2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18)

Hon.

R. Coleman

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 19)

Hon.

M. de Jong

Enforcement of Canadian

Judgments and Decrees (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility

Agreement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 17)

Hon.

W. Oppal

Workers Compensation Act

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M206)

Puchmayr

Vancouver Social Housing

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M207)

Kwan

Human Rights Code Amendment

Act (Bill M208)

Mayencourt

Statements (Standing

Order 25 B )

NoRooz celebration

Nuraney

Maillardville

Thorne

Petro-Canada Ice Centre in

Port Moody

Black

Kidney Health Month

Cubberley

Journée de la Francophonie

Cantelon

Farmworkers

Chouhan

Oral Questions

Government action on

farmworker safety

Chouhan

Hon.

P. Bell

Puchmayr

Call for inquiry into

farmworker safety and employment standards

Evans

Hon.

P. Bell

Child care funding

Trevena

Hon.

T. Christensen

Group home access for

developmentally disabled adults

Karagianis

Hon.

T. Christensen

Transition plan for rural

communities

Wyse

Hon.

I. Chong

Government facilitator for

community issues in Lillooet

Lali

Hon.

I. Chong

Loss of Alcan jobs in Kitimat

Austin

Hon.

R. Neufeld

TILMA agreement and

availability of affordable rental housing

Robertson

Hon.

C. Hansen

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts

Annual

Summary of Activities

R. Fleming

J. McIntyre

Committee of the Whole

House

Child and Youth Statutes

(Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7)

(continued)

Simons

Hon.

W. Oppal

Karagianis

Report and Third Reading

of Bills

Child and Youth Statutes

(Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7)

Committee of the Whole

House

Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)

(continued)

Hon.

W. Oppal

Krog

Report and Third Reading

of Bills

Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)

Second Reading of Bills

Community Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11)

Hon.

I. Chong

Wyse

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

Coons

Hon.

K. Falcon

Horgan

Simpson

Lali

Sather

Trevena

Routley

Conroy

[ Page 6301 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

H. Bloy: It's a real honour today. We have the francophone community here celebrating. One of the leaders in my community is Johanne Dumas, and she is celebrating her birthday today. I'm going to try this: bonne fête , Johanne.

Would the House please welcome her and wish her happy birthday with me.

L. Krog: We have two distinguished guests in the gallery with us today: the mayor of Nanaimo Gary Korpan and, accompanying him, councillor Joy Cameron, who I know the member for Nanaimo-Parksville would probably want to introduce. But if a certain nomination fight had gone differently, she'd be introducing him today.

Hon. C. Taylor: It's my pleasure to welcome grade 11 students from one of B.C.'s very fine secondary schools, Eric Hamber. It happens to be in my riding. We have 200 students here today visiting the Legislature and watching us do our work, so let's please extend a very warm welcome.

R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery we have three family members of the farmworkers killed in that tragic accident last week. They are Darshan Singh Poonia, husband of Sukhvinder Kaur Poonia; Jagjit Singh Sidhu, husband of Sarbjit Sidhu; Harsham Bal, son of Amarjit Kaur Bal and Param Grewal; and Jim Sinclair, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Please join me to welcome them.

Hon. S. Bond: Today in the gallery we have a number of distinguished guests, including Marie Bourgeois. Marie has actually been named to the Order of Canada for 25 years of service to the community, promoting French language and culture in British Columbia, and also for working to protect and advance the rights of francophone parents and children. She assumed the role of chair of the Conseil Scolaire Francophone, and she is also the executive director of La Maison de la Francophonie de Vancouver francophone community centre.

We are delighted to have her in the gallery and want to thank her for the work she does on behalf of francophones across the province.

[1335]

R. Fleming: Visiting us in the House today we have a number of people from Four Corners Language Institute in downtown Victoria. With us is Carlos Serra, who is the school owner and administrator — and also a coach of one of the clubs, with Fernwood United. But I digress. Also with him are students Tara Corman, Jay Gysler, Wakiko Okano, Alex Lee, Jessica Nam, Joe Cho, Fred Park, Fumi Sutoh, Misato Komura, Kayo Fujita, Adriana Cisneros and Yukiko Suzuki. Will the House please make these visitors most welcome to the House today.

I. Black: I have three quick introductions to make today. I want to first welcome the mayor of Coquitlam and her husband Gordon, who also happen to be valued constituents of mine. I would ask that the House make them feel welcome.

I would also like to point out that as many of you may have noticed, we have a former MLA with us today. He is a neighbour and friend of mine. Richard Stewart, former MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, is with us today.

G. Robertson: I'd like to join the Minister of Finance in welcoming all the students and teachers from Hamber Secondary, many of whom live on the north side of 33rd in my riding in Fairview, and particularly the teachers Mr. David Smith, Ms. Saiqa Mohammed and Ms. Rosalind Kellett. Would the House make them all welcome.

S. Hawkins: Today visiting the House is a former constituency assistant to the Speaker, Derek Badger. On behalf of the Speaker, I would like to ask that the House please make Derek feel very welcome here today.

R. Cantelon: I'd like to welcome today two of my constituents. One is the mayor of Nanaimo Gary Korpan, who has boldly led the city council into renovating downtown, including a $72 million conference centre that's on time and on budget.

Joining him today is another councillor, Joy Cameron, as well as Marilyn Hutchinson, the manager of economic development. So make them doubly welcome, please .

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today two leaders in the B.C. francophone community: Mme. Michelle Rakotonaivo, president, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique and also Capt. (Navy) Peter Ellis, Deputy Commander of the Canadian Fleet Pacific. I ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

D. Thorne: It's my pleasure today to welcome a couple of people from Maillardville, Alexis Norton and Johanne Dumas. I'll also say hi to the mayor and her husband Gordon.

Hon. M. de Jong: [French was spoken.]

Bruce Dumont is the president of the Métis Nation of British Columbia. He is actually also, for members that may be connecting names, a direct relative of Gabriel Dumont, who was present for the historic battle in Batoche with Louis Riel. Please make Bruce Dumont welcome in this chamber.

[ Page 6302 ]

L. Krog: I won't attempt to follow the flawless French of the Government House Leader, but I would like to welcome to the gallery someone who has just arrived — Nicole Langlois, who is the executive director of the Nanaimo Francophone Association. Would the House please make her welcome.

[1340]

D. Hayer: On Tuesday we had some students from Pacific Academy, and today I have some additional students and special guests. These are the students, a teacher and principal from Princess Margaret Secondary School: Parniyan Hazhir, who was born in Afghanistan; Ashleigh Girodat, who was born in White Rock, British Columbia; Ishrat Gadhok, who was born in New Delhi, India; and Jalila Jalila, who was born in Lahore, Pakistan. These four students, who are almost as diverse as the United Nations, are visiting here today. These students are also accompanied by their teacher Jon Nilson and principal Susan Hambleton.

The students are winners of the Rotary Club of Surrey's Adventure in Citizenship, which was a speech-writing contest dealing with service to British Columbia and Canada. Would the House please make them very welcome.

H. Bains: I know one of the guests that I want to introduce here today. She's on a different mission today, but she's one of the reasons I'm in this House today. My campaign manager Jesse Oppal is in the House. Please help me extend a warm welcome to her.

At the same time, I'd also like to welcome the principal and the students from Princess Margaret who are visiting this House. Please join me and extend a warm welcome to all of them.

I. Black: It's been brought to my attention that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and myself failed to actually mention the name of the mayor of Coquitlam. It's Maxine Wilson.

Welcome, Mayor Wilson.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 18 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: Today I introduce Bill 18, which amends five forestry and range statutes.

In the throne speech our government committed to introducing changes to strengthen forest stewardship and reduce the risk of forest fires, encourage better use of beetle-killed timber and salvage fibre, and strengthen the actions against those who damage our forests and range resources — for example, those who like to mud-bog. Today's bill delivers on those commitments.

It also delivers on other important priorities, including building on our new relationship with first nations; continuing to streamline our processes, particularly for woodlot owners; and continuing to revitalize the forest industry.

Hon. 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 18, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 19 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 19 proposes a number of amendments to taxation and revenue statutes administered by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. The amendments reflect the government's commitment to continuously improve customer service, streamline and simplify regulations, collect all outstanding accounts and amounts due to British Columbians, and make British Columbia the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada.

The bill, accordingly, proposes amendments to the following: the Home Owner Grant Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Mineral Land Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. The specific details will be elaborated with respect to second reading discussion of the bill.

I move that Bill 19 be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

[1345]

[ Page 6303 ]

ENFORCEMENT OF CANADIAN JUDGMENTS

AND DECREES (TRADE, INVESTMENT AND

LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: The introduction of the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) Amendment Act, 2007, means that these amendments are necessary in order for British Columbia to comply with the provisions of the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement between British Columbia and Alberta.

TILMA was signed by British Columbia and Alberta in April 2006. It comes into effect April 1, 2007. Under the agreement, each party is committed to making a compliance award — made by a panel established under TILMA — enforceable as if it were an order issued by the respective parties' superior court.

These amendments extend the jurisdiction of the British Columbia Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act to include TILMA agreements respecting awards and costs that may be made by a panel established under TILMA. I am advised that Alberta is moving ahead in a parallel fashion with British Columbia to introduce similar enabling legislation.

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 17, Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

C. Puchmayr presented a bill intituled Workers Compensation Act Amendment Act, 2007.

C. Puchmayr: I move introduction of the Workers Compensation Act Amendment Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

C. Puchmayr: The tragic deaths of three farmworkers last week in the Fraser Valley have underscored the need to improve safety standards for workers. It also highlighted critical gaps in legislation and enforcement identified over three years ago by the coroner's inquest into the death of Mohinder Sunar.

For three years the government has refused to act, prompting the opposition to introduce this bill and bring the following measures into force. The bill establishes mandatory seatbelt requirements for every occupant of a worker transport vehicle. It does so by amending the Workers Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicle Act, closing loopholes as identified by the coroner.

The bill also closes the enforcement gap by making both WorkSafe and the motor vehicle branch work jointly to be responsible for safety standards around transportation of workers. It allows peace officers and inspectors to enforce the WorkSafe rules.

The bill requires worker transport vehicles to be clearly marked, and the maximum occupancy of the vehicle must be clearly displayed on all sides. The bill stipulates that only qualified technicians will be allowed to modify seats and seatbelts in transport vehicles and that those modifications must be made in compliance with the new standards and the maximum occupancy rules set by WorkSafe B.C. and the motor vehicle branch.

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 M206, Workers Compensation Act Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

VANCOUVER SOCIAL HOUSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

J. Kwan presented a bill intituled Vancouver Social Housing Amendment Act, 2007.

J. Kwan: I move that the Vancouver Social Housing Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Kwan: I am pleased to introduce the Vancouver Social Housing Amendment Act, 2007, which amends the Vancouver Charter. This bill will create opportunities and innovation in the development of social housing in the city of Vancouver and bring clarity to the existing legislation.

The changes proposed to the Vancouver Charter include the addition of social housing as a part of the list of conditions which can trigger a density bonus. This bill will amend the Vancouver Charter to allow for increased density as an incentive for the creation of social housing.

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 M207, Vancouver Social Housing Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

[ Page 6304 ]

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

L. Mayencourt presented a bill intituled Human Rights Code Amendment Act.

L. Mayencourt: I move that the Human Rights Code Amendment Act be introduced and read a first time.

[1350]

Motion approved.

L. Mayencourt: The Human Rights Code Amendment Act corrects a longstanding anomaly in the provision of housing in British Columbia. In 1998 the province amended legislation to prevent discrimination against renters based on family status. These amendments ensure that renters in rental buildings, condos and co-ops could not be evicted because they had children. That move applied only to renters, and this bill will extend the same protections to people that own or purchase a condo or co-op.

My neighbourhood in Yaletown in Coal Harbour has gone through rapid development, with up to 80-percent growth, and many purchasers started out as singles or as couples without children. After some time many of these individuals and purchasers have had children, sometimes in contravention of strata bylaws. The little baby boom in my riding has created hardship for some of those individuals.

I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 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) NOROOZ CELEBRATION

J. Nuraney: For some Shia Muslims, March 21 marks the dawning of a new year. It is called NoRooz, and it is a time for rejuvenation. It is a celebration of the arrival of spring. NoRooz has been celebrated over the centuries in Persia and other parts of the world.

The celebration is not only the physical signs of the rebirth upon the arrival of spring after long winter months, but also a spiritual renewal. Families and friends get together to make a new resolution for the coming year, as reminders abound to seek to improve the material and spiritual lives of those who are their members.

Like any other new year, it is a time of reflection, taking stock of your strengths and weaknesses, and acknowledging your shortcomings. It is a time to resolve to enhance our capacities to create a more enduring environment around our families, friends and communities at large. On this auspicious occasion, I offer to those Shia Muslims who celebrate this event a NoRooz Mobarak .

MAILLARDVILLE

D. Thorne: Earlier today a celebration was held here in the Legislature in honour of B.C.'s francophone community and the importance of the French language. As the elected representative for the oldest and largest francophone community in B.C., it is my pleasure to tell you a little bit today about the village of Maillardville, which is the heart and soul of my riding, and also to show off my French Canadian sash.

The history of Maillardville is an integral part of the city of Coquitlam. Coquitlam received a significant boost in population in 1909 when hundreds of forestry workers from Quebec were persuaded to move to Coquitlam to work at the Fraser Mills lumber mill. Maillardville was and is a vibrant community, the largest francophone centre west of Manitoba. The descendants of those French Canadian mill workers have ensured that the French language can still be heard on the south slope of Coquitlam.

Maillardville's past is recognized in street names that honour early pioneers. Local redevelopment which reflects the French Canadian heritage is high on the city of Coquitlam's agenda. Many Maillardville community groups organize year-round events to keep this culture alive, ranging from the youngsters in Scouts Francophones to the seniors at Maillard village. Every year the Festival du Bois attracts thousands of visitors in March to celebrate francophone music, dance, culture and heritage.

[1355]

Recently I was very pleased to write a letter of support for the city of Coquitlam's application to have a Canadian commemorative stamp issued in 2009, which will be the 100th anniversary of the village of Maillardville. This will further enhance Maillardville's reputation as a thriving francophone community in British Columbia. Let's just hope that Canada Post decides to carry out this very deserving project. Merci .

PETRO-CANADA ICE CENTRE

IN PORT MOODY

I. Black: Last night I had the pleasure of assisting in the official opening of the new Petro-Canada Ice Centre in Port Moody. The new centre includes a fully accessible international-size arena with two rinks, renovated curling rinks, a new gymnasium and fitness centre, a viewing lounge as well as outdoor seating and a field house for the sports field.

The arena was originally completed in 1972, and this is the first significant renovation. The upgraded arena became operational last December. Since then, ice time at the rinks has been absolutely fully booked — a testament to the necessity of a new facility.

Consistent with our government's view that access to arts, culture, sports and recreation is key to creating

[ Page 6305 ]

healthy and vibrant communities, I'm proud that our government provided $2 million in funding for the new state-of-the-art ice centre through the Canada-B.C. infrastructure grant.

Olympic excitement is building throughout the province, and there are less than three years until the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Olympic Games. With our new ice centre, the possibilities are endless. The ice meets all international standards, and the city can now actively promote Port Moody as a place for Olympic hopefuls to train, whether it's local kids playing hockey or the Ukrainian figure skating team.

Our government is one that also believes in the power of partnerships, and this project would not have happened without them. Beyond Port Moody residents supporting it via a referendum in 1994, our contributions and the $800,000 contribution of Petro-Canada, there are five key businesses in Port Moody that stepped up and made a statement about their community values: Coast Capital Savings, who funded the sports field; Pacific Coast Terminals, who sponsored the curling centre; ParkLane Homes, who sponsored the fitness centre; G&F Financial Group, who sponsored the running track; and the Omni Group, who sponsored the aerobics and dance studio.

I'm proud that our provincial government supported this project, and I'd like to congratulate the city of Port Moody and the many sponsors on the development of this new facility.

KIDNEY HEALTH MONTH

D. Cubberley: March is Kidney Health Month, a time to focus attention on the role that this vital organ plays in ensuring bodily health. While other organs like hearts and lungs conjure images, provoke emotions and are celebrated in folklore and song, the neglected kidney remains invisible, toiling in obscurity to purge our bodies of toxins — a thankless but essential task.

Hence, Kidney Health Month — intended to lift this humble organ from indifference, raise it to prominence and inspire us to become aware of it, develop affection for it and give it the care it deserves.

Alas, we and our kidneys have a long way to go. Its work in purifying our internal fluids seems more plumbing than poetry and somehow less noble, less inspiring of feeling than either heart or lung. We grasp the breath of life existentially, for life cannot exist without it, and that confers respect. But the kidney? It is a mere filtration device that regulates fluids in our engine.

Yet there is a reason for us to raise the kidney above this indifference. One in nine North Americans has chronic kidney disease, and another one in nine is at risk. Our processed diet, laced with too much fat, sugar and salt, relentlessly stresses our kidneys whose task is to restore balance to our body chemistry.

The bad news is that diabetes grows apace with our swelling bulk. The good news is that we can intervene to modify our lifestyle. If our kidneys had a voice, they'd tell us it's time for a change. Kidney Health Month is a good time to start listening.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

R. Cantelon: Merci, M. le président de la maison . Each year since 2002 our government proclaims March 20 as Journée de la Francophonie in British Columbia, and this year is no exception. Earlier today my colleague the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations hosted a celebration in this prestigious building.

La Colombie-Britannique a la privilège de compter une communauté francophone dynamique et bien vivante. Il s'agit d'une communauté fière de son patrimoine et de sa contribution aux tissu social, culturel et economique de notre province et de tout notre pays.

[French text provided by R. Cantelon.]

Indeed, in the 1850s the francophone community made up 60 percent of the province's population.

[1400]

I would like to personally recognize l'Association des Francophones de Nanaimo. The Programme Bonjour, the initiation of a trade and cultural mission with Quebec and the role it plays in newcomers' retention in the community are all testimony to the group's drive to contribute to our social and economic fabric.

Over 7,300 people attended the recent Maple Sugar Festival in Nanaimo and were able to experience a little bit of traditional French culture, music and food. Last year the province received the prestigious Baldwin-Lafontaine Award from the Canadian Club in Vancouver. This award recognizes the tangible initiatives achieved by the B.C. government in promoting bilingualism and fostering Canadian unity.

The proclamation of March 20 as Journée de la Francophonie in British Columbia gives all of our province's French-speaking individuals an opportunity to celebrate our Canadian heritage.

Je vous invite à vous joindre à moi pour féliciter et remercier les Britanno-Colombiens francophones pour leur contribution à notre société. Merci.

[French text provided by R. Cantelon.]

FARMWORKERS

R. Chouhan: I rise to speak about a segment of our society that plays a very important role in our lives to help us to stay alive and healthy. British Columbia is blessed to be one of the most fertile agricultural provinces in the world.

Our fruit, our corn, our wines and all of the other produce we grow and enjoy are of superb quality, but when we enjoy that delicious food, juice and wine, we often overlook the labour that went into harvesting those crops. These workers spent countless hours in often difficult conditions labouring in the fields to bring us the wonderful produce of British Columbia. Mainly they're elderly men and women. During the summertime you would also see children working alongside their parents and grandparents.

We need to think about the value of the labour that goes into that work. It is no easy task and takes a lot of experience and skill. Next time, Members, when you're biting into a delicious peach or apple, think about the

[ Page 6306 ]

hands that picked it. These are the farmworkers working hard for all of us. Please join me to appreciate the value of their work and to thank them for feeding us.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Clerk.

Clerk Assistant: La période des questions. [Applause.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Some guys will do anything for applause.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FARMWORKER SAFETY

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have family members of three farmworkers who were killed in that tragic accident on March 7, 2007. They're in a state of grief and are anxiously waiting to hear from this government as to what steps this government has taken to protect the lives of farmworkers.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the Minister of Agriculture advise this House: when will the coroner's recommendations, made after the July 2003 accident, be implemented?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the Minister of Labour and I did meet with the families — some of them are here today — of the injured victims and the deceased victims of that tragic accident.

The key message we heard from them — and it's quoted by Darshan Poonia in the document that was provided to us — is that no one else has to die. I think that's a message we all have heard clearly in this House, and the people we met with today said it's time to move on. It's time to deal with the challenges that we find in our fields and respond in a positive way.

I can tell you that it was a very good meeting we had today with the workers, and with Jim Sinclair as well. We're committed to making sure that our families, our family farmworkers get home safely every single day.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1405]

R. Chouhan: The question I asked was a very simple question. I have been asking that question for the last seven days. For the last seven days the Minister of Labour has refused to answer it. The Minister of Agriculture has refused to answer it. The Solicitor General has refused to answer it. So I'm going to ask the question of the Attorney General.

Could he ask his government and encourage them to do the right thing and implement the recommendations the coroner made after the 2003 accident? How many more farmworkers have to die?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't think we want to underestimate the power of the meeting that the Minister of Labour and I had today with the farmworkers. This was a tragic accident, something that devastated the entire multicultural community in British Columbia, something that devastated our farming industry.

There have been 29 recommendations presented to us by the farmworkers and by the B.C. Federation of Labour. My colleagues and I will be reviewing them and seeing how we can react quickly and decisively to them.

C. Puchmayr: My question is to the Agriculture Minister as well. For the last two days we have put forward some creative solutions to this issue and some solutions, I think, that are quite timely and that should have had some response up to three years ago.

My question to the Agriculture Minister: is he prepared to work with this side, as well, to introduce some of those solutions that we brought forward so that we can ensure that farmworkers go home safely at night after a day's work?

Hon. P. Bell: I again want to reinforce the importance of the meeting that we had this morning. This was very difficult. There were eight families that we met with this morning, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for the individuals, who faced such tragedy such a short period of time ago, to come and take their time to speak with us.

I think I want to respect that. I want to respect the work that they have done here. As I indicated to the member, I'll be meeting with my colleagues over the next number of days to try and respond as effectively and quickly as we can to this.

CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO FARMWORKER

SAFETY AND EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

C. Evans: For some days now this House and, I guess, this province have been seized — correctly, I think — on the issues of farmworkers' safety and standards. On several occasions, hon. Speaker, you've been required to impose order because the debate has been somewhat partisan and raucous. For my part, hon. Speaker, I apologize for any unkind or inappropriate things I might have said in the heat of the moment.

I suspect, though, that some of the heat that this building has reflected in the last few days is because of the contradiction between such a complex and important issue — one that comes back every few years — and the bizarre nature, really, of question period and the fact that we ask these questions in a six-second opportunity and how poorly this venue fits to that issue. I think that it would be best if issues of farmworkers' safety, compensation law, worker safety and immigration standards were removed completely from this venue.

My question is for the Attorney General, as the minister responsible for inquiries. Will the Attorney General initiate — say, today, in front of the folks who are here — a non-partisan independent inquiry into all facets of agricultural labour, including safety, labour

[ Page 6307 ]

standards and labour availability, to report back to this House in 90 days?

Hon. P. Bell: I want to say this one more time, just because of the importance and the impact of the meeting that we had just four hours ago.

Four hours ago I received 29 recommendations that I think were well thought out and that were reasoned — some that we can react to, many that we can react to. I think it's inappropriate for us to go further than that at this point in time.

[1410]

We need to give ourselves a little bit of time to review this information so that we can respond in an effective manner. These families were torn apart. These families were torn apart. These families will never have their spouses back. I think it's appropriate that we respect the work that they did, the information that they provided us, and to allow us to see how we can respond to that.

CHILD CARE FUNDING

C. Trevena: Last week, just three weeks before the end of the fiscal year, the Minister of State for Childcare announced $20 million in one-time funding for child care and another $20 million to come. This isn't new money. It's part of the federal transfer which the government has known about for months. But child care operators now have just three weeks to spend it, and there are strings attached. It can be spent on toys or on furniture but not on building a sustainable child care system. So child care providers have a $40 million three-week shopping spree.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance: is this really a prudent use of taxpayers' money?

Hon. T. Christensen: There's no question that the shift in the federal government's approach to child care, the cancellation of the ELCC funding agreement by the federal government, has created some significant challenges for the province. The province is committed to getting money to child care operators, to making other investments to support child care and to doing so in a manner that abides by provincial law around the expenditure of funds.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I do.

I'm very pleased that the minister acknowledged that the cancellation is causing problems. It makes me question why B.C. was alone as a province in not fighting, not standing up for our children and not questioning the federal government when this funding was cancelled and why B.C. is refusing to make up the shortfall.

The child care crisis is having a huge impact on B.C.'s economy, so I would like to ask the Minister of Finance again whether she will commit to invest in a sustainable child care system for B.C.

Hon. T. Christensen: The facts are that the federal government…. The cancellation of that agreement has resulted in a loss of $455 million over the next three years. The fact is that in the coming year, the province is increasing the provincial commitment to child care by approximately $15 million to ensure that we can continue to provide child care to those most vulnerable children in our communities.

We have been forced by the cancellation of this agreement to set our priorities. We've set the priorities on ensuring that parents that are getting the enhanced subsidy continue to get that enhanced subsidy, such that on an individual basis they're getting almost twice as much in subsidy as they were a few short years ago. We've also focused on children with special needs, and we've focused on maintaining services at the best level we can, given the cancellation of that agreement.

GROUP HOME ACCESS FOR

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED ADULTS

M. Karagianis: Yesterday in this House, in answer to questions about group home closures, the Minister of Children and Family Development first denied that there were going to be any group home closures in the province but then later confessed that the number of group homes that will be available in the province will depend precisely on the number of developmentally disabled adults who choose that that's the best option for them.

Well, Harvey Blondeau has clearly made that choice here in British Columbia. Harvey is from North Burnaby, and he has a developmentally challenged daughter who's 30 years old, who in fact requires round-the-clock care and an enormous amount of support.

[1415]

Harvey Blondeau is 70 years old and is no longer able to lift his daughter or care for her in the way he should. He has been repeatedly denied a group home in this province, repeatedly denied a group home in his community, despite the fact that that is his choice. I would like to ask the minister: why can't Harvey get group home care for his daughter?

Hon. T. Christensen: As the member well knows, there are a number of eligibility criteria, a number of circumstances that are going to be taken into account in any particular placement.

In respect to this particular case, which I'm not personally familiar with, if the member would like to get me the information, I'm more than happy to follow it up with Community Living British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I'd be happy to bring that individual case forward to the minister's attention, but this is really in answer to the minister saying that closure of group homes is about parents making choices.

Well, Harvey Blondeau clearly has made a choice that he has been denied. Pam Harris has also made a

[ Page 6308 ]

choice for her son, 26-year-old Scott, who has cerebral palsy and Down syndrome. Pam very clearly has looked at all the options that are being offered to her, and she wants a group home because that is the best setting for her son. She has been very public in this.

At each inquiry that she has made to CLBC for a group home for her child, she has been told no. Group homes are being closed, and her choices are being narrowed down to a different kind of care.

I would like to again ask the minister to explain to Pam and Scott Harris why they can't have a group home.

Hon. T. Christensen: I am actually familiar to some extent with the situation that the Harris family is facing. It's my understanding that they're in the midst of developing an individualized plan with CLBC for the care of Scott. If during the course of that process it's determined that a group home is the most compatible fit for Scott, then I'm advised that that's the outcome that will be found.

As I said yesterday, the residential options project is about matching individuals with the best residential option, given their needs and given their circumstances. That's what has been affirmed to me by CLBC on a number of occasions. That's certainly my expectation, and that's the direction we're going.

TRANSITION PLAN FOR

RURAL COMMUNITIES

C. Wyse: Mr. Speaker, 200 communities have lost population from 2001 to 2006. The vast majority of those communities that have lost population have been in rural and northern British Columbia. As we discussed yesterday, those communities are represented by members on both sides of the House.

Today I have pulled forward by name some of these communities to make that point, which have been affected by a population decline: Houston, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Williams Lake, Quesnel, Ashcroft, Clinton, Barriere, Clearwater — definitely represented by both sides of the House.

Yesterday the minister responsible for providing transition plans for communities that are facing such a situation was not provided an opportunity to answer any of the questions that were provided to her. Today, once more, will the Minister of Community Services tell this House how many transition plans exist for communities that have suffered population loss?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the question posed by the critic for local governments. He should be aware — and I know he has received a briefing — of what community transition is all about. It is about helping those towns that are requesting it and in need.

I can tell him that I've not received a request from Prince George. I have not received a request from Houston. Obviously, they have on-the-ground purposes and projects that they have in place to diversify their economy.

I can tell you that it was that NDP government that devastated communities. In 1997 it was that government that unilaterally, arbitrarily, without consultation and without notice removed grants to local governments.

[1420]

In contrast, it is our government that has returned dollars, economic initiatives and opportunities to local communities right throughout this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the response that I received from the Minister of Community Services. It doesn't answer the question. It simply walks around the issue that exists.

Many of the communities that have faced a population decrease already during this period of time…. Once more it's 2001 and 2006. We're talking about this government's watch, nobody else's. We also know there are communities that face a further additional pressure as a result of a drop in the allowable annual cut.

Once more, Mr. Speaker, my question through you to the minister: will she tell this House how many transition plans exist for communities, which are they, and how many of them involve communities that also face the drop in the annual allowable cut?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. I. Chong: Maybe I'll just go a tiny bit slower. Provincial assistance through the community transition program is provided at the request of the municipality, based on what they believe their needs are.

I need to ask the critic: is he telling me that the mayor of Prince George is saying that his community is in need? That's not what I'm hearing.

Once again, I want to assure all members of this House, lest any have any doubt, that our government has increased substantially, significantly, dollars to local government. Our $635 million gas transfer tax over five years — out to municipalities. Infrastructure dollars. Budget 2007 — $189 million in additional dollars to reinvest in communities. They voted against it.

GOVERNMENT FACILITATOR FOR

COMMUNITY ISSUES IN LILLOOET

H. Lali: The minister says that the communities have to come forward and ask for help. I'll give her an example of a community that has asked for help repeatedly. It's the community of Lillooet.

In the last five years we have seen massive cuts in terms of the B.C. Rail deal that was made by this Liberal government. The hospital services have been cut in half. The courthouse has been eliminated out of Lillooet. Legal aid services have been pulled out of Lil-

[ Page 6309 ]

looet. Schools have been closed. The forestry office is gone. The transportation and highways person who was in Lillooet is gone. One after the other, there are cuts continually from this Liberal government.

They have asked for a facilitator. I've facilitated a meeting between the Minister of Agriculture and the mayor of Lillooet, and we asked for a facilitator from this government. This government has continually refused to give us a facilitator.

According to the last census, we have lost 15.2 percent of the population of Lillooet. That's the third-highest of a municipality — in Lillooet.

When is the Minister of Community Services going to cough up and give Lillooet a facilitator like they have demanded?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure that the people from Lillooet can appreciate the outburst from the member who is representing them, but he's not doing them a great service by not putting out all the facts. The facts are: we have an economy that is growing. We have opportunities that are abounding. We have a government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: …this government, that has provided opportunities through development initiative trusts, that has provided more infrastructure dollars than ever before.

[1425]

These are the requests we receive from the mayors around the province. When I meet with them at UBCM and when other ministers meet with them at UBCM, they give us their priorities, and we work with them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: Through all of that rhetoric from the benches opposite, I have one simple question to the minister. Why has this government turned down the request for a facilitator for the community of Lillooet?

Hon. I. Chong: What I can tell this member and all members of the House is when a community finds itself in need of provincial assistance, we work with them. We work with them to the extent of meeting their needs. They decide what they want at the grass-roots level.

You know, last year we canvassed this, and former members of municipal affairs who are on that side of the House know full well that it's important to listen to the local governments and bring forward those needs. If they expect us to intervene and tell them where they need to diversify, then they're wrong, because we respect local governments.

LOSS OF ALCAN JOBS IN KITIMAT

R. Austin: I'd like to share with this House the B.C. Liberal transitional plan for Kitimat. Their transition plan is to support Alcan to close down another 500 jobs. The Premier's decision that Alcan is no longer an aluminium manufacturer, but a power company, has resulted in Kitimat losing 12.6 percent of its population. Quoting a letter from Steve Wilson doesn't make up for this government's actions in not upholding the public interest in the B.C. industrialization act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's listen to the question. Continue, Member.

R. Austin: My question is to the Minister of Energy. He refused to answer yesterday; maybe he'll face the music today. Can he tell this House how the Liberals' sweetheart deal that they concocted between B.C. Hydro and Alcan is going to help Kitimat recover? Can he explain how wiping 500 more jobs out of Kitimat will help that community?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Here we have a previous government — unfortunately, for ten years in British Columbia — that actually signed a lousy deal with Alcan in the mid '70s, created expectations that weren't there and now today are totally opposed to a total environmental cleanup of a huge plant in Kitimat. Over $2 billion of investment, thousands of jobs guaranteed for 35 years, and all they can say is no.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just wait. Continue.

Hon. R. Neufeld: What is wrong with success in British Columbia? What's wrong with seriously looking at the environment for a change in the province? We're making all those moves. Jobs are important in Kitimat, and we would like that member to finally get on board and help us create those jobs in Kitimat instead of saying no to jobs and no to the environment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: This government believes that privatizing a public resource like the river that powers the generation plant at Kemano is success? Five hundred fewer jobs than we've got today is success? How can that be? Explain that to the people of Kitimat and to all the people who live in rural B.C. Giving away a public resource to a private company so they can cut jobs — how is that success?

[ Page 6310 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Last week you were riding a 50-year-old horse, and you're still on it.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members on both sides.

Minister, continue.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Let's go back to the deal in the mid-1990s. That was the largest export of electricity out of the Kitimat region, facilitated by the NDP, to the United States of America. We wanted to keep that electricity in British Columbia to make us self-sufficient.

That side is fully happy with being dependent on the U.S. We're not, and we're going to change that in this province. We're going to look after the environment. We're going to continue to create jobs. We're going to continue to actually get a great environment in British Columbia. We're going to continue to get investment — over $2 billion in Kitimat. We'll continue with that. I encourage the member that represents that area to actually get on board.

TILMA AGREEMENT AND AVAILABILITY

OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING

G. Robertson: According to legal opinion from the city of Saskatoon, residential rental buildings are considered investments under the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement. Next month the city of Vancouver is considering a moratorium on the demolition and conversion of rental apartments to protect them. But on April 1, TILMA kicks in, and outside investors may be able to challenge the city's efforts to protect affordable rental housing.

This government promised to protect rental housing for Vancouver residents as part of the 2010 commitments. Will the Minister of Economic Development stand in this House today and guarantee us that residential rental buildings are exempted from TILMA challenges?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Economic Development has the floor.

Hon. C. Hansen: I can assure the member that there is absolutely nothing in the TILMA agreement with Alberta that is going to prevent any municipality in British Columbia from setting bylaws and other rules that are going to protect affordable rental housing.

What TILMA does is actually level the playing field between two provinces. So if we've got a company that wants to come in and build affordable rental accommodations in any community in British Columbia, as long as they do it in a way that is non-discriminatory…. We can have our own rules, municipality by municipality. As long as they are not actually compromising the ability of a company in B.C. to compete with a company in Alberta or vice versa, then the TILMA agreement would not be compromised.

[End of question period.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Leave granted. Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today I notice that Kevin Gillies from the newspaper in the central Fraser Valley is here. I think he's got his daughter with him. I hope members will make Mr. Gillies and his daughter feel welcome.

Reports from Committees

R. Fleming: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the 38th parliament entitled Annual

Summary of Activities .

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

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

[1435]

Leave granted.

R. Fleming: I move that the report be adopted, and in moving the adoption of the report, I wish to make a few comments. I would also like to note that this report addresses the work of the committee from the second session of the 38th parliament.

The resulting recommendations of the committee address the following reports: Auditor General's Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for Fiscal Years 2007/2008 through 2009/2010 ; Auditor General report 2, 2006-2007, The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: A Review of Estimates Related to the Province's Commitments ; and Auditor General report 8, 2005-2006, Managing Pharmacare: Slow Progress Toward Cost-Effective Drug Use and a Sustainable Program .

In addition, the committee's report provides a

summary of its activities related to the search process to select an Auditor General, a position which had become vacant in 2006. As members are aware, the committee, on division, appointed Mr. Arn van Iersel as acting Auditor General in May 2006. Mr. van Iersel has

[ Page 6311 ]

since tendered his resignation from this acting position, effective June 1, 2007.

Therefore, the committee is continuing its work to select and unanimously recommend a candidate to serve this House as a permanent Auditor General. I am pleased to say that a five-member subcommittee for the selection has begun its task in this regard and on behalf of this House.

I appreciate the opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report. I'd also like to extend my appreciation to all the members of the committee for their participation throughout the past session. In particular, I would like to thank the committee Deputy Chair, the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi. It has been a pleasure to work with her since she has been selected by the committee in that regard.

I'd also like to thank two other committee members who are not returning to the Public Accounts Committee for this session, the member for Vancouver-Kensington and the member for Nanaimo-Parksville. I wish to thank them for their contributions over the past year.

I move the adoption of the report.

J. McIntyre: I simply want to add my thanks to the committee members for all their hard work and contribution and to the acting Auditor General.

I will return the compliment. I enjoyed working with the Chair. I also would like to thank the member for Richmond-Steveston, who served as Deputy Chair before me, and thank him for his work as well.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007. And in Committee A is continued Committee of Supply — for the information of members, estimates debate for the Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of the Whole House

CHILD AND YOUTH STATUTES

(REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

section 13 (continued) .

N. Simons: I'll continue where I left off before the committee adjourned for lunch. My questions had to do with the fact that there's a one-year wait for appropriate bodies to investigate the death of a child who has had services that are considered reviewable services. Can the minister please explain the new

section 13(

c) to the House.

Hon. W. Oppal: This is not new. This was in the old act. They're just separated out now.

N. Simons: Under the old regime, the ministry would investigate the death of a child, and it would subsequently decide whether or not to refer that on. In this particular case, we're talking about a one-year delay between the death of a child and the moment when somebody can actually say we need to change this practice now — before the police report, before the coroner's report, before the autopsy. There are things that happened in previous cases, and there is a litany of history involved here where waiting for one year could potentially be dangerous to children.

Hon. W. Oppal: In fact, the representative can monitor and advocate at any time. Thus the issue that's been raised here by the member does not arise, because if there is a circumstance where the child is in danger, the representative can act. We're talking here about investigations, which is quite a different thing from apprehension or protecting a child.

N. Simons: The most likely and most qualified and most informed on the case will be the director. The director will be most informed when a child is critically injured or dies and is receiving reviewable services.

With that in mind, what is being suggested by this one-year delay before the representative…. Contrary to what the Attorney General just stated, the representative cannot investigate until all of the other investigations are complete. I'm trying to figure out here who is going to step in when the ministry is denying there is a problem, the representative doesn't have any jurisdiction, the coroner is still investigating, the doctors are still doing their autopsy, and there's nothing to do to make any changes in the lives of the child or their siblings.

That's the flaw that existed before, and that's the flaw that's being perpetuated here. If in fact it's the right for the representative to go and review everything right now before anything's happened, then why isn't that in the legislation?

[1445]

Hon. W. Oppal: A director can act at any time. If for some reason the director is of the view that he or she does not wish to act, then the representative can act at that time.

N. Simons: In the interest of preserving everyone's sanity here, I think I'm going to allow this

section to…. I don't think the Attorney General understands the circumstances here.

No. The Attorney General is saying that the director can do whatever it wants, and if it doesn't do anything, then the representative can step in. Well, that's

[ Page 6312 ]

what happened in 2002. The director knew what was going on, the director didn't release that information to anyone, and it stayed hidden. At what point does the director inform the representative that a critical injury or death has occurred, and if that happens immediately, can the representative monitor the entire situation at that time?

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

M. Karagianis: On

section 16, my question really is just a matter of practicality. I see that the fiscal year for the representative to prepare a service plan and report out an estimate of resources needed has been moved from 2007-08 to 2008-09. Can the Attorney General please explain the rationale for moving that one year back.

Hon. W. Oppal: This is really a matter of logistics and practice, because the representative will not have been in office long enough to complete a report or a service plan for 2007-08.

M. Karagianis: It's certainly my experience so far with the representative that she is well ahead of us on many of these issues. Certainly, it would seem to me to be somewhat moot, because I believe that the representative is going to present information both to the standing committee and probably to this House well in advance of this deadline put there.

I merely flag this because I think there's a certain redundancy in that, and perhaps that's the only comment I wanted to make. In fact, all of this may be the cart following the horse in this particular case.

Hon. W. Oppal: In fact, she can make a report any time she so wishes, but a service plan is required under the Financial Administration Act.

M. Karagianis: One further question. At this point has the representative been presented with the service plan? Is she simply following that, or is she not in fact having to develop a service plan, at least an interim service plan, in order to function?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is no, because she doesn't have all her full staff yet. She's just in her startup stage.

M. Karagianis: Sorry, just to be clear then. Under what kind of service plan is she actually functioning? Is there no service plan, or is there something that is an umbrella service plan of the ministry that extends to her or from the Attorney General's office that extends to her in the meantime?

Hon. W. Oppal: She has a budget. She has a workplan, and she's working with a transition team. So that's where she is, and then she'll be working towards a plan after that.

[1450]

M. Karagianis: I'm aware of the fact that the children's representative did review the resources to the office and made a request very soon after her initial examination, I guess, of the resources of the office, and she did look to have some increased resources. How in fact does that affect the second part of

section 16, where it says that she would present the standing committee with an estimate of the resources? How is that affected? Is that part of the transition, that request that she made, or how is that handled?

Hon. W. Oppal: The first budget was prepared by my ministry with her participation. Now, however, she is on her own, and she will be preparing her own budget with her own staff.

M. Karagianis: Just one final question, then. Under this

section it does say that she would present to the standing committee an estimate of the resources that she might need to continue to function. Should she find herself in a position of, you know, changing expectations, she may propose to the committee….

She has made some proposals already that sound very interesting and that should be presented to the Legislature here. Is there a mechanism in here for her to apply for additional funding or to look for more resources within her office function outside of this service plan date?

Hon. W. Oppal: In those circumstances she would go back to the select standing committee, in the event that she requires more funding.

Sections 16 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

CHILD AND YOUTH STATUTES

(REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act.

[1455]

[ Page 6313 ]

Committee of the Whole House

PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

On the amendment (continued).

Hon. W. Oppal: I have with me Assistant Deputy Minister Jerry McHale as well as Russell Getz, legal counsel.

L. Krog: I just wish to assure myself before I wind up debate on this particular amendment that the Attorney General has had an opportunity to say all he wishes to say. I take it from his nodding that he does.

The opposition moved the second amendment to

section 28 by requiring that the executive council has to review the report within ten days before it's submitted to the Legislature. We believe that is an important recognition of a right that has existed now for 110 years in the province.

Accordingly, we on this side of the House intend to support that amendment. We are disappointed the government has chosen not to. This was an opportunity, particularly in light of the number of public inquiries that have been called for by the opposition during this session. It was particularly important, we felt, that the government consider this amendment appropriately.

I look forward to the vote on the amendment, and I will take my seat now.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have nothing further to say, save and except that we obviously oppose the amendment.

[1500-1505]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

Kwan

Ralston

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 36

Falcon

Coell

Chong

Christensen

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

The Chair: Members, take a few minutes to attend to other business.

section 28.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, in light of the defeat of my wonderful motion — which just shocks and surprises me — I'm going to withdraw the amendment that would provide the removal of sub-subsections (

a) and (

b) from

section 28(5). It would, in light of the defeated motion, weaken the bill at the present time.

I am, however, not finished questioning on

section 28. During the course of debate previously on this section, the Attorney General, as I recall, indicated that we are the last or only province in Canada to retain a provision that requires delivery of a commission's report to the Legislature, whether it's sitting or not, within a limited period of time — which is certainly, I would argue, the best way of doing things.

[1510]

My question to the Attorney General is: is he — or his officials, who are highly skilled in this area and whose judgment I trust entirely — aware of what in fact is the practice in other nations of the Commonwealth who operate in a similar parliamentary system?

Hon. W. Oppal: Regrettably, we're not experts in that area, and I can't enlighten the member as to what's taking place in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.

L. Krog: I'm just shocked that the Attorney General couldn't provide a response, notwithstanding the assistance of his able staff.

Nevertheless, the

section that is the most crucial, which I have referred to earlier, is

section 28(4), where it says: "Following review of the report…," which allows no time limit.

Given that the executive council, pursuant to sub (3), is going to sever the report for purposes of freedom of information and protection of privacy and given that the report would be on a matter of obviously public importance with respect to hearing commissions, as opposed to study commissions, my question to the Attorney General is: why would the executive council require, actually, any time to review the report, which is and should be a public document and which, indeed, the legislation requires to become a public document?

[ Page 6314 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, a study commission, as well as a hearing commission, can have material in it that may be offensive to particular persons' privacy interests.

L. Krog: And I understand the Attorney General completely in that regard — that cabinet has the ability to review it for that purpose. But apart from that purpose, which should be a relatively easy task, what other purpose would cabinet wish to review this document for before it's submitted to the Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the grounds upon which the report or parts of the report may be severed are disclosure that may be harmful to law enforcement, to intergovernmental relations, to financial or economic interests of a particular party who is not a party, or something that may be harmful to public safety or public security, business interests. Those are some of the issues upon which a report may be severed.

L. Krog: I understand what the Attorney General is trying to say, but essentially, he is repeating the provisions that apply under subsection (3). What I'm asking specifically is…. That job is essentially — and I mean this in a nice way — a bureaucratic job in nature. That's what the legislation provides. "On receiving the report, the Executive Council may direct the minister to withhold portions of the report for any reason for which information could or must be withheld by a public body under sections 15 to 19 and 21 to 22.1," etc.

That's what the job of the executive council is: to review it for that purpose only. That's the way I read the legislation. Am I in fact correct in reading it that way?

[1515]

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes.

L. Krog: Then, my question back to the Attorney General is: given that that task is quite specific, why is no time limit — upon receiving the report, on the review of the report — set out in

section 28(4)?

In fact, that isn't something that would require a significant period of time. The existing legislation is 15 days, and that's without any consideration of privacy issues, although one would presume that privacy issues could be done by way of simple practice of the commission itself.

This opens up an unlimited period of time for cabinet to review this document for what the Attorney General has now told me in this House is one purpose only, and that is as set out in

section 28(3). So my question to the Attorney General is: why do we need an unlimited period of time for cabinet to accomplish this review?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's not a question of cabinet needing an unlimited amount of time. It's a question of not putting constraints on cabinet because of the complex nature of some reports that may be voluminous in nature. It would not be in the public interest to place a time constraint on a report. Say it's 4,000 or 5,000 pages long.

The reports that come to mind are the Gomery Commission report or the report on the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. Those are reports that were lengthy in nature, and it would be unfair to put time constraints on the release of those reports where quality and the public interest may be sacrificed.

L. Krog: Well, the fact is that the Attorney General will be well familiar with the phrase: "Justice delayed is justice denied." The fact is that you can strike out criminal prosecutions in this country if the justice system does not move quickly enough to actually bring the matter before a court and have it dealt with appropriately under the law.

We have recognized throughout the history of the legal profession that delays must only be for legitimate and reasonable purposes and that such delays must in fact be reasonable. I would suggest to the Attorney General that an unlimited time review of a commission's report, whether it be a study or a hearing commission, is on the face of it patently unreasonable.

And it raises the suspicion, not just in the opposition's mind but in the public's mind, that the real purpose of

section 28(4) is to delay the submission of the report into the public's hands for political purposes. That is exactly what the suspicion is. I understand the Attorney General's concerns about privacy and those issues, which are covered off, but the fact is that that's what the public's going to believe, and that's what the public suspects.

I haven't heard anything from the Attorney General that indicates to me that the cabinet is going to require an unlimited period of time. Obviously, by implication, I'm going to presume — or hope, in any event — that the executive council itself is not going to sit around the table passing it around like a high school math test, with everybody marking it to see what could come out, and that this task will be accomplished by professional public servants, not by spin doctors, not by people working in communications, not by people who are employed to advise ministers on how to avoid the political upheaval that may follow the publication of a commission.

Again to the Attorney General: given the limited nature of the review purpose, which may in fact be a fairly significant job, why leave it open for the executive council to be able to sit on a commission of inquiry for an absolutely unlimited period of time — given my remarks earlier about justice being delayed is justice being denied?

[1520]

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I've gone over this a number of times already. First, the position of the opposition is really premised on the fact that a report would contain something unfavourable to government, and the government would then consider not releasing the report. In fact, I know of no report in this province's recent history where that's happened. I note that during the life of the last government, the NDP government, they ordered 18 inquiries. I know of none that

[ Page 6315 ]

were withheld from the public. During the life of this government there has been one inquiry ordered; that was the recent one, two weeks ago, on the death of Frank Paul.

I don't know of any experience in this province that would raise those types of concerns that have been raised by the member. In fact, I don't know of any similar circumstances where governments across this country have improperly withheld reports from the public. Interestingly enough, of the 18 or so inquiries that were ordered by the New Democratic government in the '90s, a number of them dealt with conduct that was not related to government, such as the Vancouver Stock Exchange and study commissions into policing and into the Chilcotin justice area. So they didn't even relate to government conduct or government concerns.

L. Krog: The Attorney General has referenced a number of commissions that have studied matters that one would say are not directly related to government. Commissions are generally ordered to deal with issues in society where there is perceived to be a problem. Nobody institutes a good-news commission.

No government, to my knowledge, has ever called an inquiry to go out and study the happy effects of the economy, or the level of sunshine in British Columbia. No one orders a commission for that purpose. You order a commission because there is a problem, because there is some public concern or issue being raised. I've never heard of a sunshine commission.

I've certainly heard of commissions designed to deal with what are obvious public wrongs, where there are issues involving maltreatment of segments of our society, where there is corruption in various fields — any things of that nature. Surely, given that the very purpose of a commission is generally to bring into the light of day problems and issues, and hopefully thereby some solution….

Why, when the premise is that there is a problem, when there is some wrongdoing that should see the light of day, would the government not, in this bill, want to ensure that after the commission's work is done…? The commission's work may indeed be lengthy and complex. Why would the government wish to give an opportunity to cabinet to delay further the publication of a commission's work which would, in fact, point the way to a solution or provide a solution or expose something that indeed requires prosecution or criminal proceedings? Why?

Again, my question is to the Attorney General: given that it is designed to deal with an issue and a problem, why would the government not wish to ensure that the executive council, rather than being able to take its sweet time on this issue…? Why not force them to do a job?

I doubt very much if the Attorney General, when he turns to his senior public servants and there's an issue, says: "Well, just take as long as you'd like. I don't mind if it's not ready for the next cabinet meeting. I don't care if it's not ready for the next election. You just take your time."

[1525]

That is not the way the real world operates, and surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that cabinet should likewise have a time limit placed on it in these circumstances.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I've answered this question at least 25 times. I don't know what more I can do. I don't know if the member across the way is, to use the expression, "ragging the puck," but I'll say it one more time: no other Legislature in Canada places a time limit on the release of the report. This is a report. A commission of inquiry report is a report for government. It is ordered by cabinet.

The legislation states that privacy concerns have to be adhered to. Some evidence, some material, some information in a given report could be contrary to public interest — such as contrary to law enforcement, economic interests, innocent third parties, privacy concerns.

Therefore, the person to whom that report is sent, the cabinet, is entitled to look at that report. It is for the benefit of cabinet. Cabinet is entitled to look at that report in order to determine whether or not there are prejudicial aspects of that report that could be harmful to innocent parties. Then they can release the report. It would be impractical to place a time limit on any given report, given the fact that there is a wide range in the lengths of reports that are commissioned by government.

I've given two examples. I'll give you two others. The Arar is one. It was a lengthy report. The Krever report went on for a long period of time. I would suggest that it would be totally impractical for government to have legislation that that report be released in ten days, such as was suggested by the member opposite. I don't know if I can say anything more useful or anything more productive than that which I've already said.

L. Krog: I must say, I'm entirely distressed by the suggestion from the Attorney General that I'd be "ragging the puck." It's my nephew who is the accomplished hockey player, not myself.

With respect to subsection (6), it provides that: "If a report includes a finding of misconduct against a participant, or alleges misconduct by a participant, the minister must make available to the participant a copy of the report." Now, this

section gives an unlimited period of time to cabinet to review it.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It says that finally when cabinet has done this job, which is unlimited in time, then it has to be delivered to the Legislative Assembly within ten days or to the Clerk. What period of time does the legislation provide — and perhaps I'm missing something — with respect to

section 28(6)? When does someone against whom some finding of misconduct has been made get a copy of the report?

Hon. W. Oppal: My answer is the same.

L. Krog: Well, I'm sorry, and pardon my ignorance. I take it from the Attorney General's answer — just so

[ Page 6316 ]

I'm clear — that in other words, a person against whom a finding of misconduct is made gets the report at the same time that the Legislative Assembly does. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: Not necessarily. It's possible, but not necessarily at all. If the report contains therein material that discloses some criminal conduct, I would expect in those circumstances that that information ought to be given to a participant earlier than the report would be released to public. That makes sense because that person against whom there may be charges laid or against whom there may be information that's contrary to that person's interests may want to seek the advice of counsel.

[1530]

I'm speculating, and I don't know. What I'm saying is that any number of possibilities could arise based on the particular circumstances of any case.

L. Krog: As I understand the Attorney General's answer to my question around

section 28(6), even before the Legislative Assembly gets the report, the Attorney General is suggesting that someone against whom some allegation or finding of misconduct has been made gets a copy of the report. Is that the Attorney General's answer?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes. My recollection is…. It's a recollection of Mr. Getz that in Krever that's what happened.

Interjection.

Hon. W. Oppal: Krever? It's one of those reports in Ontario where that did happen. So it's quite possible that that would be given to that person prior to disclosing the same to the public. I could see where it would be practicable to do that in light of the fact that….

Let's assume for a minute that a report discloses criminal conduct on the part of a participant. I would think in those circumstances it would be prudent to release that to the participant against whom it is alleged has committed some criminal misdeeds in order for that person to get a fair trial. That's a possibility.

L. Krog: I hope the Attorney General understands why I see this as such a very important area of questioning. This is a public inquiry we are talking about. It is a document that goes in secrecy to cabinet. It may arrive there by way of an interim report. Once released to a participant or an accused — I shouldn't say an accused — someone against whom a finding of misconduct has been made, it's out in the world.

This is an electronic age. The simplest happening in the most obscure parts of the planet are videotaped and broadcast around the world now. That is the reality. People use cell phones and the Internet and all kinds of electronic devices. So what the Attorney General is saying is that the government has a bill before this House that allows essentially the publication of this document, a commission's findings, before it's given to the Legislative Assembly.

That is a pretty dramatic change from what exists now. I mean, it's one thing to say we're going to let cabinet sit on it forever and call that reform after 110 years. It's entirely another thing to say in a bill that now the report can be given to somebody ahead of the Legislative Assembly or even during — possibly under the terms of this — to a participant or against someone where a finding of misconduct was made, even while cabinet is considering it. Is that what the Attorney General is telling the House — that, in fact, that's what this

section means?

Hon. W. Oppal: This really is a matter of common sense. If there's a report that's given to cabinet, and that report discloses that Mr. Smith, who participated in the commission of inquiry, is facing criminal charges, surely the member opposite isn't suggesting that that evidence of criminal wrongdoing should be disclosed to the public before it's disclosed to him.

[1535]

The member opposite is a lawyer. Surely you know that if there are specific allegations of wrongdoing that are contained in a report, contained in a commission of inquiry report that's not subject to the usual rules of evidence, surely in the interest of fairness, in the interest of defending oneself in a criminal proceeding — rules operating under the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt — that that report or the offensive parts of that report or the relevant parts of that report must be disclosed to that person who is facing prejudice, who is under jeopardy, before it's released to the Legislature. I would think that would be a commonsense proposition.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's comments about it perhaps being a commonsense matter, but the fact is that unless a charge has been laid concurrently with the report, which is not going to happen the way I read the previous sections, the fact is that it will be up to the Crown, after a finding of misconduct, to determine whether or not some criminal charge should be laid.

Let us use for an example the results of a public inquiry, a hearing commission into a matter involving members of cabinet or senior government officials or political staff of ministers. Clearly, until the commission's work is completed, the Crown is not going to be laying charges. So with great respect to the Attorney General, I don't follow his logic saying that common sense dictates. The fact is that if common sense dictates something, then why isn't it specifically in the bill before the House?

I'm suggesting to the Attorney General and to his staff assembled here in this House today that this is something that they have not considered carefully, that this is a matter of public importance, that it should be considered further. That in fact 28(6)…. I would suggest the plain reading of subsection (6) produces a result which is not reasonable, which will mean that reports of commissions will be placed out in the public or

[ Page 6317 ]

have the potential to be placed in the public in a way that is not possible, should not be possible and would not in fairness be in the public interest.

I want the Attorney General to tell me why I'm wrong in suggesting that in the circumstances where a criminal charge might be laid as a result of work done by a commission, the criminal charge is going to follow the commission results. It's not going to precede the commission results, so why should we be giving the results of a commission to somebody ahead of time?

They are not subject to prosecution until they're prosecuted. They're simply a person named in the results of the inquiry. So why should some member of the public, who is a participant, receive advance notice of a report, paid for by the taxpayers and provided to government, which is required by law to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly and says that: "A person must not release a report of a commission except in accordance with this section" — subsection (8).

Well, that's not going to happen, because once you've released that report it's out there. So explain to me why this is in the public interest to do this.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not so sure that the member understands what's happening here. A typical scenario is as follows. A commission of inquiry makes a report to government. Contained in the report is evidence of wrongdoing against a participant in the inquiry. Surely that person against whom charges may be laid, in the interests of fairness, ought to be entitled to know the allegations against that person. That person doesn't have to wait for a prosecutor to lay charges. That person may wish to reply to the pejorative aspects of the evidence. They're entitled to know that under the rules of fairness.

[1540]

The report may or may not be released to that person in its entirety. It may be that it's appropriate only to release those parts of an investigation that impacts on that person's guilt or innocence in a subsequent criminal trial. That's the purpose of the report.

The contrary proposition suggested by the member is to release the report to the public so that the person gets tarred and feathered in public — but just so the members of the Legislature can have it and the public can have it, and meanwhile damage is done to that person's reputation. That's what we're talking about here.

We're talking about reports that are commissioned, that are prepared, often with no precautionary rules of evidence. We saw that in Gomery. All kinds of allegations were made in the Gomery Commission, many of which were never tested in cross-examination, many of which would never have passed scrutiny in a court of law.

In those circumstances, the mischief that this

section tries to address is that some innocent third party doesn't get his or her reputation irreparably damaged in the public arena without a fair opportunity for that person to defend himself or herself. That's the purpose of sub (6).

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's concern around protection of an individual, but let's use an example about trust in government. A finding of misconduct is made against senior political staff of the government or a cabinet minister. Let's just assume that that finding of misconduct is made. That individual or individuals will have an opportunity to receive the report ahead of time, prepare a response. So the day the world, the public, gets to read the commission, they will immediately have that opportunity to defend themselves.

I can't honestly see how the public's faith in government is going to be restored by the concept that a person who may well be the subject of a public inquiry — and we've had them in the past — about bribes and corruption in this province…. The member for Surrey-Whalley referred to some the other day. It's going to be fairly remarkable, I think, from a public perspective, to believe that the public will accept that — as opposed to the ordinary right of any citizen against whom a finding of misconduct has been made to defend themselves in the public arena, to respond to the questions from the media, to deal with it in the same way.

In terms of trust in government, I just want the Attorney General to try and imagine what the public reaction will be when a finding of misconduct is made against a cabinet minister or a senior political staff. Cabinet has had months and months — and does, in fact, sit on the report for months and months — during that interim period, gives the commission study to someone who has six months to prepare, and then the study is dropped.

The Attorney General, I hope, is beginning to understand my concerns around what this does to trust in government, without any time limits on this whatsoever. Even if this

section had said: "We're going to give it to them ten days ahead of time…." But right now you've got a bill that says cabinet gets an unlimited period of time to review it.

You've got a bill that the Attorney General is telling me gives an unlimited amount of time for a participant against whom a finding of misconduct is made to receive a report and to prepare, until the cows come home, to respond to it. That person can be a senior political staff of government. That strikes me as being unreasonable and against common sense.

[1545]

Hon. W. Oppal: I think that as far as the time limits are concerned, I've already answered that, and I'm not going to go into it any further.

The second part of the question, the hypothetical example given by the member: supposing we have a cabinet minister or a senior government official who is accused of corruption, why should he be given some advance notice? The last time I looked, the rights that accrued or were conferred upon a government minister or a government official were the same as the rights conferred on any other person in society.

I ask rhetorically: why should it make any difference at all against whom these allegations are made? The fact is that in any proceedings we give people notice where there's evidence of wrongdoing, even in the investigative stages.

[ Page 6318 ]

Let's assume for a minute that we have a police investigation going on about a homicide. We don't disclose that to the public unless charges are laid. But if a person against whom allegations are being made wants to go to the RCMP during the investigative stages, the RCMP will tell them — if they want. They're not obligated to, but that happens.

Let's assume for a minute that a murder has taken place. Someone is a suspect. The RCMP can say: "Smith, come in. We want to talk to you. Bring your lawyer in. You're a suspect."

That evidence is not disclosed to the public, but that person is given a heads-up, because the police will say to you: "This is what we've got against you. This is what we have. We have evidence of A, B, C and D. Do you have any response to that?" That's done all the time. I guess you could say that's an unfair advantage to that particular accused, but we do it, again, in the interests of fairness.

L. Krog: I understand what the Attorney General is saying, but most of the citizens of British Columbia don't enjoy the honour of taking an oath to uphold Her Majesty's law and her peace and dignity. They do not enjoy the privilege of being hired into positions in which they're required to take that oath. They do not enjoy the privilege and respect and honour that come with attaining high public office.

I appreciate what the Attorney General is saying about equality before the law, but when one steps forward into public life and takes that oath or becomes senior political staff, the expectations on one's behaviour are much higher. There's a member on the back bench now who is sitting there because he sent off an e-mail — a little e-mail in a fit of anger, the kind of behaviour that goes on day in, day out across this province. I wouldn't begin to try and count or suggest what the number of e-mails is that contain offensive language. But that member, who I think it's safe to say worked very hard on behalf of his constituents, is now on the back bench instead of around the cabinet table.

The fact is that we do expect a higher standard, and that higher standard goes with the creation of public trust in our institutions. I suggest to the Attorney General that the government is going to get its way on this bill, but there will come a day when there will be a public inquiry, and this section, the way it's written, is going to enable the set of facts that I have advised the Attorney General of to occur.

The public is going to demand heads. They will look back on the records of this debate, and they will know that this issue was raised. They will understand that notwithstanding the objection of the opposition, the government has gone ahead and passed this bill the way it reads — notwithstanding what I would suggest is reasonable advice from the opposition about very serious concerns surrounding

section 28.

I have no further questions on

section 28.

[1550-1555]

Section 28 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Falcon

Coell

Chong

Christensen

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Hawkins

Bennett

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 23

S. Simpson

Fleming

Ralston

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Gentner

Routley

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

section 29.

L. Krog:

Section 29 talks about disclosure. Just so I'm clear — and it's only because of the inadequate state of my brain this afternoon — I read this

section to say that if a commission determines it necessary to disclose information over which the government asserts privilege or immunity, etc., then immunity isn't defeated for any other purpose.

Do I take that to mean that if the commission releases information in the report, in fact the commission is entitled to do that, even though the Crown has asserted privilege or immunity?

Hon. W. Oppal: The purpose of this

section is to facilitate the work of the commission of inquiry. The government may assert privilege over material such as evidence relating to terrorism, for instance, that it wishes to assert privilege over. That information would assist the commission in its work but would not be disclosed to the public.

[1600]

L. Krog: Just so I understand it completely….

Interjection.

L. Krog: I believe that the Attorney General wishes to say something further, so I'll take my seat.

[ Page 6319 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: Thank you. I wish to correct that. There would still be privilege disclosed over that. The information would be disclosed in their report, but the government would maintain privilege over that.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, I take it, then, that the commission has the authority to demand that government hand over information even though the government asserts privilege on it. Or is it only in those situations where the government has voluntarily disclosed it? Does it also include where it's in response to a request to a summons? In other words, is the commission more powerful than the government? That's probably the simplest way I can put it.

Hon. W. Oppal: The scenario as I see it is as follows: under

section 22 the commission has the necessary power to compel evidence, and if the government discloses to that commission, either voluntarily or by order of a court, then information that's a subject matter of the dispute can be contained in the report, but the government can maintain privilege over that with respect to subsequent proceedings in another court — or subsequent proceedings.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

section 31.

L. Krog: During the course of questioning around the previous

section 28, the Attorney General made reference to the interests of protecting a participant against whom a finding of misconduct may be made. What this

section says is that the "commissioner, or person acting on behalf of or under the direction of a commissioner, must not be required to testify or produce evidence in any proceeding, other than a criminal proceeding, about information obtained in the discharge of duties under this Act."

I'm just wondering. I may be somewhat obtuse here. There is a situation where someone commences a civil proceeding arising out of findings or comments made in a commission study. What this says is that you can't compel the person who produced the evidence to give evidence in the civil proceeding, thereby potentially denying a right to a plaintiff in a civil proceeding for evidence which they might need in order to proceed with their action. I'm just wondering if I'm reading that

section correctly.

[1605]

Hon. W. Oppal: What this

section says is that a commissioner, or a person acting on the commissioner's behalf or under the direction of a commissioner, is not compelled to produce evidence, other than in a criminal proceeding. What this really does is…. It's similar to

section 55 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. This

section really clarifies that a commissioner or a person acting on behalf of or under the direction of a commissioner must not, in proceedings other than criminal proceedings, be required to testify or produce evidence obtained in the discharge of their duties before the commission.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General clarifying that for me, because that's what my understanding is. But I refer the Attorney General back to the example he used where there's a finding of misconduct against a participant.

The participant gets the commission study ahead of time, before it's released to the public. The Crown reviews the commission study and decides that no criminal proceeding is going to be laid. Some potential lawsuit arises out of the findings made in the commission or evidence around involving participants, and I'm a person who brings an action in the B.C. Supreme Court, a civil proceeding.

What this

section says is that I can't rely or require to give evidence — even though it may support my case or, if I'm defending, help me defend my case. It says that I can't be required to testify or produce evidence — thereby potentially denying to some person, a plaintiff or a defendant, the right to either fully plead their case or, alternatively, to defend themselves in a civil proceeding that may in some way be related to the results of a commission of inquiry.

Hon. W. Oppal: The starting point here should be: a commission of inquiry's purpose or intent is to gather information and report that information to government, usually with appropriate recommendations. So the information that is led before that commission of inquiry is evidence that's particular to that commission of inquiry and necessary for its findings. That evidence can't be the subject of compulsion in a civil case, but in a criminal case it could be.

In other words, a person could be compelled to give evidence in a criminal case by way of a subpoena, but in a civil case that would not be the case. Now, the concern raised by the member is a good one. Does that mean that a person could not necessarily defend themselves in a civil case?

The answer to that is no. You can defend yourself in a civil case. The question is…. You can't be compelled to, but if you wish to give evidence on your own behalf in a civil case so as to prevent a damage award against you, then that would be valid and admissible evidence.

[1610]

L. Krog: But my point is that in defending myself, I'm not allowed to compel anyone who worked for or was a commissioner. That's the problem; that's what I'm saying.

The Attorney General is worried about the rights of a person who is found to commit

an act of wrongdoing getting the report ahead of time, being able to defend themselves publicly, but if I bring a civil action as a result of what comes out of a public inquiry, I'm not allowed to ask anyone who worked for the commission to give evidence to defend me. I would suggest that as much as that may be common in administrative law, etc., it does, I suggest, rather limit the rights of plain-

[ Page 6320 ]

tiffs and defendants to defend themselves or bring cases appropriately in civil proceedings.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have to disagree with the member on this basis — that the purpose of a commission of inquiry is not to assist people in pursuit of their civil actions or to provide defences for people in their civil actions. The purpose of a commission of inquiry is to assist government in gathering certain information and from that derive certain recommendations so that they can act appropriately.

A person who has a civil remedy against another person could pursue that remedy. The only caveat to that is that person can't rely on evidence that's given somewhere else in a commission of inquiry — evidence that may be inadmissible in a court of law, for example. So I would suggest that it's a

section that's based on sound reasoning.

Sections 31 to 41 inclusive approved.

section 42.

L. Krog: I didn't wish to disturb the rhythm of the committee at this stage, but

section 52 of the Gaming Control Act is repealed by this. Not having had a full opportunity, perhaps the Attorney General can advise what

section 52 of the Gaming Control Act — the repeal of that section…. Why it's required as a result of the passage of Bill 6.

[1615]

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is that the general manager's powers are no longer necessary. The powers of a general manager under

section 44 of the Gaming Control Act read as follows: "The general manager is responsible for regulating horse racing and may (

a) regulate the operation of all sites at which horse racing is carried on, (

b) regulate the operation of all designated race horse training centres…."

It goes on to say: "The general manager may hold hearings relating to any of his or her powers or duties" under this act. He just doesn't, relating to subsection (2), hold hearings anymore. So the

section really isn't necessary.

Sections 42 and 43 approved.

section 44.

L. Krog:

Section 44 repeals

section 14(2) of the Marriage Act, which states: "A marriage commissioner designated under subsection (1) has for the purposes of this

section the powers and duties of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiry Act. " I'm just wondering what effect the removal of that authority will have on any of the powers of a marriage commissioner.

Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is that the marriage commissioners don't need this authority any more.

The historical reason, I am advised by the assistant deputy minister, is that this

section goes back in the Marriage Act to the concern about the validity of Doukhobor marriages, so that's a piece of history for you that you can take away from this debate. Those powers are no longer necessary, because we don't have to determine the validity of Doukhobor marriages any more under the Marriage Act.

Section 44 approved.

section 45.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, to assist in the passage of the bill, I would be agreeable, certainly, to passage up to and including

section 57. I have a question on

section 58.

Sections 45 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 58, it repeals

section 27(1) of the existing Notaries Act, which prescribes: "A panel of 3 or more members of the discipline committee may inquire into the conduct of members or former members, and for that purpose it has all the powers of a commissioner under

Part 2 of the Inquiry Act. "

Section 58 again provides for a panel of three or more members and then applies the sections appropriately, I presume, of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

Just so I understand this section, it is essentially to put administrative tribunals down where they belong, so to speak, in the pecking order of judicial status, below a commissioner under the Public Inquiry Act, which now has far more specific and sweeping powers. Is that essentially the effect of this section?

Hon. W. Oppal: I wonder if I can have the member clarify the question. I don't understand what he means by "the pecking order." The

section really replaces the powers of the notaries society provided under their governing legislation by reference to the Inquiry Act. What it does is it substitutes all references, and it brings the legislation in line with the Administrative Tribunals Act.

[1620]

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, that is essentially what I wanted to have clarified by the Attorney General: to confirm that, in essence, the new Public Inquiry Act gives significant powers and authority to a commissioner under the Inquiry Act in excess of what is required in order for the notaries public discipline committee to deal with the administrative challenges of disciplining its own members.

Essentially, we are bringing the notaries into line with other administrative tribunals, including the Law Society and other bodies. I believe that is my

interpretation of this section, and I just want to confirm with the Attorney General that in fact is the case — that this is a streamlining, if you will, of the law to ensure that

[ Page 6321 ]

we have a standard form of rules and procedure for administrative tribunals or professional bodies when it comes to disciplining.

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer, generally, is yes. Government is attempting to make uniform rules across the line for all administrative tribunals.

L. Krog: One other question to the Attorney General around this section, and a simple nod will suffice. Was this done at the request of the notaries society?

Hon. W. Oppal: We consulted with them.

L. Krog: The Attorney General might have saved himself one more standing up in this chamber if he'd indicated if the results of that consultation represented a consensus approach from the notaries society, or is this

section being enacted over their objection?

Hon. W. Oppal: There was no objection, I'm told.

Section 58 approved.

section 59.

L. Krog: I am satisfied, unless some other member of the House indicates to the contrary, to pass sections through to and including

section 69.

Sections 59 to 69 inclusive approved.

section 70.

L. Krog: This repeals the existing

section 6 of the Debtor Assistance Act and then sets out certain powers. Again, does this essentially bring the authority of the director and procedure in line with administrative tribunals, once again, as discussed with respect to other bodies?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes.

Sections 70 and 71 approved.

section 72.

L. Krog: Again, in order to assist, if I might ask the Attorney General a general question with respect to all of the sections through to 133 — that all of these sections are entirely what I would call, and I mean the term in a non-offensive way, bureaucratic in nature; that they simply involve the necessary consequential amendments to all of these various statutes; that all of the professional associations and bodies who are covered by these statutes have in fact been consulted and there is no significant objection to any of these sections being passed.

[1625]

Hon. W. Oppal: They are, to use your terminology, bureaucratic in nature, and the answer is no, there's no objection to any of the enabling legislation.

Sections 72 to 133 inclusive approved.

section 134.

L. Krog:

Section 134 provides that the Inquiry Act is repealed by this statute and this new act will come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I may be out of order, but I'm wondering if the Attorney General has given any thought as to when this act would be brought into force by way of regulation. In other words, are we going to be moving into the broad new era of the Public Inquiry Act, or are we going to be relying on the existing Inquiry Act for a substantial period of time yet?

Hon. W. Oppal: The best that I can say is that there will be something stated in the very near future. Our objective is to pass this legislation as quickly as possible, and I've already made reference to the inquiry that's been ordered. So I'll leave it at that.

Section 134 approved.

On the title.

L. Krog: I would move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name to change the name of this bill.

[ TITLE , by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Public Secret Inquiry Act.]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the amendment is out of order. The title of a bill can only be amended if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment. The amendment is out of order, as it is beyond the scope of the bill as it currently exists.

[1630]

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[1635]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Falcon

Coell

Chong

Christensen

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Hawkins

Bennett

Mayencourt

Polak

[ Page 6322 ]

Hawes

Yap

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 20

S. Simpson

Fleming

Ralston

Coons

Thorne

Gentner

Routley

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

The committee rose at 4:38 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1640]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT

Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time on the following division and passed:

YEAS — 36

Falcon

Coell

Chong

Christensen

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Hawkins

Bennett

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 21

S. Simpson

Fleming

Ralston

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Gentner

Routley

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate of Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Second Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY SERVICES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 11, intituled Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be read for a second time now.

I am pleased to read the Community Service Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, for the second time now. In so providing my comments, I want to, first of all, acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that my staff have put into this piece of legislation and the number of meetings that have taken place to ensure that we incorporate these changes, many of which are housekeeping and many of which have been at the request of municipalities for us to bring forward.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Our government is committed to vibrant and connected communities that are socially responsive and environmentally sustainable, with real economic opportunities with real potential.

[1645]

As we all know, British Columbia is characterized by the diversity of our communities and a fact that one size does not fit all. That's why we work with local governments closely. For example, we recently introduced programs to assist with sustainable infrastructure and to encourage all British Columbians to be more active as well as helping all local governments work more effectively. The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, makes changes that will benefit all communities and some that will focus on particular needs.

The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, recognizes the unique challenges and extraordinary circumstances of resort-oriented communities. For example, many of these communities do not have the tax base relative to the demands that the community faces during peak periods due to the number of visitors.

As an example, imagine a small permanent population of 1,500 providing for upwards of one million visitors a year. With limited options, it is harder for such communities to provide stability for their residents and the amenities that will support their visitors. It is more difficult to plan for the future and to realize their potential. The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, provides important tools to help resort-oriented communities thrive.

We're updating the definition of a resort. No longer is this just a mountain resort with one season of activity. Over the past decade things have changed. British Columbia now has a diverse range of resort-oriented communities, all-season resorts, lakefront and oceanfront resort communities with jobs, opportunities and growing local economies from Ucluelet to Harrison Hot Springs to Valemount. Yet these different resort-oriented communities have some common goals and face common concerns.

[ Page 6323 ]

As a local government in these areas, you have to ask: how do you make sure there is enough housing for resort employees? How do you fund visitor services so that visitors tell each other and their neighbours about their great experience and wanting to return? How do you fund infrastructure specifically needed to reach the community's full potential? How do you ensure that development is sustainable and that it fits in with the community?

The answer lies in providing unique finance, development and governance tools for these resort-oriented communities. Today's legislation provides those tools and resources that grew out of our B.C. resort initiative. Following upon the Premier's B.C. Resort Task Force formed in 2003, which explored ways to enhance resort development throughout the province, we have today this important piece of legislation.

First and foremost, we will be working with participating municipalities to return a portion of the provincial hotel room tax to them, so they can develop their tourism economies as they see fit, whether a festival, park improvements or enriching a resort's all-season opportunities. The resort municipality revenue-sharing program will see an estimated $10 million returned to resort-oriented communities each year.

There are also three other elements pertaining to resort-oriented communities in today's legislation that grew out of our B.C. resort initiative — elements that answered the call in our Balanced Budget 2007 to achieve our province's full potential in tourism.

Firstly, the designation of resort region expands beyond just mountain resorts to other municipalities with significant tourism drivers. This leads to the second element, where these resort-oriented communities can access specialized development, finance and land use authorities. For example, they will be able to create a resort association to promote their facilities, and they will be able to institute development cost charges that will go towards resort employee housing.

The third element provides that if a resort community decides to incorporate as a mountain resort municipality, a customized governance structure will help guide the newly formed municipal council and ensure the development continues in line with the community's master development agreement, which sets out the terms of development for the resort. This legislation will help local governments reach their potential as economic drivers and facilitators of tourism and resort opportunities.

There are other amendments in this legislation. The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, provides tools and resources for these resort communities. The other amendments also provide for things such as fairness and certainty while helping local governments work more effectively.

[1650]

For example, we will be streamlining an aspect of the bylaw ticketing system to save local governments and the provinces time and money. We will also be enabling consistency for business, and accountability for the public, regarding land use regulations that apply during multi-phase, long-term developments. In particular, we're helping the city of Vancouver meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets by extending an authority that currently other municipalities enjoy so that Vancouver can establish a community energy utility system serving new energy subscribers in the southeast False Creek area, and providing economic development through the system's construction and management.

This legislation is also dealing with more day-to-day situations. For example, we're enabling Vancouver to streamline the appeal system regarding chauffeur permits in the city. To say that the entire city council doesn't have to sit in on the appeal hearing makes sense. This will help both the local government and the affected businesses by making the system more effective, more efficient and more responsive.

We're also giving regional districts another option for sharing service costs when one of their members is faced with a bankrupt property from which they cannot collect taxes.

These and other changes are relatively minor, but necessary to update or maintain the framework of local government legislation. We're also permitting local governments to deal effectively, as I say, with a variety of issues they face.

The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 brings balance, certainty and new opportunities for local governments and their communities around British Columbia. As I have said earlier, it's about fulfilling economic potential, including tourism and resort opportunities, and turning that potential into economic reality. So not only is British Columbia the best place on earth to live and work, it's certainly the best place on earth to visit, play and invest.

I ask that all members lend their support to this worthwhile and necessary piece of legislation. I certainly welcome comments from my colleagues all around this legislative precinct, and I move second reading.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to be up here addressing the House at about five minutes to five on a Thursday, just before we start a long weekend. Like my colleague across the floor, I would also like to acknowledge the graciousness that the minister's staff shared with me in giving me a briefing upon this bill.

I do not at all mind sharing here with the House that this is the first time that I've actually been given the privilege — the responsibility, if you like — to be the lead on legislation that has been entered into the House. With that in mind, it brings some observations to me.

Generally speaking, the bill that we're dealing with, which is a series of amendments, becomes like a miscellaneous bill. In doing so, it has the potential, as my hon. colleague across the floor has indicated, for doing some good in a variety of different areas. But as you know, sometimes it's the detail that is contained within the document that we're dealing with that requires the scrutiny.

I think as we go through the discussion, you are going to find that, likewise, the members on this side of

[ Page 6324 ]

the House are going to be very much in agreement with the general thrust that my most respected colleague has presented to the House in her opening remarks — that generally this bill is going to provide some improvements across all the local governments that are affected.

[1655]

It's important for all British Columbians to also recognize that the minister's staff has consulted relatively extensively throughout the province on most parts of the bill that is here in front of us. And as you know, Madam Speaker, when you've got a bill that's a miscellaneous bill, there is not the need, of course, to be having discussions with absolutely everybody in the province. You have discussions with the people that have been affected and are going to be affected by the various sections that are contained in the bill.

However, it is also important that as the discussion and debate takes place, we ensure in this discussion that this