full-time employees. The community living services for adults

with developmental disabilities were cut by $50 million over the last three

years, while services to children and families, including children with special

needs and their families, were cut by $145 million.

[1515]

It is in this context that this bill, the Community Living

Authority Act, must be debated. It is in this context that family members and

self-advocates, dedicated professionals and volunteers in the community living

sector want to see this bill debated and improved. They want to see progress,

finally, towards the long-promised devolution of services, but not without key

changes.

We in the NDP opposition will be supporting the community living

sector in its goals of finally moving ahead with a community living authority.

In committee stage we will be examining the bill closely and will be offering

positive suggestions to improve the bill and to make it serve the people it is

meant to serve. We will, as I mentioned, come forward in committee stage with

suggestions as to how the bill could be improved and better reflect the true

input from the community that has worked on this issue over the last number of

years.

J. Bray: I rise very happily in support of Bill 45. I have

a lot of very positive things to say about this bill and, in fact, the move this

government is making on behalf of families with a member who has a developmental

disability.

I can't go without first acknowledging some of the rather arcane

and bizarre comments from the opposition — an opposition who, by the way, for

ten years heard the pleas and the cries from the community living sector for

things like individualized funding, more involvement, more control and a

continuation of the movement from institutionalization to community care. That

government did nothing for those families, so I find it kind of odd for the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who was a cabinet minister for a weekend or

two, to actually stand up now and suggest that somehow we haven't done things

well, when they had ten years and moved zero on the front of community living.

You know, she made mention that we have had a couple of cabinet

ministers in that ministry. It might be interesting for people to note that from

'96 to 2001, that government had a revolving door of cabinet ministers. In fact,

the Ministry of Labour had nine ministers in four and a half years. The kind of

continuity was absolutely bizarre. I worked in the civil service. Every week it

was just a decision: who's our minister this week? They moved them around.

In fact, the Ministry of Children and Family Development…. They

got so weak in the gene pool on the NDP caucus that they actually went and

appointed someone who wasn't even a member of government to

[ Page 11354 ]

be that minister — an absolutely shocking example of how weak the NDP were. I

can tell you that that ministry went through reorgs not in terms of trying to

deliver service, not in terms of improving protection for children, not in terms

of enhanced supports for families with a person with a developmental disability

but internal reorganizations about org charts and policy manuals and what

services were in this ministry and out of that ministry. It was chaos.

What we brought in when we got elected were service plans that set

out clear objectives, clear performance measures, clear goals, clear lines of

responsibility, and for the last four years we've been carrying out that plan.

That's the difference between the government that the opposition was a member of

and this government.

The other thing I found interesting was that that member talked

about our consultation process and had the bizarre criticism that we used the

Internet for our consultation — that we actually wanted to make sure that not

just people from the member's home city of Vancouver could be part of the

consultation or that members of my community could visit ministry staff here in

Victoria, but we actually wanted consultation from Prince George. We wanted

consultation from Dawson Creek. We wanted consultation from large urban centres,

but we also wanted the opportunity for smaller towns and rural areas to be able

to provide consultation directly to the minister.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker. That's what the Internet is for. That's

what the technology allows. It ensures that every British Columbian who has a

family member receiving community living services or a concerned individual in

the community could actually give direct feedback on this exposure bill so that

we could make sure it was the best piece of legislation and that the supporting

regulations met the needs of communities large and small across this province.

[1520]

I remember that when that member was a member of government,

consultation was: if you happen to know somebody in Vancouver or you live in

Victoria — great. If you lived anywhere else in this province, you were shut

out. I think it's actually a credit to the Ministry of Children and Family

Development to put that opportunity on the Internet for every single British

Columbian to have direct feedback. That's why we're coming forth with a bill

that's strong, and the policy and regulation framework will actually recognize

those consultations and ensure that this act serves communities large and small.

Now, the member did talk about the history of community living,

that we've really come a long way in society in general from the days of

institutionalization with people and individuals who had developmental

disabilities to recognizing that the best place for individuals was in their

community, at home or close to home, and providing opportunities for those

individuals to participate as fully as possible in the communities in which they

lived.

In the eighties that move garnered great steam, and that move made

its way from deinstitutionalization. Although the NDP talks a great game about

how they care, they actually were inept at carrying that momentum forward. That

momentum stalled in the nineties because that government wasn't prepared to

think outside the box. That government was not prepared to look at something

other than "government must do everything for everybody all the time."

This government, while in opposition, talked to the community

living sector, family caregivers, self-advocates, academics, professionals in

the field — including professionals, by the way, in the Ministry of Children and

Family Development, bureaucrats who that member suggested didn't know what they

were doing. I find that an insult to our public servants who are a critical part

of this new framework.

While in opposition, we listened to that community who said the

momentum for us to be in community living is to continue that devolution. We've

now gone away from institutions to community care and home care, but we also

need to move from government being the driver and the organizer and the

deliverer of those services to the community itself taking charge of the

services we know our family members and our loved ones need to maximize their

independence and their ability to participate in the community.

There is no question that we listened when in opposition. When

that member was a member of government, she didn't listen at all. When we got

elected, what did we do? We actually laid out the framework that was visionary

and that actually looked outside the box, outside the structures of rigid

government silos. We moved forward with this new authority that would transfer

the responsibility and the accountability from government, from politicians, to

the people involved in the community living sector. Now, that was a bold move.

It was a move that was noticed not just across Canada but in fact around North

America and in Europe. As we moved to devolve those services away from

government and closer to the community that was being served, we were actually

looking at a new model.

The member mentioned the time it's taken for us to get to this

point. Her time lines are correct, but her understanding of how significant a

move this is clearly isn't. That government moved forward on things regardless

of the facts. That's how you got Hydrogate. That's how you got fast ferries.

That's how you got the Ministry of Children and Family Development's seven

ministers between 1993 and 2001 and three between 1998 and 2001. They just moved

without any consideration, without any thought into what was happening.

We've made sure that as we take this vision and make it

implemented on the ground, we've got one thing at the centre of that agenda.

We've got our eye on the ball for one thing and one thing only — that those most

vulnerable who are receiving these services see no negative impacts from this

visionary change and, in fact, see an improvement and enhancement in the

services. I'm proud that the minister ensures that we're not going to move

forward until we've got that in place.

[ Page 11355 ]

[1525]

The NDP just rushed all over the place and made mistakes all over

the place. We all remember that the Ministry of Children and Family Development

under that government was in the news every week for inept decisions made by the

politicians. That ministry under the NDP had nine independent offices reviewing

every decision a front-line social worker made — nine. We have the best social

workers in North America right here in British Columbia, but they got such mixed

messages from the NDP that they were unable to make any decisions. In fact, the

NDP brought in a system that put social workers behind the desk 70 percent of

the time, filling out reports, and only 30 percent of the time looking after

family services or children at risk.

Well, we've recognized that we've got professional social workers,

so we've removed that kind of bureaucracy and that kind of conflicting

oversight so that front-line social workers can practise to their full scope of

practice and serve families. The result is that families get better service.

Social workers are doing the work they're supposed to be doing, and we're now

moving to the next phase, which is looking at how we can devolve services even

further. We've done things the right way. That government most certainly did

not.

Why am I so pleased with Bill 45 and the fact that we're moving

forward with the authority for community living? It is because it continues that

devolution. It ensures that the heroes in our community — those who actually

live day to day supporting, nurturing and loving individuals with developmental

disabilities — continue to increase the control they deservedly should have over

the course of their loved ones' lives, and that communities continue to have

more control and structure over the services provided in that community to meet

the needs of those individuals, whether those individuals live in a larger urban

area like greater Victoria or a smaller area like Prince Rupert. The community

and those living in the community are the best to make those decisions.

This act does some important things, though. It establishes

accountability and responsibility. It certainly doesn't abrogate government's

role in that, but it ensures that the community has the structure through the

authority to deliver those services in a more timely and effective way for the

clients and the loved ones they're involved with. It removes government from

that day-to-day operation — which, by the way, often came out of Victoria, which

meant that it was not relevant to people living in other parts of the province —

and ensures greater relevance.

The other thing that's important about this is that this is not

done in isolation. It was a vision that this government — the Premier and the

ministers — had, but after that, we went directly back into the community to

consult. Exposure bills, as the member of the opposition criticized, are

actually one of the many ways in which we've consulted the community living

sector. The bill, an exposure bill, is just one more way to ensure that over the

summer, those that will be affected by this act — those with developmental

disabilities and their families and caregivers — had an opportunity to provide

the ministry directly with input.

That's critical because it ensures that as we move forward, as the

authority is named and as it starts to do its work and as the programs are

transferred over, they've got the benefit of that information from large and

small communities. I, for one, am absolutely pleased that we've gone through

extensive consultation leading up to the exposure bill being introduced in the

House in the spring, but then, subsequently, all throughout the summer…. We've

provided it in a way that allowed people not to have to spend a lot of money,

not to have to travel to Victoria or Vancouver. From their own communities, they

could provide detailed information and feedback to the minister.

It's important to note who we're talking about here in terms of

who this authority is going to have oversight on. It's for all those with

developmental disabilities aged six forward. It's a large population; it

includes adults. Currently, it has a budget of $600 million.

I can tell you that British Columbia is a leader in the types of

community services we provide for those with developmental disabilities. There's

always more to be done. There are always new enhancements. There are always

different ways to do things. This government is always prepared to look at all

of those new options, but by having the authority available, people who live in

the community living sector daily, being closer to the people receiving the

service and closer to those providing the service, will be able to be more

responsive as new program ideas emerge and as new literature is published on

services for people with developmental disabilities.

Do you know who's going to benefit from that? The group we had our

eye on to begin with — those most vulnerable in our community, those with

developmental disabilities. That's what this is all about.

[1530]

You know, it frustrates me that the opposition would take this

segment of our population and play politics with it. It's actually

reprehensible. For ten years they did nothing with this sector, left them to

wither on the vine. Individualized funding? Oh, don't want to talk about that.

New ways and new programs to allow participation in the community? Oh, don't

want to talk about that. Different setups for group homes that provide greater

flexibility for individuals to participate in the community? Oh, don't want to

talk about that. How about contract reform — different outcomes, actually

measuring the performance of contractors to make sure that the services are

being provided and that the clients are benefiting from the services? "Oh, don't

want to talk about that."

Now that we're actually moving forward with a vision for community

care on behalf of those same individuals with developmental disabilities, the

opposition wants to play politics. Well, I can tell you that this government

doesn't play politics with those individuals. We want to make sure that we're

providing the kind of care they deserve and the support for their families. We

will continue to do that. We will continue

[ Page 11356 ]

to work on behalf of those families and with those families to ensure those

services.

The NDP used to do things like actually expropriate charitable

buildings — take them over, take them back from the community. We're providing

back to the community, and we're providing them with the supports and the

structure to enhance and improve services for people with disabilities.

One of the things we're ensuring is that most of the services

provided to individuals with developmental disabilities are done through service

contracts. One of the things we're working on as a government, and I know the

minister is working on, is ensuring that as the authority is up and running and

the transfer of those contracts from government to the authority happens, the

service providers and the recipients of the service are clear on what's

happening so that we have that smooth transition so that on the ground,

ultimately, initially nothing will look any different.

There's a lot of work involved with that. You've got electronic

systems. You've got contracts. You've got the type of work involved in

administering those on a daily basis that has to make sure that it's all in

place so that we don't make any errors. I know that the minister — and he spoke

about this in his statements — is ensuring at the ground level that there's no

disruption.

The benefit of having the community living authority is that over

time, those services can be enhanced. The contracts can be improved — made more

specific to the community and to the individual — and ultimately the service

provided to the individual and the support to the family should be improved. I

don't know why the opposition doesn't think that's a good idea. I think it's a

heck of a good idea. I know that the constituents I have been dealing with for

the last three years on this file in community living are eager to see that

transition and to work with the authority to improve those services and improve

those contracts and deliverables so that the benefit goes to the individuals

being served.

It's also important to recognize that although this is going to be

an independent authority, it is still an operating agency of government. It's

not like government is off the hook. Government is still responsible for the

services, but what we've recognized is that there's a better way, a more

visionary way to deliver those services.

The minister, in his comments, has mentioned that there's a new

assistant deputy minister who will be the initial CEO of the authority. I think

that is the kind of good thinking that leads to strong transition. You'll have a

board that will have someone who understands how government works, understands

the goals of the community living authority and can help the board move in that

transition so that, again, services are enhanced as we move forward. That, to

me, makes a lot of sense.

The member opposite, the NDP, raised a concern about the makeup of

this authority. There are a couple things that are important to remember. When

the NDP were government, they would appoint their friends and hacks to boards.

That's how you got B.C. Hydro's only generation project being built in Pakistan.

They got their buddies on there and then quietly sold shares back to their

buddies. They didn't actually do anything about enhancing generation in British

Columbia, but Pakistan's got a beautiful new dam. Or B.C. Ferries. They put all

their buddies on B.C. Ferries, and when their buddies on B.C. Ferries said,

"Jeez, that fast ferry thing is probably not a good idea," they fired all their

friends and put on some more friends.

We said from day one….

An Hon. Member: They didn't have that many friends.

J. Bray: They didn't have that many friends. That's true.

They ran out of them pretty quickly.

[1535]

What we said was that when we got elected, we would be appointing

people to boards based on merit — no different than what we brought in with the

merit commissioner for the public service. We actually want people on boards who

understand the business that the board's involved in, not because they're

friends of ours or friends of the NDP or friends of big labour or friends of big

business, but because they're actually competent and they can actually manage

the business of that board.

Why is ICBC actually being able to improve road safety, reduce

claims and increase efficiency? It's because we've got a board in ICBC that

knows how to run an insurance company. Why is B.C. Hydro able to run more

effectively, more efficiently, and put long-range plans forward? It's because

they've got people who understand how to run a utility. And who is going to be

on the community living authority? It's people who understand how to run a

service-based organization with a budget of $600 million.

I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell this to the member

of the opposition. It is also going to have people…. I believe that we're going

to have over 50 percent of those people being family members or those

significantly involved in the care of somebody with a developmental disability —

over half. In fact, the member's fear is ill-based, but those people are still

going to be based on merit. They actually are going to have to be able to

operate and make decisions to run a $600 million operation. That, to me, is

basic common sense.

We recognize that it needs to be people who understand the

community living sector, and nobody knows that better than family members,

caregivers and those that are intimately involved in the community living

sector. That's who is going to make up, in my belief, the majority of that

board, and that is good news for the community living sector. But it's also good

news for the taxpayer, because they know they're going to have a board that can

competently manage $600 million.

Now, we always have to work towards improving services for people

with developmental disabilities. We always have to make sure that services fit

urban needs and rural needs. We always have to listen to the care-

[ Page 11357 ]

givers, the family members, who essentially in many cases put their lives on

hold to provide care to their loved one who has a developmental disability.

The community living authority provides an avenue to effect

positive change on behalf of those with developmental disabilities. What the

general public wants to know is: what's in place to protect those individuals?

Who's got scrutiny over this activity, who has oversight, and how can we have

confidence that the services are being provided, that services are being

enhanced and that the taxpayer is being protected? Well, this authority falls

under all the oversight that other agencies of government fall under. Certainly,

requirements of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act for public

disclosure of financial information are all in place. Just like B.C. Hydro, just

like ICBC, the financial operations of the community living authority must be

made available to the public.

In addition — and it's important for people to know this so that

they have a certain level of comfort — the authority is also subject to freedom

of information. So in fact, family members and service providers are going to be

governed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Not

only does the public have the scrutiny, but also individuals who are involved in

the community living sector — especially clients — have the protection that's

afforded by law. That's important, because of course there is a lot of personal

information that goes into the provision of service for people with

developmental disabilities. It's important that people know that from an

accountability standpoint, the Freedom of Information Act applies but also that

that personal sensitive information is protected by the same piece of

legislation. That's in place, and that's important.

The other thing that's really important is that this does not move

away from the need for independent oversight. So the child and youth officer is

still responsible for oversight with respect to children. The difference is that

when the opposition, the NDP, were in government, they had nine offices

overseeing individual decisions. Of course, they had slightly different

perspectives, and all that did was provide conflicting reviews, conflicting

policy advice and conflicting decisions. The end result for the front-line

social worker, for the resource worker and for the policy-makers was utter

paralysis.

[1540]

We've actually said we need to have individual oversight, but we

need to have it in one place so that professional social workers, professional

service providers and the contract providers don't get conflicting messages. The

child and youth officer is there to ensure that the services that are provided

to children and youth are specifically included in their office. That oversight

will be there for children, just as it is for child protection.

The other important issue is that community living B.C. will be

included under the auspices of the ombudsman. With respect to fairness,

integrity and delivery of service in an administratively fair fashion, community

living — the authority — and community living B.C. will be under the auspices of

the ombudsman.

We have the independence that the community has asked for, for the

delivery of services for people with developmental disabilities, but we have the

structure through the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, from the

ombudsman, from the child and youth officer, and from freedom of information to

ensure that both on individual case decisions as well as the larger expenditure

decisions, full accountability is there, full public scrutiny is there, and

ultimately government will continue to be responsible for that. But the

individual decisions for families, for caregivers, for service providers, for

communities, for the individual living with a developmental disability will

continue to be devolved to the community where it rightfully belongs.

I think that it's a rather sad day when the NDP has nothing else

to do but to play politics with the community living sector. It has nothing more

substantive in their debate than to worry about time lines that they never stuck

to when they were in government, but that we actually ensured were making the

right decisions…. If that's all they had to criticize, I find that rather

shocking — and to actually criticize, as I said earlier, the number of ministers

when they had a revolving door. You may remember that Ed John from Prince

George, a perfectly fine individual but not an elected member of this body,

became the Minister for Children and Families for a period of time because

they'd gone through the gene pool in the NDP caucus and were left without much

to choose from.

I'm heartened that several of those NDP bright lights that never

made it into cabinet in that revolving door are now seeking nomination and

re-election. We'll see their star talent rise again. There are some here in the

capital region and around the province. Some of their bright lights are

reappearing. I look forward to the campaign when we have Glen Clark's reunion

tour happening around the province.

But I certainly think it's unfortunate that the NDP chooses the

community living sector as one to play politics. We've never played politics.

We've always put the needs of the most vulnerable at the top of the agenda.

We've put the families at the top of the agenda and the professionals who

provide service at the top of the agenda. They can resort to politics. We're

going to continue to resort to good policy, good implementation, and improve

lives for those living with developmental disabilities. I fully support this

bill.

M. Hunter: Actually, I was quite enjoying that.

I rise to speak in support of the Community Living Authority Act,

Bill 45. In doing so, I have to acknowledge that if somebody had asked me three

and a half years ago, before I got elected to this place, if I would be standing

here to talk about this bill, I would have scratched my head and wondered what

on earth we would be talking about. But I have had the benefit of learning much

about this whole subject from dedicated volunteers in the Nanaimo Association of

Community Living. I have been able to spend time with that or-

[ Page 11358 ]

ganization, with some of the families whose children, adult children, receive

their services. I have worked with that organization to try and understand the

challenges that it faces in times of fiscal restraint. I, therefore, am pleased

to be able to stand here with at least a modicum of understanding about what

this bill is trying to do.

I listened, as well, to the comments from the member of the

opposition, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I think it was the Hon.

John Crosbie who once talked about the nabobs of negativity. I'm sure he was

thinking about that member when he coined that phrase, because all I heard were

negative comments about a bill whose objectives, in my mind, are both overdue

and honourable.

[1545]

You know, to listen to that member talk about

revolving doors is just a little bit rich. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill

talked about the number of ministers for Children and Families that the last NDP

government had. I also recall that in one year alone, they had three ministers

in this one portfolio: Ed John for five months, Gretchen Brewin for a few months

and Lois Boone, all in one year. If we are talking about revolving ministry

doors, then I would agree that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant knows an

awful lot more about that subject than do I or other members on the government

side.

She also alleges chaos in the ministry and taking time to do this

stuff. Yes, this exercise, this bill has taken probably longer to come to

fruition than any of us who have spent time on this subject would have liked. I

think it's important that we understand that we are talking about changes in the

way in which government provides services to people and families who are in need

of those services. I think that to get it right is more important than to do it

quickly. I view this bill as being really one more step in a long process in our

society in which we have come to recognize and tried to deal with people and

families who have problems with developmental disabilities.

I'd just like you to cast your mind back, Mr. Speaker, because I

know you're almost old enough to do it, to think about the changes that have

occurred over the past half century or even longer. If you just take as a

guideline…. I'm sure that like me you have read many of the novels of Charles

Dickens of 150 years ago, talking about the way society treated people who were

not perhaps as mentally able or as physically able as most of the population. If

you just stop for a moment to think about how our society in Canada has

progressed from the kind of conditions that Dickens talked about and I'm sure

existed in the early years of Canada as a nation. Think about where we were and

where we have come. Think about how these people with developmental

disabilities, children and adults both, were isolated from society. They were

hidden, in many cases, by their families because of the issues they had.

Basically, we removed from our society a whole bunch of individuals, and that

was the way it was for a long time.

Thankfully, those days are past. Over the past few decades we as a

society here in Canada, here in British Columbia, have come to understand that

people with developmental disabilities have far too much to offer our society to

be hidden away. I have had the pleasure of attending events from my association

of community living that I referred to earlier, the Nanaimo association. I've

had the opportunity and the pleasure of attending functions of theirs where,

with adults with developmental disabilities and their families, I've seen the

enjoyment and the sheer joy on the faces of people who are getting attention and

receiving the kind of services that we are, as a government, responsible to

provide. I think these folks who have developmental disabilities have an awful

lot to offer us in terms of the way they behave and the way they respond to

stimuli.

We have come to develop both in law and in our day-to-day

practice, in the majority of cases, respect for every individual irrespective of

their creed, colour, age or in this case their ability. That is a development in

our society where I think, without being too dramatic about it, this bill

actually moves us forward one more step.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill talked about world leadership

in this area. I think one of the things that has struck me in the discussions

I've had with people involved is the move to create an authority — an authority

related to government but acting independently — and disburse a significant

budget of taxpayer dollars. We in British Columbia are very much setting new

standards and new approaches. We have exhibited here global leadership, and

exhibiting that global leadership has created some discussion and debate which

has, in turn, caused this very notable event to have been deferred beyond, as I

said, the time that many of us would have preferred.

[1550]

You know, most of us in this chamber are able to go about our

daily business. We live independently. Well, at least I live dependent. I'm

dependent on my family, but we certainly go about our daily tasks and our

thought processes in an independent way.

We take that for granted. It's something that I wish everybody

could do, but the fact is that they cannot. We have a significant number of

people in our society who need the help, and I, for one, am pleased that we are

taking this step forward. I believe it is a progressive step forward, through

Bill 45, to give those people and their families…. Let's not forget that adults

with developmental disabilities, who are going to be the major focus of the

agency, are people who really do need our support. It's a daunting task to have

an adult child who is reliant on you, your home and your life. We can only

imagine as people not in that position how difficult life must be, without

thinking about the services we are here to provide.

I think this bill is a very important one. It brings a new,

different and world-leading focus on people. Its intent is to improve the

services that we as government are responsible for providing. Those services are

clearly the services that the people of British Columbia

[ Page 11359 ]

expect to be provided to those who are less fortunate and, in this case,

suffer from developmental disabilities.

The member of the opposition was critical about the consultation

process. She talked about how, God forbid, government would go out on the

Internet and actually ask people to comment on a bill which was introduced in

this chamber some five months ago. A message to the member of the opposition: we

have had the Internet around us now for going on ten years. This government has

been very progressive in the way it deals with both electronic commerce and

electronic means of communicating with its citizens. Every one of us, as

members, does that. I think it's a little strange that a member would talk about

how she was bemused or critical of a ministry that would actually go to

electronic means of consultation.

The fact is that this is a big place that we live in, and it is

often much easier for people to sit down in front of their PC and take a look at

a document in the comfort of their home, develop some thoughts, type them out

and send them in. I think that engagement with people through electronic means

has actually improved our ability as government and public servants to deal with

people in a more honest and sometimes even more efficient way, although I must

say that the volume of e-mails that comes across each of our desks is sometimes

a little bit daunting.

I don't get that somebody would be critical of a process of

consultation that not only took in the five months of the summer of 2004 but was

the subject of consultation with people in the business of community living and

provision of services and families with people needing those services. That

discussion didn't just start in May; that discussion has been going on for the

length of this government. I think it's not fair and certainly not correct to

suggest that the consultation process that was employed to get us to the stage

where we are — second reading of this bill — was somehow faulty. That doesn't

mean that everybody agrees with every little bit of the bill. It would be very

unusual, frankly, if they did.

I want to comment a little bit on some issues that have been

raised. I think there's been a fear out there that somehow government is

relieving itself of the responsibility we have as a society to people with

developmental disabilities. That simply isn't true. The bill makes it very clear

that government is still responsible. It does set up an agency, an authority,

and gives that authority a degree of independence, but there remains government

responsibility. There remains the ability for the public to scrutinize how the

budget of the authority is developed and how it's used. It gives the public the

ability to scrutinize how the provision of services and the development of those

services is done. I think that this development, the creation of an authority,

is one more example of how this government is being intelligent in the use of

public resources.

[1555]

I've had the argument made to me that if you don't have a public

servant inspecting this, checking on that and making sure that a particular

service or a particular program gets put in place, then somehow as a society

we're all going to go and do our own thing, and there's going to be chaos. I

don't subscribe to that theory, quite honestly. I think that if we expect

government through various ministries to have civil servants on every street

corner as though they were policemen at a football match in the United Kingdom….

I mean, we can't live that way. We all have responsibility as citizens as well

as rights, and part of our responsibility is to take note of what's going on

around us, to bring to the attention of authorities, including government

ministries and civil servants, when things don't seem right.

I much prefer that kind of a society to one where we expect a

civil servant — whether it be from the Ministry of Children and Family

Development or the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection or the Ministry of

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries — to be checking up on what our people do day in

and day out. I don't think society should work that way. I don't think it does

work very well that way.

I see the creation of this authority as one more example of where

our government is moving responsibility as well as authority to citizenry in a

way that retains the fundamental responsibility we have as government, as I've

said, for providing these services. I am quite happy with the mechanism this

bill proposes for the community living authority.

I know there have been questions raised about qualifications for

board membership. I think the most important qualification for the member of any

board is merit. It's ability. Can the person do the job that is laid out for

that particular board?

One of the reasons I ran for election in this place was that I was

fed up with the last government, which simply appointed its friends. If you were

in the business community, you couldn't get close to decision-making, never mind

get appointed to boards and so on.

This government has changed that. This government has changed to a

system where we ask people to step forward with their résumés to say: "Here's

how I can serve the public interest of British Columbia. Here's how I can serve

on this board or that board. Here are my qualifications. Here's the amount of

time I'm able to spend." We are able to take that information, and we are able

to ask people to serve British Columbians in many, many ways that affect our

daily lives — and some that don't, frankly.

That's what's important about the qualifications for a board. I

know there are people in the whole field of community living who would like to

see some quotas put on a board or specification qualifications — that there

should be a certain number of people or family members dealing with adults with

developmental disabilities — and I hope that happens. I hope we can find people

to serve on the board of this authority who are in daily touch with the kinds of

issues we have to deal with. I really hope that's the case. Most important is

that we have people who are able to do the job and do the job on behalf of all

of those who are going to receive the services.

[ Page 11360 ]

To those who have expressed some concern about the issue of

qualifications for the board, I note that in this bill there is provision for an

advisory committee that will involve people who have developmental disabilities.

When you add all that up and look at the structure proposed for the board, what

it means is that we're talking about what is, I think, the objective of people

who have commented on this particular part of the bill. We are trying to involve

people who have developmental disabilities in the evolution of services and

programs that affect their lives. That's an important objective, and I expect

the structure of the board and the advisory committee will indeed lead to that

outcome.

[1600]

Lastly, I want to go back to a theme that I spoke about earlier.

It would be nice to make big leaps. It would be nice to take this subject of

dealing with people with developmental disabilities and providing services and

make big leaps forward. In many respects, I think this bill does that. As I've

said, we are exhibiting global leadership — a way of dealing with issues that I

believe is unique, certainly in North America and probably in the western world.

Most importantly, it represents in my mind one more step in improving the lives

of people who have developmental disabilities.

Continuous improvement is a watchword in the industrial workplace

— continuous improvement in the way we deal with employees, continuous

improvement in the way we deal with product development, continuous improvement

in technology. Well, why can't we apply continuous improvement to the way in

which we deal with people who are less fortunate than we are and whose families

require improved services?

I think that this bill, Bill 45, the Community Living Authority

Act, leads very much in that direction, and I am pleased to be able to support

the bill.

J. Nuraney: I, too, rise in support of this bill. This

bill, again, is a sign of courage, of change, of boldness on the part of this

government. Ever since this government got elected, they have taken steps that

were considered to be bold, that were considered to be courageous, that were

considered to effect change. Every step that this government has taken has been

for the betterment of British Columbians. This is another one of those steps

that this government has undertaken.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As we know, people affected by disabilities, developmental

disabilities, have been treated in the past with one brush. There was a global

concept of how to deal with them. There was a universal structure of

institutions to look after them, without regard for their individual needs. This

government has taken that extra step to come closer to those people who need our

help the most. We are saying: "Let us individualize funding. Let us

individualize the need for that person who needs our help."

I think this is a step in the right direction. It is a change;

it's an evolution. Our member from Nanaimo pointed out that in the past, society

and families tried to hide people with disabilities because they were considered

something not to be very proud of. We as a society, in the last decade or two,

have come a long way in recognizing that we are dealing with people who are

humans, we are dealing with people who have souls, we are dealing with people

who need our help, and we should be there when they need it.

I remember two and a half years ago, when the member for

Surrey–White Rock tried to initiate this new dialogue among communities and the

stakeholders. I remember attending an event where the minister at the time was

invited to discuss this matter and to share his vision. This event was one of

great emotions. I saw tears being shed by people who were affected, by people

who were there in the room, the stakeholders, who saw this new vision of the

government and who felt that we were coming closer to them, that we were looking

them in the eye and saying: "How can we best help you?" I think this is the

model that will implement that vision. It will bring us closer to where we as a

government must go.

I commend the minister for bringing this forward. Once again, I

stand in support of this bill.

[1605]

D. Jarvis: I rise, as well, to support this bill. I must

say that I've always had a lot of concerns with regards to the aspect in

children and families with respect to people with disabilities, but this bill

certainly has my support — Bill 45, the Community Living Authority Act — which

is a move to bring in a new governance model for the delivery of community

living services.

Most of the families in the North Shore and in my riding

specifically who have children with disabilities face a lifelong service and

challenge. Heretofore, the problems have been quite a few. They enter into a

world that requires early intervention assistance and effective school programs

that they have to look at. Respite assistance is a major problem. Then they also

face placement problems.

The respite is the thing that probably caught my attention some

years ago. When the member for Richmond East was the critic for Children and

Families, I used to go out with her in the evenings to act as her bodyguard when

she had to travel through various places in Vancouver. It was a real concern to

sit there and listen to these families that had children with disabilities. Some

of them had not had any respite for four or five years. It was hard to actually

realize there are people who are that dedicated, even though it is their own

children. It always amazed me how they were standing up bright and happy and

were willing to face the problems that they had before them.

Perhaps the greatest heartbreak and fear of these people was the

period that they had to face…. That is the transition planning when the child

with a disability is going to enter into adulthood, the age of 19. A very heavy

period of life for someone looking after their

[ Page 11361 ]

child is when that child passes their eighteenth birthday and there is

nothing left — no support services — for them. As I said previously, the

Ministry for Children and Families, I believe, had…. The adult portion was

deficient. Here in this bill, Bill 45, I have a feeling that things have changed

now.

When a child goes to 19, the children's services end, along with

assistance to the parents. Some have kept their disabled children at home. This

becomes a very critical period in their life, as these parents also have aged

and reach a point where they know they are going to be unable to look after

their child. Heretofore, there has been a deficiency in that end of it. There

were concerns out there, as this is a very vulnerable population of our society.

I believe that they are entitled to be recognized as an essential service.

I will not go on forever and ever on this subject, but I do say

that I am supportive of this bill. I trust that the support and services will

follow for those who are indeed in need.

Mr. Speaker, I'm actually quite excited for those parents that I

have met — a group of parents that I met less than a month ago in my riding who

were so concerned as to what was going to happen to their children and were

suddenly realizing that there was not going to be any support for them. All of

them, to my surprise…. They weren't expecting the government to do everything

for them. They were prepared to look after them. They were prepared to look at

the fact that they had to consider insurance and investments for their children

as they grow older.

[1610]

Things are getting better. I'm so pleased that this is now

happening, so I can go back to the parents in my riding, and I'm sure they will

all be in agreement that Bill 45 will be not the answer to all their prayers but

certainly of great assistance to them.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I support Bill 45 during

second reading.

G. Halsey-Brandt: It gives me great pleasure to rise this

afternoon to speak in support of Bill 45, the Community Living Authority Act.

Just before I make some comments on the particulars of the act, I would like to

remind all members that in fact October is Community Living Month in British

Columbia, as proclaimed by the Premier of British Columbia. So it certainly is

an appropriate time that we're dealing with this legislation.

Just a couple of personal comments before I get into the meat of

the legislation. I've had the opportunity every year for the past seven years to

attend the anniversary celebrations of the Richmond Community Living Society,

and we just had those celebrations this past Saturday in the Richmond Centre

Mall. I must admit there were dozens of participants that attended, both members

of the society and of course the general public as well. It was a great

celebration. Again, it celebrated the inclusion of people with developmental

disabilities in our broader community. As many of the members have said before

me, I think we have certainly made great strides all throughout our community in

the past several decades in really being inclusive, and that's what it is all

about — bringing out the best in everybody. There were informative speeches,

entertainment, awards and information booths, so it really was a community

participation with the Richmond Community Living Society.

Secondly, I would like to recognize the Developmental Disabilities

Association, which offers services both in the city of Richmond where I come

from and in Vancouver as well. I would just like to mention some of those

services that they deliver: job placement and training, residential group homes

that they operate, semi-independent apartments, self-help programs, an infant

development program, integrated preschool and child care services, children's

hospice and respite services, after-school leisure and life skill programs, and

family advocacy and support services. Certainly, as I say, over the past decade

we've come a long way in bringing everyone inclusively into our society, and

these types of programs are there for people with developmental disabilities to

avail themselves. I would finally like to thank the family members and

volunteers who work with those in our community with a developmental disability.

It really is all about inclusion.

The bill itself, the Community Living Authority Act, introduces….

I believe, as other members have said this afternoon, that it is really

groundbreaking legislation that will transform how community living services are

to be provided to individuals with developmental disabilities in British

Columbia. It's really a legislative framework that now allows the community

delivery of services that were formerly provided by the government. It's a real

step in an ongoing process we've undertaken through this term of our government.

The bill establishes community living B.C. as the permanent

provincial authority responsible for providing support to adults and children

with developmental disabilities and their families. This bill will enable, as I

said, the transfer of services from the Ministry of Children and Family

Development to this permanent authority. With this legislation, obviously, the

ministry remains responsible for setting the standards, and of course it retains

the power to monitor and assess the new authority, but it really gives this

community-based authority the power to get on with its work closer to home and

closer to individuals.

Earlier this afternoon the member of the opposition that was in

the House quoted some material out of the press release from the B.C.

Association for Community Living. Not all of it was quoted, and I would just

like to add a couple of spots in that press release as well: "With the

legislation in place the community can finally get on with the project of

creating a service system that reflects the vision of those who use the

services, that offers more flexibility and responds to the needs of individuals

and families more creatively." I think that really is the nub of this

legislation.

[1615]

I think it's really how you look at it. Is the glass half full, or

is the glass half empty? I think the government

[ Page 11362 ]

members are looking and saying: "Look, this glass is getting fuller." It's

certainly a step in the right direction.

There were a couple of concerns raised by people with

disabilities, and I think we have to face those. The first was the question of

funding. Certainly, the decade of the nineties left this province in a terrible

economic state that we've been rebuilding over the past three years. As we know,

our economy is turning around.

I have the great pleasure to serve on the Finance Select Standing

Committee of the Legislature and to tour the province in their prebudget

consultation that we're going on with groups throughout 16 communities in

British Columbia, asking them what they would like to see in budget 2005-06. We

have heard a lot of groups come forward. One that particularly stands out in my

mind was the Williams Lake Association for Community Living just last Thursday.

I welcome their input and their request, of course, for additional funding. I'm

sure, as our economy is improving in the province, that the Finance minister can

look at that and can look at these associations and see how we can move forward.

The second concern that was raised was about representation on the

board. There are two boards, really, that are set up in the act. The first one:

the act requires the board of directors to have skills, qualifications and

experience necessary to direct a provincewide agency. As was mentioned earlier,

this board will probably manage a budget of more than $600 million a year. But

it requires that a majority of these board members either have a significant

personal relationship with individuals who are receiving community living

services or are receiving community support services themselves, so there really

is a continuity and a touch there with people who are utilizing the services.

The second one, of course, refers to the advisory committee of

self-advocates. I understand that the interim authority is currently working

with self-advocates to create that advisory committee. Self-advocates have been

part of advisory committees for years, and after almost two decades of effective

representation on various committees it is now, for the first time, going to be

entrenched in legislation. So we really are moving forward.

This legislation gives British Columbians with developmental

disabilities and their families better options and more opportunities in their

communities. This legislation makes a major step forward. Perhaps it's not

perfect, but it is a major step in the right direction. It's close to home, it

individualizes programs, and hopefully, as our economy permits, more funding

will certainly come their way.

G. Trumper: I rise in support of Bill 45, which I believe

is a step in the right direction. This will not make a great difference to these

individuals who will come under the Community Living Authority Act — the people

who live in our communities, who are looked after by their own families, who

maybe live in group homes — as they would see it, but what it will do is enable

people to have choices in how they look after the members of their family who

need the help.

It will also give those who have disabilities an opportunity,

through an advisory committee, to have input into decisions that are made. But

it is setting up an authority that, in discussions that I have had with many

people — as it, obviously, over the last few months has been a contentious

issue…. That would probably be the best way to put it. Most of the people that I

have talked to think this is the right thing to do. It's not always easy making

change. You can work with change, or you can decide not to work with change. The

people I have talked to want to work with the changes to make better lives for

the members of their families.

[1620]

One of the things that I have always been somewhat concerned about

is some of the inequality of the services that are provided to individuals who

need these services. We have a very strong community living association in the

community I live in, and they do wonderful things for the individuals they are

serving. Out of that particular establishment the staff run a small business

that provides work that is done with wood, and they build and provide planters.

They used to have an individual who did the most beautifully crafted lamps,

which he helped them make and donate to the association so that they could sell

them at the appropriate time and make a profit to provide some of the extras

that some of these people need.

One of the issues I have found when I have sat with people is that

there appears to be an inequality in the amount of service. Some people are able

to get a great deal of service for their particular member of the family.

They're able to get help on a daily basis for, in some cases, 24-hour coverage

in cases where it is needed.

One of the concerns I have had in the past is that there are a lot

of people out there who have brought up a child who has mental disabilities, and

they've done it on their own. They haven't asked for any assistance through the

years. As the child became older and became an adult, maybe there was a pension

available. Those parents have been getting older.

I had someone in my office not long ago who was telling me how

difficult it was for them to get respite. They are older. They have an adult

child who is in their forties or fifties, so therefore they must be in their

seventies and eighties. It's becoming more difficult. They want to look after

that particular member of their family, but they would like some respite. I

think with the changes that are being made and that will be under the community

living authority, there will be greater opportunity for those individual needs

to be addressed.

I recognize that over the past three years it has been difficult

in funding. I sincerely am looking forward to the fact that we understand there

will not be any changes negatively in the funding. We can certainly hope — and I

certainly will be delivering the message that the previous speaker has delivered

to the Finance minister — that as our economy has got better, we can look for

some increases and extra support in those particular areas to support those

particular people who do need it and to address that very issue of the parent

who

[ Page 11363 ]

is getting older, who is tired. All they're asking is for a day's respite

sometime, or a couple of days, so they can do things for all the years they have

supported their member of the family through some difficult times, have seen

them through schooling and are now looking after them. It's been tough for some

of them. We'll certainly be asking some questions at committee stage on those

particular issues.

You know, children who have disabilities have a difficult time in