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)

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements

Tanya Dumstrey-Soos

C. Wyse

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Oak Bay Kiwanis Pavilion

Fleming

Celebration of family and friends

Rustad

Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce

programs

Sather

Mining industry in B.C.

MacKay

Four Sisters Housing Co-operative

J. Kwan

Recovery of fish stocks in

Cheakamus River

McIntyre

Oral Questions

Public affairs bureau coverage of

Basi-Virk court case

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Farnworth

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Fleming

Hon. M.

de Jong

Chudnovsky

Simpson

Simpson

Robertson

Karagianis

Petitions

R. Austin

Second Reading of Bills

Pacific Coast University for

Workplace Health Sciences Act (Bill Pr401)

Cantelon

Fraser

Committee of the Whole House

Pacific Coast University for

Workplace Health Sciences Act (Bill Pr401)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Pacific Coast University for

Workplace Health Sciences Act (Bill Pr401)

Second Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2007 (Bill 35)

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

C. Wyse

Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 33)

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

Education Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 22) (continued)

Hon. S.

Bond

Assessment Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 32)

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Robertson

Karagianis

Committee of the Whole House

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18)

Second Reading of Bills

Knowledge Network Corporation Act

(Bill 23)

Hon. M.

Coell

Fleming

Committee of the Whole House

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18) (continued)

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism,

Sport and the Arts (continued)

Fleming

Hon. S.

Hagen

H. Bains

Macdonald

Hon. G.

Hogg

Simons

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney

General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

Karagianis

Chouhan

Simons

J. Brar

[ Page 7907 ]

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2007

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I have some very special guests in the House

today. They are relatives of our community leader, Sarwen Singh Randhawa,

secretary of the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver. These guests include

Balwinder Singh Powar of New Westminster, Satbir Singh Powar of India, Raghbir

Singh Powar of India, Santokh Singh Powar of India, Amandip Singh Power of the

U.S.A., Kamaldeep Singh Powar of India, Harkirat Singh Powar of U.S.A. and

Rantaj Singh Powar of India. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Nuraney: With us are two very special British

Columbians. Al and Fiza Gulamhussein originally immigrated to Canada in the

1970s from East Africa. After initially attempting to settle in Ontario,

Manitoba and Alberta, they eventually found the good sense of coming to British

Columbia and made Burnaby their home. Al works very hard. He's got a business in

Cloverdale, and his wife helps him at times.

With them also are their daughter Narissa, who has been admitted

to UBC for the fall session, and their son Faizel, who of course works with us

in the Legislature as an assistant to our caucus research. May the House please

make them all welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the House are the mother and

grandmother of my legislative assistant, Brian Kowalski. They are Coreen Jenner

and Ada Froehlich from the Okanagan. Brian spent all weekend taking them around

and doing the Mother's Day thing, and I understand they had a very good time.

Will the House please welcome them.

C. Trevena: I had the great pleasure today of meeting 17

grade 11 students from Carihi, one of Campbell River's two high schools. They

were here in the House with their teacher, Wayne Demerse, to see for themselves

how provincial government works. I hope the House will join me in making them

very welcome.

K. Whittred: I have two introductions to make today.

Firstly, I have visiting the chamber today a group of North Shore seniors led by

Joy Brown. They are going to be here touring the Legislature. I ask the House to

join me in making them welcome.

[1335]

Secondly, I have three individuals here in the gallery today who

work very hard at trying to make me look good. Occasionally they even succeed.

They are the people who help me in my legislative office and in my constituency

office. With us today, joining us for question period, are Sabrina Loiacono, who

is my legislative assistant, Krista Bunskoek, who is my constituency assistant,

and Andrea Andrachuk, who is an assistant legislative assistant. Will you join

me in making them welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: We are joined today by grade 11 students from

MacNeill Secondary in my riding. Their teacher is Mr. Klose. There are a number

of adults accompanying them. They will be coming through during question period,

because there are a number of groupings of them as we go forward this afternoon.

I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

S. Fraser: Watching the proceedings today is a very good

friend of mine, Curtis Roberts. We grew up together and got into some trouble

together, as teenagers tend to, you know, with chess club and such.

The reason that I'm being a bit nostalgic is because by my

calculation, this is Curtis's birthday. If I'm not mistaken, Curtis is turning

50. I just want to say: Curtis, you're not getting older. You're getting…. No,

at 50 you're getting older. And I'm not 50 yet. Could this House please join me

in welcoming and saying happy birthday to Curtis Roberts.

Hon. G. Hogg: Joining us in the House today are a former

colleague and his wife. He's a man who has become our hero and continues to be

our friend. Would the House please welcome Arnie Hamilton.

G. Robertson: Please welcome a delegation from the Renters

At Risk group in Vancouver, who came to Victoria today to meet with MLAs

regarding the serious concerns they face, including eviction, if changes are not

made to the current Residential Tenancy Act. Joining us in the House today from

the Renters At Risk group are Sharon Isaak, Sarah Berry, Dayna Sykes, Janine

Fuller and Aerlyn Weissman.

Also here today, supporting the call for immediate changes to the

RTA, are downtown Vancouver residents Colette Wickstrom, Vancouver metro chair

of the B.C. Nurses Union, and Sharon Costello, former executive assistant to the

late Emery Barnes, Speaker of this House and longtime MLA for Vancouver-Burrard.

Please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: When our colleague the Minister of State for

ActNow introduced our former colleague and friend Arnie Hamilton, he did forget

to mention that his wife Carol is with him. Although he mentioned he was with

his wife, he did not mention that it was Carol — the more important part.

Statements

TANYA DUMSTREY-SOOS

C. Wyse: I ask the House to join with me today to offer

condolences to the family of Tanya Dumstrey-Soos of Bridge Lake. As the House is

aware, Ms. Dumstrey-Soos died last Thursday evening as a result of an attack by

a caged tiger on her property. Ms.

[ Page 7908 ]

Dumstrey-Soos was a mother whose family and community mourn her loss today.

I thank my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House who have

moved quickly to address this matter in the hopes of preventing a similar

tragedy in the future.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) OAK BAY KIWANIS PAVILION

R. Fleming: Today I would like to pay tribute to a

wonderful care facility in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside. I'm referring

to the Oak Bay Kiwanis Pavilion. The Oak Bay Kiwanis Pavilion is a complex care

facility specializing in the care of people with dementia. They provide care for

people in all stages of this condition, from the earliest to the most advanced.

This facility is home to 76 residents with moderate to severe dementia and 47

residents who either are physically frail or suffer mild cognitive impairment.

Their goal has been to create from the outset a warm, homelike atmosphere by

grouping residents into small families of eight to 12.

[1340]

Above all, the board and staff believe they should treat each

other, the residents, families and volunteers with respect, integrity and

openness. They encourage harmonious living with one another, and they value

religious, ethnic and cultural diversity within the facility. Their team-based

approach unites families, staff and volunteers in a spirit of cooperation.

Together they arrive at decisions concerning the well-being of each resident.

Today they are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the opening of

the Oak Bay Kiwanis Pavilion in 1982. Since they opened as a traditional seniors

care facility, their role has changed tremendously. They have adapted and grown

with the challenge of caring for seniors with dementia, surrounding them with

understanding and love.

Unfortunately, love is not enough to make this facility work. It

cannot provide the funding they need to continue this valuable work. While

government funding through the Vancouver Island Health Authority makes

provisions for their day-to-day operations, it is not enough to allow them to

create an environment that reflects the latest knowledge in dementia care and

respects the human resources required to provide the very best in care.

Establishing small homelike settings is particularly invaluable

for their residents and particularly costly for them. Fortunately, through

fundraising by the foundation, they have been able to provide many comforts for

their residents, including therapeutic gardens, home furnishings and a van for

transportation. They are proud of their facility, which has attracted the

attention of dementia experts from around the world, and are eager to continue

to provide the best care possible for their residents.

Will the House please join me in recognizing their significant

25th anniversary.

CELEBRATION OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS

J. Rustad: I normally use these opportunities to highlight

individual or group success stories, significant achievements or challenges on

the horizon, but today I rise to speak about family.

Almost all of us in society have a network of family and friends

that we share our lives with. Throughout our hopes, dreams, aspirations, fears,

triumphs and losses, our family and friends are there with us. Laughter and

tears mark the passing of time as we grow together or, in some cases, as we grow

apart. In everything we are enriched by their love and friendship.

Sometimes we can get too wrapped up in our daily concerns and

ongoing challenges, and sometimes we simply forget to say "Hi" or "Thanks" or "I

love you."

In this House we debate our philosophical views of the world and

our perspectives on how to improve the lives of the people of this great

province, because after all, that is our job. Yet often we can overlook some of

the important things in our lives. As we go through our debates and estimates

this week and for the next two years or beyond, let's remember our family and

friends. Let's take a moment to say "Thank you" and "I love you." We ask a lot

of them so that we can do the best we can in our work. We should never forget

how important they are or take them for granted.

In closing I would like to say thank you to all of our friends and

family. Also, since Sunday was Mother's Day, I'd like to ask the House to join

me in applauding all mothers for their unfettered love and for everything they

do to improve the lives of those around us.

Thank you, and I love you, Mom.

RIDGE MEADOWS

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROGRAMS

M. Sather: Mr. Speaker, I was so taken with that last

speech that I got carried away.

In 1999 the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows chambers of commerce

joined together to become the Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce. By bringing

together business, individuals and community groups, they put members in touch

with hundreds of contacts within the community and across the province.

Facilitating training programs is among the many benefits the

chamber offers its membership, and leadership B.C. is one of those programs.

Leadership B.C. is a community-based program that brings together local

stakeholders to create projects and curriculum that meet present and future

leadership needs in communities to ensure they achieve their full potential.

Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce and their community partner,

Ridge Meadows College, is the first chamber of commerce in the lower mainland

approved to run a leadership B.C. program. This program will provide Maple Ridge

and Pitt Meadows with the curriculum framework and process designed to provide

leadership capabilities of citizens who care about their community, including

youth.

[ Page 7909 ]

The Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce will run their first program

in September 2007. Community leaders from community services, media, health care

and local government are just some who will join the chamber in facilitating the

locally developed programming.

Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce has been working on behalf of my

local communities in one way or another since 1910.

[1345]

By working together with local organizations and businesses, and

through the programs and benefits they offer, the Ridge Meadows Chamber of

Commerce makes Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows a better place to live.

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

D. MacKay: This week is Mining Week. Mr. Speaker, I happen

to be very pleased with the progress the industry has made in the past several

years. In case you haven't noticed, I happen to be a very strong advocate for

the mining industry.

We all saw the drastic reduction in the mining industry in past

years, and it's taken a few years to bring the industry back to British

Columbia. We have recently seen some very, very positive results, something we

should all be very proud of. I'd like to spend a short time talking about what's

happening in the north.

They spent $128 million on exploration in the northwest alone last

year, and it is very clear that the mining activity is reaching new heights. To

capitalize on the new opportunities that will be created by the industry, the

provincial government is supporting the Smithers Exploration Group in their

partnership with the Northwest Community College's school of exploration and

mining. The school will train graduates for work in the exploration and mining

industry and will lead to success in projects such as the NovaGold Galore Creek

mine, which is expected to create 1,000 jobs during construction phase and

approximately 500 once in production.

I'm proud that the north is leading in exploration spending, with

more than half of the provincial total spent in my part of the province. The

mining industry benefits everyone, from the jobs it creates to the products that

we use in our everyday lives. It contributes hundreds of millions of dollars in

provincial revenue to help cover the costs of important services such as health

care and education.

I don't understand how anybody could be against mining. I

encourage every member of this Legislature to show their support for this

valuable industry.

FOUR SISTERS HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE

J. Kwan: In my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant the Four

Sisters Housing Co-op just celebrated their 20th anniversary. Four Sisters Co-op

originated as a response to lobbying for housing and for dealing with the

impacts of Expo 86. So 150 units of housing were allocated for the downtown east

side, with 50 units meant for the First United Church, the Chinese Benevolent

Association and DERA.

The First United Church and the Chinese Benevolent Association

gave their units to DERA to ensure speedy development and construction. The

developer of the project was Randy Cook of Tri-West Development and the

architectural firm of Davidson Yuen Simpson. Jim O'Dea and Jim Green were the

housing resource people for the project, and the first board president was Terry

Hanley.

The Four Sisters was a controversial project for two basic

reasons. There was a belief that low-income people could not operate low-income

housing and a belief that families shouldn't be located in the downtown east

side. The provincial government at that time did not support any social housing,

and CMHC, the federal government funder for the project, came to Vancouver to

actually speak against rezoning Four Sisters because of the family component in

the project.

In spite of that, the community came together. Women, children,

seniors, singles and professionals came together and fought for their vision.

They stood shoulder to shoulder in support of each other.

Since these early days, Four Sisters has been recognized by the

United Nations Populations Fund as one of the best housing models for women and

children. Four Sisters has received the Architectural Institute of B.C. award of

merit for its architecture, and the Urban Development Institute has recognized

it for urban planning.

After 20 years of operation, Four Sisters has proven that

low-income people are quite capable of running a major housing project. All

urban planners now recognize that the downtown core, when housing is properly

organized and managed, is a wonderful place for mothers, children and families

alike.

I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the 20th

anniversary of the Four Sisters Housing Co-op.

RECOVERY OF FISH STOCKS IN

CHEAKAMUS RIVER

J. McIntyre: The Cheakamus River is a part of the stunning

natural beauty that characterizes my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. The

70-kilometre river begins in Garibaldi Provincial Park upstream from Cheakamus

Lake and joins the Squamish River at Cheekye, just north of the community of

Squamish. It's a favourite designation for kayakers and whitewater rafters, and

it's also particularly well known for its excellent steelhead and salmon

fishing.

[1350]

On the morning of August 5, 2005, a train derailment killed

thousands of fish and caused much concern amongst local residents and the many

people who visit the Cheakamus each year. Just this past Friday I had the great

pleasure of joining staff and students from the North Vancouver Outdoor School,

along with our Environment Minister, to help release 4,000 of the planned 20,000

smolts into the Cheakamus

[ Page 7910 ]

— a program that will go a long way to helping restore the fish stocks

impacted by the spill.

These one-year-old steelhead smolts — which are very beautiful, I

have to tell you — were raised by the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. at

the Fraser Valley Trout Hatchery in Abbotsford. These smolts were

hatchery-reared following the capture of 20 mature spawners last spring and will

augment the wild spawners in 2009 and 2010 as part of the short-term

augmentation plan.

As the steelhead smolts move downstream toward Howe Sound, they'll

be monitored by electronic listening devices that can read signals from

miniature transmitters that have been surgically implanted in some of the fish.

Their progress, once they reach the Pacific Ocean, will be followed through the

Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking System as part of the monitoring and evaluation

programs for the recovery efforts.

It's through science and the talent and passion of people in the

Ministry of Environment, the staff and students of North Vancouver Outdoor

School, the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. and the Fraser Valley Trout

Hatchery that we will see the Cheakamus fish populations revitalized over time.

These efforts deserve our recognition.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC AFFAIRS BUREAU COVERAGE OF

BASI-VIRK COURT CASE

L. Krog: Recently we learned that the Ministry of Attorney

General is paying a political appointee with the public affairs bureau to attend

the Basi-Virk trial. He reports back daily to his political masters. Now, this

is not a matter that's before the courts, so the Attorney General can't answer

with that excuse today.

Why does the Attorney General think that it is appropriate to ask

taxpayers to pay for someone to sit in a courtroom just to keep tabs on this

B.C. Liberal legal mess?

Hon. W. Oppal: The person in question is a junior public

affairs officer, and he merely reports to the government and other people

regarding what's going on in courtrooms. He assists the media, and he assists

the people….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Members of the opposition may find it

surprising that the media has an interest in cases that are before the courts.

Mr. Chase is there to assist in the major cases that are of public interest, and

he prepares reports on daily court sittings and court activities at all levels

of the courts in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, coming from a government that

refuses to denounce the practice of taxpayer-funded dirty political tricks, it's

a little hard to believe that this type of activity is in the public interest,

when the Attorney General won't answer any questions about the trial. The

Attorney General has acknowledged today in this House that the taxpayers are

paying for this individual to report back to his political masters with

information that is not ever made public.

My question to the Attorney General is very simple. If the public

is paying for this service, will the Attorney General commit to making all the

reports of the public affairs bureau staffer public starting today?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, this person has been there for a

while. He sits in on all of the trials; he assists the media. This is nothing

new. I congratulate the opposition for finally finding out that Mr. Chase has

been in the courts — been there for a long time. He's doing an excellent job.

[1355]

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General says that this public

affairs bureau assists the media. It's unfortunate that the Attorney General

can't assist this House in their inquiries into these matters.

My question again is to the Attorney General. He says these

matters are always before the courts and he can't discuss them. Then, can he

tell this House what this taxpayer-paid-for individual assists the media with,

what he discusses with the media, and why he cannot table those discussions and

those reports in this House?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, it's amazing to me that the member

opposite still doesn't understand the role and the distinction between the

courts and the Legislature. We do not discuss the evidence that's before the

courts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to read something here, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: Last November I was asked by a number of

members of the media about the admissibility of wiretap evidence, and I gave a

legal opinion as to the generic law as pertains to the permissibility of wiretap

evidence. Listen to what the member for Nanaimo had to say about that. On

November 2 the critic said: "The Attorney General should leave this case to the

courts and keep future comments to himself."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 7911 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: The opposition critic then went on to say

that there have been many high-profile cases in the past where prosecutions

failed because of public comments made by politicians. He wasn't content with

that. He went on to say: "It is essential to the rule of law that the integrity

of the judicial process not be interfered with. High-profile prosecutions have

failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments in public

that were later deemed prejudicial." That's the opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: This individual is a conduit between the

courts and the government. What other purpose is there for this individual if

not to report back to government what is taking place and, as the Attorney

General just said, to assist the media? Assist the media with what is what we

want to know.

My question is to the Attorney General. Did the Attorney General

approve the appointment of this individual to monitor the court case? If not

him, then who did?

Hon. W. Oppal: I've already said he's not there to monitor

any particular court case. He's there. He sits in on the courts, and there's

nothing unusual about that. He's not there to comment on any particular case the

way the opposition would like us to comment on the cases. He reports to the

media. He assists the media.

J. Kwan: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Is the

Minister of Finance aware of this, and has she approved having the public

affairs bureau staff at the Basi-Virk court case?

Hon. C. Taylor: I am aware of it as of today. I was told of

the situation. The public affairs bureau has informed me that the Ministry of

Attorney General made a request that instead of having all of their

communication people in Victoria, they would have someone who was in Vancouver

and would be able to monitor the major trials as they went forward.

[1400]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: How many reports have been presented to the

government to date from this political appointment who is monitoring the court

case? Will the Attorney General commit to tabling all of those reports in this

Legislature today?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's nothing sinister about having a

person there to advise the public as to what's going on in the courtroom.

Obviously, with the economy going the way it is, there's nothing much to ask on

that side of the House. But I can tell you that this person….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Chase has followed a number of the

trials, including the Xiao Zhang file that involved the death of the New Zealand

physician who was killed in a motor vehicle accident. Those are some of the

trials that he's monitored while sitting in courts in Vancouver.

B. Ralston: The Attorney General says that there's nothing

sinister about these reports. He's attempting to brush it off. If there's

nothing sinister about the reports, then why doesn't he table them in the House

now?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know what reports the member is

speaking about. The member should know that one of the problems in the civil and

criminal justice system is that the public doesn't fully understand the workings

of the system. It helps that if there is somebody there monitoring trials, that

person then apprises the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: If there's….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member for Nelson-Creston.

C. Evans: Yes. Whatever I said that anybody took offence

to, I certainly withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: It assists if we have somebody there

explaining how the system works to the public. You know, the criminal justice

system need not be a mystery to the public.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, do we want to continue?

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Chase is there to assist the media, to

apprise them of the witnesses that are being called and the progress of the

trial. That's all he's there for.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Apparently, the Attorney General won't commit

to tabling the reports that we just spoke of

[ Page 7912 ]

moments ago. So my question is to the Minister of Finance. Since the Minister

of Finance is responsible for the public affairs bureau and pays for Mr. Chase's

salary, will she commit to tabling those less than sinister reports today in the

Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, if the opposition has an interest

in the reports, they can always FOI them.

[1405]

R. Fleming: Jeez, another victory for openness and

transparency.

The Attorney General has said that Mr. Chase's reports are

submitted to him and to other members of the government. Can the Attorney

General confirm that he has received reports from Mr. Chase, and does the

Premier of this province also receive those kinds of briefings?

Hon. W. Oppal: I did not say that he filed reports with me.

I said that he's there to assist the public in understanding what's going on in

the system, and he's doing that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: There's nothing wrong with having an officer

sitting in the courtroom to assist the media in….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: It indicates to me they're not really

interested in the answers. They're interested in making speeches. I'll leave it

at that.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Well, the Attorney General keeps saying that

this person is in the courts on a daily basis to assist the media. So is this

person a spin doctor? What does he do? How does the Attorney General — who has

been very careful to remind members of this House on an almost daily basis when

he doesn't answer questions that it's a matter before the court — reconcile that

and make sure that Mr. Chase isn't politically interfering in the proceedings?

Is this person a delegate of the government? Is he an authorized

spokesperson? And once again, will the Attorney General table those reports to

the House?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am only curious and involve myself

because I'm wondering if the member who just asked the question is prepared to

apply those same standards that he professes to expect of others.

We talk about spinning. I've got a briefing note from April 2,

2001. It's….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader continues.

Hon. M. de Jong: Nothing unusual, obviously, about the

preparation of briefing notes. But I found it odd that the government of the day

felt it required a briefing note entitled — well, now the member — his name and

"contract," the suggestion being that there was something perhaps unusual about

this contract. I won't bore the House with the details now….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: But when you go to the contract that

involved the payment of $38,000 to the hon. member, there is a notation on it

that says: "The approval received but not endorsed, service specifications and

performance standards sparse comparative to value of contract."

Could it possibly be that the government of the day had to prepare

a briefing note because they were concerned that this member and the contract he

signed wouldn't withstand the kind of scrutiny that might have applied? I don't

know. Maybe, maybe not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member. I'm not continuing till there's

silence.

Member for Vancouver-Kensington has the floor.

D. Chudnovsky: The Attorney General has said on several

occasions this afternoon that it is the job of the employee of the public

affairs bureau to provide advice to the public. Could the Attorney General tell

the House what advice Mr. Chase has provided to the public, where and when?

[1410]

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not privy to the advice that he has

provided. He's there on a daily basis. He goes to….

Interjections.

[ Page 7913 ]

Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has the floor.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll repeat, hon. Speaker. Mr. Chase is

employed in the public affairs bureau, and he reports to the director of

communications for the Ministry of Attorney General. What he does is sit in a

courtroom, prepare articles and assist members of the media or anyone else who

is interested in the progress of trials. That's not unusual at all. It's done in

major trials. It's done throughout all the significant trials throughout the

province and in other provinces as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: I want to just do a little review, as is my

wont as a veteran teacher. We've spent a number of minutes in this House this

afternoon exploring the activities of an individual who works for the public

affairs bureau. It is the Attorney General who has said to us on several

occasions this afternoon that it is the job of that individual to provide advice

to the public.

It is an entirely reasonable question to now ask the Attorney

General: what advice, when did he give it, where did he give it, and what did he

say?

Hon. W. Oppal: With the greatest of conceivable respect,

the question, quite frankly, is silly. This man sits in a courtroom…. Obviously,

the person doesn't understand what happens in the courts. What happens is that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: For instance, he's been attending the

Pickton trial in New Westminster — a complex trial, a trial that really requires

explanations because of the various nuances that are taking place in the trial.

He doesn't file reports to me, but what he does is help people —

the media and other people — in the courtroom who need assistance to understand

the proceedings. At times, you see, during the course of a trial, a jury may be…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: …absent for evidentiary issues. A judge may

adjourn in order to consider certain deliberations and come back with certain

decisions regarding issues. These are matters that have to be explained to

members of the public who are not entirely familiar with the workings of the

system.

B. Simpson: It seems like the Attorney General does not

really understand what's going on in this case at all. He's the one who raised

the issue that it was reports that were being produced.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: Then, when asked questions about the reports,

he said that they weren't sinister reports. Then when asked further questions

about the reports, he said that, actually, reports don't exist. The confusion

abounds.

Now the Attorney General is saying that articles are written by

this individual. To the Attorney General: where are those articles? How can we

find them? Are they published on the Web? Are they published under this author's

name or some other name if he's writing in a pseudonym?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll repeat. Mr. Chase is in a courtroom to

assist members of the public through the media to understand how the system

works, why particular rulings are made, why particular exhibits are filed and

all of those things that members of the public may not understand by themselves.

That's why he's there.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1415]

B. Simpson: The Attorney General said, to start off this

line of questioning, that this person writes reports. He's backed off of that.

The Attorney General has now said that he writes articles. He's now trying to

back off of that. Check the Hansard after this. You will find that the

Attorney General said both that reports were written and that articles were

written.

Where are these reports, and are those articles published? If so,

where can we find them?

Hon. W. Oppal: All right. The officer in question, Mr.

Chase, who's employed with the public affairs bureau, works in the courts. He

attends various trials, the high-profile trials. He assists in preparing

articles. He meets with the media on a regular basis. I'm not privy to the

articles that he writes or prepares, and I've never spoken to the man, but his

purpose in being there is to assist those people who may not have an

understanding of the judicial system.

S. Simpson: The Attorney General referenced the Pickton

trial. We know that Mr. Stan Lowe is the government person who provides

information at that trial, and appropriately so. The reality of the situation is

that Mr. Chase is not a public information officer of the courts. He's a

political appointee of this government and a spin doctor for the Liberals.

Frankly, the reality is this. If this minister isn't prepared to

release those reports, release those articles. Let us know. Then maybe we can

only assume that he is trying to influence the media on this — Mr. Chase. That's

wrong, and this minister knows it. Release the reports, and clear the matter up.

Hon. W. Oppal: Stan Lowe is only one of the officers in the

Attorney General Ministry, one of the

[ Page 7914 ]

lawyers who interact with the media. There are others that do it as well.

There's nothing….

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no effort to influence anybody's

opinion or give a….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The purpose of the officer being there is to

assist the public in understanding the system, understanding some of the rulings

and all the things that are going on in a courtroom.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I'm not aware that Mr. Chase is a lawyer. Maybe

we could be enlightened about that. The reality is this. Mr. Chase is a spin

doctor for the government and for the B.C. Liberals. That's his job.

If the Attorney General would like to enlighten us, maybe he could

enlighten us all and release the information. Maybe he could enlighten us all

and tell us what Mr. Chase is telling the media and the public instead of

keeping it hidden, keeping it secret and just raising the concern that this is

about manipulation by this government of the trial.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, we don't need a spin doctor on

trials of this nature. We don't need that. You know, those types…. The fact that

the member would suggest that a government needs a spin doctor in a criminal

trial indicates to me that he's completely ignorant to the workings….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Attorney, that statement?

Hon. W. Oppal: I withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: The member is obviously uninformed as to the

workings of the system. In a criminal trial the Crown lays charges against a

person against whom they allege some wrongdoing. We don't have any interest in

that particular trial. The Crown lays the charge. They prosecute the case. The

judge and/or a jury will ultimately decide the case.

We don't need a spin doctor to put forth the government's view,

whatever it may be, in a trial.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Robertson: Now that we've had the Attorney General's

hopelessly confusing account of what Mr. Chase is doing at the trial — from

"monitor the trial" to "assist the media" to "report to government" to "assist

the public" — the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for this public

affairs bureau staffer, is now aware of this confusing complex of job

descriptions.

Does the Minister of Finance think that it's appropriate to have a

taxpayer-funded political appointee at the Basi-Virk trial?

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said before, the public affairs bureau

was specifically asked by the Ministry of Attorney General that instead of

having all of their communications people in Victoria, they would be able to

have one in Vancouver monitoring the major trials. And yes, that is appropriate.

M. Karagianis: I guess my question to either the Minister

of Finance or the Attorney General is: what is the difference between assisting

the media or influencing the media, and assisting public opinion or influencing

public opinion? Where does Mr. Chase stand in his job description?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would assume that the media is incapable

of being influenced. I would….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The members of the media are there to report

events that take place in courtrooms. Sometimes they're not privy to some of the

nuances that may happen and why….

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, they….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat again.

Continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: Sometimes it's not always evident to a

person sitting in a courtroom, the media included, as to why particular

witnesses weren't called, who the witnesses are for the next day and what the

progress of the trial may be. Those are all matters that the officer is there

for. He's there to assist the members of the media and other members of the

public who may be interested.

[ Page 7915 ]

[End of question period.]

R. Austin: I seek leave to file a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Austin: I have a petition here of over 7,000 signatures

entitled Sand for Souls . It's a petition requesting better road

maintenance and snow removal in northwest British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber Bill Pr401, Pacific

Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, and in Committee A,

Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continued estimates of

the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, to be followed at some point by the

Ministry of Attorney General.

[1425]

Second Reading of Bills

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY FOR

WORKPLACE HEALTH SCIENCES ACT

R. Cantelon: I move that the bill be now read a second

time.

This bill had its genesis many years ago when a young man

named Wolfgang Zimmermann arrived for his first day on the job in logging. He

lost the use of his legs in an accident on his first day. Fortunately, the

company worked with him, and he was able to find continuing employment with the

company. Then, it was MacMillan Bloedel.

Wolfgang became a passionate advocate of the challenges, both

physical and mental, of people with injuries and disabilities re-entering the

workforce. He made it his lifelong mission to help those. The culmination of

that was the bill you see here today.

He organized an organization called NIDMAR, the National Institute

of Disability Management and Research, which is supported not only by both sides

of this House but by both labour and management in a unique coalition to provide

methods, training and workplace safety. It enables people to bridge that gap.

It's certainly a tragedy. It's an economic resource that is wasted. Nearly

300,000 people in British Columbia have suffered injuries, and only 55 percent

of them find re-employment.

But that economic loss to the province is really secondary to the

personal tragedy that these people face. They have the abilities, they have the

skills, but they can't get back in the workforce. In fact, in 90 percent of the

cases, if they don't re-enter the workforce within the first year, they never

do. So really and truly it's a personal tragedy.

NIDMAR has developed courses that are used throughout the world —

in Germany, where there are 30 million workers that subscribe under the

protocols developed by this. The courses are offered throughout the world on

line. This is going to be a unique opportunity for British Columbia to develop a

place of excellence, a university that's committed to this particular and

specialized science — that of assisting people finding their place again,

re-finding their lives by helping them bridge the gaps and barriers, physical

and mental, to re-enter the workforce.

It's going to be a great facility, and it's going to offer hope

and opportunity to people for whom much hope is lost. I credit Wolfgang for his

passion, his zeal and his determination in bringing this bill to this point.

I would also acknowledge the work and effort that's been put in by

the previous member for Alberni-Qualicum, Gillian Trumper. I salute the fact

that the current member for Alberni-Qualicum has also taken up this torch and

truly made this a bipartisan enterprise.

S. Fraser: I'm honoured to speak to Bill Pr401 on second

reading.

Every year in Canada 1,000 workers leave for work, and they don't

come home. They die in a workplace accident. Approximately 24,000 permanent

disabilities occur annually in this country.

In 2004 Canada tied for first place in being the worst place for

workplace fatalities. Canada's record for reducing workplace fatalities over the

previous 20 years stood alone as the worst. In B.C. nearly 70,000 compensable

accidents occur annually, and the death rate is appalling. Thousands are

permanently disabled.

None of us are very far away from being disabled in a workplace

accident. Workplace accidents happen all too often, and we all face that risk of

permanent disability. None of us is immune. The great equalizer, I believe, is

how Wolfgang Zimmerman put it. We must be mindful of that and not take it for

granted.

The creation of the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health

Sciences, through this act, represents hope for the future and represents the

formal dismissing of partisanships between labour and industry and between both

sides of this House on this particular important issue.

I am proud to say that the inception of this endeavour is from my

constituency and from Port Alberni. I thank the community for being there from

the beginning. I thank Wolfgang Zimmerman and others from NIDMAR who have

supported this and have been united in their strength and perseverance.

As the MLA for Alberni-Qualicum, I have been a supporter and

promoter of this initiative since taking office. I would like to thank the

member for Nanaimo-Parksville for all of the work he's done on this. I know it's

been difficult to move this through, and I applaud him for that.

[1430]

As the World Bank identified in its major research study released

in 2004, effective disability management programs aimed at maintaining

attachment to the workforce, starting with the onset of a disabling condition,

is the most effective strategy for not only lowering disability-related costs,

but also increasing the number of individuals with disabilities in the

workforce.

[ Page 7916 ]

At a time when declining employment rates for people with

disabilities continue unabated around the world, the vast majority of those

individuals express a clear desire to be part of a paid labour force. The

creation of this accredited university will play an important

part in ensuring

that gradually, by understanding that regardless of our disabilities we can all

make a continued contribution — a valued and productive contribution, critical

to our organizations, society and, above all, to the personal sense of

participation in all aspects of our society and our environment….

Hats off to Wolfgang Zimmermann, the executive director of NIDMAR,

for his hard work, leadership and perseverance in guiding us to this point. I

know he wished to be here today. I believe he's in Ottawa pushing this

initiative nationally and internationally — a global centre for excellence in

disability management.

This is the leading edge in management research and education and

a necessary step, but there is still much to be done. In B.C. we must combine

this with a commitment to implementation. The grim statistics speak for

themselves.

I close with a challenge to all — all of us in this House and in

British Columbia — for a willingness and a commitment to do better.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for

Nanaimo-Parksville closes debate.

R. Cantelon: I have no further comments but to acknowledge

the work…. The department of Advanced Education has been supportive in seeing

this bill through, and I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the member

opposite.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

R. Cantelon: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to

the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences

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

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY FOR

WORKPLACE HEALTH SCIENCES ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

R. Cantelon: I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY FOR

WORKPLACE HEALTH SCIENCES ACT

Bill Pr401, Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences

Act, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences

Act, read a third time and passed.

Second Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 2007

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, now be read a second time. This bill amends a

number of provincial statutes.

Amendments to the Community Charter will enhance public

accountability and opportunities for community development. Municipalities will

now develop and disclose municipal policies in relation to revenue sources,

distribution of property value, taxes and use of permissive property tax

exemptions. Municipalities will have broader authority to provide revitalization

tax exemptions for the economic, social and environmental well-being of their

communities. This legislation provides parallel amendments for the city of

Vancouver under the Vancouver Charter.

Amendments to the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act

will allow decisions made by the British Columbia Farm Industry Review Board to

be enforced like court orders. This will ensure the act continues to provide a

balanced, effective process to resolve complaints about farm practices and

provide a balanced approach to resolving concerns about farming for the

increasing number of British Columbians who live near farm operations, while

ensuring measures are in place for a successful agriculture sector.

The bill also amends the Land Act to allow for an integrated land

and resource registry. The registry will

[ Page 7917 ]

give government and external clients efficient single-window access to

information on legal rights and interests on Crown land in British Columbia 24

hours a day, seven days a week. Once operating, the registry will reduce

adjudication times and increase certainty for decision-making on land use.

Amendments to the Land Title Act will also create new

opportunities for farmers by ensuring they can enter into valid, enforceable

long-term leases for unused portions of agricultural land. The amendment

addresses side effects of a 1996 decision, a court case that interpreted the

act's requirements on leases on unsubdivided land. The decision has resulted in

confusion, extra costs for farmers and an unintended burden on local

governments. The amendments will enhance farmers' abilities to affordably access

unused farmland and set out requirements for leases with terms exceeding three

years. The change will promote certainty for land agreements and reduce

unnecessary litigation.

In addition, minor housekeeping amendments to the Land Title Act

and the Land Title and Survey Authority Act will provide ongoing support for the

operation of the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia. The

amendments include further clarifications of what services are provided to

customers for the various fees charged.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act and Insurance (Vehicle) Act

will bring British Columbia in line with other North American jurisdictions with

respect to vicarious liability and help keep businesses like car rental

companies in the province to support major industries such as tourism.

[1440]

Currently car rental and lease companies face unlimited liability

for accidents and damages caused by their customers. Changes will limit the

company's liability to $1 million for bodily injury and property damage claims

and shift some of the responsibility onto the driver. A minor amendment to the

Passenger Transportation Act will support the act's enforcement. The act

regulates taxis, limousines, inner-city buses to ensure adequate access to

commercial public transportation and public safety.

Currently, operating licences are approved by the Passenger

Transportation Board, and a common condition restricts the area in which a

licensee may pick up passengers. The amendment will add a new offence to enable

a fine to be levied against drivers who operate outside the boundary. Currently

only licensees can be fined.

The British Columbia Wine Act is being repealed to reflect the

wine industry's new approach to governance and the administration of wine

quality standards. The amendments eliminate redundant regulatory requirements

and ensure essential regulatory requirements are clearly connected to the

administering agency, the B.C. Wine Authority.

In addition, Bill 35 amends the Wildlife Act to identify a new

trustee for the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. The new trustee is an

independent legal entity registered as a society under the Society Act. Rules

regarding the board and its business operations will be moved from the Wildlife

Act to the new society's constitution and bylaws.

Finally, Bill 35 amends the Pacific Coast University for Workplace

Health Sciences Act, which is currently before the Legislature as Bill Pr401, to

provide consistency with Bill 22, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

That bill amends a number of acts governing private post-secondary institutions

with respect to personal education numbers.

L. Krog: Well, it's always interesting to get the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act from the Attorney General's ministry,

covering a wide variety of topics — some of great public interest, some of

absolutely no public interest whatsoever. I think in general the opposition will

support most of this bill. However, there are some very specific and, I would

suggest, serious concerns around some of the matters that have been raised.

With respect to the Community Charter and Local Government Act

amendments, those I think would probably be seen as appropriate and progressive.

But it strikes the opposition that perhaps the government has not fully

considered the ramifications of the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility

Agreement and what impact it will have on the proposed amendments to the

Community Charter and Local Government Act.

The fact is that government on one hand appears to be ensuring

that the public has access to all appropriate information about the sources of

revenue, and then suggesting that local governments will have perhaps even

greater discretion or authority to in fact grant exemptions and do things that

would work in that local government's best interests. That must be seen by most

British Columbians as a very positive step.

However, it is questionable whether or not those amendments will

in fact pass the TILMA test. This indeed may lead to all sorts of potential

legal challenges. It's quite right that municipal governments should be

extremely concerned about the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement

as it impacts on their rights, when this series of amendments in fact seems to

contemplate that the government wishes to expand their powers on one hand. But

TILMA, I would suggest, is in fact going to limit local governments' power.

With respect to the Farm Practices Protection Act, obviously

giving teeth to any government body is an appropriate step forward. It needs to

have the same effect as a Supreme Court judgment in order for people to pay

serious attention. This is one of those things that won't be seen to affect

large numbers of the public but is in fact a progressive step on the part of the

government.

[1445]

There are, however, I would suggest, significant concerns around

the changes to the Insurance Act and the Motor Vehicle Act. What this appears to

be is quite simply nothing more than a gift to corporate providers of vehicles

at the expense of the rights of plaintiffs to recover damages in complex legal

circumstances. This in fact appears to be nothing more than a reward, if

[ Page 7918 ]

you will, to corporate donors than it is good public policy.

The Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, I can assure

the House, are very concerned about these provisions and proposed changes. This

will probably have the effect of limiting recovery for people who have been

seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents. It will have the effect of

limiting the rights of those unfortunate people who are injured in what we call

catastrophic accidents.

It will, in fact, potentially limit their recovery so that we will

have two classes of plaintiffs: those who are lucky enough, arguably — and I use

that term in a somewhat inappropriate way — to face an ordinary situation where

there is a single insured driver and negligence and then can make their claim,

and those who are unfortunate to be involved in a situation involving a leased

vehicle and issues around consent. Those are of real concern to the opposition.

There is no cry on the public's part for this change. You do not

see people demonstrating in the streets of British Columbia saying this is a

good thing. This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to address the

narrow interests of those who make their living leasing out vehicles. It is not

good public policy. It does not protect innocent victims in car accidents, and

will not do so.

So with the greatest respect to the Attorney General, there is

more to this than a simple Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — the old

ho-hum, pass-it-through-the-Legislature, let's-get-on-with-it-here approach.

Those sections in fact cause genuine concern to the opposition, they should

cause concern to potential plaintiffs across British Columbia, and I suspect

they will cause significant concern not just to trial lawyers but to all those

who are involved in working with people who have been injured in a catastrophic

way in serious accidents.

Another matter that is very serious is the government's proposal

for the new integrated land and resource registry. We're all delighted that the

world is getting Internet-friendly, that people have quick and ready access to

government information. That's all to the good; that's all very positive. If we

lived in a perfect world where every community had that kind of information

readily available, then that would be quite wonderful — if we were all tied into

the Net. The fact is that either through monetary inability, economic

insecurity, geography or physical or mental disability, all kinds of people

don't have easy access to the Internet.

If it's the goal for the registry to be accessible to all of the

citizens of B.C., then I would suggest that it is simply, absolutely impossible

for this government to guarantee that at the present time. There are currently,

as I understand it, up to 120 communities that do not have access to high-speed

Internet connections and so do not have connectivity to the integrated land and

resource registry. Those are the facts of British Columbia — 120 communities.

Heaven knows how many thousands of British Columbians will not have that access.

What we're doing with this is essentially limiting it to those who

already have access, instead of expanding access, as is suggested. What we're

really doing is making it simply easier for those who already have the tools to

get their job done at the expense of those who can't afford or don't have the

tools for whatever reason or indeed who may have all the money in the world but

who simply live in a part of British Columbia that isn't serviced.

With the greatest respect to the government, this strikes me as an

improvement, if you will, or a reform that should only come into effect if, in

fact, the government can guarantee access across the province equally.

Otherwise, what it means, as the Attorney General noted in his opening remarks

around second reading debate, is that those people who are Internet-friendly can

access this registry, make their applications 24-7.

You can say that that's a great thing, but to George and Mary

living in the Internet-unfriendly community, they're going to assume, like most

British Columbians do, that the government office is open from nine till five or

eight till four and that that's when they can make their application.

[1450]

What this essentially does is give a big jump — a boost, if you

will — to those who are already in the industry, so to speak, those who are up

to the task of handling modern technology. It will give a definite benefit to

some and be a definite detriment to others.

So I think the Attorney General needs to reconsider this

particular aspect of the bill and that this, in fact, is not a positive step

forward on all levels. If it was going to guarantee complete equality of access,

one would be entirely sympathetic, but the bill does not guarantee that access.

With respect to the other sections of the bill, some of the more

modest provisions are certainly appropriate. No one would disagree with the

possibility of allowing for long-term leases, particularly to protect those

people in agriculture who we want to support in this province and who I would

hope government policy would support on a constant basis.

But there are other matters as well. For instance,

section 27

allows that the registrar may cancel, with or without an application, a notation

endorsed on the title of land under the Forest Land Reserve Act before the

repeal of that Act. One could argue that this is a simple thing and that it

simply clears up a title.

In fact, the whole purpose of the Forest Land Reserve Act was to

ensure that property in British Columbia from which forest companies had

received significant tax breaks couldn't be developed for other purposes and

that we would, if you will, help guarantee the perpetuity of the forest industry

in this province — to give it longevity, to ensure that jobs would be available

in the forest industry for this generation and for every succeeding generation.

What this

section reminds us of is that this government

essentially gutted the forest land reserve, eliminated it. We now see up and

down the east coast of Vancouver Island major private land owners and forest

companies putting their land out for developing; pressuring municipal

governments and regional gov-

[ Page 7919 ]

ernments to create further urban sprawl; taking land out of forest

production, which provides good jobs for British Columbians, and turning it into

subdivisions; putting pressure on municipal governments to deliver services;

putting pressure on growth plans and enabling what have now often become large

foreign corporations to make significant profits by logging and flogging,

instead of logging and creating real jobs in British Columbia for British

Columbians.

These changes around the Wildlife Act and the habitat conservation

fund are all appropriate. The opposition is not going to have any significant

problem with those, except for a number of questions, I would respectfully

suggest.

But as I tried to point out in my remarks today, although on the

face of it this is just one of those ho-hum pieces of legislation, there are

some matters in this bill which give the opposition great concern. The Attorney

General and other ministers of the Crown will need to be prepared to answer

fully the very appropriate questions and concerns raised by the opposition.

C. Wyse: I rise briefly to speak to this Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act. In the portion that deals with local government, I would

like to bring possible concerns around the sections that develop and disclose

municipal policies in relation to revenue sources, the distribution of property

value taxes and the use of permissive tax exemptions that, albeit good on the

surface, do put additional expense on local governments, particularly the

smaller ones, in order to achieve that. In consideration of this, some

assistance needs to be provided to those local governments to achieve that down

the road.

Likewise, with some other concerns, in order to achieve those

particular aspects, it does put some further additional restrictions upon the

provision of public services, which may not have been the intent of this type of

legislation.

[1455]

When you look at the permissive tax exemptions, right now it

leaves it very much up to the discretion of local governments, as long as the

local government is in agreement for that permissive tax exemption. But now

having it tied explicitly to the documents that I referred to earlier, it may in

actual fact restrict the ability for local government to achieve public service

aspects in it. So I share that caution with you.

Likewise, with the aspect dealing with the revitalization of tax

exemptions, it no longer requires the designation of a benefiting area. In doing

such, it may end up becoming open to a much wider distribution of that type of a

tax exemption than what would necessarily have been intended, as well as the

point that my colleague earlier mentioned about maybe opening up to further

challenges underneath the TILMA legislation.

Finally, with my other hat, dealing with the integrated land use

registry, coming from an area that has concerns about access to high speed, I do

have large parts of the geography in my area that would be disadvantaged by that

lack of a tool being available to them.

As well, I'm not aware from anything I've been able to obtain

whether there have been consultations that have gone on with first nations

communities around this type of an item. So I bring those concerns to the House

on behalf of the rural nature of my riding and the concerns about there being an

equal playing field in a tool that is being provided to all of British Columbia.

With land use registry, it is a significant advantage if you're

able to access getting whatever it is registered quickly versus those that do

not have that particular advantage. It is a concern that I do have.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the

opportunity to bring these concerns to the attention of the Attorney General for

consideration down the road.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney

General closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move second reading of Bill 35.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 35 be referred to the

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, read

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate of Bill 33,

intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 33, Attorney General

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, now be read a second time.

This bill amends a number of statutes under the mandate of the

Ministry of Attorney General to improve efficiency and access to justice.

Amendments to the Administrative Tribunals Act and the enabling legislation for

a number of tribunals will clarify the government's intention regarding those

tribunals' jurisdiction and discretion to apply the Human Rights Code.

Further amendments to the Administrative Tribunals Act will

enhance the provisions and authorize the temporary appointment of a tribunal

member, providing greater flexibility to address a member's temporary absence or

short-term workload needs.

Amendments to the Family Relations Act will enable the child

support recalculation service pilot project to operate as efficiently and

effectively as possible.

The bill also makes amendments to the Family Maintenance

Enforcement Act to streamline the efficiency of the family maintenance

enforcement program and to ensure that children receive financial support

[ Page 7920 ]

they're entitled to from both parents. These new measures bring British

Columbia in line with enforcement in other provinces such as Alberta and

Ontario.

[1500]

Changes to the Supreme Court Act and the provincial act will

support the integrity of the justice system in a number of ways, including

allowing information-sharing on the conduct of an employee between the chief

administrator of court services branch and the chief judge or chief justice.

Amendments to the Legal Profession Act will enhance the Law

Society of British Columbia's ability to regulate the legal profession in the

public interest. Among other changes, the amendments increase the society's

ability to respond if a lawyer is practising incompetently. The amendments also

introduce a procedure for obtaining evidence from other jurisdictions that will

streamline discipline and credential hearings.

An amendment to the Legal Services Society Act expands the

society's mandate, enabling it to provide service and assistance to individuals

who currently fall outside its financial eligibility guidelines. Services and

assistance to low-income individuals remain the society's priority.

The amendment will permit the society greater flexibility in

determining what services to provide, and to which clients. It will empower the

society to be a key partner in supporting the government's recently announced

justice reform initiatives.

This bill also makes amendments to the Offence Act that allow

tickets for a range of provincial offences to be served to people residing

outside British Columbia and enable the mail delivery of parking violation

tickets.

Further amendments will allow disputants to appear in provincial

traffic court via telephone or video conferencing where equipment is available

for prescribed offences in prescribed circumstances.

Housekeeping amendments will include a change to the Evidence Act

to clarify that electronically recorded images of documents, such as cheques,

are admissible in the same way as the original documents.

Finally, Bill 33 provides for a number of validations,

confirmations and repeals as well as consequential and related amendments to

keep the statutes up to date and to provide certainty.

L. Krog: From the opposition's perspective, the changes

proposed in this bill around the application of the Human Rights Code are very

troubling indeed. The fact is that if this bill passes in its present form,

these tribunals will not have any jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

They include the Agricultural Land Commission, the property assessment review

panel, the Property Assessment Appeal Board, the director of Business Practices

and Consumer Protection, the employment and assistance appeal tribunal, the

director of employment standards, the Employment Standards Tribunal, the

director of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, the Passenger Transportation

Board, the petroleum and natural gas mediation and arbitration board, the

director of the Residential Tenancy Act, the Safety Standards Appeal Board, the

superintendent of achievement of the School Act, the B.C. Utilities Commission

and the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

The Attorney General in his opening remarks talked about

efficiency and access to justice. How one can suggest that access to justice or

efficiency somehow is a good thing in this particular bill is somewhat

staggering to my legal imagination. The reality is that it may be efficient in

terms of denying to all sorts of individuals the rights, which they presently

would have enjoyed, to ask for the application of the Human Rights Code. But it

doesn't do anything to improve their access to the justice that they would be

entitled to, to ask a tribunal to apply those decisions.

There's another classification of tribunals that may apply the

Human Rights Code but do not have jurisdiction over a question of whether there

is a conflict between the Human Rights Code and any other enactment: the

Community Care and Assisted Living Appeal Board, the Financial Services

Tribunal, the Forest Practices Board, the Hospital Appeal Board, the Industry

Training Appeal Board, the mental health board and review panel, and the B.C.

Farm Industry Review Board.

[1505]

We're creating all these various classes. There's the one where

you can't apply it at all; the other class that may but doesn't have the

jurisdiction to determine where there's a conflict; and then finally, the

tribunals that may consider application of the Human Rights Code but must notify

and provide for the intervention of the Attorney General — the Labour Relations

Board and the B.C. Securities Commission.

This isn't about access to justice; this is about the denial of

access to justice. It has everything to do with limiting the rights of

individuals. It arises out of a Supreme Court case, but — with the greatest

respect to this government — they have, I humbly suggest, misinterpreted and

have now brought in legislation that goes way beyond the issues that were raised

in that case. They apply it now to decide cases as though the Human Rights Code

didn't exist.

If the government wishes to repeal the Human Rights Code, then let

them do so. Let them do so in open debate, bring it in, have a public discussion

about it, send a legislative committee around the province to decide whether or

not in fact people want the Human Rights Code abolished. But please, don't come

here to this chamber and say it's about efficiency and access to justice. The

fact is that you are denying the potential rights of individuals by proceeding

with these amendments as suggested.

It will do nothing to enhance access to justice in British

Columbia. It will not make us a better province. For whatever difficulties are

being caused now around legal arguments involving human rights cases or cases

where human rights issues may be raised before these tribunals…. With the

greatest respect, let those tribunals make those decisions, but do not limit the

application of the Human Rights Code. That is not enhancing the fundamental

values of this province or this country.

[ Page 7921 ]

The fact is that this country has a charter that it didn't have

when John George Diefenbaker brought in the first human rights act in this

country: the Bill of Rights. It applied only to federal institutions, but it was

a great step forward. The province of Saskatchewan had brought in a code, I

believe, under T.C. Douglas when he was Premier — a very important step forward.

But the Charter was the crowning glory of the repatriation of the constitution

to this country.

This government has done everything it can since it came to office

to try to reduce the rights of individuals that they should enjoy under our

provincial legislation.

The opposition will not be supporting this. It is wrong-headed,

and it is not about access and efficiency. It is entirely inappropriate in the

year 2007 for us in this House to be contemplating the restriction of the rights

of individuals to ask for rulings under the Human Rights Code and have them

apply to the tribunals that they attend in front of.

Now, around the provisions that will strengthen child support

enforcement measures. I don't think there's any British Columbian who would say

that it's not appropriate to ensure that people who have the ability to pay

support, whether it's child support or spousal support, are forced to pay it. I

want to emphasize again that people who have the ability to pay should be forced

to pay their child and spousal support.

But in some cases what really happens — and the Attorney General

knows this well from his time in the courts and as a lawyer — is that orders are

made, particularly in Supreme Court, circumstances change, and the person who is

required to pay is simply not in a position to do so. When that happens, they're

already in difficult economic circumstances if they're not paying their spousal

or child support, and they're certainly unlikely to be in a position to hire a

lawyer.

You're going to need a lawyer, in all likelihood, to go to Supreme

Court, to hire counsel to appear on their behalf and to try to get a reduction

in those payments. So we end up with this merry-go-round in British Columbia for

a fairly significant number of individuals now over time — not the majority by

any stretch, but a fairly significant number — who find themselves in a horrible

situation.

[1510]

They can't pay their support, they can't afford to get it changed,

and because of the cuts this government made to legal aid, they can't get access

to legal aid, either, to get someone to go into court on their behalf and ask

for a reduction. This bill is going to do nothing to affect that.

If the Attorney General was committing to work with the federal

government around provisions of the Divorce Act to ensure that some simple,

cheap and secure system was in place that would enable people in legitimate

cases to achieve a reduction in support payments so that they wouldn't end up

with thousands and thousands of dollars of arrears which they may never have an

opportunity to pay, that would be one thing. But that's not what this is doing.

There is also a significant concern raised by insurance brokers

across the province. They already have to face people when it comes to denial of

insurance. I want to read into today's debate a letter I received from an

insurance broker in Nanaimo — Ted Lewis, President of Nanaimo Insurance Brokers.

What he says is this:

"Our entire automobile insurance staff consists of women of

varying ages who have experienced many angry customer reactions arising out of

much less emotional matters than those that could come out of family breakups.

When told about the provisions of Bill 33, all of our ladies expressed extreme

concern about the potential for violent confrontations at our service counter if

Bill 33 becomes law.

"Everybody in our firm agrees with the need to make

certain that spouses meet their moral and financial obligations, but none of

them agree with the concept of insurance brokers being the front-line enforcers

for a government agency that has no connection to the insurance of motor

vehicles."

The Attorney General well knows the wording of this letter. It was

directed to him.

"Your ministry officials seem to believe that brokers will

be able to diffuse confrontation by offering to issue 15-day temporary operating

permits to defaulters. In contrast to your policy advisers, our staff members

have personal knowledge of customer dynamics and regularly deal with vehicle

owners and drivers who are upset with existing rules respecting policy

insurance.

"The members of our experienced staff believe that

telling a defaulter that he or she must pay a disproportionately expensive

premium to buy temporary vehicle insurance is not going to make the person any

less confrontational. On the contrary, it may be viewed as adding insult to

injury and further fuel the customer's anger."

It's a very legitimate concern, and I think the Attorney General and

the government need to respond to that concern.

Enforcement — yes. But who is going to do the enforcing? Should it

be the private insurance brokers? Should it be women on the front lines dealing

with angry individuals? It's a serious question, and I think that the government

needs to consider very carefully what it's doing.

With respect to other provisions around the improvements to

enforcement, again, I come back to my main point that this bill is going to do

nothing to deal with those difficult issues around people who are caught in a

place where they cannot afford to get relief from orders, where the courts are

tied up trying to enforce orders against people who have no ability to pay,

where judges and the Provincial Court around enforcement proceedings are saying

to people: "Well, go back to the Supreme Court, and get it changed. I'll give

you an adjournment for a couple of months." Provincial Court judges know full

well, to their complete frustration, that the individual is not going to be able

to do it, in all practical application. They're simply not going to be able to

afford to do it.

It's time to talk about a system that enables a relatively

inexpensive way of reducing child support orders where there has been a genuine

change in circumstances. This government, I believe, and this opposition stand

firmly behind the enforcement of

[ Page 7922 ]

orders for those who have the ability to pay and should be paying. That's

always been the case.

But there are those cases of great injustice now where orders are

outstanding, where orders can't be changed in a practical way, and a great deal

of process and frustration is raised. We need to be practical about those

situations where people are not in a position to pay, because quite frankly,

having the promise of being paid down the road doesn't do much for the

recipients, and it certainly doesn't do much for the individual who knows day by

day that there's a clock ticking, the amount is going up and they're not making

any progress with paying.

[1515]

Around the attachment proceedings. Of course, attaching RRSPs is

an interesting proposition, but it will be somewhat problematic because,

obviously, it will add a double penalty. The individuals who see an RRSP

attached will in fact see a tax burden created instantaneously because of the

withdrawal of the RRSP funds, and then at the same time will see those moneys go

to pay child support.

Now, one may argue that that's quite appropriate, but the average

individual is going to respond: "If I contributed to an RRSP many years ago and

have now fallen on very hard times and am looking at retirement potentially,

should that be taken?" These are important and interesting questions. They will

certainly occupy some aspect of committee stage of the bill.

The changes to the Legal Profession Act will receive the

unqualified support of the opposition. Those changes are appropriate. The Law

Society of British Columbia has been waiting for them for a long time. It will

improve, frankly, service to the public of British Columbia who require legal

services. We can only see that as a positive step forward.

The Offence Act, allowing parking violation tickets to be sent out

the way they are — with that improvement — is, again, a step forward. It does

give me, I say, some small concern, however, that the Supreme Court Act has to

be amended to allow the chief justice to require a judge of the court to attend

meetings or conferences. One would have hoped that the Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court would have been in a position to compel that fairly readily, but I

guess that discipline at the Supreme Court is probably the same as discipline in

the caucus: it's not always effective.

With respect to the Provincial Court Act, allowing the chief

judge, not the Attorney General, to designate administrative judges strikes the

opposition as a positive step, because it would detract from any suggestion of

political interference by the Attorney General or the government as a whole.

Around this bill there are, as I say, a number of sections, as

there are in Bill 33, that are of no great consequence that the opposition will

not oppose. But around the question of human rights, there are issues that

require significant debate. Around the issues for family maintenance

enforcement, this bill does not move us forward the way it should in those

difficult areas where reform is clearly required in order to ensure that

individuals who find themselves in genuinely difficult circumstances somehow

have the opportunity to relieve themselves of a burden of payment which they

simply cannot afford to pay based on, perhaps, some significant health issue or

disability that's arisen that is well beyond their control.

So I would conclude my remarks in response to the Attorney General

today, and I look forward to committee stage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General

closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move second reading of Bill 33.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 33 be referred to the

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 33, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a

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

the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call the previously adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill 22, intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no speakers, the Minister of Education

closes debate.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 22, Education Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1520]

Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading of Bill 32, intituled

Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

ASSESSMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. R. Thorpe: I now move that Bill 32, Assessment

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be read a second time.

[ Page 7923 ]

The bill proposes a number of amendments to the property

assessment and assessment authority statutes. The amendments in this bill

reflect our commitment to continuously improve customer service by providing

service that meets the needs of customers, provides for fair and efficient tax

administration, and maximizes economic growth opportunities in British Columbia.

The bill proposes amendments to the Assessment Act and the

Assessment Authority Act. The amendments to the Assessment Act will enhance

taxpayer fairness to our customers in ports, ski hills and short-term tourist

accommodation industries and will attract investment to those sectors.

The introduction of new evaluation methodologies to determine the

market value of ports, lands and destination ski hills will….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, do you want to break for a couple of

minutes? Take a five-minute recess. This House stands in recess for five

minutes.

The House recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. R. Thorpe: The new evaluation methodologies will apply

to the ports and ski hill properties designated by regulation. The introduction

of a new classification methodology for strata accommodation properties used for

short-term rentals will provide a more equitable tax treatment based on the

actual use of each property.

The definition of "farm" in the Assessment Act will be amended to

provide consistency in the act. This will not change government policy or

assessment procedures.

Amendments to the Assessment Act will provide recourse to property

owners dissatisfied with their property assessment but unable to file a notice

of complaint by statutory deadline due to a situation beyond their reasonable

control. To ensure that property owners are treated fairly, authority will be

provided for the Property Assessment Appeal Board to hear an owner's complaint

about their property assessment where the prescribed filing date was missed due

to circumstances beyond the person's control.

Amendments to the Assessment Authority Act and related amendments

to the Assessment Act will update the governance structure of the British

Columbia Assessment Authority to reflect provincial standards for board

governance. The current governance structure of the B.C. Assessment Authority

was created in 1974 by the Assessment Authority Act. Since 1974 standards of

provincial Crown agency governance have changed, and the acts require

modernization to incorporate many of the modern principles of good governance.

Updates to the act include clarification of key roles and

responsibilities of boards of directors and the chief executive officer of the

Assessment Authority, composition of the board of directors, length of term of

appointments of directors of the board, public accountability of the Assessment

Authority and reporting requirements of the Assessment Authority.

To streamline and clarify lines of accountability in the new

governance structure, the amendments eliminate the role of the assessment

commissioner. They transfer those statutory duties as appropriate to the board

of directors, the Assessment Authority or the chief executive officer.

In addition, this bill includes a number of minor amendments to

streamline and modernize the Assessment Authority Act.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

G. Robertson: I rise to speak to the second reading of Bill

32, Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, and to outline a number of concerns and

issues that certainly require some scrutiny and some further conversation. Many

of the comments will be focused in the committee stage. As with many of these

statutes amendment acts, there are many details, and the devil is in the details

as to how these are applied and how these bills, in turn, affect the people of

B.C. and the businesses of the province.

In the case of Bill 32, this bill is initially moving the

Assessment Authority to a more modern, corporate-style management with the

commissioner effectively eliminated, as the commissioner is deemed to have

duplicate responsibilities as the CEO. It does raise the question of the culture

of the Assessment Authority. The shift to a more corporate board approach is

fairly recent. It is the direction that has been taken by this government.

The transfer of the duties of the commissioner to the board of

directors — and in turn, to the CEO or the Assessment Authority as appropriate —

will obviously shift how the Assessment Authority functions. It will have some

marked effect on the culture of the authority.

This has had a variety of results — and mixed results — in terms

of accountability to the public in other Crown corporations where this shift has

occurred, so clearly there are concerns that need to be raised with this. The

opposition is obliged to do that. There may follow more questions in the third

reading and committee stage regarding how this shift will take place and what is

envisioned with that.

[1530]

In terms of the changes being made for valuing of strata hotels,

the rules reflect a B.C. Supreme Court ruling so that each unit is classified

based on individual use and occupancy. There's a lot of good sense to this

happening. It clearly will have implications for a number of municipalities and

regional districts in terms of revenue.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Maybe I should preface the rest of my comments with my thanks,

through to the ministry staff, for the briefing that was provided to me and

opposition staff to clarify a lot of the fine points and details within Bill 32.

It was very helpful. I would like to pass that along.

[ Page 7924 ]

In terms of the net impacts on municipalities and regional

districts of this change to classification based on use, my understanding from

ministry staff is that there won't be a significant impact borne by any

particular municipality or regional district and that it does make common sense.

It will create a lot of benefits in terms of the growth in ski

resorts and recreational resorts — the ability for there to be fewer shell

corporations and, however legitimate they are, various means by which taxes for

unoccupied units are classified or dealt with. This should clear a lot of that

up and hopefully make for a more streamlined system.

That said, it is worth mentioning that there will be some impacts

on municipalities. We have heard from some of those municipalities that are very

concerned about the net result of these changes.

We will certainly pursue that further in the committee stage on

this bill to ascertain how much work has been done to map out where those costs

basically end up hitting municipalities, with a revenue stream flowing from

assessments and affecting those municipalities — where that will occur and to

what degree. I'm not clear if the ministry has done a thorough study in terms of

what changes that makes.

Thirdly, this bill does give cabinet the regulatory authority to

set a new formula to assess the value of designated ski hills and port land.

I'll just start with the so-called designated ski hills, which are the large

resorts, large ski areas, of the province.

Describing it in plain terms, given the fluctuations, particularly

in a time of climate change and unpredictable weather that ski areas face in

terms of how much snow they're going to get, their assessments are being shifted

by virtue of this bill to how many skiers show up — what kind of revenues they

actually receive versus the rate that has been applied previously — and

assessing those ski areas or ski hills, for major destinations anyway, based on

the size, the value and the capital invested.

Given the variability and the fact that assessments have gone up

and down for many of these ski hills, it makes sense, as well, for there to be

assessment made on the percentage of gross lift revenues. That is the direction

here.

[1535]

My understanding is that the detail will be in the regulations.

Obviously, there will need to be attention paid as to how those regulations are

laid out and enforced, but it looks to be, again, a commonsense approach. Rather

than penalizing significant investment of capital in ski areas that then have to

literally weather the lean years, they are paying tax based on the gross lift

revenue. Again, in that

section of this bill I think the support of the

opposition for that direction is clear. It will be in the fine points.

A question, too, as to how the smaller ski hills — maybe those

that are just on the margin in terms of revenues or the number of skiers they

see…. Where the line was drawn is where committee stage will be helpful, to

ascertain whether there are in fact ski hills that don't quite make it and that

have issues. My understanding is that there haven't been appeals or issues from

the smaller ski areas, but we need to be certain we're not leaving those out who

deserve to be considered as a destination ski hill.

The next component of this, in terms of setting a new formula to

assess the value, is related to port land. At this point the current assessment

method by zoning for the highest and best use of that port land. Certainly in

many of the ports around the province there has been concern over this, and

there have been issues raised on these lands, particularly those leased from the

federal government. Their highest and best use may in fact be condos on the

waterfront in Burrard Inlet. Of course, these lands are not destined to be home

to thousands of residents at this point. They are destined to remain as ports.

The restrictive use of these port lands was not taken into

consideration by B.C. Assessment. Therefore there is, I guess, a relative

hodgepodge in terms of the assessments levied and the revenues flowing from

these port lands. Again, with this component there have been concerns as to the

change in revenues flowing through to the municipalities.

I'll note in particular the part of the province that I spent my

high school years in, North Vancouver. There have been concerns about the impact

on revenues flowing to the city of North Vancouver and the district of North

Vancouver from the port lands. They have been counting on, or had at least

structured their budget around, a significant flow of revenue based on highest

and best use, which is no longer going to be the method of assessment.

There will be changes here. The Supreme Court has affirmed this

through, I believe, the Western Stevedoring case — that the Property Assessment

Appeal Board had set these rents too high. At this point that change is put in

force with this legislation. Indeed, the implications for other ports and

municipalities that are affected does warrant further questions at committee

stage.

It's important that we understand in particular the implications

of driving an aggressive growth strategy with the ports. While it may make sense

in pure economic terms to turbocharge the growth in the port industry and

increase imports and exports through B.C. ports, it no doubt has implications in

terms of the communities affected — the development of the foreshore in those

communities and the environmental impact of the development of the ports, the

rail lines, the highways, the road systems. The network of transportation for

goods movement is affected by this aggressive growth.

[1540]

We in B.C. are perched on a period of intense investment and

growth in our ports, which has raised a lot of questions and concerns both in

those communities and in the interest groups. They have concerns about the

general direction of our society to increase the movement and consumption of

goods, about the materialism that drives that increase and about the impact that

maximizing the movement and consumption of goods has on our environment, our

lifestyle and our health. There are many questions to be raised about that.

[ Page 7925 ]

That said, to come back to the direct impact of Bill 32 and the

changes made to assessment for these port lands, it is important that we look

specifically at the impact that it will have on the several municipalities that

will be adversely affected within their budgets. There is some assumption that

these municipalities should have put provisions in, in terms of their revenue

flow, based on the court decision and that they should have done their due

diligence in anticipation that these changes would be legislated. It is not

clear to me at this time how prepared they are and what budgetary implications

they face by virtue of this change taking effect in the very near term.

As well, there could be changes envisioned, pressure on government

related to these changes in the assessment of port lands, that is coming forward

from other comparable sectors — ferries, airports, other interest groups — that

would like to see a reduced assessment based on the use of the lands for the

movement of goods or people. Obviously, the methodology that's done in any

reassessment is important — the changes that get made there. I trust, with

appropriate scrutiny on this bill, particularly through the committee stage,

that we are able to understand the methodology and the changes here and that any

changes beyond that which is envisioned here for ports are taken very

cautiously.

In both cases, for ports and for ski hills, encouraging targeted

economic development in these sectors has been a clear agenda of this

government. Both are highly dependent on the consumption of fossil fuels, on the

growth of our economy being pegged directly to fossil fuel consumption, with

greenhouse gas emissions resulting from that. This is an extremely vulnerable

strategy, given the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change now

recognized by this government and given the impacts on air pollution and human

health created by maximizing the movement of goods through highly populated

areas, notably the lower mainland, through the ports in Delta.

[1545]

The impact of flying in ski tourists from all across the world to

spend their week or two here and thus fuel our economy is certainly a short-term

strategy in terms of its environmental logic. It may make sense for the near

term to invest in this strategy to build up these resorts. One has to wonder

over the longer term how all the people are going to make it from far-flung

regions of the world to the ski resorts and mountains of British Columbia in a

time beyond peak oil, in a time when it is difficult to justify long-distance

travel. Therefore, a bigger picture of concern targets economic development at

industries that are totally reliant on the consumption of fossil fuels and,

therefore, the tax and policy incentive structure that goes into play to do

that. Those concerns need to be raised in this House.

Certainly, there are a lot of British Columbians who raise these

concerns every day. It has reached a critical tipping point in the media. That's

reflected, as well, through to constituency offices where we hear these concerns

on a daily basis — concerns about the direction of this government on economic

development.

To return to Bill 32, another point is around the definition of

"farm," which is being amended by this legislation to reflect that the appeal

boards can also designate a property as a farm. The regulatory change, I

believe, was done last year to allow more time to file paperwork for farm

status. This legislation, rightly so, ensures that the right authority is in

place by amending the legislation.

There have been many concerns raised by property owners applying

for farm status and appealing to the Property Assessment Appeal Board for that.

This legislation allows property owners to appeal to the Property Assessment

Appeal Board with the leave of that board, if the owner failed to file a notice

of complaint within the time required.

With a $1.9 billion food deficit and less than half of our food

grown here in B.C. at this time, it is important to encourage farming in British

Columbia with any initiatives that support the growing of food and the

agricultural use of land, not just by designating that land as agricultural land

reserve but by enabling property owners every easy mechanism through the tax

structure to ensure that their land — which is growing food, which is providing

food in the province — is not burdening them with horrendous paperwork to do

that. There's every reason to move in this direction in terms of ensuring that

farmland and the appeals for assessment on farmland are clarified and don't get

bogged down by the process.

There is a great deal of attention paid in this legislation

specifically to what were referred to as short-term overnight commercial

accommodation properties, the legendary STOCAPs, which I understand will now be

referred to as strata accommodation properties. Again, this is returning to the

issue of classifying properties based on occupancy and use — the day lodges, the

campgrounds, but mainly the strata hotels in resort areas. This is a

classification issue; it's not specifically based on valuation.

[1550]

There is at this time a great inequity between the strata

complexes depending on the deemed use, from residential or class 1 to hotel

class 6, or commercial use, and the case flowing from the Legends court case

determining that assessment must be based on the actual use. It's important that

this now move on into legislation and that it is clear in that legislation how

this use impacts resort areas and ownership and, hopefully, that it is able to

clear up a number of the confusing issues around classification versus

valuation.

It will need to be balanced, obviously, to minimize that impact.

My understanding is that as we don't know the impacts specifically, I will look

forward to following up with the minister in the committee stage to try and

understand what we do know in terms of the impact and what data on occupancy do

exist, to help understand what will happen here.

In terms of other details within this legislation, there is a

great deal considered in the Assessment Authority Act. I'll just return to the

changes that are made in terms of the removal of the commissioner and

substitution of the assessment authority, the board of

[ Page 7926 ]

directors or chief executive officers. These are in sections 33, 38, 39 and

40 as well as 46.

The concern that I think many British Columbians have in terms of

our Crown corporations revolves around transparency and accountability. Whether

this shift in terms of governance has a limiting effect on accountability and

transparency is primary for many British Columbians. When these public bodies,

these Crown corporations, are charged with managing very important affairs —

flows of revenue from taxpayers through to the public purse — accountability and

transparency are absolutely critical for the ability of the public to understand

who's in charge, how they got there, that they are of impeccable integrity and

that the management of these Crown corporations is completely open to the

scrutiny of the public, given that it is a Crown corporation. Again, we will

spend some time here making sure that that has all been considered in this

legislation.

In terms of other points that are worth raising at this point,

many questions are more appropriately asked through the committee stage of Bill

32. I'll look forward to commenting on Bill 32 through committee stage from

here.

If there are others here on the opposition side of the House that

will make comments in second reading, I will hand over the floor to them.

[1555]

M. Karagianis: I would like to just rise to voice my

concerns about a couple of aspects of this bill.

My time at the municipal governance level as a municipal

councillor has made me pretty cautious around some of the issues that come out

of assessments. My community of Esquimalt, in particular, has wrestled for many

years with issues concerning assessment of Department of National Defence lands.

It has in many circumstances had to appeal quite strongly decisions that were

made around the assessed value of those Department of National Defence and

federal lands, which in several cases resulted in the assessments being

downgraded significantly and had a huge and punitive effect on the payment in

lieu of taxes to the community. In fact, Esquimalt had to spend, at one point,

over a year appealing the assessed value of those lands and left taxpayers

pretty much holding the bag for the entire time that that process was going on.

It really taught me a lesson around looking very closely at all

aspects of the Assessment Act and, certainly at this point, at the amendments

here on the assessment statute. It's with that eye that I turn to the pages here

in this act. A couple of things gave me some concern, and I felt it appropriate

to raise those in the House today.

There is reference here to modifying some of the

definitions

around assessed properties, like farms. There was a particularly well-publicized

case here, a local municipality that wrestled significantly with a farm

designation put on urban lands, very expensive urban lands. I know that the

community really had to grapple with the definition that was given to them at

that time on assessing farmlands, and it concerns me greatly that we would shift

in any way to allow even more of that kind of opportunism, shall we say, to be

presented to communities.

Communities rely very strongly on every dollar that's assessed.

Those values are in fact the cornerstone of property tax, which is the only

thing that municipalities can draw upon in order to fund the services they

provide to their communities.

I'm always concerned when we modify any kind of

definitions, so

I'm concerned about the modification in

section 2, in the definition of a farm,

and if it slips in any way into allowing more broad and creative

definitions of

"farm" to be applied to communities, especially communities where there are

still large parcels of land that could be designated as farms when in fact they

are not. It concerns me greatly, so that's one of the flags that I had here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm concerned that through this act the government talks about new

assessment values for things like ski hills and ports. Again, these have

significant impacts on the municipal authorities in the areas where either of

these usages occurs. If we are going to change the assessment values on this and

leave municipalities having to grapple with these issues, either legally or

politically, or if it becomes a bit of an obstacle or a barrier or presents

complexities that municipalities have to deal with in handling the repercussions

of these new values, then that concerns me greatly. I wouldn't be very happy

about that.

The thing that concerns me the most here is the change in the

style of management that is being proposed around the board of directors. We see

a move to a new style of board management. I've sat on boards. I know that there

are often new business models that are proposed. There are new styles of having

boards run organizations that get proposed. Not all of them are positive, and

not all of them succeed in what they purport to be doing.

I would certainly need more assurance. I will be asking the

minister as we get to that

section in committee around what exactly the

implications are of this new style — what the shift is that's being made, why

it's being made and why it's important that it is being made.

My fear is that often language that says we get more

accountability inevitably results in us getting a lot less accountability. That

does seem to be a pattern that emerges more and more in all of these bills, in

all of the changes and amendments that are being made to governance here. Often

we are moving in a direction that is the complete opposite of what is declared.

So at committee stage, hon. Speaker, I will be asking some of these questions of

the minister so that I can get some comfort.

[1600]

At the end of the day, communities are the ones that have to bear

the responsibility for these decisions that are made here. If it causes them

hardship, causes

[ Page 7927 ]

them to have to grapple with their own taxpayers on property tax assessments,

causes them legal costs, causes them — as in the case of Esquimalt, when you

have to appeal assessments — a huge burden that lasts sometimes for many years

as you have to wrestle with this legally….

I would be very concerned if any of these amendments take us into

that area or give opportunities for anybody to opportunistically use new values,

new

definitions to their advantage. I'll be watching closely to the minister for

answers on that.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of

Small Business and Revenue closes debate.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 32 be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration….

Mr. Speaker: No. Sorry.

Hon. Members, second reading on the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 32 be referred to a

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

after today.

Bill 32, Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate of Bill 18,

intituled Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 4:03 p.m.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'd like to take a five-minute recess

while I prepare to have staff arrive.

The Chair: The committee will stand recessed for five

minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:03 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise, report modest

progress on Bill 18 and ask leave to sit again later today.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:08 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move second reading debate of Bill 23,

intituled Knowledge Network Corporation Act.

Second Reading of Bills

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK CORPORATION ACT

Hon. M. Coell: I move that Bill 23, Knowledge Network

Corporation Act, now be read a second time.

This bill fulfils our commitment to maintain and improve the

Knowledge Network as B.C.'s public education broadcaster. It establishes the

Knowledge Network as a Crown agency unto itself, separating it from the Open

Learning Agency and paving the way for the repeal of the Open Learning Agency

Act.

Today the Knowledge Network is the last remaining component of the

Open Learning Agency, established in the 1980s to coordinate distance education

in the province. In the past, when people thought of distance education, they

usually thought of learning by correspondence or teaching by mail. The Open

Learning Agency was a bold step forward, a merger of teaching and technology to

overcome geographic barriers separating students from schools.

In recent years the Internet has dramatically expanded the

potential for distance learning. In the process, the Open Learning Agency's

business model became outmoded. Recognizing this, our government began winding

up the Open Learning Agency. We transferred many of its lines of business that

were still viable to other providers who were better able and suited to operate

them.

That process is nearly complete, and today all that remains of the

Open Learning Agency is the Knowledge Network. As a result, much of the

Knowledge Network's current legal framework, the Open Learning Agency Act, is

outdated and now irrelevant. It contains references to a register, to student

information numbers, exams, academic credentials, student society fees and other

things that are not relevant to the Knowledge Network.

[1610]

This bill severs the Knowledge Network's ties to the Open Learning

Agency and articulates a new mandate for the network. The Knowledge Network is

explicitly designated as British Columbia's public education broadcaster, and

its business is described broadly as broadcasting and communications. This

avoids limiting the network to our present-day understanding of television and

recognizes its extensive and valuable role in developing web-based resources.

Today we understand that education doesn't stop at graduation and

is an ongoing experience we pursue throughout our whole lives. This bill affirms

the Knowledge Network's contribution to the experience by directing the network

to promote lifelong learning through quality educational programming.

[ Page 7928 ]

The bill also reflects the Knowledge Network's unique suitability

to informing British Columbians about their province. It can showcase our

history, our people and our culture. And the network can be a valuable resource

for information on issues important to British Columbians, such as healthy

living, child care and safety.

Finally, the bill commits the Knowledge Network to continue

collaborating with independent media producers and fostering growth in our

homegrown media production sector. This bill also ensures the independence and

autonomy necessary for a public broadcaster in Canada. At the same time it

provides transparency and accountability assurances expected by the publicly

funded Crown agency.

With this bill the Knowledge Network Corporation will have the

powers and capacity of an actual person. It will be directed by a governing

board which will have complete freedom to direct the network's program choices,

staffing decisions and day-to-day affairs. This is consistent with the

requirements of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

The bill balances this independence by placing some financial

limitations on the network and requiring the network to report publicly on its

expenditures and performance under the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act. This recognizes public funding the network will continue to receive.

In sum, the bill provides direction to guide the Knowledge Network

into the future as British Columbians' public education broadcaster and does so

within a framework that protects the best interests of British Columbians.

R. Fleming: I want to provide just brief comments before we

get into the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. Broadly speaking, I think

this side of the House welcomes this legislation, in part because it finally

shows that the government has signalled a commitment to abandon the

privatization and the winding-down of the Knowledge Network and to finally value

it for what it is — a public educational broadcaster — and to give it a future,

a board, an accountability structure and a relationship with public

post-secondary institutions, to basically say that it values the 50 hours of

original programming that it produces every year.

While much of this bill is housekeeping, I think the significance

of it is that throughout this corporation's history in British Columbia, though

it has given tremendous service to the people of the province, it has not always

been readily appreciated, at least in terms of if one were to examine and look

at the starts and stops of its legislative powers to exist.

So while it has been severed from the Open Learning Agency, I

think it's fair to say that government simply didn't know what it wanted to do

with the Knowledge Network for an extended period of time. I'm pleased that it

has been given a mandate that will guarantee that it does continue to thrive in

British Columbia. I think for a while it was treated very poorly. It was hived

off, and many of its functions were in fact repealed by previous legislation.

We don't quibble with the parts of this act that are purely

housekeeping. But I think what is of interest mostly to this side of the House

is the context from which this legislation seeks to give clarity. As we know,

the government did try to privatize many of the core functions of government

when it came in, in 2001. It sought to fundamentally change the Knowledge

Network.

It sought to sell it off, to give it away to a public-private

partnership when there was no interest or innovation coming from anyone in that

way. It became what it always was — an innovative public partnership between

artists, producers and those in the video and television sector in this

province.

[1615]

The government tried for a time to make it revenue-self-sufficient

by abrogating what has always been a commercial-free broadcasting network. That

didn't work. I'm pleased to see that in the new mandate, the Knowledge Network

is going back to its original intention, which is to give commercial-free,

high-quality broadcasting and public-interest television to the public.

In terms of its connection to promote lifelong learning for

British Columbia and in terms of having a secured, certain future, I don't think

that this side of the House will give the government…. Although we might

belabour the point of how long it has taken them to come to this realization and

express their feelings of value for the Knowl