2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act (Bill 58)

Hon. K. Falcon

Northern Development Initiative Trust Act

(Bill 59)

Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Preventative health care

J. Bray

Sale of local power projects by Columbia Basin Trust

B. Suffredine

Safer communities

L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions

Private liquor stores

J. Kwan

Hon. R. Coleman

J. MacPhail

Status of Huckleberry Mines

D. MacKay

Hon. R. Thorpe

B.C. Rail privatization process

E. Brenzinger

Hon. K. Falcon

Access to post-secondary education

R. Nijjar

Hon. S. Bond

Handling of personal information by non-profit organizations

V. Anderson

Hon. J. Murray

Tabling Documents

Auditor general report No. 3, 2004-05, Preventing and Managing Diabetes in British Columbia

Second Reading of Bills

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 69)

Hon. G. Collins

Property Transfer Tax Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 70)

Hon. G. Collins

J. Bray

Hon. G. Collins

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 62)

Hon. G. Plant

B. Bennett

Hon. G. Plant

Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 64)

Hon. G. Plant

B. Bennett

J. Bray

Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House

Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hagen

Hon. L. Reid

R. Lee

D. Hayer

R. Hawes

V. Anderson

J. Bray

Reporting of Bills

Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45)

Third Reading of Bills

Community Living Authority Act (Bill 45)

[ Page 11421 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: Today in the House I am pleased

to introduce five local leaders who have joined us in Victoria: Ted Armstrong,

who is the chair of the Cariboo regional district; Nate Bello, the mayor of

Quesnel; Tom Briggs, the mayor of Mackenzie; Wayne Dahlen, the mayor of Dawson

Creek; and Herb Pond, the mayor of Prince Rupert.

All five mayors have worked hard on behalf of their communities,

and I hope the House will make them welcome.

[1405]

R. Sultan: I would like to introduce to the House one of

our skilled staff, Megan Stiles. In the past three years, Megan has taken care

of communications for both the lower mainland and the northern MLAs. She built

the Premier's ReadOnBC website, and every week she produced Capital

Report. She was particularly helpful in producing the mining task force report.

Defying the surge of people back to British Columbia from Alberta, Megan is

moving back home to Alberta to take up a challenging and, I might say — from

what I believe — very well paid assignment with TransCanada Pipelines.

Megan, we will miss your keen eye in spotting our communications

missteps. I'm sure all of us will join in thanking you for your many services

and wishing you good fortune.

Hon. R. Harris: Today in the members' gallery I would like

to acknowledge a very special visitor from Peru. Would the House please join me

in welcoming Augusto Freyre. He's the consul general of Peru in Vancouver. The

consul general was appointed to his position in April, and this is his first

official visit to Victoria. Could we please all make him very welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: In the galleries today I'm pleased to

introduce to the House four friends from the Comox valley: Don and Marie Gordon,

super citizens in the valley — Marie is a past citizen of the year; and Richard

and Maureen Swift, also from the valley. Maureen is a first-class school teacher

in school district 71. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I have the honour of introducing a

couple of constituents from Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Mr. Bert Elliot is here, a

government employee who works with the Public Service Agency. He has brought

along his 12-year-old son, Luke Elliot. I know he will enjoy watching question

period. I ask the House to make them both very welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm very excited today to introduce a

friend. I don't have four, but I do have one. As you're all well aware, we have

a very strong dairy industry in the Cowichan Valley. In the House today is a

good friend of mine, Wally Smith, who actually represents the province

nationally for the dairy farmers of British Columbia. Would you please make him

welcome.

S. Orr: In the precinct today are my girlfriends — my

friends who think I'm crazy doing this but love, support and feed me. They are

the best. We have with us Barb Vuiko — she and her husband are owners of Wendy's

and Little Caesar's in town; Anne Gustafson; and a very good friend called

Shirley Hunter, who is truly my very best, best friend. Angelica Weyan is here

also. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

B.C. RAIL BENEFITS (FIRST NATIONS)

TRUST ACT

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move the bill be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, less than three months ago,

Premier Gordon Campbell announced that this government had finalized a historic

billion-dollar investment into our province through the B.C. Rail–CN investment

partnership. While the public continues to own the railway's railbeds,

rights-of-way and tracks, CN has paid the province $1 billion for the rights to

act as the long-term operator.

[1410]

Now, with the introduction of legislation like the B.C. Rail

Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act, the legacy of that partnership is starting

to be realized. The $15 million B.C. Rail benefits trust for first nations is

just one result of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership. It will bring tremendous

benefit in the form of economic development, educational advancement and

cultural renewal to as many as 25 first nations with historic business

relationships with B.C. Rail.

Participation in this trust program is completely voluntary. Each

first nation identified in the legislation will decide for itself whether they

wish to take

part in the benefits of the program. The legislation I'm

introducing today will enable an independent board of first nations

representatives to oversee this $15 million trust and ensure it is spent on

first nations priorities — priorities such as providing seed capital for

aboriginal enterprises and joint partnerships, protecting and promoting first

nations languages and supporting aboriginal youth apprenticeship training.

It is going to be a very exciting year as we witness the economic

growth and job creation that starts to

[ Page 11422 ]

spring up in northern British Columbia and rail communities across B.C. as

the direct result of this important rail partnership. I'm very much looking

forward to hearing success stories about how the trust board chooses to invest

these funds.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the

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

Bill 58 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

TRUST ACT

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Northern Development Initiative Trust Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: When the Premier first announced the

billion-dollar B.C. Rail investment partnership in November 2003, he brought new

hope to northern British Columbians. He brought new hope not only for a strong,

revitalized railway but also for a surge in economic growth and job creation.

Today I'm happy to show northern British Columbians that since that day,

government has been working hard to bring them the benefits they've been

promised.

I introduce today in the House legislation that will enable the

$135 million northern development initiative trust. This initiative will give

northern communities the funding, control and ability to identify and pursue new

opportunities for stimulating sustainable economic growth and job creation in

their regions. An independent 13-member board of directors will be appointed to

oversee the distribution of the funds. The board will consist of two

representatives from each of the four regions — those being the Peace, Prince

George, the northwest, and the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet regions — as well as

five provincially appointed representatives.

They will have complete discretion to invest in projects as they

see fit, making this an initiative that will be truly run by northerners to

reflect northern priorities for the benefit of northerners. They might look to

strategic investments in forestry, pine beetle recovery, transportation,

tourism, mining, energy, Olympic opportunities or small business projects. The

list could go on and on. Again, I want to emphasize that it is totally up to the

board to decide how they will invest and prioritize their spending. The $135

million represents a lot of opportunity for northerners to bring out the best in

their communities.

[1415]

In addition, the bill contains other appropriations

related to renewal as a result of the B.C. Rail investment partnership. These

include $200 million for the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority's

multi-year capital plan as well as added support for sport, recreation and

volunteer initiatives, Asia-Pacific market development, fuel cell research and

other related initiatives. None of this would have been possible without the

billion-dollar investment partnership. I, for one, am proud that this government

is recognizing northern B.C. as one of our province's most critical economic

generators.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I move that the bill be placed on the orders

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

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE

J. Bray: As Canadians and British Columbians continue to

discuss and debate the need to reform our health care system, one area of

consensus seems to have emerged: the need to increase preventative measures.

Many feel we focus too much on acute care and too little on preventative care

and services. The problem is (1) how to evolve from the increasing demands on

the acute care system to preventative care and (2) the fact that we will not

immediately see benefits of preventative services except for specific programs

like fall prevention for seniors.

I believe we as a society need to recognize that preventative care

is a generational shift, not something that provides a quick fix. Thus, we need

to start with a new generation. Therefore, I think it is time we introduce a

comprehensive health promotion and prevention curriculum for every child in

B.C., starting from birth to graduation from high school.

Children represent one of the only captive audiences that we can

deliver a comprehensive generational program to, to improve health through

wellness promotion, physical activity, developmental stimuli, nutritional

awareness, comprehensive drug education, etc. This curriculum — and I use that

word purposely — would be published using the best science in all areas of

wellness. The curriculum would be used by parents, child care providers,

teachers, hockey coaches, cub scout leaders and anyone who interacts with

children.

All persons who deal with children would use this blueprint to

ensure that right from the start of life, children receive the comprehensive

care that will ensure maximum health during the first 18 years of life and that

as adults, they will be fully capable of making the kinds of healthy lifestyle

choices that attain the goals we speak of when we talk about prevention.

I believe that the science and evidence about early childhood

development, right through to the changes

[ Page 11423 ]

we've made in the school physical education system, already exist. My

proposal recommends the government publish, like the B.C. HealthGuide ,

this information — techniques and strategies that all involved in a child's

life, especially parents, can use to provide a generational shift in health

promotion.

SALE OF LOCAL POWER PROJECTS

BY COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST

B. Suffredine: The Columbia Basin Trust board of directors

recently approached the province and B.C. Hydro with a request to sell their

interest in Kootenay power projects to B.C. Hydro. Now B.C. Hydro has approved

the purchase of these assets in principle, which will give the Columbia Basin

Trust approximately $260 million. The trust anticipates this new deal will allow

them to at least double their annual contributions to Kootenay communities and

organizations from $5 million to about $10 million. They'll be able to diversify

their investment portfolio and increase their return on investment. The sale

guarantees that three hydroelectric facilities and one development power project

involved in the deal will always remain in public hands.

The previous government limited the trust focus primarily to power

projects. This restricted their return on investments and failed to fulfil the

purpose of the Columbia Basin Trust Act — namely, to create long-term jobs in

the region to offset the effects of the dams. The trust was never intended to be

a power company, but the power business has absorbed much of the board's time

and resources.

Carole James is now telling Kootenay residents that this deal

signals the end of the trust — a prime example of how out of touch she is with

Kootenay residents and key stakeholders. It was the trust directors, who are

Kootenay residents, who developed the far-sighted proposal we're considering

that will result in far greater financial benefits to the region, more long-term

stability for the trust and more freedom and flexibility. Carole James claims

she's listening to the people, but this makes me wonder who she's been speaking

to. She obviously hasn't spoken to the board of directors.

[1420]

This deal will create the largest investment trust of its kind in

the province. The board will have more cash to invest and more to give to

Kootenay communities. Board members, all residents in our communities, can use

their skills, imagination and creativity to come up with the ideas to expand the

Kootenay and Columbia Valley economy and create jobs and stability for our

citizens. It's great news for the Kootenays.

SAFER COMMUNITIES

L. Mayencourt: British Columbians have come to us today and

over the last few months asking us to create safer schools, safer streets and

safer communities. That's an important request that has been put forward to us

from many different places — from community citizens, from community groups,

from non-profit agencies, from business organizations. They've come us to and

said: "We want to have safer communities." When you look at New Era and

you take a look at what we promised people, we said we would do that. I'm proud

to be part of a government that is moving in that direction.

It is not always easy to forge partnerships with all of the

different community leaders in British Columbia, but I think we have a fairly

united group of individuals representing hundreds of thousands and perhaps

millions of people in British Columbia calling for new solutions to deal with

public safety.

I was very glad at the UBCM when the Premier announced that he was

going to funnel $40 million into public safety initiatives across our province.

I was proud of that moment. I want to say that in addition to law enforcement,

which is necessary in British Columbia, I was also proud that he noted and

committed to working on the issues of homelessness, mental health, addictions

and all of the things that make our community safer and stronger.

I'm proud to be part of a government that listens to private

citizens, that listens to private members and that listens to organizations and

people about the kind of legislation they'd like to see brought forward. They

have contributed to good public policy. I'm proud to be here and be a part of

that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

PRIVATE LIQUOR STORES

J. Kwan: As a result of this government's botched plans to

privatize liquor stores, they gave liquor licensees free rein to set up shops

wherever they please. They're creating huge problems for many communities.

The MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview promised his constituents that he

would ask the Solicitor General to take a second look at what the government has

done. Can the Solicitor General tell this House what he's doing to fulfil the

member's promise to his constituents?

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member would like to take the time

to review the information available, she'll find that when we did a process of

the inherent issue with the liquor licensing from the 19 classes to two and how

we dealt with liquor stores and how they could be placed in communities, we said

— and we still do today — that the liquor store will not be allowed to go where

local government doesn't have the zoning in place for it to go. The fact of the

matter is that no private liquor store in British Columbia will be imposed on a

community where the zoning doesn't exist.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant has a supplementary question.

[ Page 11424 ]

J. Kwan: The problem, of course, with the government's

approach is that they forget to talk to the people and to consult with the

people. In Chilliwack a private liquor store opened less than a block from a

secondary school, despite the vocal protest from parents. In Victoria, in South

Vancouver, in North Vancouver and in communities across British Columbia,

residents are concerned that liquor stores will start popping up like dandelions

with little public input. To the Solicitor General: what steps is he taking to

fix this problem? Or doesn't he care that parents and communities are pleading

with him to change the policy?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the member opposite is advocating

that we should interfere with the processes of local government, because within

the zoning…. If in a community a municipality zones a property, they zone it for

an allowable use. Maybe we need to give you a lesson on how development takes

place in the province…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R. Coleman: …but you can zone for an allowable use.

When you zone for an allowable use, everybody in the community has the

opportunity to give input at that time. That allowable use can include a retail

outlet like a liquor store…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Solicitor General has the floor.

[1425]

Hon. R. Coleman: …if the community says it is allowed in

that zoning.

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

further question.

J. Kwan: Maybe the Solicitor General should be giving that

lecture to the Minister of Transportation, because the minister actually put

forward a piece of legislation that would actually blow over municipalities in

terms of their authority on zoning. But you know what? In this instance, on this

very important issue, this is about local input and about this government's

downloading to local governments. From the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: For the Solicitor General's benefit, let me quote

the member from Fraserview: "If we have fault at the provincial level that on an

unintended basis is creating havoc in these communities, then we will need to

take a look at it." Mr. Speaker, it is creating havoc and anger. That is why the

member from Fraserview was forced to support his constituents — to stop a liquor

store from taking advantage of his own government's change to the law.

Again to the Solicitor General: parents and communities are

screaming for action. Will he at least commit to revisiting this law and to

working with municipalities, consulting with them to bring in regulations that

work in creating safer communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: We did consult with the UBCM as we went

through our liquor changes three years ago. We have been through a variety of

processes with this. One of the things those communities said to us is: "Let us

deal with the zoning issues with regards to commercial operations in our

communities." We allow them to do that. If they've already gone and approved the

allowable use on a piece of property and somebody's bought that piece of

property believing that that's the allowable use, are you saying a municipality

now should change the allowable use midway through?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that it is a zoned piece of property

for an allowable use. It's been through a public process. It's approved that use

by council and with public input, and that's the way it is.

J. MacPhail: Well, the member from Fraserview says that

this is a growing problem, and we need to look at it again. Today, there are

almost a dozen new applications in one city alone for private liquor stores.

The Solicitor General won't do a thing, so let me ask…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

J. MacPhail: …the Minister for Addiction Services, the new

minister, the same person who is head of the Neighbourhood Pub Owners

Association — who lobbied against laws to restrict secondhand smoke, who lobbied

against tougher impaired drunk driving laws — the same person who lobbied for

expanded gambling in neighbourhood pubs. Can she tell parents and communities

what she is doing to ensure that a liquor store doesn't pop up on every corner

because her government gave the green light to liquor store expansion without

consulting communities? It's almost a dozen new applications today alone.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Solicitor General has the

floor.

[ Page 11425 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: What absolute nonsense. If people have a

right to go and apply for a liquor store in British Columbia…. If the member

would read the rules, she would find out they can't be within half a kilometre

of each other. They can't be on every corner across from each other to begin

with, because we put those rules in place.

We also put in place a moratorium on those stores for four years

so that they have to actually do their development within the next 12 months or

lose their opportunity to develop. So there can't be any new applications coming

in. These have been in process for some time and will continue to be in process.

Frankly, I find it absolutely incredible coming from a member

opposite who sits in a city that would rather legalize a legal marijuana

operation than deal with liquor on a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood basis.

J. MacPhail: It is interesting…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

J. MacPhail: …how this government plays favourites amongst

its own backbench. He just called the member from Fraserview's comments

nonsense. That's what he just…. The Solicitor General just said it was nonsense.

Interesting.

[1430]

Let me quote from the letter sent by the chair of the Chilliwack

parent advisory council, fighting the opening of a liquor store less than a

block from the local school. She says, and I quote: "The mayor has informed our

parent advisory council in a letter that our local government has no power to

stop the establishment of liquor stores in our community." Interesting. Why?

Because this government changed the law, downloading responsibility to local

governments without any real consultation. That's left parents scrambling as new

liquor licences get handed out like candy.

Again to the minister responsible for addictions: will she stand

up to her government, stand up for parents and join her colleague from

Fraserview to demand the government take a second look at this law that's

creating havoc?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, I will say to the member that local

government has the right to zone property for allowable uses. If the land is

zoned properly, then it's dealt with by local government. If the member would

pay attention to her own city council in the city of Vancouver, she'll know that

they're actually going through a process that has a moratorium on this issue

right now. I actually spoke to the member from Fraserview, who was able to go

back and explain to his community the process of zoning versus the licensing

procedure, so that he could deal with that in his community.

Interjections.

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

STATUS OF HUCKLEBERRY MINES

D. MacKay: My question is for the Minister of Provincial

Revenue. Our government has just gone through a loan restructuring for

Huckleberry Mines Ltd., which is located south of Houston, British Columbia. As

a result of this restructuring, the NDP house leader has voiced her opposition

to protecting 175 jobs in the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Provincial Revenue: can he explain

to my constituents and all British Columbians how Huckleberry Mines wound up in

this situation?

Interjections.

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

Hon. R. Thorpe: Once again we are cleaning up an NDP loan

from 1996. Our decision is based solely on the business case. The options were

clear: put it into bankruptcy or attempt to maximize the return for British

Columbians through a loan restructuring. Our government decided to restructure

the loan so that we can maximize the return to British Columbia taxpayers while

cleaning up an NDP loan from 1996.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION PROCESS

E. Brenzinger: My question is directly to the Premier and

not to the Minister of Transportation, as this clearly is not a transportation

question.

As early as June 2002, then-CEO of CN Rail, Paul Tellier,

discussed with the Vancouver Sun editorial board CN acquiring B.C. Rail,

despite the fact that only a year earlier the Premier had promised not to sell

B.C. Rail. On November 21, 2003, CP Rail wrote a letter to the Premier stating

that the government's handling of the B.C. Rail sale was extremely prejudiced.

My question, directly to the Premier, is: will he confirm that he

did in fact meet with then-CEO Paul Tellier in Kamloops prior to an RFP being

issued regarding the sale of B.C. Rail, and that amongst the matters discussed

was the purchase price of CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: Clearly, this is an issue that the member

continues to raise, so I might direct the member to Charles River Associates

Inc., the independent report that was done on the B.C. Rail–CN investment

partnership. He actually goes into some detail over that CP letter. You will

find that it was canvassed very, very thoroughly, and there was no fault found

whatsoever.

[1435]

I would encourage the member to actually take the time to read the

report, and when the member reads

[ Page 11426 ]

that report, she will have all the answers there for herself.

ACCESS TO

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

R. Nijjar: My question is to the Minister of Advanced

Education. The NDP — or should I say the union executives that run the NDP? —

continually touted that the raising of the tuition freeze would deny access to

post-secondary education, although there is no correlation, no report or

evidence showing that raising of the freeze would deny access to education.

Now a recent study by the Education Policy Institute ranked Canada

third in the world in access to post-secondary education for students from lower

socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore, in Canada, B.C. is ranked third amongst

Canadian provinces. Clearly, a lot is being done that is strong. Now there are

more students going to post-secondary education. After 2001 more students

applied to go to post-secondary education.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is: how can we

become No. 1? What is she doing to ensure that we continue to improve access and

make B.C. No. 1 in the world, not just No. 3?

Hon. S. Bond: We are absolutely delighted…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Bond: …to be able to tell you that in the next six

years we are going to add 25,000 seats to the post-secondary education system.

We're going to do that all around the province, because we believe that access

closer to home is essential. It helps families. It reduces the cost to families

by an average of $6,000 a year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Bond: We have a plan in place that will ensure that

if you get a B, you will earn a seat in a post-secondary education institution.

That is great news for British Columbians and great news for families.

HANDLING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

BY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Management

Services. With a more community-based approach to service delivery, some

organizations are concerned about confidential issues around information

collected from clients. The Personal Information Protection Act came into force

earlier this year to protect personal information collected by non-profit groups

such as charitable and religious organizations

I'm asking the minister: what legal obligations do volunteer

groups — including charitable organizations, religious and community groups —

have under the Personal Information Protection Act?

Hon. J. Murray: As the member for Vancouver-Langara rightly

comments, the Personal Information Protection Act came into force in January

this year. In fact, we're the first province to introduce legislation of this

kind. That act comes out of our commitment to protect the privacy of

individuals' personal information. What PIPA does is to set out the ground rules

for how the private sector and non-profit organizations can collect, use or

share information about individuals. Essentially, on the one hand, this act, the

Personal Information Protection Act, gives individuals the right to control

access to and use of their own personal information. On the other hand, PIPA

requires organizations to obtain consent when they collect, use or disclose your

personal information. We're leaders in the protection of privacy, and this act

is just another example of that.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present

report No. 3 of the auditor general, 2004-05: Preventing and Managing

Diabetes in British Columbia .

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 69. Perhaps

we can give the other members a chance to proceed to other business.

[1440]

Second Reading of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be now read a second time.

This bill contains amendments to a number of statutes which deal with the

business and financial sectors of the province of British Columbia. The statutes

amended are the Business Corporations Act; the Financial Institutions Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004; the Pension Benefits Standards Act; and the Society Act.

For the most part these amendments are technical and housekeeping in nature but

are essential to these sectors. The Business Corporations Act amendments in this

bill are almost entirely technical in nature. They correct errors, clarify

language and address issues identified by the public and by the corporate

registry since the implementation of the new act in March of 2004.

There are two substantive amendments. One amendment will reduce a

waiting period to enable more timely restoration of dissolved companies by the

[ Page 11427 ]

registrar. This will add to the attractiveness of the new administrative as

opposed to the court-ordered restoration process under the act. The other

amendment reduces costs and unnecessary paper flow by requiring that the

corporate registry mail out paper confirmation of certain electronic corporate

filings only upon request of the applicant instead of automatically. This will

address a concern and frustration raised by many that there was too much paper

involved in these transactions.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also contains technical amendments to

correct a number of drafting errors and oversights in Bill 39, the Financial

Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. Bill 39 was enacted to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of financial services sector regulation by

eliminating outdated and unnecessary restrictions and requirements, streamlining

regulatory responsibilities and expanding the enforcement tools available to the

regulators.

The amendments in this bill will clarify Insurance Council of B.C.

powers, including the ability to set fees under an established maximum and to

impose conditions on licences on a case-by-case basis. The amendments will also

correct a number of cross-references and omissions and remove

definitions no

longer required.

This bill also contains a technical amendment to the Society Act

requiring that societies make their annual financial statements available to the

public and providing that a society may charge a fee for copies of the

statements. The amendment also establishes a process by which disputes between

the society and the requesting party may be resolved. It is essential that the

public continues to have access to this important information about a society to

ensure proper accountability in the not-for-profit sector.

Finally, this bill contains a technical amendment to the Pension

Benefits Standards Act. The amendment is necessary in order to accommodate

recent changes to the handbook of the Canadian Institute of Chartered

Accountants. This change means that the accounting standards which apply to

annual financial reports filed by pension plans with the superintendent of

pensions must now be established by regulation rather than by policy. This

amendment will provide for such a regulation, ensuring that the appropriate

accounting standards continue to apply to these annual reports. I move second

reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be referred to a Committee

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

today.

Bill 69, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 70.

PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 70, the Property Transfer

Tax Amendment Act, 2004, now be read a second time.

[1445]

Bill 70 implements changes proposed by government on June 22,

2004, to help bring certainty to first-time homebuyers and other purchasers of

pre-sold strata lots. Under the Property Transfer Tax Act, tax is payable on the

fair market value of a property on the date application is made to register the

transfer in the land title office. For purchasers of existing properties, this

application of tax works well, because there is generally only a short period of

time, perhaps days, between the date of purchase and the date of registration,

and the amount paid for the property is usually its fair market value.

An issue arises, however, in particular with very large

condominium projects that can take up to two years or more, in some cases, to

build. In these cases, developers often sell individual strata units long before

construction of the project is complete and, in some cases, before it's even

begun, long before purchasers are able to take title to their units. In such

cases, particularly in B.C.'s red-hot housing market, the price paid for a

property may differ substantially from what its fair market value is when it's

eventually registered.

The long delay between the date of purchase and registration of

pre-sold strata units creates two problems for purchasers. First, it creates

considerable uncertainty regarding the fair market value of the unit when it's

eventually registered and, therefore, the amount of property transfer tax that

would be payable. Such uncertainty is unfair to the people paying this tax.

Second, the long delay can be very unfair to first-time homebuyers, who, after

saving their hard-earned money to enter the housing market for the first time,

may lose eligibility for the first-time homebuyers exemption simply because the

value of their home increased between the date of purchase and the date of

registration.

Bill 70 addresses both of these problems by basing tax on most

pre-sold strata units on the total consideration paid for the unit. For those

transfers that are not arm's-length or open market, authority is provided to

determine the total consideration that would have been payable if the

transaction had been at arm's length and in the open market. Bill 70 improves

fairness by providing all purchasers of pre-sold strata units with certainty

about their property transfer tax liability when they make their purchase and

allowing first-time homebuyers to purchase a first home with the confidence that

they will not lose their first-time homebuyers exemption solely because of

rising prices. The amendments are retroactive to January 1, 2001, to ensure that

all affected purchasers are addressed.

I move second reading of Bill 70.

Hon. B. Locke: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an

introduction.

[ Page 11428 ]

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Locke: With us today in the gallery are 50 grade 7

students from Cindrich Elementary School in my riding. With them, as well, are

their teachers Mr. Darien Russell, Mr. Andrew Shook and Ms. Vicki Den Ouden, and

Mr. Dave Price, their principal. Will the House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Bray: I rise briefly to speak in support of Bill

70, the Property Transfer Tax Amendment Act, 2004. I know this is also a

critical issue for the member for Vancouver-Burrard, but for my riding in

Victoria we have had a tremendous housing boom over the last couple of years as

our economy has turned around and really gone on all engines. For my

constituents, many of them were caught in this cycle where they would pre-buy,

often two years before completion of construction, and would find themselves in

the situation that the Minister of Finance has discussed.

I know that it had an impact not only on those families. Many of

them were retirees moving to Victoria from other parts of the province or other

parts of the country. Even more critical, because of the economic turnaround in

Victoria and the increasing job opportunities for young professionals for the

health sciences, a lot of those homebuyers in the downtown core here buying

these pre-sold condo units were young families making their first purchase. This

is a critical time for young families as they make that first leap into the

world of mortgages, and the property purchase tax exemption was a critical part

of their financial planning.

I'm really pleased that the Minister of Finance was able to listen

to the concerns of first-time homebuyers, developers and real estate agents to

actually find a fair resolution to this circumstance. It really is indicative of

the economy of this province that we are finding, in my case, buildings selling

out within the first 24 hours. This is not a rare occurrence anymore. This is

actually the common occurrence.

[1450]

In my riding it is positively impacting hundreds of homeowners,

hundreds of seniors, hundreds of first-time homebuyers, young professionals. And

it's going to make a tremendous difference for our continued economic growth in

this region. It's going to provide more certainty for our housing market to

continue its strong growth and, really, to make it clear to the development

community that this is a place where you can develop. This is a place where

we're fair to consumers and where we have fair tax policy.

I just want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on doing

something that is really going to help several hundred of my constituents in a

very positive way not only in the past but in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 70. The Minister of

Finance closes debate.

Hon. G. Collins: I want to thank my colleague from

Victoria–Beacon Hill for his comments. I mentioned yesterday the member for

Vancouver-Burrard, who was one of a number who raised this issue with me. At the

time, we heard from MLAs in the Okanagan and elsewhere around British Columbia

where this had become an issue, and we were very happy.

I want to thank the officials in the Ministry of Finance for doing

the work required to make this work for British Columbians. It was clearly, as

it existed, a tax that in my opinion was unfair and created all sorts of

uncertainty for people, and we were able to make these changes. I think it will

address the concerns of British Columbians, particularly first-time homebuyers

but others as well.

The great thing, I guess, is that this issue came to the fore

because people are flooding back to British Columbia. People who left are coming

back. People who have been here are trying to get into the housing market for

the first time, and we're seeing a super-hot housing market here in British

Columbia with housing starts and housing sales leading the country for the last

couple of years. Certainly, those are really positive indicators.

It's probably appropriate that we are debating this right now. I

have a good friend of mine in the visitors' gallery today, Toby Ward, who is

from British Columbia, who under the previous administration decided to…. There

weren't many options here in British Columbia, certainly not the future we all

had been accustomed to, and he and his family picked up and moved to Toronto. We

won't hold that against him.

He has been very successful there. He started an Internet business

that has been extremely successful, and now, I know, he has come back to British

Columbia. I believe he has purchased some property and is looking to see if he

can bring his investment and at least start to expand it here in British

Columbia.

Hopefully, he'll move back here, as well, and be one of the

multitude of young, bright, talented British Columbians who left British

Columbia under the dismal decade that was the NDP's reign in office and who are

now coming back to British Columbia to build their futures. I want to ask the

House, as sort of an introduction, to welcome Toby here today.

As well, I move second reading of Bill 70.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be placed on the orders of

the day for consideration by a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Bill 70, Property Transfer Tax Amendment Act, 2004, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 62.

[ Page 11429 ]

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be now read a second

time.

Bill 62, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, contains a

number of miscellaneous amendments to statutes that are within the

responsibility of the Attorney General. I will briefly describe the amendments,

expanding as I go on the more significant ones.

First, this bill makes an amendment to the Libel and Slander Act

to provide that a person sued in defamation for publishing the opinion of

another person will not lose the benefit of the defence of fair comment. The

elements of the defence of fair comment are that the opinion be a comment on a

matter of public interest for which there is a basis in fact, stated or referred

to, and that it not be made for a dishonest or malicious purpose.

Current case law — in fact, it has been around for a while — has

the effect that a defendant sued for publishing the opinion of another person

cannot have the benefit of the defence of fair comment unless the defendant

actually agrees with that opinion. One example of the potential effect of this

case law is to discourage newspapers from printing letters to the editor where

the letter expresses an opinion with which the newspaper is not in agreement.

The amendment maintains the purpose of the defence of fair

comment, which is to balance the protection of personal reputation with the

protection of the expression and dissemination of a variety of opinions on

matters of public interest — specifically, in this case, by ensuring that

newspapers and others are not discouraged from publishing opinions with which

they themselves may happen to disagree.

[1455]

There is a second amendment to the Libel and Slander Act. That

amendment is intended to provide that there will be no liability for damages in

defamation with respect to a publication in the collection of a public or

educational library. The way the amendments will operate is that should a court

— pursuant to proceedings brought against an author or someone else — issue an

injunction against the distribution of a particular publication on the basis of

a substantiated claim of defamation, a library would then be required to remove

the publication from its lending collection. The amendment would prevent the

prior constraint involved in compelling libraries to remove publications from

their collections in circumstances where there has been no judicial

determination of defamation.

The underlying public policy purpose here is to help ensure that

public libraries and educational libraries contain material that provides,

supports and supplies a broad range of views and opinions. What we're trying to

do is protect public and educational libraries, and their associated local

governments and educational institutions, from financially onerous litigation —

perhaps financially crippling litigation — while of course maintaining

protection for the rights of plaintiffs who may be the victim of libel by

ensuring that they may prevent the distribution of publications determined or

acknowledged to be defamatory.

This part of the bill doesn't say anything about an action for

libel against the actual author of the libel. The victim of the defamation will,

of course, have all of their rights against the author or other related

publisher of the libel. What we're trying to do here in this amendment is ensure

that libraries in public institutions, public libraries and educational

libraries can have a wide range of books and materials on their shelves, and

ensure that we continue to maintain the free flow of ideas in British Columbia.

Bill 62 also amends the Estate Administration Act by increasing

the value of small estates that are eligible for the simpler

summary

administration process from the amount which it now is, which is $10,000, up to

$25,000. That $10,000 amount has not actually been changed since 1983. It is

past time, I think, to increase the amount to take account of inflation — the

effect of inflation over time — and to better reflect current economic

realities.

The amendments will also make it clear that the official

administrator may apply for

summary administration of small estates with a value

of $25,000 or less without having to show that the deceased has no relatives who

are entitled to administer the estate.

There is also a consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act

that will increase from $10,000 to $25,000 the value of small estates where an

expedited procedure may be used to transfer vehicle ownership to a beneficiary

on the death of the vehicle's owner. There are estates where the only asset of

any significance is a motor vehicle. Until this point, if the motor vehicle was

worth more than $10,000, there was the prospect that someone who wished to sell

— who was an heir under the estate, perhaps, and wanted to dispose of the

vehicle — might even have had to follow all of the complex procedures associated

with obtaining a grant of letters probate. Really, it no longer makes much sense

to do that for an estate where the only asset is a car of modest value. What

we're trying to do here is ensure that

summary estate administration procedures

are available in a wider range of cases than has been the case until these

amendments.

Bill 62 makes a minor amendment to the Offence Act to support

something called the Contraventions Act agreement between British Columbia and

Canada. That agreement allows for the enforcement of minor federal offences

prosecution and service.

[1500]

regulations will be equally authoritative. I understand that this may be a

helpful step forward in ensuring, for example, that certain kinds of regulations

that I believe are federal in nature, with respect to the safe operation of

speedboats on lakes in the interior of the province, will now be able to be

enforced. I know that's been a concern of the member for

[ Page 11430 ]

Shuswap for a number of years, and I'm glad that I think we're able to take a

step forward in addressing that issue with these amendments.

Finally, this bill makes some housekeeping amendments to the

Administrative Tribunals Act, which was enacted this spring. That act modernized

British Columbia's administrative justice system by creating the first-ever

comprehensive set of standards and practices for British Columbia's

administrative tribunals, making those tribunals more accessible to the

thousands of British Columbians who use their services every day or every year.

The amendments correct some minor drafting errors and oversights

and provide additional clarity on certain provisions of the Administrative

Tribunals Act to ensure that the act can be implemented as intended. For

example, minor amendments are made within the general reform provisions of the

act and, consequentially, to the enabling legislation for five administrative

tribunals. Provision is made for the temporary appointment of an acting chair,

similar to the existing provisions for temporary appointment of members. Also,

amendments are made to clarify the timing of a tribunal's constitutional

jurisdiction.

These amendments enhance and support the goals of the

Administrative Tribunals Act to balance and strengthen public accountability

with decision-making independence for the province's administrative justice

system.

B. Bennett: I wanted to briefly rise in support of this

legislation, just on one particular aspect of it. You know, I think that this

sort of reform lacks the sex appeal, so to speak, of a lot of the other things

that go on in this chamber. But in terms of making justice accessible and

affordable to people, there is one aspect of this legislation that means a lot

to me personally, and that is the change being made to the Estate Administration

Act.

I was a solicitor at one time, before I became a politician, and I

did a lot of estate work. I can't tell you how many times families were faced

with a situation where they had to have an estate probated at considerable

expense and inconvenience because of the $10,000 limit. So I congratulate the

Attorney General and his staff on making this change, amongst the other changes

included with Bill 62. I think this actually will make estate administration

accessible and affordable for a lot of folks in British Columbia. It's a good

change, and thank you for making it.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 62. The Attorney

General closes debate.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I just wanted to say that I appreciate

those comments. In fact, this was an issue that was brought to my attention by a

member of the profession who had noticed this anomaly developing over time. I'm

glad we've been able to introduce a bill that will achieve the object that the

member speaks about, and I look forward to any further discussion about the

details of these amendments as that discussion may arise or occur in committee

stage.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 62 , Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 , read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House

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

Hon. G. Plant: I call second reading of Bill 64.

JUSTICE MODERNIZATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be now read a second

time.

[1505]

Bill 64 makes amendments to several statutes that will improve the

effectiveness of the civil justice system and enhance access to justice for all

British Columbians. The first of these amendments is to the Class Proceedings

Act. Class proceedings legislation is designed to enhance access to the courts

and serve the interests of judicial economy by bringing together a number of

similar cases, similar claims, into one proceeding — most effectively, I think,

in circumstances where the value of an individual claim may not be large, but

where there may be hundreds or thousands of citizens who were affected by the

same issue. When all of those claims are aggregated together, there is a lawsuit

that can be advanced affordably and economically. Class proceedings legislation

is designed to regulate how that kind of litigation is initiated and commenced.

One of the first steps in the initiation of a class proceeding is

to take a cause of action and apply to have it certified as a class proceeding

in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The amendment we're introducing today

is an amendment that will deal with a potential problem that exists in the

structure of the Class Proceedings Act by extending the period of time that

limitation periods are suspended when class action proceedings are initiated.

Currently, limitation periods for persons who have individual

claims are suspended at the time a class action proceeding is certified. This

amendment would extend the suspension period to the time that a class action

lawsuit is filed. That is, the running of time — which is the lawyer's phrase

for the operation of limitation periods — will be suspended while an application

for certification is being considered by the court.

Certification applications are often complex, and frequently there

is a lengthy period between the time the application for certification is filed

and the time the issue of whether or not to certify the class is decided by the

court. The amendment is intended to ensure, and will ensure, that individuals

who reasonably believe

[ Page 11431 ]

they are included as members of the potential class are not prejudiced if the

class action ultimately is not certified and their limitation periods have

expired in the intervening period.

It will also eliminate the need to file a multiplicity of

individual lawsuits to preserve limitation periods when class proceedings have

been commenced. It means, in effect, that when an application for certification

is made, all those who are potentially members of the class won't have to worry

about the running of limitation periods or the running of time until the

application for certification is disposed of or until the other triggering

events that are referred to specifically in the provision take place.

In this respect, our class proceedings legislation was, I think,

anomalous, and I am grateful to the members of the judiciary and the legal

community who brought this issue forward. It is, in fact, an issue that came

forward during the public discussion about civil liability reform, which is

usually referred to as the civil liability review. I'm glad to introduce this

particular amendment, which I think will help ensure that class proceedings

legislation operates as it really should and as it does operate in this respect,

in fact, in Ontario and Saskatchewan.

I should say that this amendment will come into effect on royal

assent, and it is prospective in application.

The proposed amendments to the Small Claims Act and Court Rules

Act are enabling provisions that pave the way for the possibility of very

significant future improvements to the civil justice system. Specifically, the

amendments to the Small Claims Act will make it possible to increase the

monetary jurisdiction of the provincial small claims court, by regulation, up to

a maximum of $50,000. The amendments to the Court Rules Act will enable the

creation of different procedures for different categories of cases and will

allow for the creation of simplified procedure rules for cases under $100,000 in

the Supreme Court.

[1510]

I want to pause to emphasize that what these two amendments do is

create a framework within which the monetary limit can be raised. The amendments

do not actually raise the monetary jurisdiction of the small claims court, nor

do they actually create simplified procedure rules for cases under $100,000. I

mention that because I've seen some news reports that suggest that these

amendments go further than they do. I think they're important amendments,

because they will ensure that some civil justice reform work that's underway can

be given effect at the time when we know for a certainty what it is we can do.

Let me speak for a minute about the problem that we're trying to

fix here. In British Columbia, civil cases are becoming so complex that many

people cannot afford to use the court system. For some time there has been

considerable work being done within my ministry, in collaboration with both

levels of court and the bar, to look for ways to improve access to courts for

civil claims.

I have not seen the most recent version of this statistic, but one

indication of the problem that is increasingly facing British Columbia litigants

who are looking for affordable access to justice in civil litigation is the fact

that just under one third of all the filings now in small claims court are for

exactly $10,000. The monetary jurisdiction of the small claims court is limited

to $10,000. What that means is that in just about one third of the cases coming

before the court, the litigants probably have a claim for significantly more

than $10,000 — maybe only slightly more. There is anecdotal evidence that

suggests that in some cases, the litigants actually have a dispute over as much

as $40,000 or $50,000. But they can't, for whatever reason — and I'll come to

that in a minute — figure out how to make the litigation of that issue in the

Supreme Court an economically viable proposition. So they decide that they want

to take advantage of the expedited procedure that's there in the small claims

court, and they waive down their claim to $10,000.

That is at least some indication that for civil claims of modest

but in some cases quite significant to the individuals involved…. For modest

size, the court system is not the accessible place that it ought to be. In this

context, I think I want to point out that the Provincial Court small claims

process has for many years offered individuals and businesses a venue for the

speedy, just and inexpensive resolution of their disputes. That $10,000 monetary

limit has not changed since 1991, not even to keep pace with inflation.

What I hear is a growing demand from the legal community and the

larger community of the province to make the cheaper, the simpler and the more

efficient procedures of the small claims court available to a wider range of

cases. So this legislation will allow cabinet to raise the monetary jurisdiction

of that court. What we are doing now is working in a number of different ways to

try to consider the question of just what level of increase will achieve our

goals in terms of increasing access to justice.

We may find, for example, that this happens in stages. It may not

be an increase from $10,000 to $50,000 in short order. It may be an increase

from $10,000 to $25,000. We still have quite a bit of work to do to sort out how

we can ensure that we can increase access to justice by increasing the monetary

jurisdiction without compromising access to justice by increasing the delay in

the time to trial by a significant increase in the workload of the Provincial

Court.

Again, the theme here is that we are trying to give…. I'm asking

the Legislature to give cabinet the tools it needs to implement an increase in

the monetary jurisdiction when we get to the point when the work has been done,

which will allow us to determine what the level of increase ought to be and on

what basis.

[1515]

The same argument in some respects applies to the Supreme Court,

where I find constantly that lawyers and their clients are telling me that the

complex and costly processes of the Supreme Court make it virtually impossible

for many, many citizens — too many citi-

[ Page 11432 ]

zens — to contemplate making a civil claim in the Supreme Court. I believe

improvements have to be made to those procedures, and I am confident that the

work that's underway will lead to reforms that will actually make a difference

in how that court reaches a broader sector of the public.

In fact, I've been working with the Supreme Court Rules Revision

Committee to try and develop a new mandatory procedure for civil claims, perhaps

up to $50,000 or perhaps even up to $100,000. The goal is to have a process that

is simpler and more affordable, both for litigants who have legal representation

and for litigants who don't.

As I've said, the amendments to the Small Claims Act and the Court

Rules Act will support the work being done to design these reforms so that when

that work is complete — and that work includes consultation with the judiciary,

with the bar, with the public at large — we'll be able to implement the reforms

immediately.

There are two other changes in this bill that are important.

First, we are amending the Crown Proceeding Act to allow litigation to be

commenced against the Crown in the Provincial Court, in small claims court. This

prohibition against allowing suits against the provincial government in the

Provincial Court is an anachronism. It is way past time, in my view, when the

government should be able to stand up in a court in British Columbia and say:

"We're special. You can't sue us here. You have to go somewhere else to sue us."

By providing the Crown with this longstanding procedural

protection, which was never available to any other litigant, we're essentially

forcing litigants who may have relatively small claims against the provincial

government to use those more costly and complex procedures in the Supreme Court.

I think that is antithetical to a justice system that has the idea of equality

at its root and that works towards achieving access to justice. So what we're

proposing here is to remove that long-outstanding anachronism, and that will

permit litigants to sue the provincial government in the Provincial Court of

British Columbia.

Lastly, this bill contains amendments to the Evidence Act to

provide greater certainty that electronic court documents will be admitted into

court and that a secure electronic signature will be accepted as a signature by

the person identified through the signature. This amendment is necessary, from

government's perspective, to allow us to continue to develop an electronic court

case management and tracking system, which will include the piloting of

electronic filing of civil court documents in 2005, with the full implementation

of electronic court filing scheduled to take place in the fall of 2006.

The further development of these systems, along with the

electronic filing of documents, is all part of helping achieve efficiencies in

the justice system through the use of technology. Those efficiencies, in turn,

will help increase access to justice by reducing some of the unnecessary

barriers created by traditional rules for the proof of documents that were

created long before the electronic age.

These amendments are similar to provisions in the Canada Evidence

Act. I'm told that other jurisdictions, such as Alberta and Ontario, have also

made amendments to their provincial evidence acts to be consistent with the

Canada Evidence Act. I should say that this amendment will not affect other

existing legislative provisions relating to the creation or use of electronic

documents or electronic signatures.

In

summary, we deliberately gave this bill the title of Justice

Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, because what we are doing here will

help modernize our justice system and help expand access to that system so that

British Columbians can have confidence that there is a justice system that is

affordable, that's there for them when they need it, and that will continue to

do the work of protecting our rights and responsibilities as British Columbians.

[1520]

B. Bennett: I rise to speak very briefly in support of the

Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. I'm going to focus on two

aspects of this legislation.

First, the Crown Proceeding Act changes. I was practising at the

bar in Kelowna for a couple of years and in the Kootenays for almost ten years,

and I can't tell you how many times people came into my office and told me

stories about the government doing something to them and not being able to take

their complaint through a legal action to the Provincial Court. For those of my

colleagues who aren't familiar with the difference between Provincial and

Supreme Court, the Provincial Court process is a small claims process. It is a

very intuitive process requiring some forms but not requiring a lawyer,

particularly. It's a process where just about anybody can get involved in it,

and fees are reasonable. It's a more relaxed, less formal process. For most

citizens, first of all, to go to court is a rather traumatic experience, I

think. Secondly, to take on the government is probably another traumatic

experience for most people. So I think this particular change really opens up a

fair opportunity for ordinary people in this province when they feel aggrieved

by the provincial government, and it is a relatively modest monetary amount to

take their claim into Provincial Court.

The changes that are being made to the Small Claims Act…. I

recognize that the dollar amount of the claims possible right now is set at

$10,000. I can certainly confirm from my experience what the Attorney General

stated a moment ago about at least one-third of the claimants giving up a

portion of their claim when they go to small claims court. I had it happen in my

office many, many times. I would advise people. I rarely went to small claims

court, because the client couldn't justify the cost. But I would help people

fill out their forms and so forth. Many times they had a claim of $20,000,

$25,000 and even $40,000, and they simply gave it up because they could not face

the formality and the cost and just the complexity of dealing with the Supreme

Court.

[ Page 11433 ]

As this new policy develops, as the regulation is put into place

and this all plays out, I think it will be a major improvement, again, in terms

of access to justice. We usually think about access to justice in terms of the

criminal justice system, but there's access to justice for the civil side as

well. It's every bit as important for people who don't come into contact with

the criminal justice system to feel that they also have access to the justice

system on the civil side. So, again, my congratulations to the Attorney General

for these important changes.

J. Bray: I want to stand and briefly, strongly, support

Bill 64, the Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

You know, the Attorney General spoke at great length about some of

the details in this. I support all of them, especially because it follows the

theme that this government has been following since the election of 2001, led by

the Attorney General — that is, actually making the justice system more workable

for all those involved so that it works better for the judiciary, for the legal

profession, for trial lawyers and for solicitors. But most importantly, it works

better for citizens.

The courts are actually there for citizens. The courts are there

to deal with disputes, certainly on the criminal side. But on the civil side, it

has become an important structure in our system here in British Columbia and

Canada. The Attorney General has highlighted quite correctly that, over time,

the world has changed. It has changed in terms of monetary values by which

somebody might be seeking legal remedy, and it has changed in the complex world

that we live in. Both of those issues have become impediments. Certainly, I've

heard from many in my constituency about the barriers that they create — not

intentionally — for people to access the courts to actually find remedies to

their situations.

[1525]

I am really standing in support of making the court system more

responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens to be able to access their

grievances and redress as they see they are deserving of in their grievances. I

especially do want to commend the Attorney General for what I think is a really

important move, which is starting the process by which we can raise the limits

for small claims. The Attorney has highlighted a complaint I've heard, which is

that people, in essence, shortchange themselves to access the small claims court

rather than actually going after what they believe is an award to which they're

entitled. That has a very discouraging impact on citizens and on the sense they

have that the justice system is actually there to provide them with some

remedies.

I strongly encourage the staff that are working with the Attorney

General to look at the mechanisms by which we can increase that threshold to

provide more access for ordinary citizens — either with or without counsel, with

or without any expertise — to the remedies that they feel they have entitlement

to so that we can actually make the justice system more available to ordinary

citizens.

That's something I hear a lot of in my community. I know that

although some of these are slightly technical, my community is going to be very

supportive not only of these particular amendments that actually improve access

to justice but also that it will continue the thrust this government and the

Attorney General has brought on to make civil matters more relevant, more

accessible, fairer, easier and more efficient for ordinary citizens in every

corner of this province.

I strongly support Bill 64 and congratulate the Attorney General

on this continuing journey of improving civil access for ordinary citizens.

Mr. Speaker: On second reading stage of Bill 64, the

Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. G. Plant: First, I want to say thank you to my

colleagues for their remarks and their support for these initiatives.

I also, in closing debate, wanted to just to take a minute or two

to say that the journey to reach this point has involved a fair number of folks

working hard, working constructively and bringing progressive ideas to the table

to consider this question of how we can make our justice system as relevant and

as accessible as it can be to British Columbians. There's been great leadership

— leadership from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, leadership from the

Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, leadership from their colleagues on those

two courts and from members of the bar.

One forum in which the issue of civil justice will continue to be

studied and which is a very important forum for that purpose is the civil

justice working group established, I think, just last week by the Justice Review

Task Force. I was pleased to have the opportunity to stand with Chief Justice

Brenner and to introduce the public to this important initiative. It's good to

see that lawyers and judges as well as citizens are working together to try to

make sure that we make progress down this path.

We have more work to do. This is but a stop along the way, but I

think it's an important stop. It's certainly an important occasion to reflect on

the need for a justice system that is there for all British Columbians when they

need it.

I look forward to any discussion about the details of this in

committee stage, and I also look forward to the continued support of my

colleagues as we try to push this cart down the path towards the destination

that I think we all agree on and share.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question is second reading

of Bill 64.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to the

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[ Page 11434 ]

Bill 64, Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read

a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Plant: I call continuing committee stage debate of

Bill 45.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we'll take a ten-minute recess

here while all the participants gather. We'll reconvene at 1540.

The House recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:46 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

COMMUNITY LIVING AUTHORITY ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; H.

Long in the chair.

The committee met at 3:46 p.m.

section 4.

J. Kwan:

Section 4 establishes shares in the authority at a

value of $10 per share. I'm just wondering if the minister could remind the

House if this is normal practice with independent authorities.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, that's true. It is standard wording for

British Columbia statutes, but it also addresses the point you raised yesterday

about making donations. It assists that.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

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

section 5

that is in the possession of the Clerk instead of the amendment that is standing

in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 5,

(

a) in the proposed section (1) by deleting "9

directors" and

substituting "11 directors",

(

b) in the proposed subsection (2) by adding ",

other than a

director referred to in subsection (3.1)," after "All directors",

(

c) in the proposed subsection (3) by adding

"and

section 6

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

(

d) by adding the following subsection:

(3.1) Subject to

section 6 (2) (c), 2 of the directors must be individuals with a developmental

disability.]

On the amendment.

J. Kwan: First of all, let me say thank you to the minister

for this amendment. I know that the amendment came out of, in part, the second

reading debate that we engaged in. I raised this as one of the issues that we

have concerns with. Certainly, people who have been working on this piece of

legislation and have been lobbying for the change had expressed that they have

been wanting to see self-advocates as part of the board's composition. In fact,

the original plan was to see that families have a 50-plus-one majority on the

board.

I know we're not reaching that, although there is some change here

with respect to the composition of the board, and that is good news. I do want

to acknowledge the minister for this change, in recognition of the community's

effort in advocating for this. We support the community and raised this issue in

second reading debate.

I do want to just ask a quick question of the minister, though,

for full clarity. There are two sets of changes. Although the one that's tabled

here today changes the language, incorporating the term "developmental

disability" into the amendment, the original plan was to change the term by

incorporating "community living support." I know that there is slight difference

with respect to that. I do think that this change of incorporating the term

"developmental disability" actually allows for fuller scope in terms of

opportunities for people to be on the board and that it allows for people who

may not be accessing the community living support services, for example, to be

able to serve on the board. I know that's part of the reason, perhaps, that this

change is before us.

I do just want it to be clear on the record, so I wonder if the

minister could actually state the reasons behind the change so that it is

actually on record.

[1550]

Hon. S. Hagen: I am very pleased to do that, and I

appreciate the member raising it. We actually recognized the invaluable role of

self-advocates and other individuals by entrenching their voices in this

legislation. We did this one way by requiring the board of directors to

establish an advisory committee comprised of people receiving community living

support services to help guide the board. That committee will have regular input

into the ongoing operations and strategies of the new authority once it is

established.

While this legislation creates a stronger role for these

individuals than can be found anywhere else in the country, we also found,

through consultation during the summer and early fall, that individuals with

developmental disabilities made it quite plain that while this was a step in the

right direction, it was clearly not enough.

Therefore, we are taking steps today, through this amendment, to

ensure that those voices are heard and that their counsel is considered, as it

should be. The board of directors is currently mandated at nine members. We are

increasing that number by two to 11 members on the board. These two additional

seats will be held by people with developmental disabilities. People with

developmental disabilities now have two approaches to the board. An advisory

committee of those receiving services will also have the ability to

[ Page 11435 ]

voice their concerns as well as representation on the board.

These are not just seats on the board. They are a means of

ensuring that the voices of all British Columbians living with developmental

disabilities will be heard and that the board responds to the many voices on the

advisory committee and the groups they represent within the community.

Government is making sure that the people living with these disabilities are

part of policy, practice and regulation.

Through the additions to the board and the embedding in the

legislation, British Columbia is taking a significant step forward and leading

the way in Canada for community living. We are ensuring that the very people who

may need these services are heard on many of the issues for which they are the

best proponents. It is our intention to continue working with the community and

its advocates to make sure the authority best reflects their concerns. The board

will listen to the community and give weight to that counsel. We as government

will continue to work with both the board and the community and to monitor the

progress of the authority, the board and its new members and the advisory

committee — a task that I personally, as the new minister, look forward to.

The authority is a bold undertaking, and by partnering with the

community, we can lead the way for community living. This is the beginning of a

new era for all of us — people living with disabilities, the people who provide

services, the authority and my ministry. It is only fitting that we create the

additional seats on the board in recognition of the importance of the

contributions people living with developmental disabilities bring to their

community.

Hon. L. Reid: I, too, would like to add my words of support

to this particular amendment. I want to say that it reflects very much the

consultation that's been underway across this province over the last number of

months. It's vitally important, I believe, to put on the record the voices of

those in the city of Richmond who have advocated fiercely for these entities to

come forward. I want very much for us to honour that work. This is legislation

that will continue to live and breathe in every single community in British

Columbia — vitally important.

I had the absolute privilege last Saturday to stand on a platform

with my two colleagues from Richmond Centre and Richmond-Steveston when they

talked about honouring Community Living Month in British Columbia. If we want to

honour that work, this legislation needs to speak to those communities, and in

fact, it does speak to those communities.

For all of those families and providers who tirelessly consulted

with us over the summer and who continued to have this dialogue with us over the

summer, I simply want to say thanks. It's vitally important that we do that. Two

souls, particularly — Marie Glaze from Richmond and Janice Nelson from Richmond

— continue to provide us enormous insight as we go forward on these questions.

It's really, really important that we continue to build capacity

and community, that we continue to build respectful engagement into the process.

That's why I rise today. I want us very much to acknowledge that those with

developmental disabilities in British Columbia today do speak for themselves and

that this government is prepared to listen. Thank you very much.

[1555]

R. Lee: I am pleased to rise in the House to support the

amendment to

section 5 of Bill 45. For the past few months I have had the

opportunity to have meetings with the members, staff and also self-advocates —

people with developmental disabilities and their families — at the Burnaby

Association for Community Inclusion and on other occasions, listening to their

concerns and challenges, including the issues of individualized funding,

training, microboard, more involvement of the local communities and also the

families. I am pleased that the government has introduced this bill to establish

the community living British Columbia authority.

After we wrote the proposed act, one question remained, which is

how to ensure that the stakeholders, the self-advocates, have a direct voice and

also the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process in the board

governing the authority. Today the amendment will increase the number of

directors from nine to 11, including two individuals with developmental

disabilities. This will certainly address the concerns expressed by the

community, and I commend the Minister of Children and Family Development for

listening to their concerns and for putting in this amendment.

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, I'm sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear with

my question to the minister earlier. I was going to let it go. Then I thought,

no, I'd better try and clarify it, given that we now actually have a bit of a

debate about this amendment that we're all in support of.

The amendment, as the minister says, is amending the composition

of the board from nine to 11 to allow for two more representations at the board,

to include the definition of "developmental disability" on this board. Formerly,

the original amendment, which I know is not on the public record but was brought

to my attention yesterday by both the minister — and I thank the minister for

that — and the deputy minister, was to put forward the expansion of the board by

two to the makeup of 11 but using the definition of "community living support."

Today we're actually seeing the actual amendment moved by the minister using the

term "developmental disability."

I was seeking for the minister to clarify that change from

yesterday. There are a number of reasons, but part of the reason, as I

understand, is to allow, for example, people who might not be using community

living support services to be able to be on the board. They may well be

individuals identified as someone

[ Page 11436 ]

with a developmental disability, for example. That's one reason.

Then I know that advocates in the community have also expressed to

me — and this is part of the self-advocacy component — that recognizing and

utilizing the term itself in the composition of the board was actually important

as well. That might be another reason why we see that change today. I just want

to hear that from the minister's words and to put that on record — why there's a

slight change from yesterday's proposed amendment.

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Chair, through to the hon. member, she's

absolutely correct in her assessment. We found that in re-looking at this

amendment, we felt it was too restrictive. We really wanted to open it up and

ensure that all people with disabilities could participate.

D. Hayer: I also want to commend the minister for making

this amendment. I had heard from many of my constituents over the summer months

about including the members from the special needs disability community. Without

taking much more time, I just wanted to thank you very much for listening to the

MLAs and our constituents.

R. Hawes: I, too, rise to speak in favour of the amendment

and to thank the minister for listening. Over the summer I know there was a

considerable amount of feedback from the community that was received in the

ministry from the self-advocate community particularly. I'm very pleased that

you've listened.

I just want to take this opportunity once again to thank my

constituent Bryce Schaufelberger, who served on the original interim board and

who I know has had many conversations with me personally about the role of the

self-advocate on the board. I have talked to other members of the interim board,

who have verified to me the vital role that Bryce and the self-advocates play on

a board like that. On behalf of all the self-advocates and on behalf of my

constituent Bryce Shaufelberger, thank you very much for listening. I'm highly

supporting this amendment.

[1600]

V. Anderson: I also would like to give my commendation for

the inclusion of this amendment on the board, because I think it is very

important that it brings a new culture, a new awareness and a new inclusiveness

into this particular act. I think the self-advocates have worked for years and

demonstrated their ability to bring their own messages and to share them with

others. I'm glad that this recognition is being given.

J. Bray: I, too, rise to speak in favour of the amendment

for the reasons that others in this House have voiced. But it is a further

recognition of the direction that our society is moving, in terms of providing

the opportunity for everyone in our society to be as independent as possible and

recognizing that every member of our community has the opportunity to make a

contribution. That includes those with developmental disabilities and those who

act as self-advocates.

I know that in the meetings I've had over the last year with those

in the community living sector, that is a very critical component to the

furthering of the whole community living movement. Having representation on the

community living board is critical for all people living with developmental

disabilities and their families to get the recognition that we aren't just

saying we want them to participate, but we're actually giving them the

meaningful tools by which they can participate.

Ultimately, by having these two additional members from the

self-advocate community who now will be sitting on this board as a result of

this amendment, the ultimate beneficiaries of that experience and of that input

are going to be persons with developmental disabilities, their families and

their caregivers, so I strongly support the amendment.

I believe that in my community, those involved with community

living are going to be very pleased and very supportive of this, because it

continues to work toward that integration of every member of our society being

able to participate. I know that the minister had lots of people knocking on his

door, and I am very appreciative of the fact that he met and discussed this. We

found a way to further strengthen this bill, and I strongly support the

amendment.

Amendment approved.

section 5 as amended.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair, then back to

section 5. I

have some questions on

section 5 and an amendment to possibly make relating to

this

section as well.

I wonder if the minister could explain to me, in

section 5(3)(b),

where it uses the language: "significant connection." Why was that language

chosen over, for example, "family member"?

Hon. S. Hagen: Another good question. It was a question

that came up in all of the consultations, and it is certainly is a question that

came up from some of the advocacy groups.

There isn't really a short answer, but I guess what we chose to do

was rather than restricting membership of the majority of the board to family

members, which is what your question is, the act allows for a broader range of

concerned and involved individuals to be considered and, hence, a wider range of

perspectives to be present to inform decision-making.

Individuals who are not family members but have a valuable insight

to offer include close friends of an individual with a developmental

disabilities or the individual's family; employers of an individual with

developmental disabilities; retired caregivers; individuals who have served as a

committee or representative of an individual with developmental disabilities;

professionals who have specialized in serving people

[ Page 11437 ]

with developmental disabilities, and those might be lawyers, doctors, nurses

or therapists; and lastly, former executive directors or employees of agencies

that have served people with developmental disabilities.

[1605]

J. Kwan: I think it is almost like a definition the

minister has just put on record, actually, relating to a significant connection

or what that means when he referred to the numbers of different people that

would fit into this category. In that sense, why is that term "significant

connection" not defined in

section 1 of the act, then, so that we're clear as to

what it means?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by the people who write legislation

that it's almost impossible to give a definition to that and that it's better to

have it more open than more closed.

J. Kwan: Through the minister's consultation did the

minister at any point in time hear from the community that they thought it was

important to actually, instead of using the term "significant connection to,"

rather have the actual term "a family member of" in this

section because people

were of the view that it is very different if you're actually a family member of

someone with a developmental disability? It's not just partial understanding.

I don't want to minimize, by any stretch of the imagination, the

people who work in this sphere who might be a friend of an individual who has a

developmental disability and so on — to minimize their understanding. However,

we did hear feedback from people that it is different to have a family member

versus someone who has a significant connection to an individual with a

developmental disability. They felt it was important that the language be

changed to reflect that and, in fact, for the language to incorporate "a family

member" versus "significant connection to." Did the minister hear any of this

kind of feedback during the consultation that the ministry undertook regarding

this bill?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's a good question. Yes, that point was

made, certainly, during the consultation. I guess one point is that not

everybody has family. Also, the majority of the board as it is presently

constituted are family members, but we felt, through the discussion leading up

to the legislation, that it was better not to restrict this portion of the

membership of the board. It was better to make it more inclusive so that groups

like the ones that I mentioned might have an opportunity at some time to serve

on the board.

J. Kwan: There is a way to get around that. We could have

people who are not family members of an individual with a developmental

disability be on the board. It is not to exclude, potentially, executive

directors or people who are retired and who used to provide services to people

with developmental disabilities. It doesn't necessarily have to exclude them,

but there is a possibility to change the language to include it so that the

majority of the board are individuals who are family members of an individual

with a developmental disability. So we can actually, in some ways, have our cake

and eat it too.

I recognize that, certainly, not every individual with a

developmental disability would necessarily have a family member, but that is

also to say, though, that I think a lot of them do. So you can actually have all

parts of the world here. Then of course, by doing that — by making this change

to allow a majority of the board to be individuals who are family members of a

person with a developmental disability — you actually really strengthen, I

think, the voice of the people who are directly involved in a day in, day out,

24-hours-around-the-clock kind of experience, with that kind of knowledge and

experience on the board. I think that could be very valuable. This is where I'm

coming from with respect to this suggestion.

[1610]

To that end, Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment, if I

may, please, which the Clerk has a copy of. I believe the minister has a copy of

my amendment as well. I would like to move the amendment to

section 5 of Bill

45, intituled Community Living Authority Act.

[SECTION 5 (3), by deleting the text highlighted in strikeout

and inserting the text highlighted by underline:

Subject to subsection

(2), a majority of directors must be

(

a) individuals referred to in the definition of

"developmental disability", or

(

b) individuals who have a significant

connection to are family members of the individuals referred to in paragraph (a)

, including family members .]

That would be the language that I'm proposing for an amendment here.

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm going to speak against the amendment,

not because it's wrong — I don't think there is any right or wrong here. We're

talking about a very important group of people in our society. In order to put

together a board that will deal with this budget, we wanted to give opportunity

for more people to have a chance to serve on that board. These people bring a

range of skills to the table, and we appreciate that. I understand what the

advocacy groups are saying with regard to family members. I hear what they're

saying, but at the same time, as government we want to make sure we have a

broad-ranging group of people who are focused on these particular issues. I

think that clause 5 gives us that.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move the amendment to

section 6 which is

in the possession of the Clerk instead of the

[ Page 11438 ]

amendment that is standing in my name in the orders of the day .

[SECTION 6(2),

(

a) in the proposed paragraph (

a) by deleting

"and",

(

b) in the proposed paragraph (

b) by deleting

"section 5 (2)

and (3)," and substituting "section 5 (2), (3) and (3.1)," and by adding ", and"

at the end of the paragraph, and

(

c) by adding the following paragraph:

(

c) the board continues

to operate until a replacement director is appointed under paragraph (

a) or

(b).]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

J. Kwan: On

section 10. Families who are following this

debate noticed the MLA from Beacon Hill's comment in the Legislature yesterday.

He said: "It's for all those with developmental disabilities aged six forward."

This is what he put on record, with a specific age reference. But I don't see

anything in the legislation that enshrines age in this act. Are ages part of

this act? Is this enshrined in the act?

Hon. S. Hagen: There's no mention of age in the act.

J. Kwan: Based on the fact that only about ten percent, as

I understand, of children identified with special needs will ever need community

living services as teens or adults…. The feeling of the community is that

children should be kept out of the community living authority.

I just want to ask the question for clarification. Are children

being included in the new authority?

[1615]

Hon. S. Hagen: Although the age of children isn't mentioned

in the act, children with developmental disabilities will receive the services

they require. What we're looking at in the ministry now is how we best deliver

services to all of the children who require those services. That's not covered

under this act. Children with developmental disabilities are covered under this

act.

J. Kwan: Okay. Well, some of the concerns that I have heard

are these. People in the community living sector have told the opposition that

they would like to see the authority serve only kids age seven and up or

possibly even 18 and up. The feeling is that if the authority gets kids services

as well, then this could be a disaster for integrated children's supports. There

are some concerns in terms of where the limitation would be and whether there

would be an application of age in terms of the services that are being provided.

The minister said that children will be included in the services

under this authority, yet there are no age requirements. Am I assuming

correctly, then, that all children, irrespective of age, would be part of the

authority in terms of access to services?

Hon. S. Hagen: Generally speaking, children over the age of

six with developmental disabilities who require lifelong supports will receive

their family support services from community living B.C. All early intervention

services — that's services for children under the age of six and other services

for children with special needs, including children with autism — will remain

with the ministry as part of an integrated network of services for children.

However, if families ask for services for children under six from community

living B.C., they will receive them.

J. Kwan: What about people with autism? Who will be in

charge of the programs or the funds?

Hon. S. Hagen: Those programs stay with the ministry.

J. Kwan: The lawsuits that the government is faced with in

the area of community living — for example, the autism court case and some of

the other class actions arising from the former Woodlands residence, etc. —

where do those fit? Are they part of the new authority, or do they stay with the

ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: I guess if there is a liability there, the

liability is with the ministry and with the government.

J. Kwan: I know that ongoing work is being done with

respect to the devolution process here with the new authority, because we know

the new authority would actually not be up and running until about next year at

this time. However, there are ongoing issues, if you will, around the issue

related to age. I know the minister gave an answer with respect to that, and

that's where it stands now. The minister, just moments ago, did come over, and

we had a little chat just prior to the debate — that he would be going out to

meet with some of the groups with their concerns. I would encourage the minister

to actually engage in this discussion around the age issues, particularly as

they impact children, and some of the other concerns as well. I will simply

encourage the minister to do that and specifically also raise the issue around

age.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

J. Kwan:

Section 12 deals with the service plan and other

plans.

Section 12(1) goes on to say, "The authority must submit to the minister

for approval, by a date specified by the minister," and then it lists a bunch of

[ Page 11439 ]

stuff. What date does the minister have in mind here? What date are we

referring to in this

section of the act?

Hon. S. Hagen: What we've tried to do with this act is make

it less prescriptive and more enabling. That's the reason for the wording.

[1620]

J. Kwan: No, that wasn't really my question. My question

was to try and find out and get some clarity in terms of the time lines that

people might be working towards. I'm just wondering…. In

section 12 of the act,

it actually says that the authority must submit to the minister for approval by

a date specified by the minister. For the purposes of time line, for the

community to know what date they're working towards, what are we looking at

here?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's the same time line. They would be on

the same time line as government, and that's a time line set by Treasury Board.

J. Kwan: Then we're looking at the time line, I guess, in

preparation for the throne speech and the budget speech. It would be the same

time line as that, then.

Hon. S. Hagen: Basically, that's right. But there will be

some flexibility, because they won't be up and running by the time of next

year's throne speech and budget speech. That will be a transition year.

J. Kwan: Okay. We have some clarity around the date.

section 12(2), the language is such that…. In reference to the

service plan, let me put the language on record. It says:

"In

developing a proposed plan referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the

provision of community living support, the authority must endeavour to (

a) offer

a range of funding and planning options that promote choice, flexibility and

self-determination, for example, individualized funding, independent planning

support and the involvement of the community resources, (

b) promote choice and

innovation in the manner in which services are delivered, (

c) encourage shared

responsibility among families, service providers and community resources, (

d) utilize and further develop the capacity of individuals, families and community

resources, (

e) assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum

independence and live full lives in their communities, (

f) promote equitable

access to community living support, and (

g) coordinate the provision of

community living support with services provided by the government and community

resources."

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, why in this

section of the bill

the words "must endeavour to" are put in here, as opposed to simply saying that

the authority must provide the range of options and the list of things that I

have put out. It weakens it very much in terms of the services and the range of

services that need to be provided by the authority if the language of "endeavour

to" is part of the language incorporated.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's another great question.

I appreciate that the member read those clauses into the record,

because they are all very important elements of what we're trying to achieve.

Let's remember that we're actually walking down a new path. I'm not sure it has

ever been walked down before. As I said earlier, it's really the difference

between being prescriptive and being enabling. We are being enabling here

because we know that it's a tough order.

It's going to be a tough order for the new board to take charge of

this and to make the decisions necessary and to move down this path. We want to

work with them to achieve it. I know the board has the same objective at the end

as we do, and I think I could include the opposition in that. The basic reason

for the difference in wording would be that we wanted to make it enabling

instead of prescriptive.

J. Kwan: Yes, there was a reason why I read out the

subsection. It's so people know what we're talking about here, and it is

important. As we know, when we see the language "must endeavour to," it is to

say that one must try to, must do their very best to, and so on. I fully

understand that.

[1625]

Now, the subsection does not say that you have to meet every need.

Sometimes, I do understand, you may not be able to do so. However, in subsection

(2)(a), for example, the language is such that it says: "(

a) offer a range of

funding and planning options that promote choice, flexibility and

self-determination, for example, individualized funding, independent planning

support and the involvement of community resources."

I would venture to say that it is important to actually have in

legislation the language that says: "the authority must offer a range of funding

and planning options that promote choice, flexibility and self-determination,

for example, individualized funding, independent planning support and the

involvement of community resources."

I don't think it's too much to ask, actually, for this to be

amended and for the government to actually change the language to reflect that

intention that the authority must offer a range of services, etc. I'm not quite

sure why one would not want to be very clear about the role which the authority

needs to play with respect to offering a range of services and so on. Maybe the

minister could elaborate on that.

Hon. S. Hagen: There is a reason for being enabling instead

of prescriptive. On day one this thing is in operation. On day one the board may

or may not have what it takes to do the prescriptive part. The programs and

services need to be adaptable over time. The board needs some time to figure out

how to do this, as it's complicated stuff. I don't think there's an example

anywhere that they can follow. They're going to have to learn how to do this as

they go. I'm very comfortable with the enabling language in the bill.

J. Kwan: Well, I would disagree with the minister insofar

as this. I don't think it's just an issue around

[ Page 11440 ]

enabling language. We know and understand why the authority is there and what

it's tasked to do. There is a period of transition in which the authority will

undertake its work. It will be at least another year before we arrive at the

date when the act is actually in force.

I know that the government has been planning for this transition

for quite some time and continues to do so, albeit it was mired in chaos, albeit

there were lots of issues that arose around this transition and the

reorganization — mostly because of the government's stubbornness, I think, and

dogmatism around budget cuts. Everybody said that one could not do the

reorganizing with these kinds of deep cuts to the budget. Having said that, the

government wanted to plow ahead anyways, and now we have the plan that's been

delayed.

Having said that, it does not, I think, complicate the matter for

the authority to say to the authority that it is the expectation of the families

and individuals who need the services that there be a full range of services

available to them and that it must offer that range of services to families and

individuals who have developmental disabilities. I don't think that's too much

to ask. To that end, I would support stronger language than what is here today.

I don't think it's a prescriptive language issue. I think it's more than that.

To that end, Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to

section 12, which the Clerk has a copy of. The amendment strengthens the

language regarding the service plans and the authority's duty to provide a range

of funding and planning options, etc., by deleting the words "endeavour to"

under

section 12(2).

[1630]

I would move to amend Bill 45, intituled Community Living

Authority Act:

[SECTION 12 (2), by deleting the text highlighted by

strikeout:

In developing a proposed plan referred to in subsection

(1) in relation to the provision of community living support, the authority must

endeavour to: ]

Then it goes on to say, as the original text:

"(

a) offer a range of funding and planning options that promote choice, flexibility

and self-determination, for example, individualized funding, independent

planning support and the involvement of community resources,

(

b) promote choice and innovation in the

manner in which

services are delivered,

(

c) encourage shared responsibility among

families, service

providers and community resources, (

d) utilize and further develop the capacity

of individuals, families and community resources,

(

e) assist adults with developmental disabilities

to achieve

maximum independence and live full lives in their communities,

(

f) promote equitable access to community

living support, and

(

g) coordinate the provision of community

living support with

services provided by the government and community resources."

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Hagen: Again, I want to say to the member opposite

that I understand what she is saying, and I understand what some of the advocacy

groups said as well. But I think you know these plans, developed by the

authority, have to come to the minister for approval before they go to Treasury

Board. We're going to be working with the board, certainly for the first while,

to make sure we all work together to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.

This is a complicated task; it is a large task. I'm confident that the board is

up to it, but I'm also confident that the wording of the act will assure that

these programs are delivered as they need to be delivered.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Kwan: On

section 12, I would like to ask the minister

some questions related to the service plan. Let me ask this question. Yesterday

I raised with the minister in the

definitions

section — and I'm not trying to go

back in time here — the term "individualized funding" and why it wasn't defined

and so on. The minister advised that it would be dealt with through regulations

and so on, perhaps, if it is necessary.

Since the debate from yesterday the opposition has heard back from

community groups who have been watching the debate and so on. They're wondering,

in terms of individualized funding, what exactly that would mean, generally

speaking. The minister says he doesn't know yet whether or not it would be

incorporated, for example, in the service plans that are dealt with under

section 12 here.

I wonder if the minister could provide some clarity to the

community who are wondering about the issue of individualized funding and what,

generally, it would mean and whether or not it would be something that would be

referred to and be dealt with in the service plan. If so, how would it be dealt

with?

Hon. S. Hagen: The board would describe this as the

implement — the funding package that they have.

J. Kwan: Is it expected that the board would actually

provide a definition of individualized funding in the service plan? Is that what

the minister's anticipation would be?

Hon. S. Hagen: It will be the board's job to do this. They

will do it through regulation and policy.

[1635]

J. Kwan: Before the term "individualized funding" would be

incorporated through regulations and policy, would there be an opportunity for

the community to be consulted — truly consulted — about this? They're very

concerned about it. It is a big part of the change here, and as it stands now,

they have no inkling of what that could mean and what it would look like. I

wonder if the minister could give some reassurances, given that he is not able

to tell us what individualized funding would mean as it relates to this act. I

wonder if he can give the community groups some reassurances

[ Page 11441 ]

that they will be consulted before the regulations are enacted or policies

put in place.

Hon. S. Hagen: Certainly, one of the jobs of the board —

and through their advisory committee but the board as well — is to consult with

advocacy groups and discuss how they can best deliver these programs. I mean,

that's the whole objective here: how does the board deliver these services in

the most effective and efficient way possible to the people who need the

services?

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm being very specific here on this request

about consultation on the definition of individualized funding. Earlier I raised

the concerns we have heard from the community around the consultation around

this piece of legislation. Earlier I raised — and I have got more e-mails, in

fact, about — the flawed consultation process that members of the community had

experienced. So I want to make sure that they actually have an opportunity to be

consulted directly and notified of the consultation prior to changes being put

in place around the definition of individualized funding.

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the points of moving the delivery of

services to a board is that we think the board will be more responsive to the

community than government has been. But with regard to the duty to consult, I

just want to read

section 13 into the record.

"Subject to the regulations, the authority must, wherever

reasonable and appropriate, consult and collaborate with the minister, other

ministries and any other person specified by the minister respecting the

development of a service plan and other matters of mutual interest in relation

to the provision of community living support."

J. Kwan: I know that the minister is very good at reading

sections of the act to me, and I was going to ask some questions around

section

13. It does say: "Duty to consult." I'm not ready just yet, Mr. Chair, to move

section 13 for discussion, because I have some more questions under

section

12, but

section 13, under "Duty to Consult," does say: "…and any other person

specified by the minister…." So yes, the authority has a role to play —

absolutely. But under this

section of the act, it even says specifically that it

is up to the minister to specify specifically who to consult under this

section

of the act.

Let me just read the whole

section of the act on the record again.

It says: "Subject to the regulations, the authority must, wherever reasonable

and appropriate, consult and collaborate with the minister, other ministries and

any other person specified by the minister respecting the development of a

service plan and other matters of mutual interest in relation to the provision

of community living support."

I'll leave it there for now, and we'll get back to

section 13

momentarily. But it does say very specifically that it is up to the minister to

specify who needs to be consulted. It is in this context that I'm asking this

minister on record now if he will make sure that the authority consults with the

stakeholders in the community living sector, specifically with respect to the

definition of individualized funding, prior to it coming into force through

regulation or policy. I'm asking for that commitment from the minister, and I

would like, I hope, to hear that commitment from the minister now, Mr. Chair.

Hon. S. Hagen: I can assure the member opposite that that

discussion has already commenced between the board and advocacy groups.

[1640]

J. Kwan: The minister is saying that the board, which would

be the interim board, who's engaging in discussions now with advocacy groups

around the definition of individualized funding…. I'm not talking about overall

consultation; I'm talking about specifically around that term. Once the actual

board would be formulated under this bill and be in place, the new board — the

authority — will make sure consultation will take place and will continue to

take place prior to individualized funding. The terminology of it is being

defined in regulation or by policy.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I can assure the member of that.

J. Kwan: That's the commitment I was looking for from the

minister. As I said, from the opposition…. We've heard from people already.

Given the reluctance of the minister yesterday to incorporate in the

definitions

section the term "individualized funding" into the act, they want some sort of

reassurance from the minister that there will be consultation.

As I identified earlier both in second reading and yesterday, the

consultation process to date on this bill has been flawed, and people have not

felt they've been consulted. This is irrespective of the fact that they may not

have had their opinions reflected in the bill. They're simply saying that they

have not been consulted and that the consultation process itself was very

flawed. I just want to make sure that is in place for the groups who have been

working very hard on this.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. Under

section 12, it

does state, for example, that the new authority will develop a proposed plan,

etc., that will offer a range of funding options, choice, flexibility, etc. Now,

when we say more choice, greater flexibility and ultimately improved services….

Of course, in that language it could mean virtually anything. It is not as

specific as one would like it to be. It is unclear for some of the groups how

the authority's performance would be measured, for example. I wonder if the

minister could elaborate on that. Would it be through the service plan? Would it

be laid out clearly in the service plan that these are the objectives and goals

of the authority, etc.? Maybe the minister could shed some light on this.

[ Page 11442 ]

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. As they develop the service plan,

they'll also have to include in that service plan measurements that will show

they are meeting the targets they've set in their service plan.

J. Kwan: We've heard over and over again from community

groups. Wait-lists were one of the key concerns, for example. Would wait-lists

then be a target in the service plan, in terms of reducing the wait-list by

maybe a certain percentage or parameter or whatever? Is that the kind of thing

we can expect in the service plan? Is that what we're talking about so that we

can actually have a concrete measurement of performance that one could refer to,

to see how we're doing under this new authority?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would think that wait-lists or wait times

would be a very important concern of the board. That may well be one of the

issues they set targets for, but that will be up to the board.

J. Kwan: I want to be clear. The service plan we're talking

about for the authority…. Although it will be part of the Ministry of Children

and Family Development service plan, it is not the ministry of children's

development service plan. It is a completely different service plan. I want to

be clear about that. Am I right?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, you're right.

J. Kwan: Some would argue, of course, that the Ministry of

Children and Family Development service plan's objectives have not been met. In

fact, some would go as far as to argue that none of them have been met, but I'll

save that debate for another day.

In the service plan for the new authority, which would have to be

approved by the minister…. It is signed off by the minister. Am I right in

understanding that, or is it signed off by the authority?

Hon. S. Hagen: It is prepared by the authority and signed

off by the minister.

Section 12 approved.

[1645