British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, March 8, 2007 (38th Parliament, 3rd Session) (H0308pm-02) (H0308pm 02)

H0308pm-02

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, March 8, 2007 Afternoon Sitting Volume 16, Number 2 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC THIRD SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations .......................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon.

Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon. Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General................................................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.................................................................................................................................................

Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)............................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas...................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Thursday, March 8, 2007 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ......................................... 5983 Securities Transfer Act (Bill 9) Supply Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill 13) Hon. C. Taylor Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7) Hon. W. Oppal Coroners Act (Bill 8) Hon. J. Les Motorcycle Noise Control Act (Bill M203) L.

Mayencourt Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 5985 Statements (Standing Order 25 B) .............................................................................................................................. ............. 5985 International Women's Day K. Whittred C. James Bras for a Cause fundraiser in Langley M. Polak International Women's Day C. Trevena Royal Canadian Legion R. Hawes Ann Meraw M.

Sather Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 5987 Government action on farmworker safety C. James Hon. J. Les R. Chouhan C. Puchmayr Hon. O. Ilich H. Lali M. Farnworth Immigrant sponsorship debts in family violence situations S. Simpson Hon. C. Richmond C. Trevena Home support services for Heather Vaughan D. Routley Hon. G. Abbott Housing for individual with mental illness J. Kwan Hon. G. Abbott Care of developmentally disabled adults M. Karagianis Hon. T.

Christensen Student financial assistance R. Fleming Hon. M. Coell

Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................... 5991 Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6) (continued) C. Wyse N. Simons G. Gentner M. Karagianis R. Fleming M. Farnworth S. Simpson L. Mayencourt J. Horgan Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 6019 Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued) M. Sather Hon. P. Bell C. Evans G. Robertson

5983 THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Introduction and First Reading of Bills SECURITIES TRANSFER ACT Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Transfer Act. Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time. Motion approved. Hon. C. Taylor: I'm pleased to introduce the Securities Transfer Act. The Securities Transfer Act is commercial property law that governs the transfer and holding of investment securities.

It's modelled on the Uniform Securities Transfer Act that was approved by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. It's the product of an interprovincial effort at uniformity. The legislation was proclaimed into force January 1, 2007, in both Ontario and Alberta and is planned for Saskatchewan later this spring. The Securities Transfer Act does not affect regulatory compliance or impose regulatory change. It is frame- work legislation to provide legal certainty to current market practices. The Securities Transfer Act will remove uncertainty about the law applying to securities trans- actions.

It will harmonize our law with that of the United States and international recommendations and will provide the legal underpi nning to support current commercial practices. Providing this legal certainty will enhance our market's competitiveness with the U.S. and global markets. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 9, Securities Transfer Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1335] SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2007 Hon. C.

Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2007. Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. C. Taylor: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 2007- 2008 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial two months of the 2007-2008 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates.

This interim supply is required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2007. This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. This bill seeks supply for two- thirds of the year's financing transaction requirements for capital asset expenditures and loans and investments and 100 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2007. Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1) , 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. CHILD AND YOUTH STATUTES (REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007. Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved. Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce the Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007. The provisions in this bill complete the government's implementation of the Hughes review recommendations to establish the representative as a new officer of the Legislature, to wind up the office for children and youth, and to facilitate an orderly and timely transition from that office to the new office of the representative. The bill also completes the government's response to Mr. Hughes's recommendations for amend- ments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

A great deal has happened since the Representative for Children and Youth Act was passed in May 2006. We voted unanimously in this House in November 2006 to appoint Mary Ellen Turpel -Lafond as this province's first Representative for Ch ildren and Youth. Under the leadership of the Deputy Attorney General and the child

5984 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 and youth transition team, we have consulted widely with government's external partners and service providers. We have met with the public agencies and officials who play a vital role in child welfare and protection. We have listened to their concerns and addressed their issues in this legislation. The amendments in this bill confirm the representa- tive has jurisdiction to oversee services provided by delegated directors under the Child, Family and Com- munity Service Act, including directors within dele- gated aboriginal agencies.

In this bill we have ad- dressed the public disclosure of personal information for both the representative and director under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. The bill that I introduce today marks the fulfilment of the government's commitment to implement key recommendations in the Hughes review and provides the framework for the new representative to carry out her responsibilities for the benefit and well-being of all children and youth in British Columbia.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1340] Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. CORONERS ACT Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coroners Act. Hon. J. Les: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. J.

Les: I'm pleased to introduce the new Coro- ners Act, which re places the existing Coroners Act, which was drafted more than 30 years ago. The coro- ner's role has changed over the last 30 years and now plays a significant

part in enhancing public safety through the prevention of future deaths. This report, B.C. Children and Youth Review , which was conducted by the hon. Ted Hughes, made three recommendations relating to the B.C. Coroners Service. Firstly is that the child death investigation function be continued, secondly is that the child death review unit continue with the Coroners Service, and thirdly is that the Coroners Act be updated to bring it in line with the coroner's role today. This legislation addresses these recommendations.

The Coroners Service has always had the explicit mandate to investigate all sudden, unexpected deaths of both children and adults. In 2003 it was given addi- tional responsibilities to undertake the review of all child deaths in British Columbia. This new act gives the child death review unit the explicit and independent authority to perform comprehensive reviews of all child and youth deaths in British Columbia.

The reviews, which may be of an individual death or an aggregate review of several deaths, will allow the unit to make recommendations that will prevent future deaths and promote the health, well-bein g and safety of all B.C. children.

Other significant improvem ents have been made in the act, including updating and clarifying provisions that set out when a coroner must hold an inquest and the coroner's ability to empanel and direct a jury by incorporation of relevant sections of the Jury Act and the powers of a coroner to control an inquest in a manner consistent with powers given to other government bodies holding public inquiries. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Coroners Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for sec- ond reading at the next sitting of the House after today. MOTORCYCLE NOISE CONTROL ACT L. Mayencourt presented a bill intituled Motorcycle Noise Control Act. L. Mayencourt: I move this bill be introduced now and read a first time. Motion approved. L. Mayencourt: The Motorcycle Noise Control Act strengthens already established legislation under the Motor Vehicle Act in order to curb excessive noise caused by motorcycles in residential areas.

This act requires motorcyclists to have a muffler that cools and expels exhaust without exceeding the maximum sound pressure level of 85 decibels in residential areas. Current regulations permit up to 91 decibels, but many have stated that noise levels from automobiles and motorcycles should be more closely aligned. In my community, noise complaints about loud motorcycles are reaching an all-time high. This bill will benefit not just Vancouverites but all British Columbians.

The city of Edmonton re cently introduced bylaws similar to the proposed legislation, also at 85 decibels — a move being considered in Vancouver. However, it has been repeatedly reported that the city of Vancouver has had great difficulty collecting bylaw fines, due to a lack of bylaw enforcement personnel. This bill will create a level playing field across the province and allow police to inspect motorcycles and fine individuals that operate motorcycles that contravene this law.

Additionally, the bill, in creating a provincial offence, will assist municipalities in collecting unpaid fines when an individual renews their B.C. driver's licence or insures their motorcycle. Since 2005 this government has returned all traffic fine revenue to the municipality

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5985 where the law is being enfo rced and the tickets are issued. A further consideration to be mindful of here is the impact of increasing noise levels on residents and their hearing. More than ever before, citizens are concerned with the levels of so-called noise pollution. Medical specialists have consistently warned about the dangers associated with high noise and decibel levels as well as their potential consequences on long-term hearing abilities. [1345] In addition to bringing this bill forward, I will work with the Vancouver police department and the B.C.

Coalition of Motorcyclists to establish an annual motorcycle noise awareness campaign. This campaign will ensure that all motorcyc lists are properly licensed, that motorcycles have unmodified mufflers, and will allow for roadside safety inspections. Most motorcyclists are law-abiding citizens who share an appreciation of the need to minimize the impact of excessive noise along with the love for riding their motorcycles. I move that the bill be placed on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M203, Motorcycle Noise Control Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Mr. Speaker: I think we've got some introductions that people missed. Introductions by Members S. Hammell: We have two guests in the gallery today, Maj.-Gen. John Woods and Mrs. Carol Woods. General Woods is the colonel commandant of the military engineers branch of the Canadian Forces and is visiting military engineers serving at CFB Esquimalt. He is in the gallery as a guest of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Could we all please make him welcome. D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. D. Routley: I would like to have the members help me welcome two constituents, Mary Fox and her partner, who are visiting the Legislature to hear us discuss the issues of health care and home support that affect them so deeply. Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation has a guest. Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the opportunity to make an introduction. I'm pleased to be joined today by some children from one of my very important employees.

Mike Long is my communications director, who has the real big challenge of trying to make what I say into something perhaps a little more understandable to the public. Mike couldn't be here because he's busy probably trying to sort out some of the latest statements I've made. But we are joined by his children, Julia, who is ten years old, and Michael, who is eight years old. They are avid watchers of the news and political events, as is their neighbour Sandra Young, who is also here today with the kids. She's joined by her son Coady, who is also ten years old. Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements (Standing Order 25

B) INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY K. Whittred: On the wall of my office hangs a poster o f C a n a d a ' s f a m o u s f i v e: Emily Murphy, Henrietta Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Nellie McClung — w o m e n f r o m m y n a t i v e p r o v i n c e w h o , through their leadership, challenged the status quo. Their courage and temerity forever changed opportunities for women in Canada and around the world. Today as we celebrate International Women's Day, British Columbia women are able to reflect on their achievements and be confident about their future.

From university enrolment to participating in the workforce, to owning businesses, to working in the trades, women in B.C. are increasingly at the forefront. Now 61 percent of B.C. women participate in the workforce. In the public service, women now make up more than 39 percent of senior positions, a 6- percent increase in the past five years. We're in the top three in the country for small businesses owned by women. B u t t h e r e i s m u c h w o r k t o b e d o n e i n t e r n a t i o n - ally. There are still places where female children are not valued.

There are too many places where war continues to take its toll on women and children. There are way too many instances where women and their children live in fear, often hungry and without shelter. So today let us all pause and celebrate International Women's Day in our own way, but let each of us resolve to show leadership, to challenge the status quo, to show temerity, to help ensure that every little girl grows up with the opportunity to achieve her full potential. [1350] C. James: I'd also like to ask the House to join me to recognize International Women's Day.

Over 30 years ago the United Nations set as ide March 8 as the day to pause and consider the co ndition of women in our society. Many speeches have been given in this House to mark the occasion. But like many commemorative days, International Women's Day can become a bit of a habit, a routine. We all need to resist that. Every March 8

5986 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 we can't just go through th e motions, because although women have made great strides — from voting rights and abortion rights to participation in politics and the economy — gender inequality and injustice still scar our province and our world. The international traffick ing of women and children is on the rise, poverty continues to inflict its toll, and thousands of women are victimized every day in war and armed conflict. Here at home, British Columbia has the highest child poverty rate in the country. One in four children lives below the poverty line.

The gap between the rich and the poor is growing faster than anywhere else in Canada, and the wage and employment gap between women and men is still far from being closed. The condition of women in a society is a good indi- cation of the overall health of that society. Yesterday's tragic accident that killed three women farmworkers on their way to the fields is a reminder of how far we still have to come in British Columbia. This International Women's Day, let's reflect again on the struggle for gender equality, and let's celebrate progress toward that aim.

But more than that, let's commit ourselves to positive change. BRAS FOR A CAUSE FUNDRAISER IN LANGLEY M. Polak: Every year at this time the good citizens of Langley prepare for an ev ening of audacious fun in support of a very good cause. I'm referring, of course, to the annual Bras for a Cause benefit hosted by Soroptimists International of the Langleys. In the next few weeks Langley residents and businesses will work feverishly to create theme bras to be auctioned off in support of individuals battling cancer.

In the past these artistic and outrageously decorated theme bras have raised tens of thousands of dollars in support of a variety of cancer-related charities. This year proceeds of the auction will be directed toward Ovarian Cancer Canada for the foundation of a Fraser Valley support group and to the western Canada

chapter of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada. The annual Bras for a Cause benefit dinner and auction has become a highly anticipated annual event, because it combines support for a good cause with a healthy dose of humour. Many of the decorated bras incorporate humour in their design and in their theme titles. Others are ornately adorned and framed and include tribute statements that memorialize loved ones lost to cancer. Bras autographed by celebrities, such as Robin Williams and Pierce Brosnan, often fetch a sub- stantial auction price. Even a bra autographed by the B.C.

Liberal caucus received a modest bid. Regardless of the final auction value, every contribution is important as our community comes together to show our support for those battling this disease. I'm certain the members of this House join me in thanking Soroptimists International of the Langleys for their hard work and dedicati on in making this annual event a great success. INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY C. Trevena: I too would like to talk about Interna- tional Women's Day, because I look around this House, and I guess I sigh. There aren't that many women here, and there aren't many women in politics in Canada.

A recent survey of women in politics by the Inter- Parliamentary Union has put Canada at a ranking of 47th. On this International Women's Day, I note that Rwanda has the most women parliamentarians at 48.8 percent, followed by Sweden and Costa Rica. Canada is flanked by Pakistan and Portugal, who do better, and Serbia and Poland, who do worse. We all have different reas ons for entering politics, and we enter it at different stages of our lives. But in those countries in which women are well represented, there's a quota system.

The system is fixed towards equality. [1355] I've been travelling around the province from Campbell River to Cranbrook these last months, listen- ing to women — to their concerns and their issues. It's like looking around this House today. I come away from it asking: where's the progress?

I've been hearing from women who are still getting paid less than men; women who are struggling, caring for children, for home, for parents and working; women who fear old age because they see poverty, women who are margin- alized; aboriginal women and immigrant women; women working in the caring professions carrying a load; women in business wh o can't access finance; women who feel their voices have been silenced; women who have tried calling out but now look around them and feel their voices were not heard. On this International Women's Day, I'd like to acknowledge those many women I met on the road.

I would like to thank them. I' d like to say that I have heard you. ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION R. Hawes: The highest honour that a municipality can bestow on a military unit is Freedom of the City. This ceremonial honour a llows the unit to march through the streets of the city with weapons drawn and bayonets fixed. In recognition of their wonderful community vol- unteerism and the great sacrifice many of their mem- bers made in wars past, I'm extremely proud that about ten years ago the district of Mission granted Freedom of the City to the Royal Ca nadian Legion and branch 57.

They were the first legion in North America to receive such a symbolic honour. Freedom of the City ha s been exercised several times in Mission, with military parades featuring the New Westminster regiment and veteran legion mem- bers from across B.C. and through Washington State. March 3, 2007, marked the 80th anniversary of the founding of Mission branch 57, and this year numerous other legions throughout B.C. will also celebrate their 80th anniversary.

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5987 I ask all members of the House to recognize this anniversary and honour the great work and sacrifice that our veteran legion members have made by helping me complete the legion act of remembrance: "They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them." Some Hon. Members: "We will remember them." ANN MERAW M.

Sather: On this occasion of International Women's Day, I want to acknowledge the contributions of a truly remarkable woman in my community, Ann Meraw. Fondly known as the marathon swimmer, Ann has written a book of the same title where she talks about her many years as a swimmer. Born in Powell River, Ann learned to swim at age one after falling off a log at a local lake. At the age of ten she swam five miles across Howe Sound and five miles back. In 1934 she swam across Georgia Strait. Ann swam the length of Okanagan Lake in 1958, setting four world records and an endurance record for women and men.

Ann set seven world records, and four of these still stand today. When a plan to swim the English Channel was thwarted by World War II because, as Ann put it, "I didn't want to be torpedoed," she became Canada's first female lifeguard. Moving to Maple Ridge in 1970, Ann remains active. She was up till 11 last night planning her many community activities for today. Ann founded the Ridge Meadows Hall of Fame to honour others from our communities who have their own out- standing achievements. An n has coached numerous swimming teams and is a very active volunteer.

She drives patients to the cancer clinic, holds wellness workshops, writes for a lo cal magazine and patrols the streets of Maple Ridge every day for community policing. Ann's life is fuller than full, and there is not enough time to list all of her accomplishments. I ask everyone to join me in congratulating Ann for all she has done for her community and our province. Ann celebrated her 90th birthday on the 23rd of February. Oral Questions GOVERNMENT ACTION ON FARMWORKER SAFETY C. James: On July 13, 2003, Mohinder Sunar was killed when the van she was travelling in crashed on the Trans-Canada Highway.

She was one of 19 farm- workers heading to the fields in a van designated to hold 15. The coroner's report stated: "The use of seatbelts in this incident may have prevented the death of Mohinder Sunar." [1400] My question is to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General confirm that a reco mmendation was made to review and clarify the use of seatbelts in these cases, and can he explain why his government did nothing? Hon. J. Les: The event, of course, that gives rise to the opposition leader's question is the tragic accident of yesterday.

I would remind members again that other accidents that have happened in the past do not neces- sarily have any relationship at all with respect to the accident of yesterday. It is, I would submit, wrong to draw analogies and parallels between yesterday's accident and other accidents that have occurred. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we refrain from drawing those parallels, as there is an investigation underway, and the circum stances of yesterday's accident are going to be fully explored and fully reported upon in due course. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental? C. James: I do, Mr.

Speaker. Again to the Solicitor General. I'm talking about a report from 2003. Not only did this government ignore that coroner's report, but they also ignored the findings and recommendations from WCB. This government chose not to act — no new regulations, no new enforcement measures, nothing coming out of the 2003 report. This government chose to ignore the risks that ar e faced by farmworkers every single day in British Columbia. Again to the Solicitor General: will the government finally, four years after Mohinder Sunar's death, take action on these critical recommendations to prevent future tragedies? Hon.

J. Les: R o a d s a f e t y i s a n o n g o i n g p r e o c c u p a - tion of our government. We have made numerous changes over the years that have the effect of making our roads safer in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, just in this past year I think the number of fatalities was down by about 40. That means we obviously have work yet to do. With respect to the coroner's report of 2003, ICBC in fact followed up and gave direction to its brokers to give effect to the coroner's recommendation with respect to the issue of seatbelts in buses.

The member opposite may well be aware that that has been a matter of debate not only within British Columbia but across North America, in fact. It is a matter of ongoing review within my ministry. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental? C. James: I do. It is shameful — shameful that this government has ignored the coroner's report. It's shameful that this government ignored repeated calls for a public inquiry into Mohinder Sunar's death. Now the province is reeling after another tragic accident where three women died.

5988 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 Again, my question to the Solicitor General: how many more tragic accidents do farmworkers have to endure before this government will finally, finally act on their behalf? Hon. J. Les: The member opposite premises her question on a set of conclusions that she has obviously reached. I have not reached any conclusions as to the causes of yesterday's accident, nor should anyone else jump to those conclusions. There is a full and thorough investigation underway.

When that investigation is complete, hopefully we will have all of the answers, and we will allow the chips to fall where they may. R. Chouhan: The Solicitor General and this government can ignore, if they want to, answering all these questions, but British Columbians and farmworkers are demanding answers. The inaction of this government is inexcusable. Four years after Mohinder Sunar's death, nothing has been done. This government ignored their own reports. This government is treating farmworkers like second-class citizens.

Why? [1405] Can the Solicitor General explain why he ignored the WCB's 2003 request to reinstate joint roadside inspections? Hon. J. Les: Well, the member opposite can use all of the pejorative language he likes. Along with his leader, apparently he has reached all kinds of conclusions as to what happened yesterday and why. I'm not that clairvoyant, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we wait for the results of the investigation and see exactly what happened. We will follow through with any appropriate actions that might be required as a result. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. R.

Chouhan: I find it really appalling. This answer was no answer. I'm asking about the report of 2003, not about this accident which occurred yesterday. The coroner's report into Mohinder Sunar's death is clear. Reinstate joint roadside inspections. Review the use of seatbelts. Close the loophole between employ- ment standards and the Motor Vehicle Act. Three key recommendations, and this government ignored them all. Again to the Solicitor General: why did this gov- ernment choose inaction over lives? Hon. J.

Les: On the one hand the member opposite says he's not talking about yesterday's tragic accident, and then he finishes off hi s question by referring di- rectly to that accident. He really needs to sort himself out, Mr. Speaker. I think, frankly, it is appalling that we use a tragic accident to further our political advantage. C. Puchmayr: The coroner's report of 2003. That coroner's report on Mohinder Sunar's death went to the Ministry of Labour, went to the Solicitor General, and it went to the Attorney General. I'm talking about the coroner's report of 2003.

Why did three individual cabinet ministers and this entire government do nothing to address that report? Hon. J. Les: I've already outlined that ICBC was active in encouraging and re quiring of its brokers that they take specific action with respect to the appropriate registration of those vehicles . As I said earlier to an earlier question, the matter of seatbelts within buses is a question that really hasn't been settled anywhere, to our knowledge, in North America. So it is under active review within my ministry.

We may in fact be able to bring forward some recommendations with respect to that in the months ahead. But again I would underline that if members opposite are attempting to speculate as to what happened yesterday, I suggest we leave that for another day when all investigations are complete. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. C. Puchmayr: There are over 5,000 farms in British Columbia, and on those 5, 000 farms last year there were only 250 WorkSafe inspections. There were 82 employment standards branch inspections.

Out of those 82, over half of them resulted in penalties — 5,000 farms, 82 inspections, and half of them result in penalties. Will the minister commit to take action immediately so that farmworkers are not only safe going to and f r o m w o r k b u t a l s o s a f e w h i l e t h e y a r e w o r k i n g i n those fields? Hon. O. Ilich: I w a n t t o s a y t h a t W o r k S a f e h a s more inspectors now than at any time in the past and does more comprehensive inspections than at any time in the past. [1410] H.

Lali: It was this Liberal government that actually slashed the enforcement of employment standards for farmworkers in 2001. It was this Liberal government that stripped away farmworkers' rights for overtime and minimum-wage protection in 2003 — a hard-won right that it took them 100 years to win. It was this Liberal government that actually disbanded the teams that protected farmworkers from across British Columbia. M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r . W i l l y o u learn from these tragic incidents and commit to reinstating the rights of farmworkers in British Columbia? Hon. O.

Ilich: Since the member brought up the accident yesterday, obviously I want to also express my condolences to the family. It was a very tragic traffic accident. To just speak to the point that the member opposite i s m a k i n g … . H e i s w r o n g , a n d t h e y d o n ' t h a v e t h e i r facts. The agricultural compliance team that was changed in 2001 was a team of federal government people from the Canada Revenue Agency and the employment insurance office who looked around wages and taxes and not safety issues.

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5989 Our teams are still in place and, as I said, doing more inspections than ever before. M. Farnworth: What is appalling is not this gov- ernment's lack of clairvoyance but its excuses and its lack of action. In 2003 they stripped away farmworkers' rights. In 2003 they ignored the coroner's recommendations that could have kept those same workers safe. It is 2007, and still th ey have done nothing — nothing. So my question to the Solicitor General is clear.

Why won't he call a public inquiry into the state of farmworkers in British Columbia, and when will he enact those 2003 coroner's recommendations? Hon. J. Les: The member opposite, like several members opposite, is jumping to conclusions as to the reasons and the causes of ye sterday's accident. That is inappropriate. We should allow the investigation to proceed. We should allow that investigation to come to the appropriate conclusions. If and when inquiries are necessary, that will be determined in the future.

Today is not the day to be making those kinds of decisions, and today is certainly not the day to be playing political football with this kind of issue. IMMIGRANT SPONSORSHIP DEBTS IN FAMILY VIOLENCE SITUATIONS S. Simpson: Nadia Grunwel is a constituent of mine, and she's a victim of the current provincial administration of the sponsorship

section of the Immi- gration Act. After sponsoring her husband to Canada, Ms. Grunwell faced years of documented physical and emotional violence before she left her husband and escaped the ordeal. Unknown to her, her husband went on welfare in 2004, and Ms. Grunwell received a bill from the province for $18,000 to repay his welfare payments. The province put a lien on her home to secure that debt. To make women pay for their abusers is unaccept- able. My question is to th e Minister of Employment and Income Assistance.

Will he permanently suspend the payment and interest charges for Nadia and other women in her situation under the sponsorship pro- gram? Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, just to refresh everyone's memory, the sponsorship act is a federal act under the family class

section of the federal Immigration Act. Sponsors sign a legally binding agreement with the federal government to financially support sponsored individuals from three to te n years. I quote from the agreement: "I promise that the sponsored person and his or her family members will not need to apply for social assistance benefits." [1415] At the moment the outstanding amount for those who are in the default is in the neighbourhood of $47 million or $48 million. It is money that is owed to the taxpayers of B.C.

However, we have undertaken that in specific instances where violence or the threat of violence can be substantiated by a third party, we will look at those cases and suspend collection on an individual basis. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. S. Simpson: What the minister doesn't say…. And I'd concur; we're not talking about the broad sponsorship issue here. We're talking about a relatively small number of cases where women are vi ctims of abuse and what happens there.

The situation is that the minister wrote me on December 21, 2006, stating that debt collection will be suspended in cases where abuse can be substantiated, but only until individual circumstances change. I quote the letter: "We will review the individual circumstances at least once a year. Suspension of collection does not cancel the debt and does not prevent additional debt and interest from accruing." Nadia Grunwel and others have now discovered that they either stay in an abusive situation, or they will ultimately have to pay for their abuser's keep. This victimizes women over and over again.

My question again to the minister is: will he do the right thing and permanently suspend the payment and interest obligations for Nadia Grunwel and others in her situation, and will he call on the federal govern- ment to amend the Immigration Act to deal with this flaw in the legislation? Hon. C. Richmond: I thought I made it very plain that on an individual, case-by-case basis we will gladly review every situation. We just ask the people, such as the person that the member just mentioned, to come forward and talk with us, and we will deal with that on an individual basis, as I said.

However, that doesn't guarantee that we will suspend collection permanently. Situations change. The person may not be in a threatening situation in the future, and the debt is still owing to the taxpayers of British Columbia. C. Trevena: We're talking about extraordinarily vulnerable women. We're talking about women who are faced with violence from a spouse or destitution. There may be an individual, case-by-case basis, but there is also an annual review. I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance: does he expect women to face destitution or face violence? Hon. C.

Richmond: We don't expect women to face either. We expect them to come and talk to us and explain their case to us so that we may deal with them on an individual basis. HOME SUPPORT SERVICES FOR HEATHER VAUGHAN D. Routley: My question is to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health should be aware of the case of Mary Fox and Heather Vaughan, who are constituents

5990 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 of mine. Heather needs constant care, and only a few months ago, in July 2006, she was receiving home support. Even though her condition is worsening, her home hours are being cut. She must cut back her hours at work in order to care for her partner, but if she does so, she'll be unable to pay for their basic needs. This horrible catch-22 offers Mary no choice. My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he commit to restoring Heather Vaughan's home support? Hon. G. Abbott: I am well aware of this issue that the member raises.

This has been the object of very considerable discussion between the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Ministry of Health and the patient and her caregiver. I have to say first of all that the best-practices level of home support is established at 30 hours per week, 120 hours per month. That is the support that had up until July been provided in this case. [1420] However, in response to requests for respite support, Vancouver Island Health Authority did, for a period of close to three months, increase the number of hours to 120.

That has now been returned to the originally agreed-to level of 30 hours per week, 120 hours per month. There have been no cuts to home care. We spend well over half a billion dollars a year on home care, and it is a great system that we have in British Columbia. D. Routley: It's unfortunate that the minister should take this tack, beca use working with VIHA has so far borne no results for Heather or Mary.

Heather's doctor has recommended agai nst institutional care for Heather because of her delicate and unique condition, her unique needs, but it seems this is the only choice that VIHA is offering or will consider. If VIHA cannot do what their head should be telling them, won't the minister find in his heart the reason to help? Why does the minister th ink that this situation is acceptable? Hon. G. Abbott: I think the Vancouver Island Health Authority does an excellent job of providing services to the citizens of Vancouver Island that they serve.

This is an organization which, from my reading of the case provided here, has gone to great lengths in order to try to meet the care needs of the individual in question here. As I noted, they in fact doubled the number of hours over a three-month period in order to provide respite support. That was ag ain well above and indeed double the best-practices hours around this. I don't see any reason to question or criticize the Vancouver Island Health Authority in respect of this matter. HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUAL WITH MENTAL ILLNESS J. Kwan: Ms. Tara Fynn's mother is on disability and has borderline personality disorder.

She is not violent, and she has no addiction issues. No mental health support was offered to her, and she was evicted from B.C. Housing. Her file was closed permanently on February 26, 2007. She has been homeless for two years, and to make matters worse, Ms. Fynn's mother suffered from heart failure in October 2006. According to her physician, she requires open-heart surgery, and if she doesn't get it, she will most certainly die. She needs safe, secure, affordable housing before she can get her surgery.

The government is on record to say that housing provides the foundation from which mental health and addiction services can be provided. This is the case for Ms. Fynn's mother. Will the Health Minister commit today to find appropriate housing for her mother and mental health support for her so that she can get the life-saving open-heart surgery that her mother needs? Hon. G. Abbott: I w o u l d b e v e r y h a p p y t o w o r k with the Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing to try to find an appropriate accommodation for the individual.

If the member could provide me with detail s with respect to that, we certainly would commit to do that. I do have to say that our government has made not only unprecedented investments in housing support for the most vulnerable but unprecedented investments in terms of the number of surgeries in this province and the resources that are devoted to mental health and addictions issues in this province. We have come a long, long way in terms of providing supports that are needed by the most vulnerable in this province. CARE OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED ADULTS M. Karagianis: Very recently an ad ran in Salmon Arm.

The ad said: "Roommate wanted for the care of up to two developmentally challenged adults." The roommate could work full- or part-tim e. They needed to provide minimal support, and the only qualifications that were required were first aid, a criminal check and FoodSafe. [1425] My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Does th e minister consider these to be adequate qualifications for the complex care needs of developmentally challenged adults? Hon. T. Christensen: I find the question very inter- esting.

The member provides no indication of who ran the ad, why the ad was there and what the situation is. I can tell the member that the ministry works very closely with Community Living B.C. to ensure that they're able to meet the need s of the clients they serve. Never before have developmentally disabled adults and their families had a greater role in determining the types of services that should be available for that clien- tele.

That's a direct result of the board structure for Community Living B.C., and we're very proud of being the government that actually established that opportu- nity for the developmentally disabled in this province.

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5991 Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. M. Karagianis: I do, thank you very much, hon. Speaker. The minister asked who ran the ad. Well, I'll tell you who ran the ad. It was a family, because, in fact, this government is closing down group homes across this province. More and more families are having to seek some kind of alternative care because group home care will not be available for their families.

Again, my question to the mi nister is: if in fact the minister finds that the qualifications here of FoodSafe and first aid are adequate for looking after the very complex needs of developmentally challenged adults, then I'm asking if the minister is going to assume the liability and protect the safe ty of these individuals in these situations. Hon. T. Christensen: The opposition critic's suggestion that group homes are being closed down in this province is absolutely false. As I indicated, the province is working closely with Community Living B.C.

Community Living B.C. is looking at various residential options for the population th at they serve. They are being responsive to the population they serve, and they are, when asking what is the best arrangement for a particular individual…. That is what is guiding the decisions of where people should live. STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE R. Fleming: Taxpayers well remember that it was this government that wasted $14 million of their dollars in 2005 on partisan, pre-election "Best place on earth" ad campaigns. Apparently the spending continues.

Last week the government told Canada's second most indebted students that the 30-year-old B.C. student assistance program had been rebranded as StudentAid B.C. The 2007 budget cut student financial assistance by $23 million. Can the minister tell this House how much the rebranding cost and if it was paid for by the cuts to student financial assistance in British Columbia? Hon. M. Coell: I'm pleased to tell the member that it was done in-house. It cost $1,300. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. R.

Fleming: Maybe the minister can tell us why this government, given that B.C. students are the second most indebted in Canada…. They now pay 15 percent more for tuition fees than other Canadian students in other jurisdictions. Can he tell us when students can expect some tuition fee relief and when they can expect some relief from this government — if not now, in this year now? [1430] Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, if I can tell the member what we've done for students — 25,000 new seats for students, 2,500 new graduate seats for students. A billion dollars' worth of construction on campuses… Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Members. Hon. M. Coell: …for students. And you know, Mr. Speaker, they voted against it all. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on the Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6, and in the small House, Committee A, the Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Second Reading of Bills PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT (continued) C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure this afternoon to get up in the House and address Bill 6, the Public Inquiry Act. [S.

Hammell in the chair.] I have a number of comments that I would like to direct to the Attorney General. The issue that we have in front of the Legislature today is one for the consideration of all 79 of us as legislators here in the House, and that's within which I wish to enter into the discussion and the debate here. You see, in actual fact, we have in Bill 6 legislation that is being put in front of us that will increase the power of the cabinet to determine when and how information is released from a public inquiry.

To the Attorney General: that is a phenomenal carrot to be holding out to government, and to give them that power…. Assuredly, whoever is government will end up using that power. We know from history that, in actual fact, that is what comes with increased power. It increases the use of power in a corrupt form. When we look at the present situation here in British Columbia that has been in practice for over 100 years, once an inquiry is set up, then the result of that inquiry is brought to this Legislature, and then the public themselves determin e what the intent and the effect of the inquiry is.

This legislation, in

section 28, changes that profoundly. It empowers the cabinet with that authority to determine how and when that information is brought forward. When I look upon us collectively here as a government, all 79 of us…. [1435] That is the capacity that I am standing up in front of the House today — as a legislator. I am here doing my

5992 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 duty, my responsibility, to bring my caution to this House, to this government. To give power of that strength and that magnitude to government — i t i s a phenomenally dangerous em powerment that is being put in front of this House. What I am strongly recommending to this House is that they consider withdraw ing the legislation, or at least amend

section 28 — the most offensive

part con- tained within this legislation, in my judgment. Now, I wish to take a little bit of time in the House here and make up an example or two. I do want to un- derline to the House that my examples are meant to be exactly that — an example or two to help make the point of giving cabinet too much power. Before we do that, I would like to share a learning experience that I obtained here as a rookie MLA a short time ago. My colleague the Attorney General, likewise a rookie to this responsibility of being in the Legisla- ture…. Inadvertently, I got to learn a very, very valu- able lesson privately.

Unfortunately, the lesson that I learned privately was a lesson the Attorney General had to learn publicly, and that was the distinction be- tween cabinet and the Legislature. It's a huge difference. Likewise, it is that same dif- ference about where the report is released — having it go to the cabinet. The cabinet determines, if this bill is passed, the how and the when of what is released to the public. Presently what exists here in British Columbia is the opposite. The report is released to the Legislature. It is released to all 79 duly elected representatives of the four million–plus British Columbians.

We get it equally at the same time. Equally importantly…. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I'd like you to take those words and allow me to take them back. Not equally importantly, maybe even more importantly, all the people of British Columbia get that same information unfettered, unsanctioned, as was written. The public gets to decide the pros and cons of what their public interest is — a vastly different set of circumstances than what is being introduced here in front of this House.

Earlier in my very short political career, the govern- ment decided in their wisdom that they wanted to do something around the Inquiry Act. They had the wisdom to withdraw poor le gislation. They took it back and re-examined it. They have worked on it, and they have now reintroduced it. But history…. It is to the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, that I am making this presentation for his consideration, on behalf of all 79 of us — all 4.4 million people here in British Columbia. [1440] The point is: where do we stop?

A government that has been in power too long begins to believe that they have the right not only to govern but also to determine when and what and how information is presented to people. As time passes, year in and year out, history tells us that. History tells us that governments change. One of the signs of a government that is ready to be removed by the people is a government that shows continued and increased arrogance on how the business of the people of British Columbia is enacted. I would like to return to my examples, and I do wish to emphasize here that they are meant to be examples. I am making them up.

I want to underline that aspect of it. Just suppose that a government decided that there should be a public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail, for example. Or another possibility, just suppose a gov- ernment decided that a public inquiry was required for looking into the development of fast ferries, for exam- ple, or for cost overruns on the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. Let's just suppose that an inquiry was determined to be necessary to investigate those two sets of conditions, on behalf of the public good. Where do the politics come into play?

Section 28 would empower the cabinet to determine when and what parts of those public inquiries would be released. In my story — and remember that it is my story, trying to look after and convince the Attorney General not to pass this, not to give government this power — just suppose that this was 2009. Guess what. I don't think it's too far-fetched in my story that that report might not come out until 2010 under this existing legislation. I don't just presume that it would be the government opposite that would be subject to that temptation. I suggest to this House, to all 79 of us, that any government would be tempted to use

section 28 like that. That's my suggestion, as one of 79 people here in this House. Because this piece of legislation has been intro- duced by the government opposite, I'm going to give some examples of where the track record has been around this issue, remembering this general concept of

article 28 and the power that it gives — the power to determine when and what an d how the information is released. Let's have a look at some examples of the government's record on releasing information. I'm going to give just a few to give a flavour of how any govern- ment might be tempted. Let's have a look at some examples of information release. After signing the federal early learning and child care agreement in 2005, the B.C. Liberals refused to release their child care action plan information — within their right not to do so.

But remember, under- neath the present situation fo r the Public Inquiry Act, that information has to come forward. [1445] Another example: the B.C. Liberals have failed to release the key B.C. Rail documents, such as the revitalization agreement and information on the 990- year lease. Where I'm from, that type of information would prove to be very interesting, to say the least. The B.C. Liberals are curre ntly sitting on a report that they commissioned that is critical of the Oil and Gas Commission — only critical of the Oil and Gas Commission — but the information is not available to the House.

A public inquiry report would come forward, and we would have that information, all of us here in British Columbia. Likewise, we remember going back to 2005, when we were dealing with situations involving child death

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5993 reviews. Only after severe public pressure was an edited version of a report on child care released, and then underneath that pressure the full information around that report was released. Now let's have a look at the aspect of the content contained within a potential public inquiry report, and compare the record of the Liberal government on the releasing of documents. A freedom-of-information request, fielded by us on this side of the bench, requested the House binder on the Minister of Small Business and Revenue.

The information that was received — almost completely severed, almost completely blank. As a matter of fact, even the government's own five great goals were removed. At that period of time, even those were considered to be too sensitive to be released, at least in that document. Back to my story, and I do remind this House that it is my story. I'm making it up to drive my point: the importance of removing

section 28 from this legislation so that government, whoever it may be, is not given this power. In early February of this year we likewise had a situation where the Ministry of Health released a heav- ily censored version of the resignation letter of Keith Purchase, chair of the Fraser health region.

Now, a full version of the letter revealed that the government had edited references to "bed closures and service cuts as well as a crisis situation in the Fraser health region." Somebody would have to ask the Attorney General why it was deemed appropriate to remove references to something that was politically sensitive to the govern- ment. The example I use here suggests how easy it would be if any government in power had all the empowerment given underneath

section 28 to withhold information underneath the guise of public interest, when in actual f a c t i t i s p o s s i b l y n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e government party and their embarrassment. A handwritten note sent to the opposition by mistake last November caught the B.C. government red-handed in an attempt to cover up facts that contradicted the government claims about child death reviews. The handwritten memo contained a senior political staff suggestion to delete politically sensitive information from the requested document under the pretext that it was advice.

The real reason was that some of the information contradicted what we have said to this point. Audits triggered by financial irregularities involving public funds in B.C. student loans that were requested by the opposition have come back almost entirely blank. [1450] Now, I have attempted to use examples of my pe- riod of time here in office. Where I'm sitting, I have history from all over the place, so I've tried to keep the examples around more recent events that have oc- c u r r e d h e r e i n t h e H o u s e .

I a l s o w a n t t o e m p h a s i z e here once more that in my story, any party that is gov- ernment will be tempted to use this

section of this act to protect their political well-being — not the interests of British Columbians. Once more, it's important now that we would ex- amine the change of attitude that has been demon- strated here over the last several years. I will go back to the '90s to start with using my examples and move through how, with any govern ment that's been around a long, long time, arrogance begins to creep in. That's what the political scientists tell me, and I'm not one of those. I happen to be just an old-fashioned, earth sci- ence geology teacher — down to the earth and get my hands dirty.

If we go back to the 1990s, on July 22, 1998, the now Premier of the province, at th at time the Leader of the Opposition…. I hope I did that correctly, Madam Speaker. As a member of this Legislature, I hope I fol- lowed all the rules correctly because, again, it's my story. I don't wish to embarrass or do anything incor- rectly. Quoting from a letter to the B.C. Freedom of Infor- mation Association, the now Premier, at that time the opposition leader: "Open government is the hallmark of a free and democratic society.

Access to government information helps us, as the official opposition, and others hold the government to account, and account- ability enhances democracy." Still quoting — I must quote exactly: "Secrecy feeds distrust and dishonesty. Openness builds trust and integrity. The fundamental principle must be this: government information belongs to the people, not to the government." Now moving closer to my period of time, in 2001. "It's time for a new era of accountability. Our plan will deliver transparent, accoun table government. The B.C.

Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada." The victory speech of 2001. The now Premier of the province: "We will bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada.

I know some people say we'll soon forget about that, but I promise we won't." The swearing-in speech of 2001: "This cabinet is founded on two fundamental principles: political ac- countability and improved public access." Finally, in the estimates of 2001: "We think openness beats hid- denness every time, and we want to make sure that people can see what's taking place." Madam Speaker, this is how we started off — open cabinet meetings, open to the public and televised across British Columbia. People may judge whether those items were anything more than a public image action.

However, taking it on face value, they were announced as open public cabinet meetings. That prac- tice has stopped as we begin to move away from 2001. Cabinet meetings have gone back to secret meetings. [1455] I'm coming back, of course, and indirectly leading to

section 28 of Bill 6. Moving back to my period of time now, what I'm sharing here with this House, as a member of the Legislature, is the concern about giving this power to any government. Taking how things have moved in the last while, the government opposite, the

5994 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 members opposite, unilaterally decided last fall to sim- ply cancel the fall session. They did that on their own. This session we're no sooner out of the blocks and the side opposite unilaterally breaks another longstanding tradition and decides on their own, without consulta- tion with the opposition, which is the tradition, to change how the House on a day-to-day basis does its business. Where does that leave us th en?

At this bill, with the continued development of putting more and more power into the hands of the government and into the governing part of government, the cabinet, where it is done in secret. Now let's have a look specifically at

section 28, where some time ago I started my story, as a member of this Legislature attempting to convince this House not to give any government this unprecedented power of determining how and when things are released. Since 1897 — that's even before the '90s that we often talk about in this House; it's the '90s of an entirely different era — the government of British Columbia has had the practice that public inquiry documents are released to this House, where the public and all the legislators get that information unfettered at the same time. Now, underneath this act, that will change. The cabinet will receive the authority to determine when it is released. There is a

section 28(4) that tries to pretty this up by saying that within ten days the cabinet has to bring it forward. But being a bit of a down-to-earth type of individual — not a political scientist but an earth scientist — I go back to session 28(3), where it sets no time limits upon when the cabinet begins the review. So the control of when it gets released is in there. It's in the detail. The other

part is the cabinet's ability to sever the report — unheard of. They will be able to determine what they believe…. They, being the cabinet, all locked up by themselves in some little room somewhere, pre- sumably with the midnight oil burning, will determine if and what parts of the report are going to be released. Then they will make up a bunch of reasons why they didn't release it, but I'm not even certain at this mo- ment in time that I'll even know, as a member of the Legislature, what was not released.

Therefore, where does that leave the people of British Columbia in knowing what was contained in the report? [1500] Frankly, to the Attorney General, a very significant point in our democratic system is that the 79 of us here in this House are empowered by the people of British Columbia to be informed, to know what is going on, to look after their public interest and to defend it — all of us. To do that job, we require the information in order to be able to make a reasoned, informed decision. In- formation is required, and

section 28 of Bill 6 does not permit that to necessarily happen. It gives the govern- ment unheard-of powers. Government, whoever they may be, can only be tempted to use that power to look after their interests. Madam Speaker, through you to the Attorney General, on behalf of everyone that may be in government: you, by leaving this

section in, put the cabinet of any gov- ernment in a position of conflict of interest. In my opin- ion, you now leave them in a position, in looking at a public inquiry document, to determine on that infor- mation what protects the government's interests and their political interests, not the people of British Co- lumbia's interests. Withdraw Bill 6,

section 28, and I would be able to consider voting for it. N. Simons: Thank you to my colleagues and all those who are interested in th is debate. I think it's an important one. For those in the gallery or watching at home, what we're doing is debating a bill that the Attorney General has put before the House. The bill becomes law once it's voted on, and what we're doing in opposition is pointing out its flaws and appealing to the good sense of the government to reconsider some of the aspects of this bill in order to make it semi-palatable to the people of British Columbia.

What I mean by semi-palatable is that it is in the best interests of the British Columbia population, and it reflects our values and the needs that we have of our government. The bill is called Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act. What it does is set out the rules on how government can look into issues, events or circumstances of significant inter- est to the community, of significant interest in finding resolutions or answers to situations that have occurred.

When inquiries are called, they're called for very serious reasons: to find out if something's gone wrong either in practice — how someone does their job — or potentially in the systemic problems that might under- lie how that individual may have done their job. In- quiries really are an important opportunity for gov- ernment to do self-analysis and for the population to be part of that, as the government is the representation of the people. In this particular bill I have some very strong con- cerns.

I had to look closely, but it didn't take me long to realize that what is being presented under the guise of a tool for British Columbians to have to look at gov- ernment's actions and their policies is in fact almost that — except that there is a part of this act that says: "We get to decide what's in that report ultimately, and we get to decide when that report is released." [1505] Some people talk about th ree strikes and you're out. In this case, two strikes and you're out. They tell us what we get to hear or read about, and they tell us when.

I find that a little bit contradictory to the intent, which I believe the hon. Attorney General may not have foreseen. However, far be it from me to question the motives. All I can see is that in the act itself, it raises a number of questions that I think may lead to the questioning of motives. I'm not speaking of individuals in government, but the culture of this government since 2001 has been to react to situations that are embarrassing or harmful to them by first denying their ex istence, then delaying the inevitable and finally releasing a bit of information to

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5995 the public long after the bright lights of scrutiny have passed on. As a person intimately involved in analyzing gov- ernment actions, I can see how the culture of govern- ment can actually be somewhat like a protective shell around itself. While perhaps that meets their needs, it doesn't meet the needs of the population of British Co- lumbia. I think it's important that the two issues on the ta- ble in front of us today…. This bill was tabled.

What we have is the ability of government not only to sever the report but to delay the re port being released to the public. Having been involv ed in an inquiry process that took five years in orde r to determine that in fact government policy led — indirectly perhaps — to the putting into danger of littl e toddlers in foster care…. The length of time it took for that information to be- come public was not only shocking; it potentially left a lot of other kids at risk. In my opinion, the purpose of inquiry, the purpose of self-analysis, is to improve practice. It's not to cover up bad practice.

It's not to make excuses for things that have gone wrong. It's to do a careful analysis of one's ability to meet the needs of the population. For example, if you delay letting people know the reasons why a child might have been placed in an in- appropriate home, subsequently to die…. If we know that this could very much be part of the problem and if you know you have a way of figuring it out early, you do that. You don't let a situation fester. You don't let a bad policy continue to exist if you know that it's a bad pol- icy and a potentially dangerous policy.

The problem with inquiries that take so long is that not only is it not in the public interest to delay learning about things that we need to know about, but the effect is only to protect government interests. The delay of releasing reports is obviously some- thing that government can use to shield themselves from the scorn of communit y. I'm not suggesting for a moment that government will delay reporting, nor am I suggesting that they're goin g to cut all the important stuff out of a report. But they have that ability. They have the ability to do this.

As I've stated on previous occasions, if we are ever saddled with a meaner gov- ernment, a crueller government or a more tightly con- trolled and single-minded government, we may have concerns about how they have made laws to protect themselves from oversight from the public. [1510] I'm not suggesting that this law is necessarily bad for the government currently in power, but it's bad for government from here on in. It's bad for the population of British Columbia from here on in. It's bad for the opposition.

It's bad for anyone who would think that perhaps a public inquiry might actually benefit British Columbians. My first report, which was an internal government report, was kept from the public for a number of years. Subsequently, it was determined that it shouldn't have been kept from the public for those number of years, because its original form was very close to its final form. It found serious flaws in the way government operated — serious flaws in their deregulation, their zeal for reducing regulations and costs.

Well, their zeal for reducing regulations and costs put children at risk, and we have a problem with that. They figured it out eventua lly, five years later. But throughout that whole space of time, the badly thought-out policy which nobody tested before they implemented it, nobody figured out how to fund it before they implemented it…. None of that was deter- mined. Shouldn't we try to learn from the failures of our past? We're taught that. I was taught that in school, and I think that for the most

part I'm getting it right. But the fact of the matter is that I don't think the popu- lation of British Columbia is going to feel like, "Oh, we've got a government we can trust," when that same government says: "We want to have the ability to hide or change documents" — documents which are the results of inquiries into th eir actions or into actions related to government. That's not openness. That's not accountability. While I understand my own pe rsonal desire to deflect blame for anything that I mi ght do, and there's a bit of a human reaction to that, we're talking about govern- ment.

We're talking about a government that repre- sents the four million–plus residents of British Colum- bia whose interests are protec ted by the 79 people they elected. My issue with this bill, as the hon. Attorney Gen- eral may know by now, is

section 28(3) and 28(4). The issue, besides the fact that government will be allowed to sever the report…. And "sever the report" means taking a roller and basically covering up the words on the page paragraph by paragraph, saying: "This isn't good for you to know. We know better. You shouldn't really see this. It's not good for you to see this." Well, I happen to know there's a lot of stuff that I wrote about, which the public is still not aware of. In my inquiry, there a lot that is left unknown to the pub- lic. The

summary of the report that I wrote was written by the government. The report that I released was sev- ered by the government. Even in just minor internal inquiries, the government has a zeal to make sure that the information is all very well controlled. I see a relationship between a government that wants to hide facts and a government that wants to institutionalize the legality of hiding facts as a problem. What we have here is a government saying: "We really believe in making sure that we look after the interests of the population. We want to make sure that we pro- tect their interests, whatever they are.

And when things go wrong, we need to make sure we get to the bottom of it. We need to investigate. We need to analyze. We need to make recommendations to make things better. That's our goal as government." I would applaud it. Then in small letters or buried deep in difficult-to- read legislation, they say: "Yeah, but if we don't think this information would be good for you to know or if we think it'd be better if we waited a while for you to

5996 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 know this information, we're allowed to do it. We don't have to tell anybody. We're government. We won. You lost. It's all about that." [1515] The fact of the matter, I believe, is that as legisla- tors, as 79 people in this House, we should be discuss- ing legislation with an open enough mind to realize that we do represent a very significant population of British Columbia. We are 33 MLAs representing 33 constituencies across the province. These are issues of concern to our communities as well as to the members opposite.

The words that I'm speaking today are geared to- wards hoping that the government will have another look at this, another examination of the appropriate- ness of that particular clause. Perhaps there's an oppor- tunity to word it in anothe r way so as to eliminate the cynicism that might have been developed after reading it the first time. I think it's an opportunity for us, in fact, to see evi- dence that the promises of openness and accountability aren't just being followed but aren't being contradicted. I would say this is a contradiction of the claim of open- ness and accountability. It's not neutral.

It goes against the numerous promises or st atements that have been made. But you know, if they 're just statements and clichés, then we're back to the basis of the government — sort of slogans and platitudes. I believe that open government is an important aspect of a free and democratic society and that access to government information helps everybody and that secrecy feeds distrust. Secrecy feeds distrust; it nour- ishes distrust. It probably nourishes dishonesty. A cul- ture of secrecy expects dishonesty.

I think you can al- most jump to that conclusion — that an institution that is built on protecting its internal integrity at the ex- pense of the public good is not somewhere British Co- lumbians want to go. Oh, by the way, those qu otes were from the Pre- mier before he was the Premier. I guess it sounded good at the time. It sounded a lot better at the time. But you know, when their position changed, the words seemed to evaporate. I believe that in a parliamentary democracy, we need to have the checks and balances that are always there to govern our actions and allow us to do some reflection.

I wouldn't want this legislation even for my own government, and the time, I guess, is soon when we'll be on that side of the House. The fact of the mat- ter is that the issue isn't so much what would we do to protect ourselves when we're in government as: what do we do to protect the interests of British Columbi- ans? That should be the firs t question, not the second question. The first question is: is this legislation in the best interests of British Columbians? The first question should not be: is this legislation in the best interests of this government? Clearly, it is.

Clearly, they'd love it if this was passed, but I don't believe that necessarily translates into the best interests of British Columbians. We've seen numerous examples of other things that are best for this government but not in the best inter- ests of British Columbians, and I can just go through a series of labels or statements that aren't really backed up by activities or actions of government. If we think about what the government could pos- sibly want to protect themse lves against by blocking out words and taking out paragraphs and severing pages from documents, it's like….

Why would you expect a government to want to do that? Well, it's a question that we'd all ask. How are we going to define under what circum- stances we are allowed to wipe information off a piece of paper? We've seen documents severed. We've seen documents censored for reasons that are not legitimate. We know that people remove information in order to protect their interests, and he re we have privacy, busi- ness interests, law enforcement concerns or public in- terest.

People talk about: here are the five categories, and then there's one more category to catch everything else. [1520] Who is responsible for determining if in fact it's really in the public interest not to know that the gov- ernment has lost control of child and family services or whatever the case may be? Who determines if it's in the public interest for law enforcement? Are we going to ensure that law enforcement is part of that decision- making process? Are we going to ensure that business interests are protected? This leaves the door wide open, in my opinion, for abuses. Government should not pass bad laws.

Ulti- mately, government should be concerned with ensur- ing that the legislative framework that decides on what we do in this province — whether it's land use, law enforcement or what have you — that those laws are appropriate and that those laws reflect our values. Nothing makes the public more upset and nothing gets the media more worked up than catching govern- ment doing something wrong. You know what? Their ability to hide things is probably commensurate with the finances they afford th emselves in the budget. But that doesn't excuse them from enacting new legislation to reinforce that secrecy.

As legislators and as government, government shouldn't be trying to find new tools to protect itself from scrutiny. We need scrutiny. We've seen the fail- ures of government. We've seen failures of government for generations past. The failures have often had to do with protecting something th at they shouldn't be pro- tecting and going boldly forward without stopping and thinking and considering and figuring out if it's the appropriate action. In my opinion, this process is about making law better.

This process of second reading is about a ful- some analysis of the legislation and an opportunity to attempt to make that legislation slightly better — bet- ter, slightly better, way better? It's a significant part of this act, I believe. As much as there is a need for some renewal in legislation…. I have no qua rrel with the fact that we

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5997 need to modernize and update legislation, but there are certain values that were ensconced in the earliest forms of legislation dealing with this issue, and I'm talking about 1897. The principles of openness and reporting to the Legislature were instituted. That's a historical precedent that I believe needs to be respected. We don't know the reasons they used, maybe, back in 1897. Unlike some, I wasn't around. An Hon. Member: Neither was I. N. Simons: And I duly note that the minister oppo- site was not either. An Hon. Member: I don't know about that.

Are you sure? N. Simons: It's a dangerous temptation. It's almost an invitation to heckle, but I'm standing, so I can't heckle. An Hon. Member: You can't heckle yourself. N. Simons: Well, I could. But in 1897 it was understood that depending on the generosity of government or the level of…. I have to just gather my thoughts. Depending on the govern- ment's attitude towards the general community, one would expect that oversight is welcome.

One would expect that a government whose citizens trust it don't e x p e c t t h a t g o v e r n m e n t t o b u i l d u p b a r r i e r s , t o b l o c k the possibility of some insight into government's work- ings…. For that reason on its own, once again, it's an op- portunity to become more cynical about government. I would prefer to see legislation that reflects govern- ment's concern for governing fairly and for the entire population — not just for this group of individuals, not just for that group of individuals, but for everyone all the time and all at once. [1525] We see kind of like segments.

This government has governed in segments — almost like a sitcom, in a way. I'm just saying that for the segment part. You know, you have the segments and then the ads and the seg- ment and the ad. Well, we did have that in a way, but we started with the ads here. W h a t t h i s g o v e r n m e n t i s t r y i n g t o p r o m o t e i s a n image of openness and accountability, and here is the ultimate contradiction of that. We see those two ideas coming together and finding very little way around each other. Once again, the statement that they're open and accountable, versus

section 28, says: "Yeah, except for when we feel like it." As far as I'm concerned, that contradiction borders closely on hypocrisy, and I believe that my responsibil- ity to my constituents is to point out what is therefore a flaw; if not a flaw, a hypocrisy; if not bad legislation, then wilful legislation. I want to make sure that in my opportunity to re- spond, I'm open to the possibility that this was an oversight. I'm generous. However, I say that because I believe that changes to this act are necessary before it can be seen as quality legislation that benefits British Columbians.

As is the case on a number of occasions standing in this House, it's not all negative. It's not all about find- ing only the flaws, and obviously we recognize that there are members of this House who share values. In fact, we probably share a lot more than we will let on in here. But the principal value of openness, of a de- mocratic government that's responsive to its citizens, needs to be protected.

We already know that ac tions of previous govern- ments have resulted in low voter turnouts today — in the last election and the election before, hovering in the 60 percent, 50 percent, up to 70 percent in some places. I believe that has to do with the public's understanding of the relevance of this place. If they realized that every law that's passed in this House has an impact on them, then I think they would look very closely at this legisla- tion and ask why. Why would this particular part of this legislation be necessary? Was it put in there quickly?

Was there an attempt to get it through without anyone noticing? Has anyone pointed out to the government that numerous public interest groups have said that this is the flaw? This is the flaw. It could be better, but you need to remove

section 28 or amend it significantly. Is there the opportunity to do that? Yes, there is. In a situation where the debate can be true and fair and full, we should have the opportunity to recommend amend- ments, and government should have the opportunity to consider those amendments. I'm hoping, in closing, that government and the Attorney General will see fit to review in a thoughtful manner, as is his way, this particular

section and make the appropriate changes in order for this side of the House to be able to consider supporting it. With that, I will cede my space to my colleague. [1530] G. Gentner: I rise in an unfortunate situation, be- cause I just got word about an hour ago that a very deep friend of mine passed on — Mr. Arne Knudsen, who just recently received the Freedom of Delta award for his gallant fight against fascism and for the rights of all of us here today. Arne wa s in the tank division that liberated Italy. He was my friend, and he was a friend of democracy.

I think Arne would be ashamed today to know what this government is trying to ram through. H e g a v e h i s l i f e , a n d s o d i d m a n y . H e w a s wounded. It affected his life in many ways. Many vet- e r a n s , a s w e l l , c a m e b a c k f r o m t h a t g a l l a n t f i g h t , a n d they have stories to tell. Th ey can talk at great length about why they fought. They fought against regimes that believe in secrecy. [H. Bloy in the chair.] The real power rests in information. It's information that makes people strong, and the right to utilize that

5998 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 information is what this country was built on, not bar- riers put in the way that seem to be arbitrary. I rise with that in mind, with my dear friend Arne, who was my neighbour and ve ry good friend. He used to cuss and swear about governments and what they're up to. Make sure you read th e fine lines and read your footnotes, because that's where the real history is. It's not the secondary sources; it's the primary sources. It's those primary sources that this government wants to shelve — the ability for all of us to interpret what truly is.

It's a matter of circumventing process itself. The Public Inquiry Act is this government's Heart of Darkness — you know, the novel whereby the further up the river you go, the further you discover the deeper, darker side of the human condition with all it entails. The further you go up, the baseness, the vile- ness found up the river, the dark side of the human condition, the horror, the nasty business, the wicked aspect of the human condition…. This government believes that if you just trust the cabinet and trust the people who entail the laws, every- thing's going to be fine.

But we have laws and condi- tions and regulations and openness for a reason — just in case there is that darker side found in any one of us. No matter what political conviction you may have, what religious conviction you have, there is a tendency and an opportunity, if given, for the human condition t o w a n e o f f t r a c k , t o g o o f f r a i l s , t o g o i n t o t h a t d a r k side. That is what this base, vile act is all about. Now the government introduced a version of the Public Inquiry Act for first reading last spring.

It was highly criticized by the official opposition and, of course, other stakeholders — they're on line; you can find them: the human rights groups, even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation — for severely limiting the transparency and accountabili ty of the public inquiry process itself. It's not just a small group on this side that's opposed. There's a whole host of gr oups out there who spend many hours and time and days studying the law and are really quite outraged wi th where this government's going.

Now faced with stiff opposition, the Liberal govern- ment first introduced amendm ents to the bill and then agreed to carry it forward to this session. We didn't fully understand what those implications were until the Attorney General came forward with his bill. [1535] I would also at this time like to thank the Attorney General for at least putting his time in here this after- noon and being one of the few members opposite who is willing to listen. But, you know…. Deputy Speaker: Member. G. Gentner: I'm sure many members of this House are here to listen to the debate.

The current version of the bill does not go far enough to address the issues raised last year by us on this side. In particular, the bill allows cabinet to interfere with how and when findings from public inquiries are released to this assembly. We heard earlier from the member for Nanaimo, who really gave quite a remarkable, scathing attack on where we were going with this bill. The bill erodes the transparency and the accoun tability of the public in- quiry process. There's no qu estion about it. The public gets to see it in 15 days with current legislation.

Now the bill allows cabinet to decide when the re- port of a public inquiry is made public. That's very arbitrary — extremely arbitrary. Under the existing Inquiry Act, the report from a public inquiry is tabled directly in the Legislature. This has been the case, as was argued, since 1897. Under the current bill, the report of a public inquiry would be released to cabinet, who would then be able t o r e v i e w i t f o r a n i n d e f i n i t e p e r i o d o f t i m e b e f o r e i t was tabled in the Legislature. This bill allows cabinet to sever the report of a pub- lic inquiry.

The existing Inquiry Act has no provision for the severing of informatio n from the final report of a public inquiry. Now under the current bill, cabinet would be able to sever the report based on privacy rights, business interests, law enforcement concerns or under the guise of the public interest. Giving cabinet the power to sever the report of a public inquiry could be viewed as a conflict of interest because there may be a strong motive to prevent the release of damaging information. We all know that the contentious parts are, of course, in

section 28, where cabinet could withhold any information for any reason. It can hide misconduct, corruption and bungled government programs in order to cover up an embarrassment of information. The new Pu bli c Inqu iry Act i s part of th is g overn- ment's agenda of helping their friends and supporters while leaving working families in the dark. This gov- ernment has a record that clearly shows that it wants to help corporate friends, such as Alcan and insiders like Mr. Ken Dobell, rather than ordinary British Columbi- ans. This government cannot be trusted to do what is right.

It must hide its information through this act and deny people their real power, which is the right to seek and use information. It's what has built this nation. By restricting public inquiries, this government hopes to keep their real agenda secret . Secrecy is what this gov- ernment is all about. It's not about openness. It's not about decency. It's not about being transparent, open. In fact, this act im- pedes. It introduces a real lack of integrity. The lack of integrity is often understood not only as a refusal to engage in behaviour that evades responsibility….

That's what this government is attempting to do. It's negating its responsibilities by hiding under the cloak of secrecy. [1540] It doesn't want to be responsible to working people in British Columbia. It doesn't want to be responsible working people in British Columbia. It doesn't want to be responsible to the labo ur people, who are working

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5999 hard every day trying to make a living and pay their taxes. But this is what this society and government are supposed to be. It's supposed to have some integrity, one that has an adversarial process, for instance, which has a certain type of integrity in which those engaged in it commit not only to advance the cause of their own side but also to reveal, where required, evidence to the other side — to follow certain rules in the debate and to accept rulings from a judge or arbitrator.

Those subverting this might appear to lack some integrity, and that would possibly hurt their case. So the philosophy of law concerns itself with the integrity of a practical or process style — integrity as a measure of trust in results, which in turn determines trust in authority itself. It rests with how open our society can be. Hon. Speaker, the new Public Inquiry Act is a con- trast to what this governme nt believes in. The Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6, which of course was introduced by the hon. Attorney General, is going to limit the transpar- ency and accountability of the public inquiry process.

In particular, it allows cabinet to interfere with how and when findings from public inquiries are released to the Legislative Assembly. This is particularly alarming considering this government's record of failing to re- lease information and severing documents for political reasons. Let's look at this record. Let's look at the B.C. Lib- eral government record, relative to its inability to re- lease and, in particular, its willingness to hide informa- tion. After signing the federal early learning and child care agreement in 2005, the B.C. Liberal government refused to release their chil d care action plan.

There's no debate on that one. The B.C. Liberals have failed to release the key B.C. Rail documents, such as the revitalization agreement and information on the 990-year lease. We also know it has failed to release and isn't willing to release infor- mation relative to the Abbotsford P3 hospital. That's a contract that will be played out in the next 33 years, and the public has no ability to ascertain what that really means. The provincial government is currently sitting on a report that they commissioned that is critical of the Oil and Gas Commission. Can you imagine that?

The bo- real forest, as we know, is being destroyed, wiped out. Our government here is on record through a so-called climate change preventive measure in the throne speech, and yet the fragile ecosystems that scrub the atmosphere of carbon — namely, up in the boreal for- ests — are being destroyed. But there's no willingness of this government to release the report that was criti- cal of the Oil and Gas Commi ssion. Not only that, but the types of appointments that were made in that commission — who got what and why. It's been very reluctant to release it.

This government has repeatedly promised to re- lease the child death reviews and only took action on this in the wake of the Hughes report. Where would we be if we hadn't had the current legislation? Where will we be after this act has passed? [1545] Well, hon. Speaker, it would be a very horrible, horrid, base place. It would be further up the river in the heart of darkness, closer to the human condition that can allow itself to do devious things. Openness is the endeavour of honesty — the never-ending inquiry of keeping sure that we follow the moral course.

Now, there are other examples of how this gov- ernment has conducted itself relative to its inability to share information. The one that comes to mind mostly, of course, is the Vancouver Convention Centre Expan- sion Project. This is an interesting one. The government suggests the overrun is $310 million, $315 million, but we know it's going to be closer to half a billion dollars. The question now is: with th is new legislation, what type of information will be released through any inquiry?

We know, for example, that contracts such as cost- plus, which this governme nt debated vehemently against during the '90s wh en the government of the day was putting together the contracts for the ferries…. This government was adamantly opposed to cost-plus. Here we are now, and what are they adopting? They're adopting contracts that are exactly the same, but they won't come clean and admit it. They're going to hide behind this legislation. They're going to hide information about who's paying what and how. For example, we have an adjoining convention centre.

How much cost now will be hidden or shifted over to that convention centre? It's going to be a cat-and-mouse chase with this one to try and find that information, to understand the concourse that's going to put those two convention centres — which entity is actually going to pay for it. We're going to be chasing down information rela- tive to the costs, of course, of the Olympics. Those in- quiries, possibly even freedom of information, will be sat on. There'll be constraint s on time where it was not politically expedient for the government to come for- ward and tell the truth.

They will sit on this informa- tion, like they will with regards to the media centre at the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. This is information that the public has to know in order to weigh the success of the games, to weigh the ulti- mate success of this government and to weigh how much censorship is really being conducted. You know, you talk about this half-billion dollar overrun on the convention centre. It really makes some of the overruns of the previous government look like a flea market. This government is going to hide its half- billion dollar overrun.

It's going to weasel its way through, and we'll have to wait probably four or five years, possibly to a time when most of the members opposite wo

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0308pm-02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0308pm 02
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a949e8f748719669a7b711dfc3fea3132377c411

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).