2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Nisga'a treaty

G. Coons

Head tax on Chinese immigrants

R. Lee

Pesticide reduction campaign in

Maple Ridge

Sather

Community awards to Surrey RCMP

D. Hayer

May Day celebrations in Port

Coquitlam

Farnworth

Contributions of Savage family

Roddick

Oral Questions

Acute care beds at Kelowna

General Hospital

Conroy

Hon. G.

Abbott

Staff morale at Kelowna General

Hospital

Cubberley

Hon. G.

Abbott

Emergency services in Creston

C. Evans

Hon. G.

Abbott

Workers compensation appeals

process

Puchmayr

Hon. M.

de Jong

Review of WorkSafe B.C. policies

Karagianis

Hon. M.

de Jong

IIG All Nations Institute funding

Robertson

Hon. M.

Coell

Death of Ian Bush in RCMP custody

Austin

Hon. J.

Les

Petitions

S. Fraser

Tabling Documents

Conflict-of-Interest

Commissioner, opinion

Petitions

K. Conroy

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual

report, 2005

Second Reading of Bills

Patricia Community Club

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2006 (Bill Pr401)

M. Polak

Committee of the Whole House

Patricia Community Club

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2006 (Bill Pr401)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Patricia Community Club

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2006 (Bill Pr401)

Second Reading of Bills

Christ for the Nations Bible

College Act (Bill Pr402)

D. Hayer

Committee of the Whole House

Christ for the Nations Bible

College Act (Bill Pr402)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Christ for the Nations Bible

College Act (Bill Pr402)

Second Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2006 (Bill 30)

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

Simpson

Macdonald

Ralston

Farnworth

Karagianis

Hon. I.

Chong

H. Lali

R. Hawes

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Puchmayr

Gentner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

Cubberley

Hon. G.

Abbott

G. Coons

Robertson

Fraser

J. Brar

Sather

Mayencourt

Routley

[ Page 4737 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

C. Evans: Joining us in the gallery are four people I'd like to introduce. First is Luke Crawford of Kaslo, B.C. Luke's only mistake in judgment in his life that I know of was having the temerity to run against me in the last election. But I'd like members to forgive him — for losing, you guys can figure.

Also with Luke is Joan Phillip of the Penticton Indian Band, Peter Chataway of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and Wayne Fipke, a miner and rancher from Beaverdell. The four of these folks came to meet with the Minister of Mines to discuss uranium mining, and he graciously gave them a meeting. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: Today's a great day in Victoria. We have three classes of kids from the Comox Valley here, from three different schools. From Airport Elementary School we have 26 grade four and five students and their teacher Mrs. Kathrine Askew. We have 30 grade five students from Tsolum Elementary School with their teacher Ms. Valerie Sherriff. Also in the precincts today, from Puntledge Park Elementary School, we have 22 grade five students and their teacher Julia Staicu and principal Andrea Rowland. Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the House today are some very special guests. They are Alan and Rendene Rutkowski, who are visiting us today from Edmonton. They are joined by their grandson Benjamin, who is celebrating his sixth birthday today.

I also know that Benjamin will be getting a very special birthday present. I don't think it's a pony, but in order to get that very special birthday present, he has to ask his father a skill-testing question, and he has to answer it correctly. The question is: who is Igor Gouzenko? Would the House please make the Rutkowskis most welcome.

[1405]

A. Horning: Visiting us today from my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country is Jim Waters. Jim represents Paragon Pharmacies and is in the capital for a pharmacy convention that starts tomorrow. Would you all please make Jim welcome.

R. Fleming: I want to introduce three guests who are with us today in the gallery. Van Buchanan is a constituent of mine, and with her are two friends: Robert Bosley from Bellingham, Washington, and Martyn Mann, who is from Guernsey Island in the Channel Islands. Could the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

D. MacKay: I would ask that members on both sides of this chamber join me in wishing the member for Richmond Centre — the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts — a very happy birthday.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today is an old friend of mine. When I knew him best back in the 1970s at the University of Victoria, he was Dr. Paddy Smith and taught political science. I learned a great deal from him in those days about political science and about life and about the answer to the Opposition House Leader's question being Gerta Munsinger's best friend. So that's good.

I only realized that time had been passing us both by when I heard from my son Brant that he had been a student of Paddy's at Simon Fraser University. Time does march on. But I do want to point out to all members of the House that Paddy has been doing a wonderful job as the academic coordinator for the B.C. legislative internship program.

I know that program is winding down for the members now. I'm not sure if they're relieved by that or hugely disappointed about that, but the legislative interns have done a great job for both sides of the House. I want to thank them, and I want to thank Paddy for a wonderful job in providing us that service.

Hon. I. Chong: Visiting us in the House today are two constituents of mine from Oak Bay, Sigrid and John Brennan. Mr. and Mrs. Brennan moved to Victoria from Ontario 16 years ago. Since then, they have both been active volunteers in the community. Mrs. Brennan's first volunteer project was back in 1994 with the Commonwealth Games. Currently, Mr. Brennan volunteers at the Monterey Centre in Oak Bay, a very well-utilized centre for seniors. I understand that they were in the building earlier today. They enjoyed lunch, and this is their very first visit to question period. I would ask the House to make them both very welcome.

R. Fleming: Another constituent of mine who is visiting us today is Dr. Larry Hannant. He's a professor of history at Camosun College and an adjunct professor of history at the University of Victoria. As well, Dr. Hannant is the co-creator of Explosion on the Kettle Valley Line: The Death of Peter Verigin . It's available on canadianmysteries.ca. It's a web-based project for students of Canadian history that links students to the past by having them investigate and solve past Canadian mysteries. Will the House please make Dr. Hannant feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NISGA'A TREATY

G. Coons: Treaty-making rather than litigation or confrontation is the best road to the reconciliation of the prior presence of aboriginal people in Canada with the sovereignty of the Crown. The Nisga'a treaty has historic impact in Canada and provides insights for future land claims negotiations in Canada and in other

[ Page 4738 ]

jurisdictions. The Nisga'a treaty is often called the beacon of hope.

The Nisga'a treaty or land claims agreement is the only treaty signed in British Columbia in the 20th century, the first treaty or land claims agreement to achieve certainty without extinguishment or surrender of aboriginal rights, the first Canadian treaty to include all self-government provisions, the first treaty or land claims agreement to include a provincial Crown as a full participant since the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement in 1975, the first treaty or land claims agreement to provide certainty in respect of a first nation's rights to participate in a major commercial salmon fishery.

[1410]

The Nisga'a treaty faced unprecedented focus and length of debate here in the British Columbia Legislature. The treaty withstood 471 proposed amendments in the House of Commons, was tested at three rounds of parliamentary hearings, was exhaustively examined by the Senate of Canada, and was subjected to sustained and sometimes international media coverage for over four years. Yet the treaty as negotiated was passed into law, gaining royal assent and implementation in the spring of 2000.

The Nisga'a vision has held steadfast for over 10,000 years. In the spirit of

Sayt K'il'im Goot , the Nisga'a Nation is a place where the Ayuuk language and culture are the foundation of Nisga'a identity, where language is a way of life, where striving for sustainable prosperity and self-reliance continues, where trust and understanding flow through effective communications, and where governance and services evolve to meet people's needs — one heart, one path, one nation.

Today, May 11, is the sixth anniversary of the historic signing of the Nisga'a treaty.

HEAD TAX ON CHINESE IMMIGRANTS

R. Lee: Recently the federal government has indicated that it will act in the parliament to offer an apology for the Chinese head tax.

On July 31, 1878, the B.C. Legislature unanimously passed a bill stating that: "This House is of the opinion that Chinese should not be employed upon the public works of the province." Two laws were passed in the B.C. Legislature in 1884. The first mandated that every Chinese person over the age of 14 years purchase a licence for a sum set at $100. The second stated that it was unlawful for Chinese migrants to enter the province and that a fine of $50 or six months imprisonment would be levied on lawbreakers. Both laws were disallowed by the federal government.

However, one year later, in 1885, the federal government passed the law to impose a head tax of $50 on all Chinese immigrants. It was raised to $100 in 1901 and increased to $500 in 1904. In 1923 the federal government passed the Chinese exclusion act, which prohibited all Chinese — except diplomats, visiting businessmen and students — from entering Canada.

About 80,000 Chinese immigrants paid $26 million during a period of 40 years, and from 1923 to 1947, both the population and the community's morale declined. This amount of head tax collected is equivalent to the cost of constructing the Canadian Pacific Railway from Halifax to Vancouver or 13 B.C. Parliament Buildings — which cost about $2 million to build, including all three wings, in 1915. In fact, the construction of this building was financed by the Chinese head tax.

This apology is long overdue. Finally, a government in Ottawa is making good on their word to address this wrong and black mark in Canada's history.

PESTICIDE REDUCTION CAMPAIGN

IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Sather: Today I'm pleased to speak about a local movement in my constituency called Campaign for Pesticide Reduction in Maple Ridge, or CPR. CPR was started three years ago by a local activist and longtime resident of Maple Ridge, Maria Raynolds, after her husband was poisoned by pesticides and became very ill. Maria and other supporters collected 3,600 signatures from local residents and received a letter of support signed by 54 doctors to restrict the non-essential use of pesticides in our community.

The current council in Maple Ridge have committed to drafting a bylaw that would reduce the non-essential use of pesticides in Maple Ridge. Similar bylaws have already been passed in over 100 other municipalities across Canada. The entire province of Quebec already has done this.

It is widely believed that chemical pesticides are a leading environmental cause of cancers, neurological disorders and adverse effects on reproductive health. Approximately 35 percent of all pesticides are used in cosmetic, non-essential applications. Children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable.

[1415]

The Campaign for Pesticide Reduction in Maple Ridge is supporting an amendment to the federal Pest Control Products Act that would place a moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides in homes, in gardens and in recreational facilities such as parks and golf courses. This moratorium would be in place until scientific evidence showing that such use is safe has been presented to parliament. The proposed moratorium would take effect on Earth Day 2007. I applaud the work being done by Ms. Raynolds in my community and that of other supporters of the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction in Maple Ridge.

COMMUNITY AWARDS TO SURREY RCMP

D. Hayer: For ten years the Surrey Chamber of Commerce has recognized the best of the best on Surrey's police force. These RCMP officers, their auxiliaries, their staff members, their volunteers and their community business partners are recognized each year with great pride. These awards were begun by my Surrey Chamber team when I was the president of the

[ Page 4739 ]

organization in '96-97. I'm proud to say that they have been continued.

These awards recognize the outstanding contribution made to the city of Surrey by those who serve and protect. Surrey has the largest detachment of RCMP officers in Canada. It has very outstanding officers within its ranks. The Police Officer of the Year Award, as nominated by their peers, was chosen from finalists Const. Nathan Menard, Cpl. Tony Porato and Sgt. Bruce Stuart, with Corporal Porato receiving the award. The Police Officer of the Year, as nominated by the community, was chosen from finalists Staff Sgt. Barry Hickman, Cpl. Tom Norton and Staff Sgt. Dave Woods, with Staff Sergeant Woods taking the honours as the winner.

Nominated for the Arnold Silzer Award were Const. Sandra Farkas and Staff Sgt. Dave Wood, with Constable Farkas winning the award. In the police municipal employee category, the finalists were Merv Bayda, Sandy Campbell and Corrine Marrelli, with Sandy Campbell as the winner. Police Volunteer of the Year was chosen from Charlie Gregor, Joyce Hill and Peter Young, with Joyce Hill being named the top volunteer.

Auxiliary Constable of the Year was chosen from Kerri Robertson, Karen Summers and Michael Ward, with Michael Ward as the winner. In the Police and Business Partnership category, the finalists were Frank Forchalk, Peter Legge and White Rock Design and Print, with Frank Forchalk receiving the award.

I would ask all members to join me in recognizing all the award-winning nominees, the finalists and the winners who have taken

part in this outstanding police community. I would also like to thank our Solicitor General for his kind remarks as a keynote speaker at last night's awards.

MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS

IN PORT COQUITLAM

M. Farnworth: It is a pleasure to rise in the House today and tell members about an event taking place in my constituency this week and culminating this weekend with our civic festival.

This week is the 83rd annual May Day celebrations in Port Coquitlam. It is the second-oldest continuous May Day in the province, and it's one which our community takes great pride in. It has its roots in the heritage of the pioneers who settled our area in the late 19th century. It was adapted over the years to take into account the diversity and changing times, but some things haven't changed, and that is the spirit of family and community that pervades this entire week.

From last weekend, where the 83rd May Queen, Kelsey Nickel, was crowned in Port Coquitlam along with Clinton Elliot, who will be the 2006 ambassador for Port Coquitlam, it is a remarkable achievement that a festival like this has lasted for 83 years. It is a testament to the hundreds of volunteers in our community who make this event happen.

Over the years it has changed somewhat, but as I said, many things are still the same. There's the maypole dancing and fun fairs and lots of activities for communities. It takes place with hundreds and hundreds of volunteers. In the '60s, two that come to mind were Harold and Mary Routley, a pioneer family in Port Coquitlam, and Glen McDonald, a longtime teacher and principal in Port Coquitlam who were instrumental in ensuring that the festival continues to this day.

My comment to members is a recommendation. If you are out in Port Coquitlam this weekend, stop by and see our May Day parade. It's the 83rd one; it's a remarkable event. Everyone in Port Coquitlam will be there, and I thank all the volunteers and wish everyone a really great weekend.

[1420]

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SAVAGE FAMILY

V. Roddick: The Fraser River delta is rich in both soil and history. The Savage family came from Ireland to Delta South in 1886. That's 120 years ago. As the family grew and multiplied, farms throughout Richmond and Delta were established. Their Jersey cattle were amongst the finest herds in Canada.

The Delta branch of the Savages progressed from a dairy farm to equipment dealership, a registered Hereford beef herd, plus extensive vegetable production for Royal City Foods, Fraser Valley Foods and Lucerne Foods, a division of Safeway.

H.R. Savage and Sons was run by son Robert and helped by son Ken while son John was the Minister of Agriculture from 1986 to 1991. Retirement in early spring of 2006 saw the end of an era for this half of the Savage family. However, the Richmond Savages are still in production, milking a total of 500 Holsteins and farming 400 acres of cranberries.

We in the province are indebted to such hard-working pioneers and their families. It's why we can claim to be the best place to live, work and play. For those of you who are wondering — and you should be interested about the land under cultivation by H.R. Savage and Sons — it has been taken up by two other Delta pioneer families, the Guichons and the Burrs, as in Raymond Burr of Perry Mason fame, who will continue producing delicious, fresh, local, safe food for our consumption, because we still have to eat to live.

Please join me in thanking H.R. Savage and Sons for their family's 120-year contribution to our wonderful province.

L. Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Mayencourt: We have a guest in the precinct that I would like to introduce. As many members know, the member for Kelowna-Mission is a survivor of leukemia. This weekend she will be hosting the first annual

[ Page 4740 ]

Thanks Mom event. It's a blood donor drive that's going to happen down at Stanley Park.

Along with Mr. Roy Lanaway from the Canadian Blood Services, we will have members from the Western Hockey League champions, the Vancouver Giants — winners of 12 straight games. We will have lesser celebrities such as myself and the Premier, and of course the member for Kelowna-Mission.

We invite all members of the Legislature to join us on that day at 11 o'clock at the Vancouver Aquarium. We invite all members of the public to join us, as well, to try and save lives. So please remember Thanks Mom, Mother's Day, May 14, at 11 a.m.

Oral Questions

ACUTE CARE BEDS

AT KELOWNA GENERAL HOSPITAL

K. Conroy: Yesterday the opposition asked the Minister of Health what he was going to do to relieve the ongoing crisis at Kelowna General Hospital. Today the Kelowna Daily Courier printed a letter from four Kelowna physicians expressing their "grave concern about the conditions at Kelowna General."

These doctors represent a community pleading for help. Their concerns are clear, and their needs are simple. They need help. They are asking for 40 acute care beds and two more operating rooms.

How much longer do the people of the Okanagan have to wait before the minister makes a firm commitment and responds to this desperate crisis?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I noted in the House yesterday in question period, I had the opportunity to meet last week with the authors of the letter that was published today in the Courier . It was a very good meeting, a very constructive meeting.

[1425]

I think the emergency room doctors and other staff have some excellent ideas, both short-term and long-term, to try to relieve the periodic congestion that appears in Kelowna General Hospital. I'm pleased that they are working as part of the leadership team at Kelowna General Hospital to identify ways in which we can decongest Kelowna General on those occasions when that occurs.

It's unfortunate, perhaps, that the member didn't read the letter through to the end. The concluding paragraph indicates that they were very pleased with the meeting they had with me, that they are very confident that our government is going in the right direction in terms of meeting the challenges that present themselves at Kelowna General Hospital and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Kootenay–Boundary has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: What the doctors are also telling this Minister of Health is that there is a crisis that needs immediate action. Beds were closed throughout the region, but demand has only increased. There is more pressure on Kelowna General than ever before, and that pressure is wearing staff down. The doctors say workers are suffering from burnout and chronic stress because nurses, paramedics and physicians are working in continual crisis.

Is the Minister of Health prepared to tolerate continual crisis, or will he commit today new resources for Kelowna so staff can better meet the needs of patients?

Hon. G. Abbott: One thing we're going to do is always work constructively with the front-line health care workers, with doctors, with nurses, with administrators to in fact find constructive solutions to the challenges that face us.

The member can say: "Well, just add beds." Well, when one considers that there are currently about 125 nurse vacancies in the Interior Health Authority…. Again, it goes back to this point, and it's very fundamental in this discussion. A bed is a steel frame with a mattress on it until you have a medical professional, a nurse and all the supports that the patient needs to be in that bed.

That is the difference here. We are investing hugely in training health human resources, doctors and nurses. We're investing in residential care. We're investing right across the board. We are working every day to improve outcomes in the ERs of this province — in Kelowna and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Kootenay–Boundary has a further supplemental.

K. Conroy: It's not just members on this side of the House that are asking for more beds. It's the doctors; it's the physicians who are working in Kelowna General Hospital. What they've said is "hopelessness." That's what they're saying is happening in Kelowna General Hospital right now. They are "overwhelmed by a feeling of hopelessness."

This can't continue. This crisis must end. The government needs to act. The minister — yes, you have met with the doctors; you've heard their concerns directly — knows the situation is critical. Why won't he commit to resolving this crisis and ending this hopelessness?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't remember the member complaining when Interior Health recently opened up 115 assisted-living units in Kelowna. I don't remember the member complaining when recently 20 new residential care beds were opened up on the fifth floor of Kelowna General Hospital. I don't remember the member complaining that we would be investing in 280 additional new residential care beds.

Let's be honest here. Kelowna General Hospital was constructed at a time when the population of Kelowna and the central Okanagan was a small fraction of what that population is today. Kelowna General is a facility that is in much need of capital investment, and I'm proud to say that we will be making that investment.

[ Page 4741 ]

[1430]

Kelowna is one of the most rapidly growing areas in this province. It's an area where we have demographic challenges. It's an area where we will be investing judiciously, wisely and appropriately in the months and years ahead.

STAFF MORALE

AT KELOWNA GENERAL HOSPITAL

D. Cubberley: I'm not getting a sense that the minister is aware of how dire the situation is at Kelowna General Hospital. It shocks me, because he did meet with the doctors in question, and they told him.

The study that was published, and we heard about yesterday, found that the number-one impact of emergency room overcrowding is rising stress among staff. The number-one impact is rising stress. Overcrowding in hospital emergency rooms creates a frenetic environment where caregivers are not able to give the care that patients deserve to the standard they're trained to. They don't like it, and they're telling you that situation is becoming endemic.

Listen to what a doctor said in the paragraph above the one that you jumped to: "…you cannot take care of the sick by making the lives of the healthy impossible by constantly requiring them to do too much with too little." That's how doctors characterize what's going on at Kelowna General Hospital.

When is the Minister of Health going to take seriously the concerns being expressed by doctors at Kelowna General? When is he going to announce that he's going to put the 40 beds in place and the operating rooms that are needed?

Hon. G. Abbott: I've had the pleasure of meeting with the emergency room doctors at Kelowna General Hospital. I've had a tour of the emergency department at Kelowna General Hospital. In fact, I've been to Kelowna General Hospital, I think, about three times in the last month to not only open new facilities and new improvements to the hospital — most recently a $2 million investment in better cardiac care in Kelowna General Hospital and, before that, the adolescent psychiatric unit at Kelowna General Hospital…. There are lots of great things happening.

I can tell you that what we need to do is overcome the zero-dollar investment in new nursing spaces by that former government in the 1990s. That's the first step — a major investment in health human resources. Secondly, we need to make the capital reinvestment in Kelowna General Hospital that was sadly wanting when that government was frittering away ten years in office in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Well, perhaps if he hadn't closed 24 percent of the acute care beds in the IHA, there wouldn't be the pressure on Kelowna General that there is today.

Code purple is not a periodic problem at this hospital. Kelowna General has code-purpled five times since Christmas — five times. People used to want to work in emergency care, but now it's becoming a workplace they want to avoid. Stress and demoralization, which is just what those doctors were talking to you about, are making it difficult to attract and retain people working in that ER room. That's what those people told you when they met with you, minister.

Must the entire system go code purple before you acknowledge the problem and act to solve it?

Mr. Speaker: Just a reminder, members, to direct your questions and answers through the Chair.

Hon. G. Abbott: The sad thing that I hear in this House is an opposition that…. While they promised on taking office to be constructive, I've yet to see that side of constructive criticism. I certainly hear the criticism; I don't hear the constructive.

I know that everyone — nurses, doctors, administrators, orderlies, hospital employees union, paramedics — is coming to the table to talk about how we can make the health care system better in British Columbia.

[1435]

All we ever hear is an attempt by this opposition to undermine public confidence in a great health care system. That's what I hear. I think it's shameful that they can't step up and offer one constructive suggestion about how to make things better. The sanctimony and the hypocrisy of being a government that cut 3,334 beds in this province and then complaining because we cut a very small fraction of that are totally, totally beyond belief.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

IN CRESTON

C. Evans: I would like to offer my criticism in as constructive a manner as possible without ascribing blame and see if it works to get an answer. The doctors in Creston are giving up and have stated publicly to the community and to the IHA — I'm sure the minister knows — that they're withdrawing emergency evening services on May 15.

So without blame, simply a constructive suggestion: will the Minister of Health direct that a locum emergency physician be employed and sent to Creston to serve the Creston Valley and the 15,000 people that need emergency services until this withdrawal of service can be restored?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the hon. member for his constructive suggestion and the respectful way in which it was posed. I think that was excellent on his part, and I celebrate it.

I have not heard about this issue prior to the member's comments here. I know we had a review of issues

[ Page 4742 ]

in the health care system immediately prior to question period, and this did not come up. But I would appreciate hearing from this member more detail on that. I, without reservation, promise that I will look into it and take steps to deal with the situation.

I thank the member for raising the issue with me.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston has a supplemental.

C. Evans: You know, part of the reason why this rancour exists is because it would appear that there is a disconnect between members of the executive council and the citizens in communities. The minister says he didn't know. I was in Creston three weeks ago meeting with the IHA, who work for him, who knew; and with the doctors who are withdrawing services, who knew; and with the administration at the hospital and the town council and the regional district and the economic development commission — all of whom are engaging in doctor recruitment because there is not any effort coming out of the ministry.

It is amazing that in question period three weeks later, the minister would say to me it is news to him what every single citizen on the ground has already known. Now, my question….

Interjections.

C. Evans: Just hang on.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans : My question is bound to be shorter than his answer.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: In the most respectful way that I can, then, my question to the Minister of Health: if you are unable to resolve this through whatever channels you have left, will you accompany me to Creston to meet the doctors on or before May 15 in order to avoid withdrawal of services?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I thank the member for his question.

I am surprised, given the attention that I've received in this Legislature in question period over the past three months — never mind the past three weeks — that the member hasn't availed himself of the opportunity to advise me of this serious situation until today. I have not heard from the member either in my office or in the Legislature, but I did thank the member for advising me of this.

Now that I know about this, I can promise him that I will look into the matter, and I will take whatever action is appropriate to ensure that the citizens of Creston continue to receive the medical services that they absolutely deserve and require.

[1440]

WORKERS COMPENSATION

APPEALS PROCESS

C. Puchmayr: On May 5 the Supreme Court of British Columbia imposed a judgment against the Workers Compensation Board board of directors citing their policy of

interpretation of pension benefits for a dying worker as being patently unreasonable. This is only the tip of the iceberg of what is rapidly becoming a human tragedy, as workers plateau into the new reality of the Workers Compensation Act that was imposed in 2002.

Will the Labour Minister undertake a full independent review of the WCB appeals procedure and its relationship to the board of directors, with the goals to ensure that the process is fair and impartial?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising the question.

The case in question involved a judicial determination — as the member pointed out, a redetermination — of the terms "deterioration" versus "recurrence." In fact, the court did overrule the decision of the Workers Compensation Board, the board of directors. I have already commenced an examination of the…. I have just received the reasoning and am examining them.

I'm going to be a bit cautious in the responses I give now, insofar as all of the parties involved are still within the appeal period, but I can assure the member and members of the House that the decision has engaged my attention.

Mr. Speaker: The member for New Westminster has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: I hope I'm not hearing that the government is going to appeal this decision. I would like to say that the WCB tribunal can overrule the board of directors, but the overruling of the board of directors has to go back to the board of directors for a decision. In this case law — it's not surprising — the majority of the board of directors sided with themselves and brought the decision back to say that the decision wasn't going to be changed, forcing the appellant into a costly legal proceeding in the Supreme Court.

Will the Minister of Labour intervene to ensure that we have independence, accountability and openness in the Workers Compensation appeals procedure?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is that very independence of both WorkSafe — WCB — and the courts themselves that obliges me to be a bit careful in terms of the comments I make at this stage. Suffice it to say that in the reasoning that I have reviewed thus far, I am aware of

[ Page 4743 ]

the circumstance in which — actually in a separate case, though similar — the decisions of the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal reverted back to the board. So that is relevant, and was relevant, in the decision handed down by the Supreme Court.

It is a complex decision, an important one, and what I want to assure the member of in the House today is that I will review it with all due diligence.

REVIEW OF WORKSAFE B.C. POLICIES

M. Karagianis: The Supreme Court of B.C. has determined that a key policy of WorkSafe B.C., a policy determined by this government, is patently unreasonable and that the board of directors'

interpretation is patently unreasonable.

So I would say: given this clear indication that the judicial system disagrees with changes this government made to WCB — now WorkSafe — will the minister, in fact, agree to an independent review of all the policies this government changed in 2003?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I hope the member can appreciate that it is the expectation of the government of British Columbia that all citizens and all agencies abide by the law, whether that is statute law originating out of this chamber or the common law as pronounced by the courts of this land.

[1445]

I am at a bit of a disadvantage insofar as, as a member of the executive council, I am limited as to what I can say pending the expiration of the appeal period. I have tried to offer the members opposite assurances that I consider the decision an important one and warranting of careful examination, and that is what the government intends to do.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: While I appreciate that the specific individual case is currently in the appeal stage or can appeal, I would like to know if the minister believes that it's the duty of claimants or the Supreme Court to do the government's work in reviewing policies set by this government for WorkSafe B.C. Again, I would ask whether the minister and this government will review all of the policy changes made in 2003 to the Workers Compensation Board.

Hon. M. de Jong: This is probably not the place for us to engage in an exchange about the respective roles of the Legislature and the courts and independent quasi-judicial bodies.

The court was, in this case, asked to offer its

interpretation of certain regulations and the manner in which those regulations were applied by an independent body. They have done so. There is an appeal period in which any of the parties involved have the option of appealing that decision. I am going to, as I should, allow for that period to expire and during that time conduct a thorough examination of the reasons for judgment. If the member and other members have further questions, at that time I'll be in a position to offer my thoughts on what, if any, action would be appropriate.

IIG ALL NATIONS INSTITUTE FUNDING

G. Robertson: The IIG All Nations Institute is an indigenous, public post-secondary institution in Burnaby. It is also Canada's first autonomous degree-granting indigenous institute. Their mission is to provide an accredited post-secondary specialized program, skills training and research opportunities dedicated to empowering first peoples.

The Premier speaks boldly of his government's commitment to aboriginal education. However, despite being our fastest-growing public institution since 2001, despite being debt-free and operating with a balanced budget, the All Nations Institute has had its enrolment capped and its funding frozen. It's been excluded from the budget and accountability meetings the minister holds each year with all other institutions and told not to provide multi-year plans.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education explain why the All Nations Institute, which is a public post-secondary institution, is being treated like a poor cousin?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member was with me when we just opened their new classrooms and new building in the Open Learning Agency building. They're doing a great job. We're working with them to see how we can help them grow in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Fraserview has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: I think the minister missed the point of my question. The All Nations Institute does not receive an annual capital allowance or maintenance for targeted lease funding. They do not receive any capital funding. Their board of governors is appointed for two to six months at a time, rather than the typical multi-year appointments of all the other institutions.

The All Nations Institute has been tremendously successful, but it's clear that the reward for their success is to be starved of funding and to have their enrolment capped. In recent estimates debate with the minister, the minister stated that he was "anxious to have the IIG come back into the fold."

They've been marginalized for years under this government. How much longer do they have to wait?

[1450]

Hon. M. Coell: I think the opening of new classrooms and renovations to their institution is a commitment on our part — also a commitment on our part to work with them to help them grow. They're a new institution with a bright future.

[ Page 4744 ]

DEATH OF IAN BUSH IN RCMP CUSTODY

R. Austin: The disturbing case of the violent death of Ian Bush, a 22-year-old Houston resident, last October is once again bringing into question the timeliness of investigations into deaths that involve our police forces. Ian Bush died while in RCMP custody. He was shot in the back of the head. The only other person in the room with him was a young RCMP constable.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has called on the RCMP complaints commissioner to investigate but have been refused. Ian's mother has repeatedly asked the RCMP for answers to her son's death and also has been refused. When asked by the media for information, the RCMP said: "The public doesn't have a right to know anything." Even the Attorney General has publicly acknowledged that the investigation of Ian's death is fraught with procedural and perception problems.

To the Solicitor General: what action is he taking to see that the facts of Ian's tragic death are made known to Ian's family as soon as possible?

Hon. J. Les: As I think everyone in this House knows, there is a very deliberate process laid out that occurs when a tragedy occurs such as the one in Houston recently. That matter has been investigated by the independent detachment out of Prince George. That investigation is now being reviewed by the New Westminster police, and we all look forward to the results of those investigations.

What is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, are the absolutely asinine comments that have been made recently by the.…

Mr. Speaker: Minister, do you want to withdraw that comment?

Hon. J. Les: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

What is unfortunate are the completely uncalled-for comments that have been made by the federal member from the Skeena riding. I believe those are completely inappropriate, and if in any way the member opposite agrees with those comments, that is indeed shameful.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Skeena has a supplemental.

R. Austin: My question had absolutely nothing to do with any comments made by anybody else and has all to do with how a young man went from being charged with having a beer in a public place to being dead an hour later.

Perhaps the Solicitor General agrees that the public doesn't have a right to know anything. After all, I understand the internal RCMP investigation is complete and is currently being reviewed by the New Westminster police. But while the police do their investigations and reviews, the coroner is doing nothing. He's doing nothing, despite the clear wording of the act that says that every death of a person in police custody must be the subject of an inquest.

An inquest does not determine blame; it determines facts. Yet the chief coroner for B.C. — as a matter of policy, not law — refuses to start an inquest until after all judicial options have been exhausted. In short, Ian's family is looking at months, if not years before they will find out why he died as he did.

Again to the Solicitor General: why does he allow these unconscionable delays to simply finding out why Ian died?

Hon. J. Les: Well, I hope it is clear to everyone in this House that what is necessary at the end of all of these processes is that we learn all of the facts clearly and accurately. At the end of the day, there must be justice obtained by everyone who is a party to these particular cases.

The member also ought to know that a coroner's process cannot proceed until all other potential judicial processes have been completed. We do not know at this point whether judicial processes may be necessary. Until we know that and until we know that those processes are complete, a coroner's process would be completely inappropriate. I'm surprised that the member opposite does not know that.

[1455]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Fraser: I'm honoured to be submitting a petition on behalf of hundreds of my constituents. I think there are 1,700 signatures here. They are seeking protection for the sensitive wetlands of Hamilton Marsh and the surrounding habitat — a key portion of our watershed.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present an opinion of the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner pursuant to

section 19(1) of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

Petitions

K. Conroy: I would like to present a petition from residents throughout my constituency and into the Okanagan area, calling for a moratorium on uranium mining and/or exploration in British Columbia — over 400 signatures.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I have the annual report, 2005, for the Labour Relations Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, I call private Bill Pr401. In

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the in-

[ Page 4745 ]

formation of members, continued debate on the Ministry of Health.

Second Reading of Bills

PATRICIA COMMUNITY CLUB

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2006

M. Polak: I move the bill be now read a second time.

The Patricia Community Club was incorporated as a society in 1922. The society was removed from the register of companies and dissolved on November 10, 1988, for failure to file annual reports.

The society continued to operate, not realizing that it had been removed from the register of companies. If a society has been dissolved for more than ten years, the only way to restore the society is by a special act of the Legislature. This legislation provides for a standard restoration and is identical to previously enacted special acts restoring societies or companies.

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

M. Polak: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

M. Polak: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Patricia Community Club (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2006, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

PATRICIA COMMUNITY CLUB

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401; J. Nuraney in the chair.

The committee met at 3 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

M. Polak: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

PATRICIA COMMUNITY CLUB

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2006

Bill Pr401, Patricia Community Club (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call private Bill Pr402.

Second Reading of Bills

CHRIST FOR THE NATIONS

BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

D. Hayer: I move that Bill Pr402 be read now for a second time.

This bill was considered by the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills on April 26, 2006, and members from both sides of the House were in attendance at the time, which provided them an opportunity to ask any questions that they may have on this bill. The bill was approved by the Private Bills Committee to proceed.

The Christ for the Nations Bible College is an interdenominational Christian Bible college located in Surrey, B.C. The Bible college was established with a view to creating an interdenominational platform to teach theology by focusing on a balanced teaching method, complete with off-campus opportunities to serve the community.

The college enjoys steady growth, expanding its student base to include students from every province and territory of Canada and international students from 41 different countries over an 18-year history. The college does not charge higher tuition fees for its international students and believes that everyone should be able to afford the program. These international students are encouraged to return to their home countries to act as leaders in their communities upon completion of their studies.

Surrey was chosen as the location for the college due to its proximity to Vancouver, its excellent climate and its growing economic sector. The Bible college operates as a non-profit society under the direction of a board of governors and without the benefit of any public funding. Operating costs are funded only partially through tuition. The balance is made up from private donors and alumni. Approximately 300 Canadian and international donors currently support the work of the college.

The college is administered by Rev. Gerald Nussbaum, who has been president of the Bible college since 2000 and who received part of his training at the affiliated Christ for the Nations institution in the United States and Jamaica. Reverend Nussbaum believes very

[ Page 4746 ]

strongly in higher education and has toured the country with representatives from other colleges and universities, promoting post-secondary education.

[1505]

The dean of the Bible college, Dr. Ken Deeks, has been a pastor in the lower mainland since 1982 and has been dean of the college since 2001. Dr. Deeks has assisted in establishing a high level of excellence at the college by overseeing program development and building relationships with other colleges. Dr. Deeks serves as a role model for the students as he continues to study at the postgraduate level himself. This enables him to stay connected with the academic world and helps him direct the programs at the Christ for the Nations Bible College.

The Bible college presently offers a variety of diploma and certificate-level programs geared toward practical ministry training. These include programs specializing in music and worship, pastoral leadership, cross-cultural ministry and urban ministry. The Bible college also offers several Christian studies programs that emphasize personal spiritual growth.

The Christ for the Nations Bible College Act will provide the college with the authority to offer and grant theological degrees, including honorary theological degrees, either in its own right or jointly with universities or other post-secondary institutions. With a degree-granting status, the Bible college will be able to provide graduates with the credentials necessary to enter directly into practical ministry positions.

In addition, degree-granting status will support the Bible college's application for accreditation by the Association for Biblical Higher Education, a body of accredited Canadian and U.S.-based theological institutions. This accreditation will, in turn, provide the Bible college with a broadly recognized credential, at the same time ensuring that the Bible college is subject to industry standards for theological education.

In addition to providing degree-granting authority, the bill will continue to keep the Christ for the Nations Bible College to stay as a not-for-profit bound by the Society Act and as set out in the governance structure of the college, including the composition, authority and obligations of the board of governors and its academic counsellor. It requires that for a period of three years degree programs will be subject to review and approval by an independent degree program advisory council to support degree quality.

Provided members of the board of governors do not contravene the act, they are exempt from personal liability for debts, obligations or acts of the Bible college. It will establish the Bible college authority in relation to financial matters, provide that the land or its improvements, owned or used by the Bible college for education purposes, are exempt from taxation and provide that, upon wind-up or dissolution, the assets of the Bible college will flow to one or more qualified donors, as defined in the Income Tax Act, with similar objectives as the college.

Mr. Speaker, the bill will support the Christ for the Nations Bible College in its effort to provide Christian religious education and to prepare students as leaders in the community and abroad.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, the member for Surrey-Tynehead closes debate.

Hayer: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

D. Hayer: By leave, I move the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr402, Christ for the Nations Bible College Act, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

CHRIST FOR THE NATIONS

BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr402; J. Nuraney in the chair.

The committee met at 3:09 p.m.

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

D. Hayer: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:10 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

CHRIST FOR THE NATIONS

BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

Bill Pr402, Christ for the Nations Bible College Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. W. Oppal: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the pleasure of introducing a grade six class from South Park Elementary School in

[ Page 4747 ]

Delta. The grade seven class, I'm sure, is there as well. They're both here from south Delta. Mr. Dave Williams is a teacher for the grade six class, and Mr. Lionel Brown is the teacher for the grade seven class. I want the House to know that in the grade six class is my daughter Jasmine. So I want a rousing round of applause.

Hon. M. de Jong: Jasmine can take credit for having witnessed her father's shortest speech ever in this chamber.

I call, next, second reading of Bill 30.

Second Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 2006

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 30 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act clarify the changes needed to individual ministerial financial accountability targets and to ministers of state responsibilities after a government reorganization. Publication of a new

schedule of ministerial targets will be required within 90 days of a reorganization. Specific conditions applying to the 2005-2006 fiscal year are also provided.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is amended to permit limited and temporary transborder access and disclosure of personal information in those special circumstances where it is necessary for system maintenance or where an employee or service provider is travelling outside Canada and needs immediate access of information.

The amendments will also ensure transparency for those uses of personal health information contained in health information banks created under the Health Act by requiring the publishing of summaries on a public on-line directory. A number of administrative processing and housekeeping amendments are also made.

Further to the Government House Leader's statement yesterday, we will not be proceeding with

section 9 of this bill. This is a

section pertaining to "disclosure in relation to designated joint solution projects." As a result of this decision, we'll also not be proceeding with the consequential amendments proposed to sections 10, 17, and 58 of the bill.

Amendments to the Land Act, Land Survey Act, Land Surveyors Act, and Land Title Act will provide for the electronic deposit of survey plans in land title offices. Currently plans submitted to the Land Title and Survey Authority are required to be on paper, Mylar or other media. The authority will continue to accept the submission of hard-copy survey plans; however, permitting the electronic transfer and deposit of these records will improve access to electronic survey records and reduce costs.

[1515]

Amendments to the Oil and Gas Commission Act will exempt the commission from the Public Service Agency, allowing for more flexibility in the hiring of staff, including the ability to offer competitive wages and innovative work schedules to attract professional employees. This amendment will contribute towards the continuous improvement within the Oil and Gas Commission, allowing it to remain a world-class regulator.

Amendments of the Personal Information Protection Act will permit the collection, use and disclosure of third-party personal information without the consent of the third party when the information is necessary to provide service, such as medical counselling or legal services, to an individual who is the source of the third-party information. Additional amendments provide that a lawyer may refuse access to personal information where the file is subject to a solicitor's lien for non-payment of legal fees.

Lastly, amendments to the Utilities Commission Act will serve to clarify the intent of the act, help foster investor confidence for independent power-producer projects in British Columbia, and diversify energy supplies through a one-decision-maker process, similar to other resource development approvals. It will also bring certainty to local governments in clarifying their jurisdiction over IPPs located on private land and that of the province for projects on Crown land.

L. Krog: Sometimes innocent statutes come before the House. Miscellaneous amendment statutes acts are often like that. They contain all sorts of wonderful housekeeping provisions. No one would dispute the need. They're driven by the public service. But sometimes these kinds of statutes contain things that, indeed, represent significant changes, important changes, and changes which the opposition, in doing its job, must oppose strenuously.

This particular bill contains several provisions which have managed, to my great surprise, to unite such disparate groups as the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union, the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Now, some might think that is a very unholy alliance. I would suggest it is just the opposite. It is a holy alliance of groups and organizations in our community who recognize the changes set out in the act, particularly in

section 10, as being exactly what they are: changes which are potentially going to allow even further access by outside governments and organizations into British Columbia's private information.

This is a dramatic turn of events. It is not about housekeeping. It's not something just to take into account a little transitional period. This is what we refer to in the legal profession as a loophole. Indeed, it's more of a tunnel than a loophole. It is astonishing to me that the Attorney General would suggest in this House that it is simply going to allow corporations to deal with this difficult little issue. As it says: "in relation to disclosure outside Canada, the outside disclosure is necessary because the individual is temporarily travelling outside of Canada." They're weasel words.

[ Page 4748 ]

There's no other way to put it. They allow great latitude.

Over a decade ago the NDP government brought in freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation so cutting edge, so important, so valuable that this Legislature, quite directly, was able to hire who was then regarded as the world's leading expert. He was so excited at the proposition and possibility of presiding over the implementation of such progressive legislation.

[1520]

What this bill represents today is a step backward. This is very much going back to the bad old days. The Minister of Health talks about the dismal decade. Well, with great respect, if this is the kind of legislation that will come before this House in the next few years, then people will look back and say: "This was the dismal decade." This was the decade in which the government of British Columbia, through its privatization of contracts, through the trouble it's caused at B.C. Hydro, has opened up the possibility of private information being reviewed abroad by foreign governments, particularly under the Patriot Act.

Instead of being open, transparent and accountable, this is anything but. This is an enormously retrograde step. I am surprised that we can simply suggest in this Legislature — those on the government side — that this is really a bit of housekeeping, a bit of tidying up just to make things go a little more smoothly. Let the great wheels of government roll forward without hindrance. It is anything but.

There are significant concerns around this legislation. It is about the concerns of British Columbia. It gets back to this government's handling of the whole privatization of Hydro and the Accenture deals. We know now, according to a recent poll, that 84 percent of British Columbians want a public inquiry into B.C. Hydro's Accenture deal.

It's just a good thing we haven't passed the inquiry act that was before the House — we've put that off — because, if we did and we had a public inquiry, the cabinet could keep its secret forever anyway. We at least enjoy the mercy right now of the existing Inquiry Act.

What this legislation does is allow the continuation of a process that has led to other countries' governments having access to information that shouldn't be available to them. It was a bad deal for British Columbia. This legislation simply takes us more steps down that road. It is not housekeeping. It is anything but housekeeping, as I've said.

What does the term "temporarily travelling outside Canada" mean? Does that mean we're on a three-day visit to Seattle? Does it mean a three-week jaunt to Washington? Does it mean a visit to the head of the CIA in Langley, Virginia for four weeks? I'm just trying to be a little bit funny. The fact is: you can't define it. The fact is: it isn't easily defined.

Who is the individual and how many individuals? Does this mean if we have 30 people abroad all requiring access…? It seems to me under this legislation, it would be perfectly permissible for 30 people or 40 or 50 or 60.

When you're looking at the application of law, and you read it strictly, one of the ways of looking at it is to consider the most ridiculous scenario. The fact is, when you look at the most ridiculous scenarios, it becomes even more apparent how ridiculous the proposed amendments are. I would hope that the Attorney General, having given due consideration to the many speakers who will follow me this afternoon in this House, who are opposed to this legislation…. It is my sincere hope the Attorney General will reconsider this.

This is unnecessary. This is dangerous. It is inappropriate. It is not housekeeping. It will not advance the protection of privacy which British Columbians have come to value so much. In a technological world where information and money and wealth and everything else is sent around the globe in the punching of a few buttons at a computer terminal, we understand how easy it is for one's privacy to be taken away, for one's personal information to become available to many people who would otherwise have no access. All this legislation does is moves us down that path.

[1525]

We know that Accenture maintains lax privacy standards. Indeed, there is a wonderful letter from Gwenne Farrell, the acting president of COPE Local 378, to Mr. Elton, the chair of B.C. Hydro, which I've been provided a copy of, in which she outlines many problems. If this legislation passes, there will be further problems. It is not any answer to British Columbians to say: "This is just housekeeping."

If this were the only

section of the bill, perhaps we wouldn't be here as long, but there's another section, equally dramatic and, on the face of it, just a simple bit of language. That's

section 56, which changes the Utilities Commission Act — fairly innocuous. It says:

In this section, "authorization" means (

a) a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued under

section 46, (

b) an exemption from the application of

section 45 granted, with the advance approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by the commission under

section 88, and (

c) an exemption from

section 45 granted under

section 22, only if the public utility meets the conditions prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) (c), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe different conditions for different public utilities or categories of public utilities.

You know, the average British Columbian, having heard me read that, would wonder what was going on. They would wonder why the members of the opposition would be standing up here haranguing the government over this seemingly innocuous language. Well, the effect of this innocuous language is essentially to say to the municipalities and local governments of British Columbia: "When it comes to producing power, any zoning you wish to pass gets trumped." It gets trumped.

"What we're saying is that local government, notwithstanding the agreement of this government entered into a couple of years ago to respect the jurisdiction of local government, is going to get trumped by

[ Page 4749 ]

the province's desire to encourage the production of power in various parts of the province, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of local and community governments to pass laws under the Community Charter or the Local Government Act."

How is it coming before this House? In an open, frank, clear and transparent a way? No. It's being slid in, in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, when in fact it represents a dramatic change to the law.

Quite justifiably, the municipalities of this province are catching up. The Squamish-Lillooet regional district, having passed an emergency resolution — very concerned about this — has written to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I want to read it into the record here today. This was passed by the Squamish-Lillooet regional district on May 2 at a special meeting.

Whereas the province of British Columbia and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, by memorandum of understanding signed September 22, 2004, are committed to fostering cooperative intergovernmental relations, recognizing the jurisdiction and accountability of both orders of government, facilitating the responsible development of clean renewable energy sources to meet the energy needs of British Columbians, providing efficient and effective IPP review and approval processes for both orders of government; and

whereas the amendments to the Utilities Commission Act proposed by Bill 30 will serve to eliminate local government involvement and engagement in IPP review and approval processes, remove jurisdiction of local government over IPPs on Crown land, remove local government from the responsible development of clean, renewable energy sources, impair cooperative intergovernmental relations; and

whereas these amendments will have significant impacts for local governments throughout the province when the full scope and potential of IPPs are considered — e.g., wind, geothermal, coalbed methane and run-of-river projects; therefore,

be it resolved that the province of British Columbia be requested to immediately set Bill 30 aside and return to working with UBCM to complete the commitments of the MOU on independent power projects as quickly as possible.

The most open and accountable government in Canada — that was the Premier's promise. "We'll never tear up contracts. We'll honour our deals." Well, the treatment of the Hospital Employees Union evidenced that perhaps that wasn't as full a commitment as the voters of British Columbia were led to believe.

[1530]

Today in this House, with

section 56, it's pretty clear that when the provincial government has struck a deal with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, that contract really isn't worth the paper it's written on either. That commitment won't be kept.

I say through you, hon. Speaker, to the Attorney General and to this government: the opposition opposes this bill. We do not oppose the housekeeping sections where they truly are housekeeping sections. We don't oppose logical change around the filing and the land title office and things of that nature. But we do most certainly oppose further damage to the privacy provisions and the derogation of the rights of municipal governments in this province to look after the zoning for its own citizens.

I sincerely hope the Attorney General will reconsider the government's position in this, take the advice of the opposition and withdraw the offensive provisions of this bill.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to rise in the Legislature today to speak to this bill, on the purposes of Bill 30. I do plan to limit my comments in second reading to clause 56 of the bill, which the previous member spoke about.

Clause 56 of this bill…. What this essentially does, as was pointed out previously, is strip away the authority of local governments. It takes local government and says: "You no longer have a meaningful role in decisions over what goes on within your jurisdiction as it relates to independent power." That's what this says.

The member previously mentioned this, but let me read again what the

interpretation of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district is on what this does. They, more than anybody at this point in time, are impacted by this decision, though it is a decision that will impact municipality after municipality, regional district after regional district across this province.

What they said is: "The amendments to the Utilities Commission Act proposed by Bill 30 will serve to eliminate local government involvement and engagement in IPP review and approval processes, remove jurisdiction of local government over IPPs on Crown land, remove local government from the responsible development of clean renewable energy sources and impair cooperative intergovernmental relations."

When we look back, you might ask: how did this come about? What is it that brought it about for the government to have made the decision to put forward what is only a draconian clause — it can't be seen as anything but — to rip away the authority and jurisdiction of local governments? Well, there is a history to this.

The history starts in January 2005. At that time the Ledcor corporation applied for a run-of-the-river project on the Ashlu river in the Squamish-Lillooet regional district. They applied for that, and they were turned down. They got a water licence, they came back, and the regional district said no. The regional district said no to that application because they had done the Sea to Sky official community plan. They had identified about a dozen water bodies and waterways that they said were much more valuable than a single use. At the top of that list was the Ashlu river.

What happens is that they say no to this. I would point out that it isn't like the Squamish-Lillooet regional district was saying no to many of these. They had agreed with and approved a half-dozen of these projects within their region. They were supporters of the principle of IPPs and run of the river, but they said in this case: "This river is much more valuable to us with other use."

[1535]

They also were very concerned that they had over 60 applications on rivers in their region, and there was

[ Page 4750 ]

no plan for this. It was like the wild west, as somebody said to me. Every time they turned around, there was another water licence application. Nobody was looking at cumulative impacts. Nobody was considering the overall impact of this. Nobody was having a significant discussion about what the implications were river by river.

So they said no. Well, the response to them saying no to Ledcor was an aggressive approach by this government. It started with the government not approving of the Sea to Sky official community plan, which, as we understand it, has been held up in cabinet and never approved. That was a plan that outlined their position around these 12 water bodies. That was where it started.

Then what we saw was, as the regional district says, a very aggressive approach by the Ministry of Energy to try to reverse this decision, the Ledcor decision. That included a letter that was sent on November 28, 2005, by the deputy minister, Mr. Reimer. That letter was sent to the regional district. It said: "You have these water bodies that you're interested in." Well, here's the deal, hon. Speaker. The deputy minister said: "Here's the deal. We'll give some consideration to those water bodies that you are looking at, but only on these terms."

In the letter it said:

In

summary, the ministry is prepared to make a recommendation to government that water reserves be placed on ten of the 12 streams identified as high priority for analysis by the SLRD board. This is in response to the SLRD board's resolution of January 31, 2005, and with a view to advancing Ledcor's Ashlu project. It is my understanding that Ledcor will be submitting a rezoning application in the near future. Should the rezoning not be approved, our recommendation regarding the water reserves will not proceed.

That's what the deputy minister told the regional district. Sounds like blackmail to me.

What else do we know about this? We know there were all kinds of increased pressures put on as that reapplication was coming back on January 30, 2006. It did come back. When I talked to people about that, there was an awful lot of concern.

We were trying to figure out: why is the government so engaged in this particular application? We looked at a whole bunch of things, not the least of which is that Ledcor and the other corporations that were around the Ledcor application had jointly given in excess of $80,000 to the B.C. Liberals in political contributions in the last couple of years. More than $80,000 between them they gave to the government.

So what we have is a reapplication on January 30 that is essentially no different than the application of January '05. The regional district deals with that application, and they make a decision. They're faced with a number of choices as to how to approach this decision. In what can only be called a remarkable comment made in a staff report, the staff of the regional district made the following comments as they laid out their analysis of the options and choices in front of the regional district.

Option 1 — this was the option that the regional district again reject this application by Ledcor. Staff did warn them. What staff said is the following, and I quote from the staff report to the regional district:

It is clear from recent discussions with the provincial government representatives that the province has a strong interest in the Ashlu IPP proceeding despite expressed regional district and public opposition to the project. If the regional board decides to deny the rezoning application, there are real and significant risks that the province may take away the regional district's authority for zoning of IPPs, either through Bill 75 or through other legislation.

Now, was that prophetic or what? It went on to say:

From the SLRD perspective, any action to remove zoning authority could be seen as both unnecessary and heavy-handed, given the large number of IPP projects recently approved and built in the Sea to Sky corridor. Overall, the SLRD policies and actions have been very supportive of green energy, with five new IPP projects rezoned and constructed in the Sea to Sky corridor during '02 to '04, since implementation of zoning requirements. Rejection of a single project should not be the basis of removing zoning authority.

The staff were pretty smart. They knew what the government was going to do.

[1540]

Well, hon. Speaker, we now have this decision. The regional district stood up. They had courage, and they said: "We're going to table the Ledcor reapplication for now, and what we're going to ask the government to do…." They passed a motion in January '06 that said: "We're going to ask the province to sit down, work with us and develop a coordinated plan for how IPPs may be delivered in our region."

What does it look like? How many power projects should there be? How do we determine cumulative impact? What kind of environmental considerations should there be? What consideration should there be for recreational users? Which rivers make sense for energy and for run-of-the-river power?

They said, "We're happy to do that," and they asked the government to sit down and talk to them about a thoughtful plan. The government's response to that request is this legislation that says: "Forget it. We're just going to run roughshod right overtop of you because we can."

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

As you'll note in the comments that were in the report by staff, they mentioned Bill 75 — which you'll know, the streamlining act — and their concern about that. This is even more draconian than Bill 75 in many ways. At least if you had used the streamlining act, you would have had to have the courage to stand up and do it time and again, project by project. By doing this innocuous change to the Utilities Commission Act, you just cleanly sweep local government right out of the game. Local government has no more say in what goes on in their boundaries in regard to independent power and in regard to these projects.

Not only have you breached that, but as was pointed out earlier, this is the government that in September 2004 signed a protocol agreement with the Un-

[ Page 4751 ]

ion of B.C. Municipalities, signed an agreement on independent power projects. You said: "We're going to work together." And what did you say in 2004 when signing this agreement? You said: "We're looking to foster cooperative intergovernmental relations. We're recognizing the jurisdiction and accountability of both orders of government. We're facilitating the responsible development of clean renewable energy sources to meet the energy needs of British Columbians and providing efficient and effective IPP review and approval processes for both orders of government."

That is what the government said in September '04, and what the government says now is: "That's off the table. It isn't worth the paper it's written on. We're ripping it up." That's because this government just isn't doing the trick. You breached your agreements with the UBCM, and you've done that and turned this over to the Utilities Commission.

So what does the Utilities Commission have to say about that? Well, the Utilities Commission pays no attention to matters other than rates and security of supply. There's no consideration for community interests.

This is a very draconian piece of legislation. It's a giveaway of power in perpetuity. It's nothing for us in this province in return for that. It runs roughshod over local government. It withdraws the commitments that were made to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We have to ask: what are the broader implications of this in terms of other legislation in the future?

We're going to hear from local governments over the next little while. We've been hearing from them now. We can only hope that maybe, in the last moment, this government will come to its senses and say: "We at least have a scintilla of respect for local government, and we'll pull back on this and talk about a way to solve this problem in cooperation with local government." I don't have confidence in that, but maybe we'll do that.

Hon. Speaker, we'll be opposing this section, and we'll look forward to hearing how the government responds when we get to committee.

Hon. W. Oppal: I seek leave to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. W. Oppal: In the gallery is the grade seven class from South Park Elementary School in Delta. I earlier introduced the grade six class, and their teacher is Lionel Brown. Let's make them welcome.

[1545]

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak against the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, also referred to as Bill 30. As the critic for local government, my opposition is going to focus on one provision in particular. It is buried within this bill, and it is

section

Section 56 makes amendments to the Utilities Commission, which will remove local government's ability to make decisions that are in the best interests of local residents. I raise this along with another serious objection to what is being put forward here.

First, this bill will effectively eliminate local government decision-making with respect to independent power projects on Crown land. It takes decisions about public land and removes them from the open, accountable processes that local governments have in place. It removes any consideration for those who are going to be most affected.

Removing local control on land use decisions is aimed straight at rural areas. It removes any local say on independent power projects such as those on rivers, but it also removes any local say on projects related to wind power, geothermal and coalbed methane.

Attacking rural areas in this way is fundamentally antidemocratic. This is one of the series of measures that have been put forward to remove public accountability. To even attempt to take this step shows how little regard this government has for rural people.

I'll give you an example. I attended the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities some weeks ago and stayed in Christina Lake at a bed-and-breakfast owned by a recently elected regional district director. There was an opportunity to talk with her. She just started her political career. The issue that brought her into politics was the Kettle River and the independent power project that is being proposed for the river near her house.

She opposes the project and ran on a platform of opposing the construction of a power facility on the Kettle River. People made a choice based on their interests and their values and chose to elect her to make decisions on their behalf, including a decision on the appropriateness of a power project on the Kettle River. It's a democracy. It's what you do if people are the most important thing.

When I talked with her, she was concerned. She was concerned about another piece of legislation. She was concerned the government might be draconian enough to use the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. For those who wouldn't be familiar with it, it is

an act that this government passed before the last election, which allows government to override any decision that local government wants to make. To date they have been too embarrassed to use it — as they should be embarrassed to use it.

During estimates I had asked the Minister of Community Services directly whether she had any discussions on any project where the Significant Projects Streamlining Act may be used, because there was concern that it may be used on independent power projects. People had brought that to my attention. The Minister of Community Services assured me that she was not aware of any plans to use this legislation to override local decision-making.

What she didn't mention was that she was involved in crafting a law that is even more intrusive to local governments. The member who spoke before me explains why this is the case.

[ Page 4752 ]

Bill 75 is embarrassing. It's embarrassing to use, because any member from that side who has been in local government knows fundamentally how offensive it is — including the Premier. So instead of going with that, they hid it.

If anyone in the public reads this

section 56, they will realize that it is hidden. It is hidden in the title of this act. It is hidden in the language that is used. It allows local decision-making to be swept away not once but again and again and again forever — in perpetuity.

The minister talks about local autonomy. The Minister of Community Services talks about respecting local government. Well, I look forward to the linguistic gymnastics that the minister is going to have to do next estimates as she explains how this does not impose any limitations on government or doesn't take away any of their powers.

[1550]

It seems to me that it contradicts every value that this minister professes during estimates and in the document that she produces. It's the same set of values that the Premier frankly professes.

I served my community as a councillor and a mayor. Columbia River–Revelstoke is a series of small communities, and since I make that trip every week, I know it is far from Victoria physically. But I want to emphasize, as I have before in this House, that it is also very far from the minds of people in Victoria very often. It is an afterthought to government, and the thought that we would lose rights to make decisions around land use that will impact us and that, instead, they will be made here, I find offensive.

Earlier this year this government tried to take a land use issue important to the Kootenays away from its rightful place at the regional district, but the regional district would not have it, and the people of our area would not allow it. We will not accept someone else making our decisions. Frankly, the Minister of Community Services should be supporting local governments instead of participating in this subversion of local government.

Let's talk about another principle. It's a principle that the grade seven class would have learned first in kindergarten and probably from their parents before. It's around keeping one's word. It's around doing what you commit to do.

Section 56 calls into question government commitments that were made — and made in a very public way.

The Attorney General can check with the minister that sits very close to him, because his signature is here. If you look at the current Minister of Advanced Education, his signature is on this form. The current Minister of Health — his signature is on this form. The current Minister of Energy and Mines stood up in front of members of the UBCM — and if I have that wrong, I wasn't there, so maybe the minister can tell us exactly what the big occasion was — and signed a solemn document with the president of the UBCM.

When the UBCM signed, I would assume that they signed with an understanding that the document meant something, that it would not be swept away in such a sneaky fashion. It was signed in good faith by local government.

And what do we have here? We have this government stepping away from it. It shows utter contempt — I put it to this House — by this government for local government. It shows utter contempt for the century-old organization that represents local government, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, an organization that this Premier once served as president.

Would the provincial government quietly accept the federal government taking away its powers to make decisions on its own areas of responsibilities? It would not. Yet this government has no qualms about arbitrarily removing decisions that should be properly made by local government.

I attended UBCMs from 1993 to 1996. At every one of those the present Premier, as Leader of the Opposition, came and made speeches. In each one of those speeches, he enforced again and again the autonomy of local government, the importance of that level of government. He described it as an independent level of government.

He said although it could not be changed constitutionally, when he became Premier, it would be treated that way, and I believed him. When this government or the Premier talks about certain things, like the importance of education or the importance of many other things like the environment, it doesn't sink in. I don't actually believe it. But on this one, I actually believed him. He came out of local government. He was president of local governments' representative organization. Now he turns around and is willing to break a memorandum of understanding that could not be clearer.

[1555]

Well, it's our intention to introduce an amendment to withdraw

section 56 from this bill, and I challenge the Minister of Community Services to show some leadership on this issue and see that the Attorney General removes

section 56, or she should not expect any statement by her or her government about respect for local government to go unchallenged.

I will vote against the principle of this bill.

Section 56 is cynical and does not merit the support of any member of this House.

B. Ralston: I propose first to briefly address

section 56. My colleagues from Vancouver-Hastings and Columbia River–Revelstoke have eloquently dealt with that section, but I think it's worth reflecting that earlier this session the Premier, in a very passionate speech, spoke of the honour of the Crown and spoke of his disappointment at an apparent breach of faith in an agreement that was solemnly concluded by all the provinces, the territories and the federal government. One can well imagine that similar feelings are passing over and through the members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

This particular

section of this bill breaches a solemn agreement reached in 2004 and signed for the declared purpose of fostering cooperative intergovernmental relationships on precisely the topic that's addressed by

section 56. One can understand and support the Premier in his disappointment, to say the least, at the

[ Page 4753 ]

manner in which the federal government has apparently treated the Kelowna accord in the recent budget. But this agreement, concluded in September 2004, was also an intergovernmental agreement. It was an intergovernmental agreement between the representative body of the municipalities and the provincial government. As my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke has said, that agreement was expected to be followed and has simply been cast aside, disregarded in a very cavalier and callous manner.

One really wonders whether any of the rhetoric that accompanied the signing of this document in the run-up to the election was at all justified, and one can rightly understand the indignation of many of the members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities as they contemplate this particular piece of legislation.

As my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has laid out, those regional districts that have applications for independent power projects are quite competent at assessing them. They're quite capable of evaluating public opinion, and they've done a fair job in reflecting, balancing the desires of the applicants and the wishes of the people they represent. That's what effective regional government is all about. That's the commitment that the Premier made, certainly in opposition, as my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke has stated.

It's particularly distressing, particularly disturbing and particularly cynical of this government to bring that particular

section forward for that stated purpose. It breaches a solemn agreement made in September 2004 in much the same manner and much the same spirit of cooperation — although, admittedly, for a more focused purpose than the Kelowna accord was made. It is deplorable, and I would speak strongly against that particular

section that's before the House at this time.

I want to turn now to the other sections that trouble me. In particular, it's

section 12, which purports to speak to the storage of information outside of Canada. There are some who would have us believe that these are narrowly drawn and only for very exceptional circumstances. Obviously, that may be the ostensible purpose of the drafters of the legislation. But one has to realize the context in which this legislation comes forward.

[1600]

The most significant legislative or governmental initiative of the government in recent years in this area has been the agreement with Accenture — between B.C. Hydro and Accenture. In that context, there are before the Privacy Commissioner three outstanding complaints about the breach of the act by Accenture.

I won't go into them in any detail. One concerns the theft of personal information of employees of Accenture. There's an allegation that B.C. Hydro breached the existing act by disregarding and breaking the law that requires the information to be stored only in Canada and accessed only in Canada. Thirdly, a further complaint, a privacy complaint made by members of the union COPE 378 working at Accenture that they are routinely asked to send B.C. Hydro databases to various locations outside of Canada.

It's in that context that this legislation comes forward. In other words, the existing law, it's alleged in these complaints, is not being followed. It's certainly disputed. It's not at all clear that the present law is being followed by B.C. Hydro and Accenture.

One then brings forward and sees the ostensible legislative purpose here, I would say, in a different light. This legislation, however innocuous it may seem, is brought forward to attempt to legitimize the activity that Accenture is already engaged in, I would say. In addition, based on information that's provided to me, this legislation is naive about the technological way in which the transfer of information and databases works.

This is in a letter that's been sent to members of the Legislature. It's been sent to members on this side and that side, so it's not a document that is unknown to the minister in this particular area. It's sent by a group. They call themselves the "concerned geeks." I take it that they're people who…. They describe themselves as concerned citizens who work in the computer department of a foreign outsourcing company that handles personal data for a government enterprise.

They have concerns, and let me just express the principal concern they have. It's very well put here:

Changing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act so that it can be accessed from or stored in the U.S. without allowing U.S. authorities to intercept it with the Patriot Act is a difficult proposition. As technical people responsible for protecting the data, we need to be clear about how we protect data outside the country.

They have a number of technical questions that they pose. In order to give the flavour of just what's being talked about here — and these will be issues that will be pursued in committee stage — I would like to share with the House some of the observations about their view of the effect of these amendments, these apparently innocuous amendments.

They ask the following questions about confidential information stored under the auspices of this act:

If an employee travels to another country temporarily, can he make remote connections with administrator access from the other country to access computer systems containing protected data? They point out that administrator access is privileged access used for technical work on computer systems. People with administrator access can do more or less what they want. They can read or copy every database on an entire server if they choose.

If an employee travels to another country

temporarily, can he take protected data with him on laptops, memory sticks, disks, or backup tapes? Databases are not always as big as people think. We have a server with over 100 databases on it, containing data on thousands of people. All 100 databases can fit on a single laptop.

In a context where you have employees of a

foreign-based company travelling back and forth across the Canadian-American border, what are the restrictions that this particular amendment places upon that activity, and what access do American authorities — with the vast array of post-9/11 legislation they now have at their disposal — have to that data? Indeed, if it is seized, what recourse is there to citizens here of what they would assume is protected, confidential, private information?

[1605]

They go on to ask further questions about that:

[ Page 4754 ]

If the employee is travelling in a foreign country and he is required by that country's law to release protected data, what should he or she do? What can they do?

The letter asks whether the legislation catches this situation:

Can databases or other systems containing protected data be transferred temporarily out of the country? If the database is transferred temporary out of the country, what steps can be taken to protect the data while it's out of the country? If a database is temporarily transferred out of the country, what steps can be taken to ensure that it's deleted after it's been used?

section 12(b), it says: (ii) in the case of disclosure outside Canada, (

A) is limited to temporary access….

One wonders, given a simple, bald assertion of "temporary"…. One speaks in immigration law of temporary visas, which can be of six months' duration, one year's duration, renewable. There's no clear definition here of "temporary." One might assert — if you argued the point ad absurdum , I suppose — that there's nothing that's really permanent, so what does temporary mean? I look to the minister to elucidate for the House what that might mean, and what is the purpose of choosing that word rather than some specific restriction. I would submit that it's precisely that ambiguity that's being sought, for precisely the purpose that I have suggested.

Also in that section, further up, there's a reference to maintenance as well. What is pointed out by the technical experts here is:

The language of the

section seems to speak of or would have one infer that access is being granted for a single event. However, people are usually granted access for the time they are assigned to a project. An upgrade may take an hour. However, an upgrade project which includes all the preparation leading to the upgrade can take months. Indeed, maintenance —

which is referred to in the section, and that's one of the permitted purposes

— can go on indefinitely, for an indefinite period of time.

What this person says is:

We suspect that if the term "the minimum time necessary" is not

better defined, people in foreign countries will have ongoing access to

protected data. They will have ongoing access to do maintenance work or they

will have ongoing access as they are assigned from one project to another.

What these people are saying with their technical knowledge, looking at the plain meaning — and doubtlessly there'll be, I hope, some attempt to justify the language of the legislation from the minister — is that the way they read it and the way they understand these very technical computer terms is that, basically, this legislation grants open access to our databases from foreign sources forever. There's no limit. The language is so porous and so ill-drafted that there are no restrictions whatsoever.

Madam Speaker, this is simply not acceptable. This is not what people want. It's not what they voted for. This is not what they're prepared to tolerate in this area. People are seeking, and want assurances about, protection of personal information that's gathered for commercial purposes and that they're obliged to hand over in order to receive certain services, but they are very concerned and very troubled by the idea that it would be stored outside the country and that other agencies, particularly the American government, would have access to that.

I would submit that this part of the legislation is, unfortunately, a part that is so badly drafted and so badly thought through that it should, perhaps, be sent back to the legislative drafters for a complete rethink of the intended purposes of this piece of legislation.

[1610]

I would speak very strongly against this particular section. At committee stage, I hope to ask the minister to provide some answers. But, at this stage, given what my analysis is of this particular section, I'm not prepared to support it in any way.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and take my place in the debate on Bill 30.

When this bill was introduced, the opposition expressed concerns around a number of sections of this bill, particularly around freedom of information. We've seen the decision by the government to eliminate

section 9, which I think was a wise decision, and is clearly a victory for privacy for the people of British Columbia.

I think it's important that we recognize why people were upset over that issue and over that section. In this day and age, with increasing use of electronic technology and the ability to access records in a way that was unimaginable ten, 20 years ago, people are rightly concerned about freedom of information, about privacy protection. Government needs to take it seriously. When questions are raised, those questions require answers.

We have questions around the privacy sections in this bill, the ones that remain — the ones that the government feels are innocuous and not a problem. Well, the public needs reassurance, and this side of the House is not prepared, at this time, to give support to this bill. There are too many outstanding questions, as my colleague the member for Surrey-Whalley articulated a few moments ago.

What happens when data leaves this country? How does it leave this country? How is it accessed? The

definitions in this piece of legislation are vague. What, for example, does maintenance mean? Maintenance can go on for a very long time. In family law, maintenance can go on for a very long time. What does it mean in terms of privacy and personal information records? Those questions need to be answered, and we will be exploring them at committee stage — vigorously.

I would encourage the Attorney General to ensure that his staff have answers that can give confidence to people, that they understand what this legislation means, that we're not coming back here a year from now dealing with unintended consequences of wording in this legislation. In the meantime the privacy of individuals, the transfer of data, the effects of that transfer of data have consequences; you cannot turn back the clock.

It is crucial that in the committee stage of this debate there are answers and that the questions the opposition is putting forward — the questions being raised

[ Page 4755 ]

by people in the field who work with technology and the transfer of information on a daily basis and who understand the technical implications of what happens and how information can be accessed and transferred — are dealt with, and that issues are answered and questions are answered.

The other area of this bill that I think needs to be dealt with — and that we need to put on the record — is around

section 56, and that is local government. I served in this House as Minister of Municipal Affairs. I remember that opposition, day in, day out, going on about the importance of local government — that local government was a legitimate order of government with rights and responsibilities that needed to be respected.

Indeed, this Premier was a former head of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We have a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities sitting in this House, and other former ministers of Municipal Affairs. Every single one of them would have stood up when this type of legislation was put forward and condemned it. They would have railed against it. My colleague across the way from Chilliwack would have been at the forefront in his role as head of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, defending the rights of local governments. He smiles because he knows that I'm correct. Absolutely, I am correct.

[1615]

The fact is that Bill 75 was one of the most odious pieces of legislation ever brought to this House because it stripped local government of their decision-making power and subverted it to the province, when this very government said that that is something that should not take place. Now we're seeing it again. In the case of zoning within lands controlled by local government, this government is saying that they don't matter. "Your views don't count. It's what we think that matters."

That is a complete repudiation of everything they said they stood for. It is a complete repudiation of everything that they have ever told local government. It makes every speech to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, to every municipal association in this province ring hollow.

I'm surprised that this act has not been renamed the "Local government is a conceit we can no longer afford" act, because that is the effect.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, and the member says: "Give us a break."

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The minister wants to engage in a debate. Well, guess what? Your Premier, this government's Premier, and this government's ministers said that was wrong. Once again, here we have an example of a minister who says: "Two wrongs don't make a right." Guess what? This Premier, your Premier….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, oh, oh.

An Hon. Member: Not a word of consultation. A hundred million.

Deputy Speaker: Sit down.

Member.

M. Farnworth: And I am grateful to that minister for making that comment.

I would like to point out to him an

article that appeared in the Vancouver Province during my tenure as Minister of Municipal Affairs: "Minister of Municipal Affairs Stands Up to Premier Against Cuts to Local Government." Those cuts didn't take place when I was minister and stood up for local government. Why can't that side of the House stand up for local government and say that this legislation shouldn't go ahead?

Local government is once again looking to that side of the House, to former mayors, to former heads of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, to former heads of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to stand up for what they said they believed in. They all know that zoning is one of the basic functions of local government. With this legislation they are stripping that away. That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong.

We have a lot of questions to ask on this piece of legislation around freedom of information and privacy and around this

section that strips local government of powers that they have enjoyed for over a hundred years in this province. We have a lot of questions to ask in committee stage, and we will continue to do that.

Now I will take my place and yield the floor to colleagues of mine who have similar questions and concerns.

M. Karagianis: To join my colleagues in talking about this miscellaneous bill…. The interesting thing about miscellaneous bills is that they may, in fact, be some of the most compelling bills that come before the House, because slyly, changes are made within miscellaneous bills that indicate huge directional changes that government is making.

If we look back to the changes made to the Lobbyists Registration Act, which were extremely profound changes, they were made within a miscellaneous bill. Here today we see again a miscellaneous bill that has a lot of housekeeping around land title changes and electronic filing and things, but two very compelling aspects of this bill have most of us today very concerned.

[1620]

I would like to talk, as well, about

section 12, the disclosure to outside sources and protection of personal and private information. Actually, I'd like to talk about it within the context of other things that are going on within government, because first and foremost, there is no doubt in our minds that protection of private information is a very significant concern of citizens throughout British Columbia.

Interestingly, last fall I had a debate with the Minister of Small Business over the

U.S.A. Patriot Act and protection of personal information by a company called

[ Page 4756 ]

EDS, which does collection services. The minister and I got into a very heated debate about the Patriot Act, about our ability to control the Patriot Act and about any naive impressions we may have about stealthy activities by the U.S. government in their endeavours to close their borders to terrorism, to deal with the effects after 9/11 and the powers of the Patriot Act. I don't think we fully understand in this country…. I think we continue to think that somehow our legislation or our promise to the public that everything's going to be okay is going to protect us.

In my discussions with the minister it became very evident that we have no way of protecting our public information from that act once it leaves this country. Here we have a lot of vital information tied up with companies like Accenture, Maximus and EDS.

Let me just talk about this legislative change here within the context of some other things that government is currently undertaking. One of those is the consolidation revenue management system. Government is currently consolidating all revenue collections into the Ministry of Small Business, Revenue and Regulatory Reform. All revenue sources are going to be consolidated and funnelled through that ministry. The responsibility for that management system is going to go to EDS systems in the United States. Here we are, very quietly and stealthily, putting some new legislation in here that opens up our capacity to protect our information.

As a stand-alone item, it looks fairly innocuous. It looks fairly benign. But when you start to connect a lot of dots and say: "Wait a minute. We've now got personal information tied up with companies outside of Canada in all kinds of significant ways, and likely more to be happening — in fact, all of our revenue services for the entire province to be consolidated and handed over…."

It gives me a great amount of concern to see the language within this bill in that perspective, with what government is doing. Personal privacy and identity theft is one of the big personal alarm buttons for everybody in this province, for everybody in this country. It's a buzzword. Everything we do around how we treat our own private information is around protecting ourselves from identity theft and access to personal information. Yet here we have our very own government moving us in an entirely different direction than what all of us are being cautioned to do around our own private information.

We have government treating this in a very cavalier manner — again, within the perspective of everything that's happening within government, not just myopically within this one little statute within the entire statutes amendment act.

There's a great amount of concern that I think should be a concern to every person in British Columbia around how this government is treating our personal information and the really cavalier attitude they have about that. I'm surprised the government would try and bring this through without the kind of language protections, without the kind of sanctions that other members of this side of the House have already spoken about.

Secondly, I want to talk about the issue of

section 56. Coming from local government myself, I was one of the hundreds and hundreds of local government representatives that spent several years in consultation with government over the Community Charter. A great deal of time and effort was spent to convince those of us who were skeptical of the direction government was moving in under the Community Charter that it was giving us more authority over our own affairs within municipalities, that it was giving us autonomy as a level of government and that it was freeing us up and giving us the very kind of authority that we had been asking for, for years.

[1625]

Then, of course, along came Bill 75, and we realized that government had no intention whatsoever of really honouring that autonomy. The critic for municipal affairs has spoken very eloquently on this.

That was the first shot across the bow for us — that somehow the Community Charter really had been to placate us, to falsely convince us that we had authority over our own communities and over our own land use and over our own decisions. Now we see the further thrust here, which is

section 56 overriding communities' rights to determine their own destiny, their own land use and the rights, direction and vision of their own community.

One of the things that the minister responsible for this bill said in introducing it was that this would inspire investor confidence — well, guess what, folks — at the expense of local government and every citizen within every municipality here. Once again, government has clearly shown its colours. Investor confidence is more important to them than individual rights of communities and citizens over their land use. I guess it goes hand in hand with the previous

section that we're objecting to here around the protection of their personal information and human rights.

It seems to me that the citizens of British Columbia are being denied yet again by this government, under cover of fancy language and a claim that this is good for people. The citizens' rights over their own privacy, over their community land use, over the future assets of this province, whether it be IPP, independent power production…. All of these paint a picture of a government who is not allowing the citizens to have their say over the destiny and future of this province.

It seems to me that fundamentally, within this is buried the worst kind of snub for citizens of British Columbia. We are not entitled to protect our own private information. We are not entitled to keep our information out of the hands of the Patriot Act. We are not entitled to have a say over our communities and how they will be run, how land will be zoned, who has the authority over us. In fact, government gives us this little false toy to play with called the Community Charter, with autonomy attached to it, and then proceeds to run roughshod over every single aspect of that.

I couldn't imagine myself supporting this bill in my wildest dreams, with any of the current rights of people that are being infringed on by this government, and

[ Page 4757 ]

absolutely will not support this under any circumstance.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make introductions.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I'm pleased to introduce a class of grade four students from my riding, Surrey–Panorama Ridge. They are here this afternoon. The school is W.E. Kinvig Elementary School. They are accompanied by teachers Ms. Stacy Anderson and Ms. Christa Peterson. I'll ask all the members of the House to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. I. Chong: I rise today to speak on behalf of the bill that we're presently debating. I find incredible the comments that are being made by members opposite, particularly about a particular

section of the bill where, they would infer, there was disrespect for local government. It was that side — the NDP of the '90s — that showed total disrespect for local governments when they ripped over $100 million out of the pockets of municipal governments. They did that in the '90s, without consultation, without any advance notice, without any regard whatsoever.

[1630]

If they want to talk about having a working relationship with local governments, they'd better have a look in the mirror. That's exactly what happened in the '90s. They had total disrespect for local governments. We have had the best working relationship with local governments ever in the history of British Columbia. We have it now.

They want to talk about their record. Well, let's talk about their record. Let's talk about what they did. I think $113 million is the exact number that they took out of the pockets of municipalities, when they promised they wouldn't. They did this in 1996 — right after the municipal elections had taken place. They didn't say so just before the municipal elections, but right after that, they did that.

Interestingly enough, I have some articles from 1996. In fact, one of their supporters, a mayor from Burnaby, I believe, at the time, Mayor Doug Drummond, said at that time that he was surprised the cuts were so deep. Well, he was surprised because he wasn't given any advance notice. He was surprised because he wasn't consulted. He was surprised because he didn't expect the NDP of the day would have such disregard for local government.

I'll tell you what our government has done. Our government has maintained the unconditional grants to smaller communities. In fact, last year the Premier announced and committed to doubling the small community protection grants over the next four years. This is the first year after that announcement, and that's going to start taking shape, certainly in this fiscal year. It's already in the budget, and they should have had a look at that. We're fulfilling that commitment.

Not only that, though, we have worked with local governments to provide them with more opportunities, more resources and more ability to provide services to their local citizens. I know they don't want to hear this, but they had better listen up. Local governments around the province know exactly what they're able to expect from this government. They know they have received millions of dollars, additional dollars, to provide services to their community, because they didn't get it from the NDP of the '90s. They didn't get those additional dollars.

I'm hearing members going around the province saying we're downloading. Well, isn't that interesting? What is $113 million ripped out of the pockets of municipal governments if not downloading? On the other hand, what we have done is increased financial resources for local governments. As I say, the doubling of the small community protection grants is one example.

We returned 100 percent of traffic fine revenues. There used to be $10 million, and in the first year it became $42 million. Now it's $49 million and is expected to be $50 million. Contrast that to the NDP.

We did not have to introduce a new community water improvement program last year, but we did — $80 million back into communities. That's not chump change. We have provided dollars to emergency preparedness — 2004, a million dollars there; strategic wildfire protection, $13 million there; community sprinkler protection units, $1 million there; West Nile virus, $9 million.

Are the members opposite saying they don't want that? Are the members opposite saying: "Turn that all back to the provincial treasury"? I don't think the local governments would say that. They are making applications. They're asking for those dollars to provide services in their communities. More money for emergency preparedness — 2005-2006, another million and a half. Fuel mitigation, $2 million; community health promotion, $5 million; the crystal meth funding program — something that every local community is saying they're having to deal with — $2 million there. First time ever.

Each and every opportunity that we see that a local government is challenged with issues, faced with issues that they do not want to handle alone, what does this side do? We step up to the plate, and we provide resources to help those local governments.

Here's a big amount. Everyone talks about how important it is to diversify the economy, and we are turning around this economy — not that that side did. We are turning around the economy. There's still work to be done. But as I travel around the province, I hear people keep talking about one of the fastest-growing clean industries that they can rely upon, that they know they have an opportunity to expand: tourism. Guess what we did with UBCM: $25 million to UBCM so they can allocate this around the province so that local governments can access those dollars.

[1635]

Hon. R. Neufeld: More good news.

[ Page 4758 ]

Hon. I. Chong: It is more good news. So for members to stand up and talk about a relationship with local government as if they have the moral authority to pass judgment is incredible, when you think about what it is we have done, when you think about our record and all the dollars that have been returned, the maintaining of grants.

Who was it that downloaded costs on arterial highways? I don't think that was our government. Oh no, no, that happened in the '90s. That was that side of the House one more time. I remember, because I was on that side of the House in the '90s. I was there, and I stood up and spoke up for all the local governments in this Greater Victoria area.

At the time, the member for Saanich South didn't speak up, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin didn't speak up, the member for Victoria-Hillside didn't speak up, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill didn't speak up, nor did the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. That was in the '90s. So I stood up and spoke up for them and also for my own community of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

They all agreed that that was the right thing to do. They all agreed it was the right thing to rip $113 million out of the pocket of municipalities. The Muni