2002 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Cruise ship industry in B.C.

L. Mayencourt

The Beachcombers television series

H. Long

Work of Elizabeth Fry societies

E. Brenzinger

Oral Questions

Mental health services for Vancouver's North Shore and

Powell River

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Cheema

Mental health funding and services

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Cheema

Penalties for environmental offences

W. McMahon

Hon. J. Murray

Working forest land base initiative

W. Cobb

Hon. S. Hagen

New hospital for Abbotsford

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman annual report, 2001

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills report

Second Reading of Bills

Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38)

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hagen

Committee of the Whole House

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 46)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Reporting of Bills

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 46)

Third Reading of Bills

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 46)

Committee of the Whole House

Office for Children and Youth Act (Bill 43)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

V. Anderson

K. Manhas

Reporting of Bills

Office for Children and Youth Act (Bill 43)

Third Reading of Bills

Office for Children and Youth Act (Bill 43)

Committee of the Whole House

Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 44)

J. MacPhail

Hon. K. Whittred

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 44)

Second Reading of Bills

Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 42)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

[ Page 3471 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Cheema: I would like to introduce a newlywed couple in this House today.

Their names are Simmi and Janni Samra. They come from the great city of Surrey.

I would like the House to make them welcome.

Anderson: Today I would like to have you join me in welcoming Angelle

Desrochers-Rosner, who is very interested in educational activities and

particularly early childhood development, and Debbie Desrochers-Fulton,

vice-president of the parent advisory council for the Vancouver area.

[1405]

Hawes: It is my pleasure today to introduce Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, who is

the archbishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for North America. Just to show

that he is not a one-track person, he's also a guest lecturer in quantum physics

at the University of Utah. I'd like the House to make him very welcome.

Chong: Joining us in the gallery are two young people I've had the very

great pleasure of working with this session. One is the assistant legislative

assistant in my area. Her name is Ashley Spilak. The other is a young lady who

has agreed to work for a co-op term in my constituency office, a very bright

young lady. I hope that perhaps one day she'll be sitting in one of these seats.

Would the House please welcome Lindsay McCrae as well.

Sultan: I would like to introduce two guests: Anne-Marie Kains, recently

retired senior manager from Telus, and her spouse, Peter Kains, who's principal

of a firm which brews the finest lager this side of Munich. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: In the House this afternoon are 54 grades 4 and 5 students from École

Jules Quesnel in my riding of Vancouver–Point Grey, just a few blocks from

where I live. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. La Pierre, along with

seven of their parents. They have had a tour of the Legislature, and they're

here to enjoy question period. I hope we'll all make them welcome.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Joining us in the House today are Cindy Kauffman, Joe Lindgren and

Phil Hochstein. They're here for a number of meetings with members of the House.

Would the House please make them feel comfortable in Victoria.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 96 grade 4 students from

Coyote Creek Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. With them are

their teachers, Marcus Berndt and Kai Chin, and their parent volunteers who make

these trips possible. Also among them is Marina Lynn Chartier, granddaughter of

my very close friends Brenda Lee and Ross Bertnick. Would the House please make

them very welcome.

Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to stand in the House and introduce a

hard-working gentleman from British Columbia who is the president of EnerGreen

Power Inc. He's worked for the last decade trying to produce an ethanol industry

in our province and worked very hard in our region. There are a number of

processes that can be used, certainly, whether utilizing wood waste or grain.

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Bill Vanderland.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'd like the House to welcome two former constituents who are in the

gallery today: Tamara Schweeder and her father, Lloyd Schweeder. I ask the House

to make them welcome.

Mayencourt: I would like to recognize in the gallery today Capt. Kent

Rigbourn from the Royal Caribbean cruise ship the Radiance of the Seas ,

which is in Victoria's port today.

Also

joining us in the visitors' gallery is John Hansen of the North West Cruise Ship

Association. I'd ask that the House please make them welcome.

I'd also

like to have the House recognize two very important people from my campaign: a

gentleman by the name of Art Perret, who was my campaign manager, and his date

for the day, Sheila Butt, who also worked on my campaign. It just seems like

such a short time ago that we worked towards a year-ago anniversary. Thank you

very much for that. Would the House please make them welcome.

Last but

not least, my mother's in the House, and I wanted to have the House please make

her feel very welcome: Wilma Palmer.

[1410]

H. Long:

It's a great privilege that I have two more — they're not my constituents; in

fact, they're the constituents of Cariboo South — that are here today. I guess

everybody's realized now that it's three people that I've had come to visit me

in this House in the last year, so I'm really making a record.

I'd like to

introduce those two people. One is Gloria de la Osa, and the other is Thomas

Myers, who live at Shelling Lake in the Cariboo South riding. They're very dear

friends. I fly into their place. They treat me right. They're great people. I'd

like you to really give them a great welcome.

Hon. S.

Hagen: On behalf of the member for North Island, I'd like to inform the

House today that Sointula is proud to announce its 100th birthday celebration.

This takes place over the three days of May 18, 19 and 20.

[ Page 3472 ]

Sointula

means place of harmony — we could maybe call this place Sointula — in the

Finnish language. Founded in December of 1901, Sointula was sought out to be an

island utopia. Bought from the provincial government, Malcolm Island was owned

by the members of the Kalevan Kansa Colonisation Co. Ltd., which unfortunately

dissolved after a few years of immense hardship.

Half the

settlement dispersed to various locations after the breakup, but a few

determined Finns still remain. Inspired by two of the colony's leaders, they

continued their struggle for the utopian dream. To support the colony, the Finns

supplied the people of Alert Bay and the Port McNeill logging camp with fresh

fruit, vegetables and dairy products. They would deliver the products by rowing

to the various coastal settlements and also rowing over to the mainland to cut

hay for the island's cattle.

Even though

it's been 100 years, the drive for harmony still remains. Sointula welcomes all

members interested in attending the celebration and thanks the House for its

time to make this special announcement.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 54, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002. This omnibus bill amends a number of statutes. They

are the Assessment Act, Constitution Act, Ecological Reserve Act, Greater

Nanaimo Water District Act, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act

(1956), Greater Vancouver Water District Act (1924), Job Protection Act, Land

Surveyors Act, Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, Liquor Control and

Licensing Act, Liquor Distribution Act, Local Government Act, Mental Health Act,

Mineral Tenure Act, Mines Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act, Police Act, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, Public

Sector Employers Act, Public Sector Pension Plans Act, Public Service Labour

Relations Act and the Social Service Tax Act.

I will

elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading of this

bill.

I move that

this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 54

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) CRUISE SHIP INDUSTRY IN B.C.

Mayencourt: As the fellow members of the Legislature know, the cruise ship

industry in Vancouver is based in my riding of Vancouver-Burrard. We're very

happy to have them there.

The cruise

ship industry is a vibrant and growing part of our province's tourism sector,

and it continues to be a vital contributor to B.C.'s economy. Each sailing

grosses approximately $1.5 million. With close to 350 sailings a year, British

Columbia can expect to generate over $580 million.

[1415]

The cruise

industry anticipates 2002 to be its twentieth consecutive year of growth. Even

more encouraging is that port activities across Canada generate jobs. In fact,

the Vancouver port reports that there are 27,500 direct jobs, 18,500 indirect

and a further 15,600 induced jobs created. The cruise industry will provide $1.3

billion in wages to British Columbians in this year alone.

Another

important note is that stakeholders in the cruise industry have taken a

leadership role in the marine sector, introducing sound environmental practices

and standards. The North West Cruise Ship Association spends over $100 million

in ongoing programs. Updated data and new technology are a top priority,

reflecting an environmentally sensitive approach to business. Pacific North West

cruise line is establishing one of the finest and most environmentally sound

sailing fleets on the oceans today, something that British Columbians and the

people of my riding can be very excited about and proud of.

More and

more people over the past decade have chosen to take a cruise as a way of

experiencing the remarkable beauty of this corner of the world. Whether you're

going from British Columbia to Alaska or to some other destination, a cruise is

proving to be a safe and spectacular way to see British Columbia. I encourage

all of us here to take a cruise to experience the beauty that British Columbia's

cruise lines have to offer.

THE BEACHCOMBERS TELEVISION SERIES

H. Long:

I rise in the House today to speak about something that has contributed to the

vitality of my riding over the last 30 years. The CBC television series, The

Beachcombers , first aired in 1972, continued until 1991 and is still

broadcast today. To refresh your memory, the series was a family adventure show.

The main character was an immigrant beachcomber named Nick Adonidas, who was

forever battling with his arch-rival, Relic, a bitter old beachcomber.

[ Page 3473 ]

The

original story began when Jesse, Nick's sidekick, made a bet with a friend that

he could hitchhike down the west coast to South America. As it turned out, Jesse

made it only as far as Gibsons. During its peak, The Beachcombers

attracted two million viewers and was broadcast in more than 56 countries.

Throughout those 19 years, the TV show contributed to the community spirit of

the Sunshine Coast and has left a lasting legacy.

Beachcombers

memories are continued by the existence of Gibsons's most prominent landmark,

Molly's Reach. Recently, Telefilm Canada, a federally funded agency, turned down

the request to support a new Beachcombers movie. Telefilm Canada has a

budget to support Canadian productions. I am disappointed that they have decided

this project did not meet the criteria.

The

positive impact of this project would not only have been for the new family

viewers, but most important, it would have been great news for Gibsons. When the

news first spread that The Beachcombers movie was being discussed,

Jackson Davies, who has spearheaded the production, said that people were

stopping him on the street to express their excitement and anticipation of the

upcoming movie. I hope Telefilm Canada takes the opportunity to consider the

positive impact The Beachcombers has had on our community and for the

families across Canada.

WORK OF ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETIES

Brenzinger: I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge some of the

work the Elizabeth Fry Society does and has done in encouraging reform at all

levels of the criminal justice system as it affects women. National Elizabeth

Fry Week ends on Mother's Day each year in order to draw attention to the fact

that the majority of women who come into conflict with the law are mothers, most

of them sole supporters of their families at the time of incarceration.

When

mothers are sentenced to prison, they and their children are also sentenced to

separation. Many women find this the most severe punishment. The first Canadian

Elizabeth Fry Society was established in Vancouver in 1939 and has been working

for over 60 years with female offenders and ameliorating the circumstances in

which women live that lead to crime and incarceration.

Elizabeth

Fry societies are, almost without exception across Canada, the only voice that

speaks for women in prison or women struggling with the factors that lead to

involvement in the criminal justice system. They have a long track record of

providing programs and services that have been accepted across Canada.

[1420]

They have

developed the acceptance of schooling, addiction counselling and restitution to

the community as part of their rehabilitative strategy for offenders and the

first shelter for women of its kind, Sheena's Place, that enables homeless women

to be housed with their children.

I'd like to

thank the executive director, Shawn Bayes, for giving me the chance to visit

Sheena's Place at their open house last Thursday, which is located in my riding

of Surrey-Whalley. This facility exemplifies the commitment of the society to

work with building safer communities and increased family capacity to enable

children to have brighter futures.

Oral Questions

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

FOR VANCOUVER'S NORTH SHORE

AND POWELL RIVER

J. Kwan:

It's been two weeks since we asked the Minister of State for Mental Health about

cuts to the North Shore branch of B.C.'s Schizophrenia Society. I remind the

minister again that he told mental health patients he would not tolerate this

cut. The Schizophrenia Society on the North Shore has still not heard from the

minister. To the minister: when are they going to get their cheque?

Hon. G.

Cheema: If the member is going to ask me the same question, then my answer

is going to be the same. As we have said many times before, this government is

committed to removing the politics from our health care system. We must allow

our professionals the opportunity to fix the health care system. We will not

micromanage the health care system from Victoria.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

What the minister said was that he would not tolerate the cuts to mental health.

The B.C. Schizophrenia Society has also lost its government funding for the

respite services it provides to families on the North Shore. Respite services

provide families a lifeline, giving them a chance to take a breather from

providing a family member with full-time care.

To the

Minister of State for Mental Health once again: when he finally does reinstate

funding for the North Shore branch of the Schizophrenia Society, as he promised,

will he also commit to giving back their funding for their respite program?

Hon. G.

Cheema: The member opposite, who was the Minister of Health, made the

following statements in 1998: "We work continuously on standards

with…hospitals that provide services to mentally ill patients. We articulate

those standards regularly, and we expect the hospitals to meet those

standards…. There's no question that clear standards have to be met and

set." That was in 1998.

Instead of

doing what they said, the NDP micromanaged the health care system from Victoria.

We will change that.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

[ Page 3474 ]

Hon. G.

Cheema: We have given three-year goals and performance expectations to the

health authorities. Those will be met.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further

supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

What the minister said was that he would not tolerate cuts to mental health

funding. It's not just his words that count; his action is now needed. The

minister says over and over again that he's increased funding for mental health.

One would expect, then, that mental health services would be improved, not cut.

I would

like to point the minister's attention to another severe cut he's made to mental

health services. The mental health drop-in centre in Powell River has seen its

funding cut by nearly 75 percent. This is going to make it very hard for the

centre to keep its doors open. On top of that, the after-hours health care

crisis line worker has been cut as well. To make matters even worse, Powell

River's mental health outreach worker has been axed.

Why are

Powell River's mental health services being wiped out if, as the minister

claims, he's spending more money on mental health?

[1425]

Hon. G.

Cheema: It's amazing that $125 million is a cut for them. This year we are

spending $10.4 billion on health care in this province. That's $1.1 billion more

than last year. That's not a cut. This year we have allocated $17.8 million, new

dollars, in the mental health plan: $15 million for the community services, $2

million for the community psych sessions. All these things will improve the

mental health in this province.

As I said

earlier, the NDP is afraid that we'll be successful. Patients will benefit. This

takes time. This is the first time we have provided the equal distribution of

funds across the province. We have given clear guidelines and clear performance

outcomes, and they will be met, and patients will be improving.

MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING AND SERVICES

MacPhail: It's simply not credible for the minister to stand up in the House

and repeat that he's spending more money on mental health every time he's

presented with evidence of mental health services being slashed around the

province.

I guess the

question is: if he's spending more money, where on earth is it going, and why

are there critical mental health services being cut? The mental health community

itself is bewildered and very concerned about the minister's rhetoric. They have

told us that they've asked the minister to provide them with a detailed workplan

outlining where the new mental health dollars that he keeps talking about are

being spent so that they can get some answers. To date they have not heard a

word from the minister.

Will the

minister finally give the mental health community, the families, the patients

and the residents themselves the answers they're looking for? Will he table the

information that he talks about today?

Hon. G.

Cheema: The only party which betrayed the mental health patients was the

NDP. We made a promise during the campaign to spend…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Cheema: …and implement the mental health plan. We are spending $125

million, and we will also be spending an additional $138 million. Not a single

patient will be displaced without a proper community-based program. Part of our

plan is to spend $17.8 million this year. That will be spent on respite care,

day hospital programs and specialized residential care. That will only improve

the mental health care in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: This question is coming from the mental health community. It's

coming this week from the mental health community. I expect that they listened

very closely to the minister's answer and said they didn't get one piece of

information. Every single one of the services that he listed that he was funding

are cuts — cuts that they experience.

What the

mental health community is asking is: tell us where the money you claim to be

spending as a government is going. The Minister of State for Mental Health can't

even do it. I expect the community will be saying: "We wonder whether

there's any money being spent at all."

I ask the

minister again: please explain why mental health patients are seeing their

services cut when the minister claims to be expanding the services. Perhaps he

has an explanation for the contradiction.

Hon. G.

Cheema: The only contradiction is coming from the NDP. For ten years…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Cheema: …the mental health plan was announced three times by the NDP, and

it was never implemented. We made the promise, and we are fulfilling that

promise.

This member

should understand that this is the first time in this province we have given

clear guidelines and clear performance outcomes, and those must be met.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The minister has the floor. Order.

The minister has the floor.

[ Page 3475 ]

[1430]

Hon. G.

Cheema: We have given equal distribution for funds across the province. In

the past there was unequal distribution. We have corrected the mistakes of the

past. We are correcting the mistakes of the NDP. We are giving the real meaning

to mental health in this province.

PENALTIES FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES

McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

In the New Era document the government committed to protecting B.C.'s

environment. I understand that the minister is currently considering the

implementation of administrative penalties to help deter and punish

environmental offenders. Could the minister tell us how these penalties will

help her ministry to protect the province's environment?

Hon. J.

Murray: In order to protect the environment, the focus of this ministry is

to set strong, enforceable standards and to ensure they're respected. In order

to do that, we need a range of enforcement tools so that we can respond to the

seriousness of the infraction.

What we

have in most of our legislation right now is minor ticketing, which is small

dollar amounts, and that's appropriate for a small infraction. The alternative

is to file charges and actually take a proponent to court. That's appropriate in

some serious infractions. The conservation officer service has requested that

the ministry consider bringing in additional enforcement tools so that the

ministry can deal with those issues that are neither the very small nor the very

serious ones. That's what an administrative penalty would be.

We're

looking at that now. We're developing principles. We're considering

incorporating that into our legislative renewal and our regulatory renewal…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: …as we move forward.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has a supplementary

question.

McMahon: While British Columbians would certainly welcome new measures to

protect the environment, there must be safeguards in place to prevent the

possibility of abuse. To the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: what

assurances can she provide that the process for levelling these new fines will

be both clear and transparent?

Hon. J.

Murray: Clear and transparent is the kind of principle that we'll be

considering. In thinking about how to do this, what we're considering is

identifying a clear range of administrative penalties and then separating the

administration of the penalty and the actual decision about the penalty amount

from the conservation…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please

Hon. J.

Murray: …officer who has been carrying out the enforcement process. That

separation will ensure that it's a neutral administration of the consequence. We

intend to level the playing field through this mechanism, and we intend to be

more effective in protecting the environment.

WORKING FOREST LAND BASE INITIATIVE

W. Cobb:

My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

Notwithstanding the current softwood lumber dispute with the U.S., it is

important for the province to continue making the changes that are necessary to

improve the future of the forest industry. In the New Era document we

committed to developing a working forest land base in order to provide greater

stability to the many families who work in the industry. Can the minister

provide us with an update on the working forest initiative?

Hon. S.

Hagen: This government understands how important the forestry industry is

not only to the people who are in the riding of Cariboo South but indeed to all

of the people of British Columbia. At this time my ministry is continuing work

on a comprehensive discussion paper on this important topic. I can inform the

member that good progress is being made. We'll be ready with this discussion

paper in the coming months.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Cariboo South has a supplementary question.

W. Cobb:

The working forest initiative could have a profound impact on the future of both

my community and all British Columbians. Can the minister tell us what steps are

being taken to ensure there will be consultation during that process?

[1435]

Hon. S.

Hagen: As the member knows, the previous government introduced legislation

like the Forest Practices Code with no consultation. We all know the disastrous

results. Not only was there no consultation…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: …but during the ten disastrous years of that government the economy

of this province — including the forestry industry, the mining industry

[ Page 3476 ]

and other industries — was driven into the ground. They were driven out of

the province, investment was driven out of the province, and investment was not

welcomed in the province.

I'm pleased

to say that with regard to the consultations — the public consultations was

the question — right now my staff are travelling with the results-based code

committee to ensure that we have excellent coordination between the

results-based code initiative and the working forest initiative.

NEW HOSPITAL FOR ABBOTSFORD

MacPhail: The government has promised to build a new hospital in Abbotsford.

They have received a petition from 8,000 Fraser Valley residents saying:

"Do it now, and do it with public money." Instead of getting on with

it, the government is wasting health care dollars trying to find a way to turn

it over to the private sector. Two studies by respected accounting firms have

said that it would be a very risky venture. To the Minister of Health

Services.…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members.

MacPhail: To the Minister of Health Services: will he rule out private

sector involvement in this much-needed hospital and commit today that this

hospital will be publicly financed and publicly owned?

Hon. G.

Collins: If the member opposite felt so strongly about this hospital for the

good people in Abbotsford, she could have followed through with public funding

one of the 13 times her government announced the project.

Mr.

Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: When she was the Minister of Health, her government stuck so many

spades in the ground that there's a little pile over there of announcements from

the times that government stuck spades in the ground and said they were going to

come through with the money.

We are

going to build that project for the people of Abbotsford…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. G.

Collins: …and we're going to do it in the most cost-effective and

efficient way. Instead of just broken promises for 13 years, they're actually

going to get a hospital.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. members, order, please.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the ombudsman's 2001

annual report.

Reports from Committees

Penner: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills. I move that the report be read and received.

Motion

approved.

Law

Clerk:

"May 15, 2002

"Hon. Speaker:

"Your

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: that the

preamble

to Bill Pr401, intituled Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2002, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill

proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted.

Barry Penner, Chairman."

Penner: By leave I move that the report be adopted.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Bill Pr401

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I rise to inform the House of the status of progress of government

business.

Mr.

Speaker, at the beginning of this session, by unanimous consent and agreement,

this House passed new standing orders to implement a fixed calendar. Created

along with that was a new standing order 81.1, which provides for the process of

time allocation to ensure an orderly passage of legislation and conclusion of

government business.

[1440]

supporting the new process, I wish to advise the House of the status of the

progress of government business. As of this afternoon, with the introduction of

the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), all legislation which is

intended for passage in the spring sitting has been introduced and laid before

the House.

[ Page 3477 ]

There are two of those bills which government is intending to complete not

this spring but rather in the fall. Those are Bill 16, the Community Care

Facility Act, and Bill 47, the Business Corporations Act. As well, Mr. Speaker,

there will be other bills that will be introduced before the end of the month,

which will not pass this spring but will be debated in the fall sitting.

Negotiations

and discussions with the opposition have been ongoing and will continue. We have

offered and continue to offer the use of Committee A as a means to provide for

additional opportunity to debate whatever bills members would like to debate. I

will keep the House informed on the orderly progression of legislation in the

days ahead.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 38.

Second Reading of Bills

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

(continued)

J. Kwan:

Yesterday we were engaging in second reading debate of Bill 38. I had

adjourned debate. Just to recap a little bit in terms of where I had left off, I

was outlining for the House the many strengths of the environmental assessment

process as it exists now.

These

included bringing scrutiny to projects; promoting sustainability for future

developments; increasing awareness for public proponents; forcing stakeholders

and proponents to address environmental issues and look towards stewardship and

innovation; establishing and increasing the knowledge base for industry and

government; providing for public consultation and participation; providing for

good long-term investment for industry and the province with low costs to

proponents, as the current process's average cost to proponents is less than 1

percent of capital costs; enabling legal enforcement; and establishing the

opportunity for adaptive management, as proponents can learn from each other's

experiences.

Many of

these strengths will be weakened by Bill 38. Environmental assessment is

supposed to be about looking at a project, determining potential impacts and

then working towards mitigating those impacts. It is something we should be more

than willing to do, but this government is bent on reducing the

comprehensiveness that this process has been so recognized for.

[1445]

The

government claims that environmental assessment, as it exists now, is a barrier

to having a good investment climate in the province. But the evidence shows that

the environmental assessment process, as I have noted several times, accounts

for less than 1 percent of a project's capital cost. It is a fundamental process

to environmental responsibility and should not be weakened. There is no need to

weaken it.

The bill

only outlines the new process — which, by the way, gives far too much control

to a development-driven minister when the process should be independent.

There are

some significant changes that reflect the agenda of this government to allow

development projects that impact the environment to go through with much more

ease. These include exempting various types of mineral refining and smaller

dams. This change is consistent with the government's agenda to exempt the

mining industry from crucial requirements that serve simply to ensure

responsibility, not act as barriers. Furthermore, it sets the stage for allowing

independent power producers to establish without full review. This follows on

the heels of an amendment to the Water Act, which will allow for stream

diversions throughout the province.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The member for Chilliwack is thumping his desk as though, somehow, not ensuring

that there's proper process on environmental assessment is good for British

Columbians.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Speaker, if members of the House wish to join the debate, they're welcome

to, but you know, members of this House should be concerned about what the

impacts are of this bill, especially when it takes away the notion of

consultation. It takes away what was previously in place that not only protects

the environment but brings scrutiny to projects. It promotes sustainability for

future developments. This is, after all, what the responsibility of this

minister is all about: sustainable management. That's what this minister's

supposed to do, but yet the criteria that need to go with that job in making

sure that projects proceed in such a way that proper environmental assessments

are done are being eroded. That's what's happening; it's therefore putting at

risk the environment for the future and putting at risk sustainability for

future developments. That's what Bill 38 will do.

I mentioned

earlier the exemptions in the various types of mineral refining and smaller

dams. The changes are consistent with the government's agenda to exempt the

mining industry from crucial requirements that serve simply to ensure

responsibility, not act as barriers. It sets the stage for allowing independent

power producers to establish without review. That is not good for British

Columbians. This follows on the heels of amendments to the Water Act, which will

allow for stream diversions throughout the province. All of this is in complete

contradiction to earlier statements made by the Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management.

estimates debate on March 7, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management was

asked if any areas currently assessed would no longer be under the new

legislation. He responded: "The same types of projects

[ Page 3478 ]

that are being reviewed today will be reviewed under the new process."

Then, there

is the ability for the minister to waive the requirement for environmental

assessment, if he sees no potential impact, without public consultation. This is

a big concern, because we know this government is more about short-term

investments and dollar signs than long-term investments in the sustainability of

the economy and the environment.

[1450]

The members

of the House, I know, would like to purport that it's just the opposition who

have these words to say, but that is not the case. I'd just like to quote on

record some comments reported in the Vancouver Sun on May 10, 2002. Karen

Campbell, who's with the West Coast Environmental Law Association — who, by

the way, is also on the advisory committee that the minister has put together

— was reported in the Vancouver Sun that she thinks the government's

new process is too flexible. A direct quote from her: "I have real concerns

about the new amounts of discretion this bill will allow. As I see it, it will

enable some considerable political interference by the minister in the

environmental assessment process in B.C."

The

article

then goes on to say: "However, Campbell said the number of beds in a ski

resort or the size of such things as power developments won't matter under the

new act." She states: "Regardless of whether it's 600 beds or 2,000

beds or a 200-megawatt facility or a 400-megawatt facility, those thresholds

become irrelevant. Those thresholds are only an indication that the government

is going to look at doing an environmental assessment. But they don't have to do

it anymore." Then the

article goes on to say:

"Under

the new act, a mining company that adds metal refining facilities that are

deemed not to change significantly an existing mining operation will also no

longer require an automatic review by the environmental assessment office.

There is currently no defined process that the government will use in

deciding which projects will get environmental assessments, and which don't.

Campbell says she expects government to give greater consideration to

business than to the environment. 'By failing to put a process in law,

they're leaving a lot to political whim. It's economy over

environment.'"

That was a direct quote from the Vancouver Sun .

The

comments made in the Vancouver Sun by Karen Campbell are one aspect of

what some community members think about Bill 38. In fact, the analysis that I

provided to the House yesterday — primarily yesterday; some of it today as we

resume debate — has been validated by other community members. Just this

morning we received an analysis of Bill 38, the new Environmental Assessment

Act, from the West Coast Environmental Law Association.

I'd like to

put their analysis on the record because many of their points are consistent

with the points that I had made yesterday. I want to put this on the record

because I know that members from the government bench would like to say and

often say that it's just the opposition — my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings

and me — who have these points of view, but that is not true. The view that we

share in this House is often shared by other people in the broader community as

well.

In the

instance around Bill 38, here's what West Coast Environmental Law has to say.

The information that I'm now going to put on record was provided to us this

morning from them.

"On

May 9, 2002, the B.C. government introduced Bill 38, a completely rewritten

environmental assessment act. The new bill abolishes the previous assessment

process entirely. Bill 38 is a dramatic step backward in environmental

assessment in B.C.

"Specifically,

this new act is not open, accountable or neutral. Its application will be

discretionary and could be subjected to significant political interference.

It eliminates existing guarantees of participation by communities, first

nations, local governments or the public. It enables government to decide

that economic interests will prevail over environmental protection, and it

provides no certainty or consistency either for proponents or the

public."

The

document goes on to say:

"The

new Environmental Assessment Act and the process by which it was drafted

signals a serious shift away from openness, transparency and accountability.

The previous act was developed in close consultation with environmental

assessment specialists representing both industry and environmental groups.

The new act was developed in secret with no consultation whatsoever."

[1455]

I just want

to pause from the document for a moment and comment on the issue of

consultation. During the estimates I asked the minister about the environmental

assessment advisory committee. The minister assured me that there was such a

committee and that they would be consulted on such matters. Subsequent to that I

asked the minister to provide the information. Just for the information of

members of this House, I'd like to quote from the estimates debate, the

commitment that the minister had said he would provide: "On the major

reform to the environmental assessment process, who will be consulted and who

has been consulted? Could the minister please advise? Does the minister have the

names of these groups?"

That was

the question I asked. The minister then advised that he would provide that

information to the opposition. The opposition received the information, and I

want to thank the minister for providing it. Here's what the information states:

"Environmental

assessment advisory committee — purpose and composition: through the

environmental assessment advisory committee the environmental assessment

office maintains ongoing liaison with organizations with an interest in the

environmental assessment process. The environmental assessment advisory

committee provides advice and feedback to the environmental assessment

office on implementation of the environmental assessment process in the

development of policy regulatory initiatives. This group assisted in the

development of the act and continues to act as a standing advisory committee

to the deputy minister of the environmental assessment office."

And the terms of reference were attached to the document which was sent to

the opposition.

[ Page 3479 ]

I want to

point out that this information was asked of the minister, and he did provide

it. The information that was provided from the minister clearly indicated that

the environmental assessment advisory committee assisted in the development of

the act and continues to act as a standing advisory committee to the deputy

minister of the environmental assessment office. Yet here today we have

information from the West Coast Environmental Law Association , which was part

of the membership of the environmental assessment advisory committee, and

they've advised that the new act was developed in secret with no consultation

whatsoever.

Just for

the information of this House, I want to let you know who the membership of this

environmental assessment advisory committee included: Jerry Lampert, the

Business Council of B.C.; Alan Young, the B.C. Environmental Network; Pat Moss,

the B.C. Environmental Network; Lloyd Manchester, B.C. Environmental Network;

Lynn Bueckert, B.C. Federation of Labour; David Luff, Canadian Association of

Petroleum Producers; David Parker, Mining Association of B.C.; Ken Vance, Union

of B.C. Municipalities; Dave Park, Vancouver Board of Trade; Karen Campbell,

West Coast Environmental Law Association, who also made the comments in the Vancouver

Sun around the detrimental impacts of Bill 38; Doug O'Mara, Canada West Ski

Areas Association; Mark Angelo, Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C.; Glenda

Ferris, Tahltan Technical Working Group; and Rick Krehbiel, First Nations

Environmental Assessment Working Group.

[1500]

The West

Coast Environmental Law Association stated very clearly that there was no

consultation. They have representation at the environmental assessment advisory

committee. There is a huge discrepancy in terms of the information that's been

sent to the opposition from the minister advising the opposition of the purpose

and composition of the environmental assessment advisory committee. It's stated

clearly in this document that was sent from the minister to us, to the

opposition, that this advisory group assisted in the development of the act and

continues to act as a standing advisory committee to the deputy minister of the

environmental assessment office, when in fact the new act was developed in

secret with no consultation whatsoever.

Let me

carry on, aside from pointing out this huge discrepancy and the lack of

consultation with the development of this act. Let me go on with the analysis

that West Coast Environmental Law provided this morning to the opposition around

Bill 38.

The

problems with the new act. They state:

"Environmental

assessment is now discretionary. There is no certainty that an environmental

assessment will be conducted for reviewable projects.

"The

new act maintains the reviewable project's regulation, which sets thresholds

to identify when an environmental assessment will occur, but unlike the

previous act this regulation no longer triggers the environmental

assessment. It merely triggers an internal decision as to whether the

government-appointed executive director of the environmental assessment

office, the executive director, will determine that an environmental

assessment is necessary. If the executive director considers that a project

will not have significant adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage

or health effects, the project can proceed without an environmental

assessment. The new act does not identify a process by which this internal

determination will be made, and there are no safeguards to ensure that

decisions will not be politically driven.

"Environmental

assessment is supposed to be a decision-making tool to ensure that projects

that may have negative impacts on our environment are reviewed and that

those impacts are identified and mitigated. Under this new act we have no

guarantee that potentially environmentally damaging projects identified by

the government in its own regulation will even be assessed.

"It

allows for considerable political interference in the design and conduct of

the environmental assessment. The old act contains a number of detailed

information requirements that need to be met in an environmental assessment

certificate application. It also established project committees with

federal, provincial and local government representatives. These broadly

representative committees played an essential role in the satisfactory

completion of the environmental assessment by identifying and seeking

further information throughout the course of the review.

"The

new act abolishes the project committee structure and provides no detail on

the information requirements that are to be met in the application or how

the review process is to be conducted. It merely states that the executive

director or the minister are to determine the scope, procedures and methods

of the environmental assessment. Under these provisions, the executive

director or the minister will also determine the information requirements

for the environmental assessment and whether consultation will occur with

the public, first nations or neighbouring jurisdictions. These provisions

mean that there will be very little certainty, for either proponents or the

public, in how the environmental assessment is conducted."

[1505]

The third concern:

"It

turns environmental assessment into a political exercise, not an independent

project evaluation mechanism. In addition to the extensive discretion

described above, the new act requires that where an environmental assessment

occurs the review must reflect government policy as defined by the

government agency or organizations for the identified policy area. The

intention of this provision seems to be that government can ensure that

environmental assessment supports its policy goals. For example, the

government has stated its intention to double oil and gas production in B.C.

by 2011. The government could use the provision to dictate that an

environmental assessment of a natural gas processing plant must support the

government's goals of doubling oil and gas production regardless of

environmental implications.

"Similarly,

an environmental assessment for a mine proposal would presumably have to

consider the Ministry of Energy and Mines' stated goals of increasing

investment in mineral resources development.

"Environmental

assessment is supposed to be about identifying and addressing environmental

concerns, not supporting government policy. Under the old act government

could disregard the recommendations of an environmental assessment, but

there was at least an

[ Page 3480 ]

objective assessment of the project. Environmental

assessment was not driven by government policy.

"These

new provisions will permit the government to preordain the results of the

environmental assessment by making sure its scope, findings and

recommendations are consistent with government policy. Unfortunately,

environmental objectives are not always consistent with economic objectives.

Under this new act the government's short-term economic objectives can

easily trump environmental protection."

The fourth concern:

"There

are no independent principles to guide the environmental assessment process.

This political interference issue is further complicated by the fact that

the new act no longer contains any principles or objectives to guide its

application.

"The

old act contained a purpose

section that provided independent guidance to

the environmental assessment office in the conduct of the environmental

assessment. The new act contains no independent principles. Rather, as

discussed above, it enables the government to intervene and ensure that its

current policy objectives are satisfied in the environmental assessment

process. There is no independent environmental protection objective that is

to be satisfied in this new process."

From the West Coast Environmental Law Association:

"Public

access to environmental assessment documents will be entirely discretionary.

The old act established a project registry and contained a detailed list of

environmental assessment documentation that was to be made available to the

public. The new act abolishes this registry, renames it the project

information centre and states that the executive director may determine

which documents will be available to the public and in what form this

information will be made available. This means that there is no guarantee

even basic information such as an application will be made publicly. It is

also possible that information will only be made available electronically

and not directly available to residents in communities, as is currently the

case. Given the importance of maps and diagrams to the environmental

assessment process, this raises significant problems for those with limited

access to computers resources."

The sixth concern:

"The

role of first nations in the environmental assessment process is completely

marginalized.

Whereas the old act involved aboriginal governments at the

project committee level, thus reflecting a commitment to a meaningful role

for aboriginal governments, the new act removes any reference to first

nations with one minor exception:

section 29 acknowledges the Nisga'a

treaty.

"The

only aboriginal government that is recognized in this process is the only

one that has signed a modern treaty with the B.C. government. This change is

particularly alarming as the B.C. Supreme Court has upheld the role of first

nations under the old act. The new act directly undercuts the court's

affirmation of the role of first nations by removing them from the process

altogether.

"By

removing consideration of aboriginal rights and interests from the

environmental assessment process, it means that aboriginal governments may

have no option but to go to court or to resort to public protest to ensure

that their views are considered. The government's deliberate removal of a

cooperative mechanism in this act may result in greater uncertainty and more

delay for project proponents in the long run."

[1510]

The seventh item provided from West Coast Environmental Law Association:

"It

no longer guarantees a role for local governments and community perspectives

in the conduct of the environmental assessment. The old act guaranteed that

community interests would be represented through the project committee, as

local government representatives were participants in the environmental

assessment. The new act has removed the project committee requirement and

provides no substitute other than the statement that the executive director

will determine the process."

The eighth

item of concern:

"The

time limits imposed will not allow for a meaningful environmental assessment

to be conducted. The new act contains a provision for establishing time

limits for the conduct of the environmental assessment. We're advised that

the government intends that its requirements must be met within a total of

six months. Thus, the entire duration of government review of an

environmental assessment application must be completed in six months. Where

additional information requirements are placed on proponents, the clock will

stop.

"Under

the old act a detailed two-stage environmental assessment would take us

approximately two years, although some of this time involved the proponent

gathering information. This means that the government intends to slash the

amount of time taken to conduct an environmental assessment by up to 75

percent or more. Combined with budget cutbacks, we have serious doubts that

a meaningful government review can be completed within the government's

intended time frame. Environmental assessment is supposed to be about

guarding against irreversible environmental damage, not facilitating

expeditious economic development."

The ninth

concern:

"Environmental

assessments that were commenced under the old act will cease as soon as the

new act becomes law. Generally, when laws change, projects subject to an

earlier process will continue and be completed under the old process, and

new proposals will be subject to the new process. In this case, the old

environmental assessment process will be suspended as soon as this new act

is passed, and current proposals will immediately be subjected to the new

process. The notion that the old process will be transitioned out will not

occur in this case."

Final

comments from West Coast Environmental Law:

"In

addition to this new act, the budget for the environmental assessment office

is being reduced by 37 percent. While the government maintains that some of

its accountability and follow-up mechanisms are being retained in this new

act, the reality is that some of these tools were rarely and in some cases,

never used. For example, the hearing provisions of the old act were never

invoked once. It is therefore difficult to imagine that the hearing

provisions of this new act will ever be applied by the new B.C. government,

given their new, closed-door approach to environmental assessment. No

enforcement measures such as monitoring or prosecution have ever occurred

with respect to previously certified projects. It is similarly doubtful that

the streamlined environmental assessment office will be able to undertake

follow-up once projects have been approved.

[ Page 3481 ]

"Finally,

we question why the government decided to completely revoke the existing

law. The old act, which only became law in 1996, was the result of a

successful multi-stakeholder process, which was broadly supported by

industry and environmental groups at the time. That act had been subjected

to an extensive external review in 1998 and a number of policy and

regulatory changes have been made to clarify and streamline its application.

Under the old act over 40 projects have been certified; not one has ever

been rejected by the government. In our view, any problems with the existing

process should be resolved through minor changes to the act.

[1515]

"The

purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act is to undertake major project

reviews to identify issues and ensure that the environmental implications of

a proposed project are understood and taken into account before final

decisions are made. By establishing a process with no independence and no

neutrality, this new act will create a whole new set of problems in B.C. It

will be a ticket for environmental degradation and clearly push short-term

economic development over long-term environmental protection."

Hon.

Speaker, I just have a couple of comments to close, but I understand that a

member wishes to make an introduction, so I'm going to yield the floor to her.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I am absolutely delighted to introduce one of my favourite grade 7

classes from Kelowna. Visiting here in the precinct today is the grade 7 class

from Kelowna Christian Elementary School. They're accompanied by Mr. Brent

MacArthur, their teacher, and a whole bunch of parents to make sure that they

are staying within their boundaries when they're here. I hope they have a great

time. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

The information that I put on the record is from the West Coast Environmental

Law Association. They have done an analysis of Bill 38, as has the opposition.

The issues and concerns they have raised are very consistent with the concerns

of the opposition that I brought to the House yesterday during second reading

debate.

It isn't

just the opposition who has these concerns, but it is the broader community as

well. Yesterday I began my comments by quoting from a court decision around

this. I think it is worthwhile to just look at the court decision on this issue.

It was a court decision in Newfoundland. It was the Labrador Inuit Association

v. Newfoundland, Minister of Environment and Labour in the Newfoundland Court of

Appeal on September 22, 1997.

There are a

couple of things that I think are worth repeating. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of that

decision:

"One

of the primary initiatives taken by governments in rationalizing economic

activity with environmental imperatives has been the enactment of statutes

providing for environmental assessment. These measures have generally been

aimed at moving away from correcting environmental problems ex post facto ,

towards preventing them from occurring ab initio or, at least,

assuring that they are contained at tolerable levels. It is well to point

out that it is not only environmentally sound but is economically desirable

as well, inasmuch as the costs of rectifying long-term effects often eclipse

short-term burdens. In any event, it appears just plain common sense to

require development of resources to await the relatively short time that

will be taken to allow adverse environmental effects to be assessed and

mitigated, if not eliminated.

"Accordingly,

it can be said that the process of environmental assessment is not a frill

engrafted on the development process, nor should it be regarded as an

administrative hurdle to be gotten over in the march towards economic

development. It is, rather, an integral part of economic development."

That was the decision from the Newfoundland Court of Appeal — the Labrador

Inuit Association v. Newfoundland, Minister of Environment and Labour.

The courts

have recognized the importance of environmental assessments and their role not

only for the environment but economically as well. They recognize that it makes

sense. It makes sense in the long run for people in this province and in this

country. It's as simple as that.

For the

government to jeopardize the process that the courts have recognized is, in my

view, to jeopardize the environmental and economic sustainable future of British

Columbia.

[1520]

For the

government to take away the requirement for consultation with the public and

particularly the aboriginal community flies in the face of court decisions over

the last number of years. The courts more and more have recognized the rights of

aboriginal people — the rights to resources and to title of aboriginal people.

The courts

have recognized that government must consult with aboriginal people on these

matters. To exempt them, potentially, from this process is a confrontation that

will yield, I am afraid, further court confrontations, further court fights —

fights that, I would argue, the government of British Columbia cannot afford to

proceed with. The best way to prevent that is to make sure that the rights of

aboriginal peoples are respected, that they're honoured, that the process that

they need to be involved in — in this instance, around environmental

assessment and the role of public consultation — is not exempt from

legislation.

We have a

situation with Bill 38 that goes contrary to all of those things. It makes no

sense whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why government is so bent on doing

away with environmental assessments in an independent manner, in a way that is

economic. If you look at the average cost of environmental assessments,

[ Page 3482 ]

as I've mentioned, it's 1 percent of the total capital expenditure. This is

not a lot of money for people to invest in to make sure that there is

environmental protection, to make sure that mitigation is done if it is

necessary and to make sure, if at all possible, to eliminate the damage before

it even starts.

That, to

me, is what the environmental assessment is all about. That's what the Minister

of Sustainable Resource Management ought to be focused on. That is what the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection should be focused on. After all, it

is her mandate, as the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, to make sure

that the integrity of our environment is protected.

Yet we see

before us Bill 38, which dismantles all of those key issues that would protect

the environment and that would sustain the environment for future use for future

generations, and we have not heard from the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection on this matter. We have not heard from her, coming forward to say:

"You know what? Wait a minute. Bill 38 is not good for the environment, and

I, as the steward of protection for environment, will speak up and say that we

need this minimal measure."

If we are

to move forward on environmental assessment issues, we need to move forward in

time with even better policies but not regress backwards in time by taking away

the gains that were made and brought forward by the previous government in

consultation with the environmental community, in consultation with industry.

That's the future that we need: one that is built on consultation, one that is

built on partnership, one that balances all things and doesn't skew the agenda

of government one way so heavily that it jeopardizes the future of our

environment for future generations.

Mr.

Speaker: On second reading of Bill 38, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Having listened to the members opposite, I'd like to close debate and

move second reading.

[1525]

Second

reading of Bill 38 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 60

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Johnston

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Bloy

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[1530]

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38,

Environmental Assessment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I'll try this again. In the precincts visiting us today, and I

think I see them sitting here now, is one of my favourite grade 7 classes.

They're from Kelowna Christian Elementary School, and they're accompanied by

their teacher, Mr. Brent MacArthur, and a whole bunch of parents. I ask the

House to give them a very warm welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage on Bill 46.

Committee of the Whole House

ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 46; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:35 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: This is dealing with the Lobbyists Registration Act, which was

debated last summer. The act that is being amended, prior to this amendment,

read: "This act does not apply to any of the fol-

[ Page 3483 ]

lowing persons when acting in their official capacity." Then it goes

down to (d): "members of a municipal council, regional district board,

improvement district board, school district board or other local government

authority, persons on the staff of those members, or employees of a

municipality, regional district, improvement district, school district or other

local government authority."

Then this

amendment adds to the exemption list: "employees of bodies representing

municipal councils, regional district boards, improvement district boards,

school district boards or other local government authorities." This has

been the reason for, I guess, the lack of proclamation around this piece of

legislation.

I'm

wondering: were organizations like the Union of B.C. Municipalities or the B.C.

School Trustees Association worried that if they talked to the government, they

would have to register as a lobbyist? What's been the holdup?

Hon. G.

Plant: This amendment is not actually the reason that it's taken some time

to bring the act into force. This amendment does spring out of an identification

of this issue when people were working on the implementation of the act.

The member

has captured the essence of the amendment.

Whereas the bill in its form as

enacted last summer would have precluded the requirement to register for people

who were members of a municipal council, for example, it did not extend to the

organizations that represent municipal governments in their dealings with

government, like the UBCM. This housekeeping amendment simply ensures that

people who work for those umbrella organizations — like the UBCM or the

regional municipal authorities, OMMA and the like, as well as the B.C. School

Trustees Association, I think, and those sorts of organizations — will also be

exempt from the requirement to register, which we think is quite consistent with

the basic principle of exemption that already exists in the bill in

section

2(1)(d), which the member quoted from in her question.

MacPhail: Are there any other impediments that prevent this bill from

proceeding to be proclaimed?

Hon. G.

Plant: One of the things that we started doing after the bill was enacted

last summer was work with the information and privacy commissioner's office on

things like the system that would be used for the registration scheme.

We thought

that it would be a good idea to see if we could actually do the registry

entirely electronically. I think the idea was received well, but there has been

a delay in terms of designing the requirements for the system that would be used

to support the registry. I believe that some of those delays are now behind us

and that we are actually on the verge of doing an RFP for the system to support

the registry. We are now, I hope, on track to have the act proclaimed very early

in the fall.

MacPhail: The freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner

will be the registrar. I note in the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney

General that there were no funds in his budget for the registry. Will there be

funds in the FOIPP commissioner's budget for conducting the registry?

[1540]

Hon.

G. Plant: The Attorney General's ministry is going to pay for the cost of

the system that I referred to in my last answer. The FOI commissioner's office

will cover the cost of the staffing. There will also be a fee for registering.

I'm told the registry will not be a 100 percent cost-recovery operation, but

clearly the intent is to attempt to recover a significant portion of the cost of

operating the registry from the fees that are charged for filing with the

registry.

MacPhail: Do other jurisdictions that have a lobbyist registration, such as

the federal government…? Let me ask it this way: is the Attorney General

modelling the keeper of the registry after the federal jurisdiction?

Oh, sorry.

I see confusion on the minister's face. I just want to clarify my comments. I

meant: is the responsibility for this being under the freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy commissioner — which I support — based on a model that

exists elsewhere?

Hon. G.

Plant: I believe we are the only jurisdiction in Canada that's using an

information and privacy commissioner as the registrar for a lobbyist

registration act.

Section 1

approved.

Sections 2

to 4 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail: This adds a

section —

section 15.1 — to the Offence Act. This

section of the Offence Act deals with evidence admissible in a trial on a

violation ticket. The amendment, as I understand it, allows a judge in a trial

on a violation ticket to admit as evidence information that would not be

admissible under the laws of evidence. The information can include oral or

written testimony.

So, a

question: given that this section, as it will now be amended, allows for some of

the laws of evidence to be discounted or disregarded in trials regarding

violation tickets, I would ask the Attorney General to provide examples of what

type of oral and written testimony would be admissible under these circumstances

in these trials.

Hon. G.

Plant: First of all, I think we should get the rest of the

section on the

record. What the

section does

[ Page 3484 ]

say is that a justice hearing in the trial on a violation ticket may admit as

evidence, whether or not it would be admissible under the laws of evidence, any

oral or written testimony or any record or thing that the justice considers is

(

a) relevant to an issue in the trial, and (

b) credible and trustworthy. It also

says that a justice may not admit under subsection (1) anything that is

privileged under the laws of evidence.

The two

requirements — that is, the requirement that the testimony or the record or

the thing be relevant to an issue in the trail, and that it be credible and

trustworthy — are compendious statements of what I believe I'm correct in

saying are increasingly the two basic principles of the law of evidence. That

is, although law students probably spend almost as many or more countless hours

as I did 20 years ago examining the entertaining and often important minutiae of

the law of evidence, increasingly when evidence issues are taken to appellate

courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, you find that the judges at the

appellate level say that really the most important things about evidence are

that it be relevant, credible and trustworthy.

[1545]

So I don't

know that this departs massively from that trend. Of course, what is also

important here is that if something is privileged under the law of evidence,

then this process in this

section would not allow a judge to override it. What

that leaves are some of the areas of the law of evidence that are still

important around the things like the proof of records and how you prove a

document — whether you can prove a document with a photocopy or you require

the original signature when you're asking a bank to prove that there were

transactions in an account. There are some special rules in the law of evidence

about how those things are allowed to be proven.

I think the

basic thrust of 15.1 is to say that given that a trialable violation ticket is

something that is, in the scheme of criminal or quasi-criminal process, not as

serious a matter as most criminal matters, the justices hearing trials of those

cases should have a slightly greater latitude to not be bound by the technical

restrictions of some parts of the law of evidence and to focus more on whether

the evidence that's being given is, by its nature, relevant, trustworthy and

credible. I can't think of any other specific examples that would assist the

member, but that's the thrust of the provision.

MacPhail: Well, a couple of questions flow from that, then, and these are

layperson questions. How will the public understand what will be submitted under

this new provision? Will the regulations detail that? Will there be a public

education initiative accompanying that?

Hon. G.

Plant: There won't be regulations here. In fact, the whole point of these

amendments is to make this process more accessible to the public so that an

average member of the public need not become an expert on the detailed technical

rules around the law of evidence but can, in fact, come into a hearing room

where there's to be a trial on a violation ticket and focus on the real issues

without having to become a master of the law of evidence. It's actually intended

to make the process of adjudication in the case of the trial of a violation

ticket a little more accessible to the members of the public that want to

contest their tickets.

Will it be a person presenting himself or herself, and the judge will say,

"Here's what's available to you"? Or does the judge assess credibility

and work with the person presenting on that? Or will there be some sort of

pamphlets or kit that we follow?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm contemplating the possibility of asking my ministry staff to

prepare a brochure: "How to Defeat a Traffic Ticket in British

Columbia." More seriously, the answer to the member's question is that the

decision whether to admit evidence that is tendered in the trial of a violation

ticket will be made by a justice hearing that trial. People will come into

court. They will offer the evidence that they consider to be relevant, credible

and trustworthy, which bears on the issues that they believe are the relevant

issues in the case. The justice hearing the case will be the person who makes

the decision guided by these two very important, strong principles that already

exist in the law of evidence — let's only hear evidence that's relevant; let's

not hear evidence that has nothing to do with the issues in front of us — and

when someone offers evidence that doesn't have about it some aura of credibility

or trustworthiness that will allow the justice to have some sense of confidence

that the evidence is worth paying attention to….

For the

member's interest, most of these proceedings are heard by judicial justices of

the peace who have much experience, by the way, in dealing with lay litigants on

these sorts of issues.

[1550]

MacPhail: Well, then let me proceed. It's under the same section, but let me

go to

section 15.2 that deals with the procedures in a trial on a violation

ticket. This provides that a judge hearing a trial "may adopt procedures

that are conducive to justly and expeditiously determining the matter." It

also provides that a prosecutor may prosecute by telephone or video

conferencing. Have these two issues been discussed with the judges?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes.

MacPhail: Will the judges, through their own workings, adopt procedures that

are conducive…? Will it be up to them to decide what those procedures are? Are

those procedures by prescription or by the case of the day?

[ Page 3485 ]

Hon. G.

Plant: The office of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court would have the

ability and, I think, the authority to develop a set of policies or practices or

procedures that might guide the judicial justices of the peace. As we embark

upon this, the starting point is that it will be the justices individually

hearing these matters who will adopt the procedures that, in their view, are

conducive to justly and expeditiously determining the matters that come before

them.

I think

probably what will happen is that the office of the Chief Judge will monitor the

development and implementation of this. If it turns out the individual JJPs are

finding that they are able to manage these proceedings in a way that, broadly

speaking, is building public confidence, then the Chief Judge may just decide to

leave it alone. Alternatively, if it looks as though there's a need over time to

develop certain broad rules or procedures that will help provide consistency,

then I'm sure the Chief Judge will step into that opportunity and do whatever is

required.

MacPhail: Under the same

section that provides for a prosecutor to either

prosecute by video conferencing or by telephone, I assume it doesn't mean….

Well, what I interpret this to mean is that the actual court appearance doesn't

take place by telephone or video conferencing, but the prosecutor's addition to

the court appearance could be through video conferencing or telephone. Am I

interpreting that correctly?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, there will still be a courtroom, and presumably the person who

has received the violation ticket wants a hearing on the matter. But the

prosecutor may not be in the room where the hearing is taking place. Under the

provision that we have in front of us, the prosecutor may not be in the room

but, rather, appearing by telephone or by video conferencing. You may see the

prosecutor on the TV screen.

MacPhail: So the JP will be present in a hearing room, whether that be a

courtroom or not. Is there any contemplation that the person accused of a

violation could be allowed to use telephone conferencing or video conferencing?

Or is that just available to the prosecutor?

[1555]

Hon. G.

Plant: It's not permitted by the provisions that we have in front of us now,

but it's something we're open to looking at. While I don't want to take

advantage of the opportunity to digress unnecessarily, in a different context

there is at least one state of the United States that has now created a

cybercourt where certain kinds of commercial civil litigation matters are dealt

with without any actual appearance by anyone in any room except people

communicating to the court by the Internet.

I think we

should be open to these ideas while ensuring that as we take each step, we do so

in a way that protects the interests of litigants, the public interest, in

making sure that a trial is something that is seen and is open to the public. In

this case we have not gone so far as to permit the accused or the person who has

received the ticket to appear via video conference or by telephone. However, the

idea is there, and we may pursue it down the road.

MacPhail: I'm moving to

section 15.3, which is still under

section 5 of the

amendment act. This is: "Certificate evidence of prescribed violation

ticket offence admissible."

As I

interpret this section, it allows a law enforcement officer to provide testimony

through a certificate. That certificate can be sent electronically and signed

electronically. The person charged with the driving offence can ask that the law

enforcement officer be physically present at the trial, and the court gets to

decide whether it's necessary for the RCMP officer to appear before the court.

That's how I'm interpreting this section. My question is: what criteria does the

court use to determine whether it's necessary for the law enforcement officer to

appear before the court? Is it up to the Chief Judge to set those parameters?

Hon. G.

Plant: Fundamentally, the criteria are those set out in subsection (3) of

what will become

section 15.3, which is, to quote from the last words in that

subsection, whether "in the opinion of the court cross-examination is

necessary to determine a relevant issue before the court."

MacPhail: That would not be by — I use these words advisedly, as a

layperson — a set of rules, because I know there are court rules. That would

just be in the judgment of the judge at the time?

Hon. G.

Plant: I should probably have been a little more elaborate in my last

answer.

The

intention of a provision like this, the starting point, is that justices or

judges having this ability will have to decide on a case-by-case basis what the

appropriate situation or circumstance is to require cross-examination to take

place. As judicial justices of the peace or judges exercise this authority,

there will be built up a body of experience — case law and all that stuff that

lawyers like — that starts to guide people as to what are the kinds of cases

where cross-examination is more likely to be permitted and what kinds of cases

are less likely to be permitted.

In much of

this work there are issues that are technical and are required to prove the

ingredients of an offence which are hard to dispute,

whereas there are also

sometimes issues that do involve the exercise of judgment, say, by a police

officer, where there may be real dispute about what happened. I expect that

litigants who come in and ask for the right to cross-examine will be looking to

start to draw those kinds of distinctions over time.

I'm also

told that in the province of Quebec, where a similar process is in place and I

think has been for

[ Page 3486 ]

some time, the number of cases where cross-examination is ordered is on the

order of or no more than 1 percent, so it doesn't happen very often.

[1600]

MacPhail: One of the pieces of minimal feedback that's been received so far

on this legislation is that the intent to streamline and expedite the process

has a potential for lengthening the process. The basis is that there could be

hearing with the police officer not present, then it be determined that the

police officer should be present, and therefore there would be another court

date to deal with this issue. I am cognizant of the comments that the Attorney

General just made, but what is available to prevent this from becoming more

costly and less effective?

Hon. G.

Plant: The system has some experience already with the use of certificates

as a way of proving matters that are relevant in a criminal case, including

impaired driving cases and red light cameras. That's part of the answer to the

member's question.

The

possibility that in a particular case there may be two appearances and the risk

that poses for increased cost is actually a burden that would be borne by the

disputants more than by the system as a whole. While I recognize that there is

the risk of an increased burden on some disputants, that's not, we think, going

to translate into increased costs on the system as a whole.

What's

being put in place here is a framework. Over time the framework will get life

from its application. When I was thinking about this…. It's dangerous to give

examples, but let me give you an example. There is an offence in the Motor

Vehicle Act for whatever the offence is when you enter an intersection after,

someone argues, the light had already turned amber or red. In some cases I think

the expression of that offence introduces the element of judgment that says that

you can enter the intersection if to stop would be dangerous because you might

be being tailgated by someone. By its nature that particular offence may have

elements of judgment or real dispute about what actually happened at an

intersection that are quite different from the vast majority of these cases

where there is simply no significant way of disputing the facts. The only reason

that people engage in disputes now is because they're hoping that the system

won't operate efficiently enough and that they'll be able to get off the offence

because someone won't show up on the day of the hearing or one of those things.

Taking

these things as a whole, I think we'll watch as this scheme gets put into place.

I think we're going to see that it will save some dollars and that it will make

the system generally more efficient and will give us the opportunity to devote

those scarce dollars to the kinds of proceedings where there are real issues or

where the proceeding is about something that is truly quite serious. We'll have

the dollars available to dedicate to those kinds of cases, and there won't be

any significant counter-cost, if you will, arising from the exercise of the

right to cross-examine that people will apply for under this provision.

Sections 5

to 9 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This is an interesting section, just reading it, on the face of

it. It adds to the Offence Act a

section called "Prosecution by an

Enforcement Officer." This is how it reads. This

section allows an

enforcement officer to "exercise the powers and perform the functions of a

prosecutor in relation to a violation ticket under the act whether or not he or

she is a member of the Law Society of British Columbia."

I went to

the Offence Act, and I didn't see a definition of enforcement officer. I'll just

look here quickly again. Perhaps the Attorney General could say who this would

be. Are we breaking new ground here? Oh, I see. Actually, what the act says —

I knew that it didn't give me any clarity, really — is that it means "any

person or persons designated as an enforcement officer under

section 132."

But it doesn't….

Section 132, I think, is just the regulation-setting. Perhaps

it's just as easy for the…. Yeah, that's just the regulation-making section.

Who are

these people?

[1605]

Hon. G.

Plant: Most often we're talking about police officers. The appointment,

apparently, is made under the Police Act. What we're talking about is a

situation where a police officer would appear as an enforcement officer — in

effect, as a prosecutor — to prosecute a ticket that would have been signed by

another police officer.

MacPhail: Did the Attorney General say "another police officer"?

My next question was going to be: is it possible for the RCMP officer or police

officer who issued the violation ticket to also prosecute that person to whom

they issued the ticket? Is that precluded? How would we know that that's

precluded?

Hon. G.

Plant: That question is an interesting one. In fact, it is before the courts

in a proceeding right now. I think the case has been argued. We're just waiting

for a decision on the issue that is engaged by the member's question.

MacPhail: Not being familiar with the court case…. What I'm trying to get

at here is: does this act permit an enforcement officer who issues the violation

ticket to also prosecute? On the face of this act, is that permitted?

Hon. G.

Plant: The current practice is that it can take place. That current practice

is sanctioned by this provision of the bill. The issue, I think, is whether that

current practice is consistent with constitutional norms

[ Page 3487 ]

around the right to fair trial. By saying that this is what is currently done

and by saying that what is currently done is permitted by these provisions, I

don't exhaust the issue around whether that is constitutionally permissible.

That is the issue currently being litigated, or that has been litigated, but

we're waiting for the decision.

MacPhail: I thought this was a new section. Perhaps what this new

section is

doing is confirming present practice. Is one possibility of a negative outcome

of the court case — i.e., that…? I would assume the negative outcome of the

court case would be that an enforcement officer who issues the ticket is not

allowed to prosecute. Is there a possibility, then, that there would need to be

a legislative solution to that, or is it too early to tell?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, in the event that the issue that is before the court is decided

against the Crown, then we would no longer be able to have a situation where a

police officer can effectively prosecute his or her own ticket. We would have

to, in that situation, have someone act as a prosecutor and someone act as the

informant or witness to the offence — two separate people.

At that

point, however, the provision that's in front of us does come into play, because

it allows for the possibility that the prosecutor could be somebody other than a

fully qualified lawyer and allows us to continue to have, for example, police

officers conducting prosecutions even though they may not be members of the Law

Society.

MacPhail: Does the Law Society agree with this provision? Have they been

consulted?

Hon. G.

Plant: They have been consulted. I think they have expressed no difficulty.

Sections 10

to 16 inclusive approved.

section

[1610]

The

Chair:

Section 17 has an amendment.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the amendment to

section 17 that is in the possession of the

Clerk. This is an amendment to the proposed

section 19.2. There are, in fact,

three amendments.

[SECTION 17, in the proposed

section 19.2

in subsection (1)(

b) by deleting "the amount

determined in an agreement under subsection (6) or, if there is no

agreement,",

in subsection (3) by deleting "subsection (1)(b)"

and substituting "subsection (1)(

b) or (6).", and

by deleting subsection (6) and substituting the following:

(6) Despite subsection (1)(b), if the board receives a recommendation by an

actuary that a change in the amount of the government contribution is

required to fund the pension benefits provided under this Act, the board may

determine the amount of the government contribution.]

On the

amendment.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'd be happy to try to explain what that amendment does if the member

is interested. I wonder if before we get there…. I don't mean to pre-empt the

member's interests, but for the purpose of determining staff resources — I

know the member has an interest in the pension issue; we'll deal with that —

does the member have an interest in any of the other sections of the act once we

get past the pension issue?

MacPhail: My only interest in this whole

section is to explain the pension

provisions. That's it. My next area of interest is the Sheriff Act.

Hon. G.

Plant: Subsequent to the drafting of the bill and its introduction, I think,

the chair of the pension board has said that the pension provisions that are

included here need to be changed in substance to allow the board to determine

the amount of the government contribution as opposed to having that amount fixed

permanently in the bill.

subsection (1)(

b) we do state where we're starting from, which is the 22.2

percent of the active member's salary. I think what the amendments do then is

say that if something comes along later which requires there to be a change,

then the amendments permit the board to determine what the amount of the

government contribution is.

Amendment

approved.

section

17 as amended.

MacPhail: A question to please explain the pension provisions. What, if any,

changes arise in the pension provisions as a result of this legislation?

[1615]

Hon. G.

Plant: I'll try to answer. If I get it wrong, the good folks who are helping

me will correct me, I'm sure.

The

starting point is this. What we're doing here is introducing legislation that

gives effect to the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee. The

committee is established under the Provincial Court Act as a result of a

decision of, primarily, the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts that

require there be a process for the determination of judicial compensation that

has some measure of independence from government.

The latest

round of this process resulted in the tabling of a report last August, I think,

here in the Legislature. As the member may know, the statutory process

effectively requires the Legislature to act to reject the recommendations of the

committee. The Legislature did not do anything to reject the recommendations of

the Judicial Compensation Committee in their report of

[ Page 3488 ]

last year. As a result, those recommendations became binding on government.

Really, the new pension scheme became accepted by this Legislature last summer.

It has been

determined that we should give effect to some important aspects of that scheme

in legislation. That's what these provisions do.

Among the

changes that are important are these. The maximum benefit has been increased to

70 percent of the salary. I think the 70 percent is of the three years of

highest earnings. In calculating the 70 percent, Canada Pension Plan benefits

are not to be taken into account. There are also two forms of pension. There is

a single life guaranteed ten-year option. Another option is a joint life pension

where the pension amount would be reduced to 60 percent on the death of the

member. Those are some of the highlights of changes that are being given

legislative sanction here.

Section 17

as amended approved.

Section 18

approved.

section

MacPhail: This is an amendment to the Sheriff Act. It's an addition to the

court security

section —

section 6.1. It adds

definitions to describe court,

court facility, restricted zone, screen and weapon. That's

section 6.1(1). Then

section 6.1(3) allows the sheriff to screen people entering a court facility for

weapons, allows the sheriff to seize weapons and allows the sheriff to evict a

person from a restricted zone if the person is not authorized by the regulations

to enter that restricted zone.

What

happened before we had this?

Hon. G.

Plant: I appreciate the member's question.

There is

little change, if any, in actual practice being effected by these provisions.

The kinds of things the member was talking about are things that have been done.

What happened that caused government to believe that these amendments ought to

be brought in is, I think, there was a judicial decision in another jurisdiction

that called into question whether sheriffs had the authority to do this kind of

work absent express legislative powers. In order to avoid similar questions

arising in British Columbia, we decided we ought to bring forward the

legislative authority so that that challenge cannot be made.

[1620]

MacPhail: Then the only area of concern I have is the application of the

definition for "restricted zone." I think that's what it is. Yes, it's

the restricted zone. Who gets to determine what a restricted zone is? It says

the definition is "part of a core facility designated by the regulations as

a restricted zone."

Will that

be a permanent designation, or will it be on an as-and-when-needed basis? I'm

concerned about ensuring public access to courts.

Hon. G.

Plant: The Attorney General has the authority to designate buildings or

parts of facilities as restricted zones. I'm told that an example of the kind of

place that might be encompassed by such regulations would be judicial chambers.

I think the member is right, also, that it's possible that from time to time

there could be a facility or part of a facility designated by the regulations as

a restricted zone in order to accommodate the specific security issues that

might arise in a particular case. But once that case has been dealt with, then

the need for the restriction would no longer be there. Then it would be

appropriate to remove the restriction in order to maintain public access.

Sections 19

to 23 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:22 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 46,

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. G.

Plant: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 46,

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 43.

Committee of the Whole House

OFFICE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 43; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:24 p.m.

On

section

[1625]

MacPhail: Much of my discussion here, I think, will be shaped by the second

reading discussion we had around this legislation. It will be about the changes

[ Page 3489 ]

that arise from the repeal of the Children's Commission Act, 1997 and the

Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, 1996. Some of my questions will be just

generally about what evidence there is to support these changes. I mean by

evidence the experience of either the children's commissioner or the child,

youth and family advocate.

The first

one is under "Definition." A youth is, under this new act, now defined

as a person who is 16 years of age or older but is under 19 years of age. Under

the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, a youth was defined as anyone who was

16 years of age or over but under 24 years of age and who was entitled to

receive a designated service.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Now, the

reason why that occurred, in my recollection — and some of this is from

recollection rather than research, because I only had a certain amount of time

to do the research — is that there was provision, particularly for a child in

care, to have post-age-of-majority services that would have allowed for someone

up to, I think, the age just before their twenty-fourth birthday to receive

services as a child in care. I'm wondering whether my recollection on that is

right.

Hon. G.

Plant: The starting point of my answer is when we look at the Child, Family

and Community Service Act, there's a definition there of youth. In that act,

youth has the same definition as it does in the bill currently before us. That

is, it's a person who is 16 years of age or over but who is under 19 years of

age. The primary objective of the bill that's in front of us is to ensure that

those people who can be or are receiving services from the Ministry of Children

and Family Development are supported by the functions of the child and youth

officer.

MacPhail: Yes, except I think that was amended by this government to reduce

the…. The original Child, Family and Community Services Act did have it up to

24 for this reason: there were some children in care who were allowed

post-majority-age services. My question is then: are there any post-majority

services still being offered to children in care that will now perhaps be exempt

from coverage under this legislation?

Hon. G.

Plant: No, it's certainly not the intention to exclude that category of

people from the responsibilities of the child and youth officer.

MacPhail: Is there any record from…? I'm sorry. Could the Attorney General

introduce staff, please?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm joined by Susan Christie and Kelly-Ann Speck.

MacPhail: The Attorney General was out of the room when I said some of my

questions will be based on experience and whether the changes support the….

I'm just wondering whether the Attorney General has any information about how

many people older than 19 accessed the services of the child, youth and family

advocate of last year. Maybe what I could do is ask the Attorney General or his

staff, through him, whether the Youth in Care Network is a body that's been

consulted on these changes.

[1630]

Hon. G.

Plant: Jane Morley consulted with the Youth in Care Network as part of the

work that she did leading up to the report she prepared for government, which

government accepted and which is largely the basis of the bill that is before

us.

MacPhail: Is there any data available about the number of youth older than

19 that access services?

Hon. G.

Plant: The member directed her question this way, as I recall: that is,

services accessed of the child, youth and family advocate — right? We don't

have the data here. Of course, the advocate reports as much to the member as she

does to me, but we'll make an inquiry to see if there is a record kept of that

information.

MacPhail: Here's my concern. There are changes that have occurred elsewhere

in government that now…. A person who is not covered under the Child, Family

and Community Service Act because he or she is older than 19 may also not be

eligible for welfare and social assistance because of the rule, too, that you

have to be separate and apart from your parents' home for, I think, a full two

years. It's called the two-year independence requirement, introduced by the

Ministry of Human Resources.

You could

have a situation where a young person has no ability to go anywhere for

assistance by virtue of the combination of these changes. A 20-year-old or a

21-year-old — up to the year 21 — could be found in that situation. It does

seem to me to be a gap. There are lots of 19- and 20-year-olds who are

full-functioning adults, well able to advocate on their own, and there are just

as many who are not. So what do we do for those young people?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think it would be possible to deflect much of the member's question

by saying that the issues which she raises are issues that ought to be directed

either at the Minister of Human Resources or at the Ministry of Children and

Family Development. But jumping ahead for a moment to

section 3, the functions

of the child and youth officer are stated there, and they include in subsection

1(f) "services for youth and young adults during transition to

adulthood."

I don't

think the term "young adult" is defined, so it's possible that the

very question the member is raising about whether or not there is adequate

provision of services for people who fit within the category of individuals that

she has described could be a subject of interest to the child and youth officer.

The officer may

[ Page 3490 ]

consider that it's his job or her job "to provide independent

observations and advice to government about the state of services provided or

funded by government to children and youth in British Columbia, including but

not limited to the following: services for youth and young adults during

transition to adulthood." The language there is not intended to be unduly

restrictive. I think it's intended to, in fact, empower the officer to have some

interest in that very issue if the officer considers that there is an issue

there.

MacPhail: Yes, I'm cognizant that there's lots of overlap in debate around

these issues because so much change is occurring. I'm also cognizant that time

allocation will be brought in tomorrow, so I'm seizing the opportunity where I

can to raise these very important matters.

Well, I'll

take the Attorney General at his word, and as soon as the child and youth

officer is appointed, I will meet with him or her to bring that to….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Okay. Or else there's another answer.

[1635]

Hon. G.

Plant: Only that I think I may now be able to answer a question the member

asked earlier. In the 1999 annual report, I think, of the child, youth and

family advocate, the advocate asked the question, "Who needs an

advocate?" and said that in 1999 she received requests for service

involving 2,710 children and youth from all regions of the province. Of that

group, 2 percent were in the 19-to-24 age category.

MacPhail: I will, at the first opportunity, meet with the child and youth

officer to ensure that that 2 percent has access to the services as well.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the amendment that has been tabled with the Clerk to

section

2(3), which I suppose is something close to a typographical error.

[SECTION 2, in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting

"children" and substituting "child".]

Amendment

approved.

section

2 as amended.

MacPhail: This is the

section that outlines the appointment procedure of a

child and youth officer. The term is up to five years. Under the Child, Youth

and Family Advocacy Act, the advocate held the office for six years. Bill 43

restricts that term by one year. My concern is actually not about the reduction

of the one year. I just want to put on record that I assume, giving the

government the benefit of the doubt, that the five-year term is to make sure

that it bridges over a four-year fixed government election cycle.

The reason

why the six-year term was chosen for the child, youth and family advocate was so

that the term would exceed one electoral cycle and therefore could not be used

as a partisan appointment or affected by the election cycle. I just put it on

record that if somehow the government of the day decides to change fixed-term

elections, an amendment to this

section should also flow with it so that the

child and youth officer's term should exceed the election term by one year.

Hon. G.

Plant: I understand the member's concern and the issue. She wanted to put

the concern on record, and she has. I don't foresee that we're going to change

the fixed-term election legislation. More fundamentally, I think the point is

that if the person who holds this office has some security of tenure, then that

builds the independence argument, which I know is of concern to the member.

MacPhail:

Section 2(3)allows the Attorney General to make a contract

officer. That's where the amendment came in. The Attorney General is making a

commitment that the office of children and youth will operate at arm's length.

I'm not sure he actually said that, but that was what I read into his words.

[1640]

How does

one go from mutually agreed terms to ensuring a level of independence? What does

the Attorney General contemplate in terms of the content of terms and

conditions? I'm being careful here, because I don't want to limit it to these

items. But the ability to almost…. I say this with the greatest of respect. It

would almost have to contain terms of provisions for permission for

whistle-blowing.. I don't necessarily mean exactly whistle-blowing, but the

ability to speak out without fear of any change in employment conditions.

Hon. G.

Plant: The intention here is not to use subsection (3) as a vehicle for

compromising the functions of the officer. This is an officer who will report to

a minister of the Crown, and we are in an era now where we think public

officials should have performance plans and service plans. Those sorts of things

may be part of the contract that could be made under subsection (3).

I think I

can give the member the assurance that those kinds of provisions would be there

only to make sure that a person did in fact do the job that he or she would be

hired to do. That is to hold government, particularly the Ministry of Children

and Family Development, publicly to account for their success or failure in

performing their own responsibilities.

MacPhail: Here's why I'm pursuing this, Mr. Chair. The Attorney General —

always a person to choose his words carefully — appeared on Voice of B.C.

[ Page 3491 ]

last August. The question to the Attorney General was: "You were talking

about the possibility the government is going to change the system" —

meaning the child, youth and family advocate. "My bottom-line question is:

can you guarantee that at the end of that process there will still be an

independent officer of the Legislature — independent from government —

overseeing that and providing the same kind of scrutiny the auditor general does

on financial matters?"

The

Attorney General doesn't have to worry that I'm going to quarrel that he said

something then and is doing something different now, but I want to use his words

to get some sort of assurance here.

The

Attorney General said then:

would argue right now we have those. We have the children's commissioner and

the child, youth and family advocate. I would argue strongly that you need

that independence. How you structure the independence…. The Children's

Commission is a different model than the child, youth and family advocate. I

think at the end of the process there has to be independent oversight.

Government takes kids into care and is responsible for them. Don't forget

the courts are there already too. But I think some independence from

government is essential, if government is to be held to account for the

enormous responsibility it undertakes in respect of kids in care."

On the basis of that, I looked for an area under the act to discuss

how one ensures that independence. This was the

section that I could find,

which would be the contract-making. There's nothing that frees up a person for

independent thought more so than ensuring that their livelihood isn't at risk.

Perhaps the Attorney General could suggest how that independence, as he

advocated last year, will be assured through the contract. Or is there some

other

section that guarantees that?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think the first thing is that what I said last fall — if the

member has accurately quoted it — is what I would adhere to today and argue

that this bill is consistent with those principles.

anything, what was missing perhaps from what I said last fall is the fact that

the child and youth officer is not the only person with responsibilities to

assist in the oversight and accountability processes that we're talking about.

There's also the ombudsman; there are the coroners and the public guardian and

trustee. The intention behind

section 2 of this bill is that this officer would

be appointed for a term of sufficient duration to achieve the necessary degree

of independence.

[1645]

I think we

are learning something, as government, about the need to ensure that we don't

tie our hands unreasonably to long terms of office. There may, from time to

time, be a need to see if we can take somebody on, on a shorter-term basis in

some kinds of positions to make sure that they are doing the job we want them to

do. But what is fundamental is that this job does, in fact, involve holding

government to account through public scrutiny for the way in which it provides

services to children, youth and their families.

I do think

that the structure here is consistent with the principle that I spoke in favour

of last fall, but I also think that the proof of these things is in the pudding.

Over time we will see if this person does, in fact, have the courage to speak

publicly and to hold government to account for its failures and its successes.

That is really the acid test of independence, in my view. I understand the

member's interest in the issue, and I support her interest in that issue. I

think these provisions do, in fact, ensure that that principle of independence

is respected.

MacPhail: Well, let me just put my concerns on record. As the Attorney

General knows full well, I support the concept of an independent officer of the

Legislature. Having said that, I also recognize that there are two of us and

more of the government, so this is the direction we're going in. I am not in any

way quarrelling that somehow the Attorney General is reversing his words from

what he said last summer; I'm just putting them in context.

You see,

under

section 2(1), Mr. Chair, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council…. In other

words, the person is appointed at the pleasure of the Crown — i.e., cabinet

— and can be appointed for a term of up to five years — up to five. I think

the fact that that combination of up to five years, appointed by cabinet and

the child and youth officer make the test extremely high for the Attorney

General to guarantee that independence — the combination of those three

factors.

The

Attorney General remembers this from his days in opposition. The child, youth

and family advocate made some pretty damning comments on the system and on the

government of the day. Her independence allowed her to do that without fear of

repercussion. This child and youth officer is replacing that function. I will

watch with great interest the contract that comes as a result of

section 2. Will

the contract be made public?

Hon. G.

Plant: The answer to that, I suppose, is that I don't know yet. I'm

listening to the member's interest in the issue and understand the position of

principle that she has on it. Of course, when we come to the point of entry into

a contract, there are two parties. We'll have to deal with the interests of the

person that we intend to appoint.

[1650]

There may

well be provisions of a contract where it might be difficult to make them public

without compromising other legitimate interests of government, but in making

that decision, I can assure the member that I will take her concerns and these

basic principles into account.

MacPhail: Well, then let me add one more. I want to make sure that there are

rigorous, rigorous parameters set around what constitutes a termination of the

child and youth officer, because, again, it's by order-in-

[ Page 3492 ]

council. It will be an unusual concept to have people who are hired at the

constitutes just cause, so I offer that to the Attorney General.

Mr. Chair,

I might also say that as we did vote at second reading in opposition to this

legislation, I will be declaring my opposition to certain sections, in the

interests of time, on division rather than division. This is a

section to which

my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I disagree and will be voting

against on division.

Anderson: In the area of the officer being independent, one of the

advantages for previous officers was that they were free to come before

committees of the Legislature to comment and express their opinions and add

advice. Would this person be free and able to do that if a committee of the

Legislature so desired, or could they request to come before a committee of the

Legislature to deal with topics that were of their concern?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm not in a position to disagree with the member's contention that

that sort of appearance took place in the past. I have no recollection of either

the advocate or the children's commissioner appearing in front of legislative

committees. I think the primary tool for public scrutiny and transparency here

is the reports that the officer will make, including the annual report and any

special reports made as a result of the application of the provisions in

section

8. I think my ability to answer the question is constrained by not yet knowing

the context in which that might arise.

What we are

doing, of course, is creating an office that will be filled by somebody whose

very job will be to tell the public on a regular basis whether the Ministry of

Children and Family Development and, indeed, government generally are in fact

doing a good job of providing services to children at risk. I think that

probably provides the necessary level of scrutiny, transparency and

accountability to deal with the member's question. As to whether a specific

context might arise where a committee of this Legislature would be assisted by a

particular appearance by this officer, that may be something that we would have

to deal with if, as and when the case arose.

MacPhail: Just prior to me voicing my dissent on division, I note that

section 2(5) says that the officer may not serve for more than ten consecutive

years. What's the intent behind that?

[1655]

Hon. G.

Plant: I think it's just there to ensure that on a relatively regular basis,

maybe once a decade or thereabouts, we get a new person, fresh ideas, a fresh

perspective on these issues. I don't think there's any particular magic to a

particular number there. I think ten means that, consistent with subsection (1),

you could conceivably have an officer serve two full terms. At that point, I

think, the public interest would be served by a change of perspective.

Section 2

as amended approved on division.

On

section

MacPhail: This

section deals with the functions of the child and youth

officer. I'm assuming that this replaces

section 4 — or corresponds to it,

anyway — of the Children's Commission Act, which gave the commission's

jurisdiction. It also corresponds to

section 2 of the Child, Youth and Family

Advocacy Act.

The role of

the child and youth officer now, under

section 3(1), is to "provide support

to children, youth and their families in obtaining relevant services and to

provide independent observations and advice to government about the state of

services provided or funded by government to children and youth in British

Columbia."

This is

substantially different from the role of the children's commissioner, who had

very specific responsibilities in investigating the death of a child "if

the commission considers the investigation is necessary to determine the

adequacy of services to the child or to examine public health and policy

matters."

The

children's commissioner could also make recommendations concerning any deaths or

critical injuries that the commission investigates. He sets standards to be

applied by prescribed ministries or agencies of the government to help ensure

that their internal review processes be responsible to complaints about

decisions concerning the provision of designated services to children. Then

there was also the responsibility to monitor plans of care for children in

continuing custody, to provide public education and to conduct research and

collect data about services for children.

Also,

section 2(

c) of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act allowed the office of

the child, youth and family advocate "to provide information and advice to

the government and communities…."

Under

section 3(1), the child and youth officer's mandate is to provide observations

and advice to government only. The community is not included. It goes to that