2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Homelessness

Chudnovsky

Holi Festival

Nuraney

Upper Pitt River watershed

Sather

Provincial high school curling

championship

Whittred

Proposal for Upper Pitt River

power project

Simpson

South Peace Secondary curling

teams

Lekstrom

Oral Questions

Government response to actions of

Ken Dobell and Jessica McDonald

C. James

Hon. W.

Oppal

Lobbyists registration

legislation

Karagianis

Hon. W.

Oppal

Government response to actions of

Ken Dobell

Karagianis

Hon. W.

Oppal

Thorne

Macdonald

Hon. M.

de Jong

Government response to actions of

Ken Dobell and Jessica McDonald

Fleming

Hon. M.

de Jong

J. Kwan

Petitions

C. Evans

S. Fraser

Second Reading of Bills

Musqueam Reconciliation,

Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 12)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Fraser

Hon. M.

de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Local Government Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 7) (continued)

C. Wyse

Hon. I.

Chong

Robertson

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Local Government Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 7)

Committee of the Whole House

Electoral Reform Referendum 2009

Act (Bill 6)

Ralston

Hon. W.

Oppal

Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour and

Citizens' Services (continued)

Puchmayr

Hon. O.

Ilich

Conroy

Ralston

[ Page 10481 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. W. Oppal: In the precinct today are five people who

are part of the Attorney General's articling program and the continuing legal

education students. They are Jody Leon, Cory Bargen, Anne Silsbe, Kate Hamm and

Rumon Carter. They're accompanied by staff legislative counsel Dawn Leroy. Let's

make them welcome.

M. Sather: There are a number of people joining us in the

gallery today, who are here to talk to MLAs about independent power production.

Some of them are here particularly to talk about the Upper Pitt.

I want to introduce Gwen Barlee from the Western Canada Wilderness

Committee; Elaine Golds from the Burke Mountain Naturalists; Dan Gerak, who's

the owner of the Pitt River Lodge in the Upper Pitt; and Denise Reinhardt from

Malaspina Communities for Public Power. Would the House please make them

welcome.

[1335]

K. Whittred: Hon. Members, on behalf of the Speaker, I

would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated

in the gallery today. They are participating in a full-day parliamentary

procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. The workshop provides a

firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of

the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects

this Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Simons: I'd like to echo the words of my friend from

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in welcoming Denise Reinhardt, a resident of Powell

River and a strong advocate for all the good things. I'd like to welcome Mike

Bruce, who is also in the House and a strong protector of our rivers and the

public interest that they serve.

May I also beg your indulgence to introduce to the world my new

nephew — I figured this would happen; someone should have told me not to do it —

who was born to my sister Anne, a graduate of the University of British

Columbia with a master's in music. He was born Christopher Jan James, 10 pounds,

6 ounces. Welcome to the world.

B. Lekstrom: It's my honour today and a privilege to

introduce two very special guests to the House here this afternoon. The first is

His Worship Mayor Calvin Kruk from the city of Dawson Creek. Please make him

welcome.

As well, a very special guest, a person I don't get to introduce

very often in this House, is my wife Vicki. Please make her very welcome today.

S. Simpson: I want to join my friend from Maple Ridge–Pitt

Meadows in welcoming some of the people who are here to talk about private power

projects and particularly the Pitt River. Again, Mike Bruce, who's joined by

Sage Aaron. They're both here from COPE 378. Lee-Ann Unger is from the West

Kootenay EcoSociety, and Joe Foy is from the Western Canada Wilderness

Committee. Please make them welcome.

G. Gentner: It is indeed a pleasure to introduce to the

House members of Delview Secondary School. There are 99 students visiting here

with us today, and they're taking shifts. There's a few here in the gallery, and

others are going to join us later this afternoon.

Delview has the distinction of probably, without question,

conducting the largest food blitz in the province. They go out there, and they

do their best in one day and gather enough cans in order to look after the

Surrey Food Bank. Could the House please give them a warm welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) HOMELESSNESS

D. Chudnovsky: Yesterday in Metro Vancouver, the Fraser

Valley and a number of other centres, hundreds of volunteers counted people who

are homeless in our communities. I was privileged to be one of those volunteers.

There are two reasons why the homeless count is a vital exercise.

First, we need to know the breadth and depth of the crisis so that we can

develop appropriate policies and legislation to improve the situation. Second,

we owe it to every one of the thousands of people in our province who are

homeless to notice them — to acknowledge them, to tell them that in at least

this small way they matter — and to remind everyone that the homeless people of

B.C. are not an alien species from another planet. They are our sons and our

daughters, our brothers and sisters. They are us.

The preliminary results will be available in a few weeks, but

there are already indications the numbers will be dramatically higher than three

years ago when the last counts were done.

I want to thank the volunteers who took the time to meet, speak

with and count their neighbours who are homeless. I want to thank the caregivers

and service providers who every day do their best to provide hope and support in

a circumstance that is at present very bleak.

Most of all, I want to thank those thousands of British Columbians

who are homeless for their courage, for their resilience and especially for

their patience in the face of a crisis which every day challenges them and

shames and demeans the rest of us.

[1340]

[ Page 10482 ]

I ask every MLA to commit today and every day to the eradication

of homelessness in British Columbia. It's a crisis we can solve. It's a crisis

we must solve.

HOLI FESTIVAL

J. Nuraney: Holi is a festival celebrated by members of the

Hindu community across the world. It is essentially the celebration of various

mythologies and legends.

One of the legends is a story of Prahlad and Hiranyakashipu, the

powerful king who considered himself god and wanted everybody to worship him.

His son Prahlad did not follow his wishes and worshipped Lord Vishnu instead.

The king's plan to kill his son did not prevail, and Prahlad was miraculously

saved.

The festival, therefore, celebrates the victory of good over evil

and also the triumph of devotion. In Holi, people follow good conduct in their

lives and believe in the virtue of being truthful. This is extremely important

in the modern society when we see so many people resort to evil practices for

small gains and torture the ones who tell the truth.

Devotees celebrate this festival by playing with colour meant for

pure enjoyment. Shree Mahalakshmi Temple in Vancouver celebrates this festival

each year by bringing together members of all communities and makes it a

celebration of diversity.

I offer my congratulations to the members of the Hindu community

and say: let the colours shower joy.

UPPER PITT RIVER WATERSHED

M. Sather: The Upper Pitt River watershed is a

spectacularly wild area at the north end of Pitt Lake. When one drives up the

Pitt on a clear day, with beautiful Pitt Lake ahead of one, surrounded by

Pinecone Burke Provincial Park to the west, Golden Ears Provincial Park to the

east and the massive snowfields and glaciers of Garibaldi Provincial Park to the

north, it's got to be one of the very best places on earth.

The Upper Pitt hosts the most diverse salmon fishery in the entire

lower Fraser Valley, with all five species of Pacific salmon — sockeye, chinook,

coho, pink and chum — spawning in the watershed. Some species, like the sockeye

and pinks, spawn in the river itself as well as in the tributary creeks. These

creeks are the salmon breadbasket of the Upper Pitt.

The Pitt River comes right off the glaciers and is too cold to be

highly productive in terms of the aquatic invertebrates, the bugs, on which the

salmon and trout feed. The lower reaches of the tributary creeks are where the

production occurs.

The Upper Pitt is also rich in wildlife. A threatened population

of grizzly bears roams the area and depends on a variety of habitats, including

the wetlands along Pinecone and Steve creeks. Roosevelt elk were recently

introduced to the Upper Pitt and are apparently doing well. It seems that this

has encouraged a magnificent pack of wolves to establish themselves in the Upper

Pitt.

Although not easily accessible, the Upper Pitt is just 50

kilometres from Vancouver. With such a magnificent jewel so close to where so

many British Columbians live, let's all work together to ensure that it remains

wild.

PROVINCIAL HIGH SCHOOL

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

K. Whittred: Last week my community had the honour of

hosting some 80 talented and eager young athletes, who were competing in the

provincial high school curling championships at the North Shore Winter Club.

These athletes came from every corner of the province. Each team was already a

zone champion now competing to be provincial champ.

It was my pleasure to participate in the awards ceremony, and an

outstanding ceremony it was. The zone champions were introduced and received

handsome awards. Impressive trophies for the champion, second and third place

were presented by Rio Tinto Alcan for both the girls and boys divisions.

[1345]

Next year B.C. will host the junior world championships at

Hillcrest Park, a 100,000-square-foot ice curling facility which seats 6,000.

This major international competition will be held at the new curling venue for

the Olympics, and it is but one of many international sporting events being

hosted in our community as a preview to 2010.

I would like to thank all those who share in making a major

provincial event such as this possible — the parents who support and drive their

children to and from the rink; the high school and community coaches who

volunteer their time; B.C. School Sports, who assists with the funding; B.C.

high school curling; especially my old friend from my own high school curling

days, Mo Williams, who organized the event each year; and Rio Tinto Alcan, who

has sponsored this event since 1964.

Most of all, I want to thank the skilled athletes who were model

ambassadors for their schools and communities. Congratulations to all.

PROPOSAL FOR UPPER PITT RIVER

POWER PROJECT

S. Simpson: British Columbia has many beautiful and

important rivers across our province — rivers like the Upper Pitt and the Ashlu

— that are valued by anglers, kayakers, environmentalists and others, who

appreciate their elegance and value to all British Columbians. There is now a

growing awareness of another relatively new activity around our rivers involving

small hydroelectric power projects, known as run-of-the-river projects.

British Columbians, as we all know, both inside and outside this

chamber hold strong views on these initiatives. British Columbians are weighing

whether this is green power. Questions are asked about the role these projects

play in the future of B.C. Hydro and around the economics and self-sufficiency.

[ Page 10483 ]

This is an important discussion for British Columbians,

particularly as they become more aware of the issues surrounding

run-of-the-river projects — largely because of the application, I believe, on

the Upper Pitt. The Upper Pitt River project, because of its proximity to the

lower mainland, its current activities on the river around the fishery and

habitat protection as well as the proposal around transmission lines in the

park, has generated great interest.

We have seen this significant interest in this application

reflected in public meetings on the project — 500 people at a meeting in Pitt

Meadows, 300 more in Mission. We now hear that the proponent and the

environmental assessment office are planning a further meeting in Pitt Meadows,

likely for March 25.

My point on this is that since this meeting is occurring during

our break from the Legislature, I look forward to being able to attend and to

learn more about the project and about the public's views. I would invite the

Minister of Environment and all MLAs here on both sides to join me so that we

can all learn more by our attendance and demonstrate our interest in this matter

of important public policy for all British Columbians.

SOUTH PEACE SECONDARY CURLING TEAMS

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure today to rise and speak on an

issue that my colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale raised in her speech

earlier, and that is on the B.C. high school provincial curling championships. I

rise today to speak on this issue because we are certainly very proud of the

young men that came from South Peace Secondary School in Dawson Creek not only

to participate in this provincial championship but to win it. We're very proud

of them.

They were led by their coach, Miss Betty Hanston from Dawson

Creek. Their skip was Bruce Frederickson, who is a grade 12 student. The third

was Travis Jones from grade 11. The second was Jordan Stanke, who is in grade

10. The lead was Tanner Clouthier, who is also in grade 10.

We have a proud history of curling in the Peace country and in

Dawson Creek, and it's nice today to be able to give this talk while His Worship

Mayor Calvin Kruk is here from Dawson Creek. He didn't come down just to hear me

give this two-minute speech, but it's nice that we could do it on the same day

he's here.

I do want to add that not only our boys participated, but our

girls from South Peace Secondary School as well. They were led by their coach,

Don Bourassa. The skip was Laine Bourassa, followed by team members Sydney

Mcleod, Melissa Lees, Richelle Wards and Brooklyn Lindstrom. Although they

didn't win the championship this year, I know that they give it their all and

their best. I do want to point out that the girls team won the provincial

championship last year, so we do have a proud tradition.

[1350]

On behalf of the people I represent in Peace River South and, I'm

sure, on behalf of all of my colleagues here in the House and all British

Columbians, we want to congratulate them all for their activities and their

efforts not only on the ice but off the ice as well. They are true sportsmen,

all of the participants that took part.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ACTIONS

OF KEN DOBELL AND JESSICA McDONALD

C. James: Earlier today Ken Dobell, the Premier's closest

adviser and friend, pled guilty to violating B.C.'s lobbyist laws, but the

Premier refuses to hold anyone accountable. The Premier and his office have been

tainted by this very serious ethical breach — an ethical breach that the Premier

himself condoned. What is the Premier's response? To bury his head in the sand

and pretend that nothing is wrong.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Will she denounce Ken

Dobell's actions, cut all ties with him and fire the Premier's deputy minister

who signed off on a scheme that the special prosecutor called

influence-peddling?

Hon. W. Oppal: Both the Crown and the defence made their

arguments before the Hon. Judge Galati this morning. The judge has reserved his

decision. The principle becomes even more important — that is, the principle of

the rule of law — and we'll let the judge make the decision.

Mr. Speaker:

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I'd like to remind the Attorney General that Ken

Dobell, the Premier's closest friend and adviser, just pled guilty. He pled

guilty today. It's time for some real answers. I don't know how many more delays

this government can find and how many more excuses they can come up with.

The question isn't how this happened. We know that already. Ken

Dobell ignored the law. The Premier's Deputy Minister Jessica McDonald signed

off on a scheme that the special prosecutor is calling influence-peddling. The

real question is why the Premier won't hold anyone accountable.

Mr. Dobell isn't the only one to blame. It was the Premier that

actually approved this scheme. My question, again, to the Deputy Premier: will

she today fire the Premier's deputy minister and finally restore integrity to

the tainted office of the Premier?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's unfortunate that the opposition leader

has absolutely no respect for the rule of law or for the independence of our

courts. Judge Galati doesn't need any advice from that opposition leader as to

what is a proper….

Mr. Speaker:

Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: What the Attorney General is closing his ears to

is that this is advice for the government. This is

[ Page 10484 ]

for you to listen to. It's not for the judge to listen to but for the

government to listen to.

Premier's accountability directly. Ken Dobell today pled guilty, but the Premier

continues to say: "It's just fine; not to worry. We're going to keep working

with him. We've got ministers all over government who are going to keep working

with him."

Perhaps the Attorney General doesn't like to listen to this side

of the House, but perhaps he'll listen to Ken Dobell's own words. He said today:

"This is not an issue to be taken lightly." Perhaps the government will listen

to his own words.

My question again to the Deputy Premier: will she finally take

action, will she hold herself and her government accountable, and will she cut

all ties with Ken Dobell today?

[1355]

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, this is the classic difference of

the solemn environment and the atmosphere of a courtroom and the bombast and the

nonsensical arguments that you hear in this chamber.

We have two dignified….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: We have, on the one hand, two officers of

the court, the Crown counsel and the defence lawyer, both submitting their

arguments in an objective manner before a judge. The judge said that he will

consider the arguments on both sides, and he will impose a sentence under the

law under the Lobbyists Registration Act. We'll wait for that decision.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION

M. Karagianis: Well, maybe we have something that the

Attorney General actually can take responsibility for, for a change. Yesterday

the Attorney General said that he didn't know of any legislation that prevents

people convicted under lobbyist laws from continuing to lobby. Clearly, the

Attorney General has not done his homework. Under the federal act, a lobbyist

convicted like Ken Dobell would be suspended for two years.

To the Attorney General. Here's a question he can answer because

it's his responsibility. Will he commit today to bring B.C.'s lobbyist registry

laws up to standards, the standards of the federal law, so that people like Ken

Dobell will be suspended when they break the rules?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to convey a news flash to that

member. It's not the federal act. It's the provincial act. There's a difference.

I'm pleased that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin got up to

speak, because I want to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: This is what she said earlier this year:

"I'm asking the Crown to proceed in this matter so that Mr. Dobell's actions can

be properly judged in a court of law."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, sit down.

Member. Members. Please wait until you're recognized.

Member has a supplemental.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO ACTIONS OF KEN DOBELL

M. Karagianis: Aren't we glad that's exactly what's

happened here in the province of British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: Frankly, the Attorney General missed

completely the point of the last question, because I am talking about the

provincial lobbyist registry act. The Attorney General has told reporters that

he doesn't think it's a priority — the lobbyist laws here in British Columbia.

Interjections.

M. Karagianis: Well, I guess the Attorney General hasn't

noticed the huge ethical breach that's occurring within the government on his

side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: Well, I would say apparently the Attorney

General has not noticed that there is a huge ethical breach taking place on this

side of the House with his own government. He has been in denial about this for

absolutely months and is not recognizing the problem.

But you know what? Let's move on from that, because the Attorney

General seems unable to answer our questions. You know what? Let's talk to the

Minister of Transportation. Mr. Dobell is lobbying him right now on behalf of

Cubic Transportation Systems. Mr.

[ Page 10485 ]

Dobell has just pled guilty to violations of the lobbyist law. Will you sever

all ties and all future meetings with Mr. Dobell?

Mr. Speaker: I remind members that the questions are

through the Chair.

[1400]

Hon. W. Oppal: It's fairly clear to me that that member has

absolutely no understanding of the law — none at all. Six years ago the lobbyist

act was passed unanimously with the endorsement of the opposition. They

supported a clear set of remedies that are set out in the act. The judge is

aware….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The judge is aware of the act and what the

act stands for as far as penalties are concerned. The opposition seems to be

concerned about any future conduct of Mr. Dobell. Surely the judge is capable of

deciding that. It's not up to us to decide that. It's up to a judge to decide

that. That's called the rule of law.

D. Thorne: It is stunning that on the very day he pleads

guilty, the B.C. Liberals still refuse to fire Ken Dobell. Not only is he

lobbying the Minister of Transportation, I understand he's set up to lobby the

Minister for Housing.

Given Mr. Dobell's guilty plea and conviction, will the Minister

for Housing do what the Premier is unwilling to do and cut all ties with Mr.

Dobell?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure the judge will make the appropriate

decision as to what will happen to Mr. Dobell.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: Oh, he's guilty. Yes, we know that. He pled

guilty.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, just sit down for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't think that Judge Galati needs the

advice from any members of the opposition or anyone else in determining what the

proper course of conduct is in this case.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: Ken Dobell did indeed plead guilty. It's

wonderful that the Attorney General is willing to acknowledge that here in this

House. I'm sure the Attorney General would also agree with me that if Mr. Dobell

was in Ottawa, he would be suspended from lobbying for two years.

I'm asking, again, to the Minister for Housing: will he suspend

all lobbying activities with Ken Dobell and stop protecting the Premier's

convicted friend?

Hon. W. Oppal: In a courtroom, that would be called an

irrelevant question because we're not….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, just sit down.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: We're not in Ottawa. We in this province

abide by the provincial legislation. I don't know why that's so difficult for

the members opposite to understand. It's a provincial law that's applicable. The

federal law is not any more applicable than the law of Argentina.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not continuing until there's silence.

Members.

[1405]

N. Macdonald: Let's be clear here. We are talking about

political decisions. This has nothing to do with the courts. The Premier has

refused to cut ties with his convicted friend, his convicted chief adviser.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: It is a political decision that the Premier

has made — to not cut those ties. It speaks to the integrity of this government.

Let's be clear on that. It sets those standards.

The Minister of Transportation. He will not tell this House that

he is going to refuse to meet with Ken Dobell. He will continue to meet with

somebody convicted of lobbying infractions. That is a political decision, and it

speaks to the standards of this government.

The Minister for Housing refuses to do the right thing, so let's

go to the Minister of Tourism. Given that Mr. Dobell is convicted, will the

Minister of Tourism stand up now and tell the people of British Columbia that

there is some level of integrity in this government and that he will refuse to

meet with Mr. Dobell — refuse to be lobbied by a convicted friend of this

government?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I did understand that question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

[ Page 10486 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: The judge will apply the law, and the judge

will impose the sentence according to the law set out by the Lobbyists

Registration Act. That's the course of conduct that will take place. That's what

happens in a courtroom. I would expect that's what will happen here when Judge

Galati renders his decision.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: We are talking about a clear lack of

integrity at the heart of this government. That's what this is about — a clear

lack of integrity.

Ken Dobell broke the law. He broke the law. For the rest of

society, there is a host of consequences that comes with that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: Those consequences should apply to a close

friend of the Premier as well. The question I have is: will this government at

this time remove Ken Dobell as chair of the finance committee of VANOC? Will

they do that immediately?

Hon. M. de Jong: This principle apparently is not an

important one for members of the opposition. But there are members in this

chamber who will recall that not that long ago, when attempts were made to

interfere in a fundamental facet of our judicial system — that is, sentencing —

politicians were severely criticized, as well they should.

So the member, with impunity and for political advantage, at a

time when the judge is seized of the matter and on the verge of making a

decision, seeks to invite….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: He seeks to interfere and invite

interference from the executive branch of government. They will. We won't. We

respect the rule of law. That — it has become abundantly clear — is a feature

that divides this side of the House from that side of the House.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ACTIONS

OF KEN DOBELL AND JESSICA McDONALD

R. Fleming: That member has just talked about political

advantage, respect for the rule of law. I could swear that's the same member who

was accused and had to settle with Mr. Dhaliwal for political vandalism and

reprehensible behaviour. He knows it well.

[1410]

Today Mr. Dobell is guilty. But to this Attorney General, it's

just another day. The man of many hats — it's just another day. There are more

billable hours to come. Nothing has changed. You know what? British Columbians

aren't going to stand for that.

My question to the Attorney General: will he ask the Premier to

hold himself and his deputy minister accountable for signing off on this illegal

arrangement that has now led to a conviction?

Hon. M. de Jong: So we have returned — the opposition has —

to a theme of yesterday — actually, a theme of the last number of months in this

chamber.

Members know that in April of last year the deputy to the Premier,

in a thoughtful, dutiful and careful way…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: …sought to canvass the issue of conflict,

perceived conflict or apparent conflict. In so doing, she sought the advice of

the deputy for the Public Service Agency, and she sought the advice of the

Deputy Attorney General. On the basis of that advice, she rendered an opinion.

Nothing has been said, nothing has been found to contradict the

advice that she provided on the basis of having consulted with those two senior

public sector servants. The fact that those members opposite don't seem to

understand that or, more particularly, don't want to understand it shows the

blatant disregard and the maliciousness of the attack they have purported to

launch on a senior public servant, a dutiful public servant — that is, the

deputy to the Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: What an eloquent description for the

arrangement that has unravelled now in court — a story of insiders and

entitlement. Let's go over it for one minute and then ask the question.

The former Deputy Minister to the Premier, until 2005, leaves the

job. But before he goes, he handpicks the current deputy minister as a

successor. No sooner is he out the door than he negotiates a desk in the

Premier's office with his chosen successor. That's who he negotiates it with. He

calls himself a content consultant. He's an unregistered lobbyist with a growing

practice — very cozy. Then he gets caught, and today he's convicted.

She failed the test. Yes, she did conduct a review. She failed the

test. She was in gross error. Our question is: when will she be held accountable

for her poor judgment and conduct?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is hard to listen to this group from

the opposition….

Interjections.

[ Page 10487 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Start again.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is hard to listen and not quickly come

to the conclusion that they see the entire justice system as woefully redundant.

Why have it, when the opposition is apparently so eminently capable of deciding

what the issues are, coming to their own conclusions, making their own findings

and being judge, jury and executioner all on their own?

The deputy to the Premier consulted with, amongst others, the

Deputy Attorney General. This opposition has in the last seven days already been

chastened, already been chastised for casting aspersions on the Deputy Attorney

General, and today we see it again. They seem to think that they've got the

training. They seem to think that they can replace their opinions for those of

the courts, the Deputy Attorney General. They're wrong, and again they reveal

that they have no regard for the rule of law in British Columbia.

[1415]

J. Kwan: On April 27, 2007, here's what Jessica McDonald

said: "Does this matter bring the B.C. public service into disrepute? No. I'm

not aware of any evidence that Mr. Dobell's conduct as Deputy Minister to the

Premier was in any way contrary to the standards of conduct required of public

officials."

Last I checked, the public officials ought to be abiding by the

laws that this government sets. Ken Dobell just entered a guilty plea in

violation of the lobbyist registration. Jessica McDonald, Ken Dobell's protégé,

just happened to overlook Ken Dobell's violation of this government's own laws.

Jessica McDonald cooked up and approved a scheme that the Crown prosecutor

called influence-peddling.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: Under these circumstances, how could this

government possibly have confidence in Jessica McDonald? Will this government —

will anybody from that side of the bench — stand up and do the right thing and

call for Jessica McDonald to resign today?

Hon. M. de Jong: I predict that we have just heard

commentary in this House that won't be repeated outside.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: The difference between this hon. member

and some of her colleagues is that while she chooses to quote selectively from

the document, some of her colleagues choose to create documents.

In the document that the member just quoted from, I would remind

her of the following passage: "In completing this memorandum to you, I have

requested and incorporated the views of both the Deputy Premier of the Public

Service Agency and the Deputy Attorney General."

Ms. McDonald sought out advice from the most senior public

servants whose reputation, except in the eyes of this opposition, is beyond

reproach. This hon. member, I regret to say today, has launched a malicious,

unscrupulous, scurrilous and reprehensible attack on a senior public servant. It

is without warrant, and she should apologize.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Let us be clear. The issue here is about this

government and this Premier.

Not only did Jessica McDonald come up with a scheme, so too…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just sit down.

J. Kwan: …did this Premier, who condoned it.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just stop for a second.

Let's listen to the question and listen to the answer, please.

Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: Let's go to another document.

In Ken Dobell's little essay to the Crown, he wrote: "Pay

attention and read the legislation." It turns out the Premier's special adviser

failed to observe the laws that this government brought in, but he was not the

only one. Jessica McDonald, the deputy to the Premier, also failed to pay

attention and read the legislation. Surely this is not acceptable to even this

government, whose primary defence for everything is that it's before the courts.

[1420]

Let us be clear. Ignorance is no defence. Will the Deputy Premier

stand up today and restore integrity in the Premier's office and fire Jessica

McDonald?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am saddened by what I hear here today. A

moment ago it was an allegation of some deliberate attempt to try and subvert

the law. Then a moment later it was a different story.

This opposition, in their desperate attempt to achieve some kind

of political advantage or political victory, chooses to malign the character

maliciously of individuals who have chosen to serve this province.

I say again….

[ Page 10488 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member and her colleagues do not

simply impugn the motives, abilities or honour of the deputy to the Premier. In

the very document that the member quoted from, it is made abundantly clear that

the opinion she rendered with respect to the issue of conflict, apparent

conflict, appearance of conflict…. She enjoyed the benefit of having consulted

with two deputy ministers, including the deputy minister to the Attorney

General.

Though we already know from these opposition benches that they

care not a whit nor have any regard for the honour of those senior public

servants, we do, Ms. McDonald does, and the government does. And we will stand

by them even in the face of the unscrupulous attacks we've heard today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

C. Evans: I ask permission to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Proceed, Member.

Petitions

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, you'll remember that last year I

presented a petition against the paving of Formosa blueberry farm when TransLink

proposed to put a road through the middle of the farm. TransLink now desires to

put a second road across the farm.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

C. Evans: I have a petition…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, present your petition, please.

C. Evans: …of 5,000 people asking the Crown to intervene to

stop this farm from being divided again.

S. Fraser: I present a petition from another thousand

residents of British Columbia asking this government to act on protecting

animals from dangerous antifreeze.

Interjections.

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

[1425]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of

Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the

Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. In this chamber, second reading of

Bill 12, the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement

Implementation Act.

Second Reading of Bills

MUSQUEAM RECONCILIATION, SETTLEMENT

AND BENEFITS AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: I do move second reading of Bill 12.

It really is a delight and an honour to rise in the House and move

second reading of the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement

Implementation Act. In technical terms, this is the legislation that enables the

government to meet some of the commitments contained in the agreement that we

signed with the Musqueam just over 24 hours ago.

It was a tremendous event. When the legislation was tabled

yesterday, we had some of the leadership and members of the Musqueam First

Nation here. I can tell you that there was a feeling of pride, satisfaction and

a reflective nature on the part of many of the people there.

We use the term "historic," and this is another case where I

believe it's appropriate. It's appropriate given the nature of the relationship

that has existed between the province of British Columbia, the Crown, and the

Musqueam for many, many years — many decades, in fact. As I'll point out in the

course of my remarks, we see an important cycle of litigation, I believe,

breaking with this agreement.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The bill will vest ownership of the University golf course and two

parcels of land in Pacific Spirit Regional Park to the Musqueam. The legislation

also amends zoning on one of those parcels and addresses issues of compensation.

The agreement — and this legislation, which gives it life — gives

us collectively an opportunity to write a new

chapter in the history of the

relations between the province and the Musqueam. It moves us, I believe, beyond

the era of litigation to a new era of reconciliation — indeed, a new

relationship with the Musqueam Indian band.

There are, I am advised by Chief Campbell and others, just over

1,200 members of the Musqueam First Nation. They are a Coast Salish people. I am

told that the word actually means people of the river grass. Just as the river

grass has ebbed and flowed and flourished and declined, so too has that been the

case for the Musqueam, particularly over the past 150 years.

[ Page 10489 ]

They have never wavered in terms of their commitment and

attachment to the land that they have called home for so many generations. The

main community is in the Point Grey area of Vancouver, and at only 190 acres, it

is truly one of the smallest reserves in Canada. Because of that, a great many

of the Musqueam are obliged to live off reserve.

Fully 60 percent of the homes that are on the existing reserve are

in need of major repairs. The Musqueam band and band council, I am advised, have

in excess of 200 individuals on their housing list looking for a place to live

within the community. That need isn't going to diminish.

[1430]

The population of the Musqueam is growing at a rate of 6 percent

per year. Not unlike many aboriginal communities, we find that at a time when

our overall demographic in Canada is growing older, amongst first nations like

the Musqueam there is, happily, an influx of youth that continues.

There hasn't been much in the way of new community facilities

built over the last 25 years, and most of the existing facilities are in need of

upgrade. For the men and women who live within the Musqueam community, we talk

about that socioeconomic gap. Once again, it reveals itself in a significant gap

in terms of earnings between Musqueam and non-aboriginal British Columbians.

Truly, for years the Musqueam have been struggling to gain a measure of control

over resources and to develop a capacity that would allow them to build a more

promising future for their citizens, for their families.

I don't think I have to tell anyone in this chamber that over the

past century the Musqueam's traditional territory has undergone tremendous

change. It really has been engulfed by the city of Vancouver. That has operated

in a profound way to alter, obviously, the lives of people that live in

Vancouver but most particularly the Musqueam themselves. They have seen that

development occur, have been close enough to touch it yet been separated from it

and not been a part of it and not enjoyed the benefits that should have flowed

from it.

That has, in more recent times, given rise to a spate of

litigation and a number of cases, some of them very prominent in terms of the

jurisprudence that has grown up around aboriginal law in British Columbia. Some

of those cases lie at the root of the agreement that we are discussing today and

the legislation that gives it effect — litigation involving the university golf

course lands; the Bridgepoint lands in Richmond; and the Celtic Shipyards, which

relates to a slightly different issue before the courts involving contamination

and liability for the cleanup of the contaminated site.

The breakthrough — and I think it is appropriate to speak of the

breakthrough — occurred when we were able to sit down in good faith and say:

"Now, how do we solve this?" Not just the litigation, but how do we place our

relationship at a different level? It has been a relationship characterized by

an adversarialism, a resort to the courts. How are we going to change that? And

how are we, at the same time, going to ensure that there is a foundation built

upon which the Musqueam as a community can move forward? That's what lies at the

heart of the agreement and this bill that flows from that.

After 2005, with truly some specific encouragement from the

courts, the parties were able to come together and achieve an agreement. I just

want to take a moment to relate to the House some of the specifics around that

agreement.

When the agreement takes effect, it will provide for Musqueam

ownership of four parcels of land and a cash payment of $20.3 million to the

Musqueam. They will acquire 59 hectares of land currently owned by UBC, subject

to a restrictive covenant that that land continue to be used for golf course

purposes until the year 2083 — long after, I think, most of us will be reaching

into our bag for a nine-iron, but maybe not.

[1435]

With respect to the Bridgepoint Casino property, which is seven

hectares, that will be acquired by the Musqueam, but along with it is a

requirement that the existing leases be honoured. Then finally, two parcels of

land presently within Pacific Spirit Regional Park will be transferred to the

Musqueam, and that amount totals 22.3 hectares.

I just want to talk about the land for a moment, because it is a

key feature of the agreement and goes to the heart of what in many ways was the

Musqueam interest.

In coming to this agreement, we also recognized the significance

of the lands, particularly around the UBC golf course, to the area residents.

Although some land is coming out of Pacific Spirit Park, I want to ensure that

the House is aware that 7.3 hectares of what are presently the UBC golf course

lands and 1.2 hectares of the land that is being removed from Pacific Spirit

Park will actually be converted into parkland.

In many ways, for people that know the area, or don't know the

area but have seen the photographs or had an opportunity to see the area, this

is a land transfer that makes a lot of sense. The land that is being converted

into formal parkland is actually used as a park,

whereas some of the other lands

that are coming out of the Pacific Spirit Park don't have any of the attributes

of what we would usually attribute to a park.

That's a good thing. I think that makes sense. And as people have

come to know what is taking place there, a lot of the commentary that I've heard

has been favourable, recognizing that people cherish parkland and recognizing as

well that in this part of British Columbia, this part of the lower mainland is

the most developed, and land is increasingly in short supply. But that doesn't

eliminate the obligation we have with respect to first nations and with respect

to the Musqueam First Nation in particular.

I do want to make this point, because in the public discussion

that has taken place, sometimes this has gotten lost. The Pacific Spirit

Regional Park was created almost 20 years ago. At the time, the Musqueam First

Nation raised some concerns. I want to say this. I wasn't part of the public

discourse or public discussion, but that is not to say that the Musqueam were

hostile to the notion of creating a park to the benefit of all

[ Page 10490 ]

people. But their commentary at the time did reflect the concern they had

that their ability to pursue claims that had been unresolved on their part would

not be compromised.

The Musqueam, in fact, took those concerns to the court and

obtained a restraining order from the B.C. Court of Appeal in February of 1989

to prevent the transfer of the lands to the GVRD. That restriction or that

obstacle to the creation of the park was lifted by the court in April of '89,

when the GVRD — we now know it as Metro — signed an affidavit agreeing to accept

title to those parklands without prejudice to the Musqueam's claim to aboriginal

title to that land.

That affidavit remains an instrument. I think it's important that

people understand, even today as they express opinions around this agreement,

that when the park was created in the first place, it was done in full

contemplation of the fact that the Musqueam had an interest in the area that was

yet to be defined, that was yet to be resolved.

I would submit and suggest to the House that this agreement and

the legislation that flows from it is consistent with the efforts we are trying

to make to resolve those issues.

[1440]

I was at a meeting of the First Nations Summit last Friday, where

lots of interesting suggestions and ideas came forth. There was a statement made

by one of the chiefs, one of the band representatives, that I think will stick

with me. It was profound for its simplicity. She said: "Reconciliation is not an

event."

That is certainly true. Reconciliation is not an event. It is a

series of events, a series of interactions. It is about a relationship. It is

about building trust. It is about establishing good faith. It is about a feeling

that exists between us as people that has been absent for too long. We are

beginning to see real signs that it is becoming a reality and is why, when we

talk of a new relationship, we do so with a sense of hope and with a sense of

confidence, because there is much to point to, to demonstrate that it is

becoming a reality.

I think this agreement is tangible evidence of the efforts the

parties have gone to, to embrace the notion of a new relationship. I believe

that this agreement will meet with the approval of people who believe in the

importance of finding a genuine place in British Columbia for the Musqueam, a

genuine economic foundation upon which they can develop and provide hope and

promise for their people and for their families.

It's a testament to the leadership, the vision and the courage of

Chief Ernie Campbell and his councillors. We introduced them to the chamber

yesterday. They went through a rigorous community review exercise and

ratification exercise. When they arrived yesterday, that ratification had

happened about 14 hours previously.

They had an overwhelming mandate, not just by virtue of the

percentage of the vote, which was 98 percent, but the turnout was healthier than

I think we experience in most of the elections that take place elsewhere in

British Columbia or Canada — so a healthy turnout, an even healthier mandate and

a strong expression of the will of the Musqueam that this is something they want

to do, that they believe this is fair and equitable, that they believe this is a

fair resolution of not just the litigation outstanding but a fair and laudable

attempt to create that economic foundation and that basis for moving forward.

I hope and I urge members of the House to reciprocate by offering

an equally robust expression of support and endorsement not just for the

agreement but for the legislation that gives life to that agreement. With that,

I commend this legislation to the House on second reading.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that chat on

second reading. He'll have to excuse my voice. My voice is coming and going

here.

I find myself in a bit of an unusual situation, as critic for

Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, in agreeing, to a large extent, with

the minister on this particular bill. I applaud Chief Ernie Campbell, and I

applaud the Musqueam people in their hard work and perseverance on this issue.

In part, at least, the heart of this issue is about land. Of

course, the bulk of the traditional territory of the Musqueam people has been

appropriated in the past, and land is integral to first nations reconciliation.

I understand that this is with some controversy. The nature and use of the land

are important to all. With that in mind, we also must be mindful and respect the

millennia of known past history of the Musqueam people on these lands.

[1445]

We cannot — and the minister touched on this — forget the huge

socioeconomic gap that exists between the Musqueam people and the surrounding

neighbourhoods and, indeed, first nations across the province, aboriginal people

across Canada and aboriginal people around the world. Indigenous people

throughout the world face a huge socioeconomic challenge, and it certainly is

not something to be proud of historically — how that came about. Again, I see

this as a good step.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I don't know if I agree with the title of the bill, and I don't

mean to nitpick. But 2008 Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement…. Well,

reconciliation — that word is thrown about a lot, and I just want to touch on

the press release that was released by the Musqueam on March 7, 2005.

"In a precedent-setting court case released today, the

British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that the province, the provincial Crown,

breached its constitutional duty to accommodate the Musqueam Indian band's

aboriginal title rights when it sold the UBC golf course land to the University

of British Columbia. The court also awarded costs against the Crown.

"In light of the Crown's breach of its

constitutional duty to the Musqueam Indian band, the Court of Appeal suspended

the operation of the order-in-council authorizing the sale of the land to UBC

for a period of two years in order to provide the parties the opportunity to

negotiate in good faith regarding these lands and to reach some agreement.

Failing agreement, the Musqueam Indian band is free to bring the matter

[ Page 10491 ]

back to court in order to enforce UBC's undertaking to transfer the

land back to the provincial Crown."

That was, again, a Musqueam press release of March 7, 2005.

Reconciliation should not be confused with litigation, forced

litigation — with being forced to utilize the courts to establish not

reconciliation but establish basic recognition. It was only in 2003 that these

lands were removed and provided to UBC with no meaningful consultation. So there

was no attempt at reconciliation in 2003. There was no recognition that the

Musqueam even existed, and 2003 is not that long ago.

I note that this bill got — and I applaud Chief Ernie Campbell and

the Musqueam people on this — a 98 percent vote just on March 10 of this year,

just a few days ago. That's a huge endorsement for the bill. The bill is a

product of a court decision.

The Musqueam people, the last time I looked, have in good faith

been engaged in the B.C. treaty process. I believe they're at level 4, so

they're well on their way on this process. Yet there was no recognition that

they even existed in 2003, when this government authorized the removal of land

and the transferring of it to UBC without any consultation, without any

recognition that the Musqueam even existed. I applaud the Musqueam people in

taking the government to task on that, on going through the arduous task of a

court case, which took two years.

Forced litigation is certainly not a new thing. It's probably the

worst of what I call the old relationship. I guess I'll ask this as a question

in estimates, so a heads-up to the minister and his staff. I wonder how many

court cases are happening today. I know I've heard that the Pacheedaht are

potentially taking the government to court over land removals — again, land

removals.

[1450]

That follows the Hupacasath case, where the government, the Crown,

dishonoured itself. The court said that in the Hupacasath case about land

removal without meaningful consultation — again, not even the basic recognition

that the Hupacasath or the Tseshaht First Nation deserved consultation.

That was a clear case. It was a clear decision of the court. And

here we've seen another case with the Pacheedaht, with the 28,000 hectares

recently removed on Vancouver Island. Again, land was removed without

consultation with numerous first nations — the Kwakiutl, north Island.

We've seen a selective forcing to the table by the court for this

government to effect some meaningful consultation — as ordered by the courts,

not freely but basically kicking and screaming. So this bill should not be

construed as reconciliation. Reconciliation should be about respect and

recognition — recognition of identity and respect for the history, in this case,

of the Musqueam people. But that was forced by the courts.

The history. In March 2005 the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the

province had failed to adequately consult with the Musqueam when the government

approved the 2003 sale of the UBC golf course lands to the University of British

Columbia. The court suspended the provincial order-in-council and authorized the

sale for two years, to allow the Crown and the Musqueam Indian band to discuss

consultation and accommodation and to reach an agreement on the sale.

There was a deadline placed on that. That was extended earlier in

2007 because, I guess, that consultation process that was mandated by the

courts, ordered by the courts, had not yet completed. Again, I applaud the

Musqueam people and Chief Ernie Campbell on sticking this one out and keeping

the government's feet to the fire on this.

The later deadline — I guess we're pretty much on time with that,

and that is a good thing. But this is two years later than it should have been.

I will be supporting this. We as the opposition will be supporting

this bill. But I want to make it clear about the history of this bill. If the

minister is suggesting that this is the pattern for reconciliation, I find that

fraught with problems.

The Auditor General referred to the problem I'm going to be

addressing right now. First of all, this settlement was court-driven. On the

part of the Crown, I find, that's not a very good-faith position to be in — to

be forced by the courts to actually acknowledge and consult with first nations.

The Auditor General stated, in his last report about the ministry

and about the treaty process, that deals that are done outside of the treaty

process are certainly confusing and are potentially harmful to the treaty

process. It begs the question. If there was good-faith consultation by this

government, wouldn't this have naturally occurred through a treaty process that

the Musqueam have been engaged in for a number of years — a lot longer,

certainly, than the history of this court case–driven decision and bill?

[1455]

Where does that leave the treaty process for the Musqueam? The

Musqueam are in the fourth stage — that is, the latter stages — of the treaty

process. But it begs the question for other first nations who are in the treaty

process. Where is the consistency? This bill, which is the right thing to do —

maybe for the wrong reasons, but it's the right thing to do for the Musqueam

people — is outside of the treaty process. We on this side of the House have

raised this issue a number of times.

The dealings of the ministry and this government in treaty are

confusing at best. If this is the example of the new era of reconciliation, the

fact is that that doesn't bode well for this government's handling of the treaty

process. This accommodation, which is well overdue for the Musqueam people, was

not achieved through the treaty process, even though they are involved in the

treaty process and probably have debt incurred through that process. They had to

go to the courts to address reconciliation, if that's the appropriate term.

If this is indeed the new era of reconciliation, at least a piece

of this involves the very worst part of the old relationship — being forced to

negotiate; being forced to accommodate; being forced to consult by the courts;

and worse, having a first nation have to go through that process to get

government to come to the table and develop Bill 12.

[ Page 10492 ]

If the court decision had not occurred and if the Musqueam people

had not the resources, for instance, to take this government to court, I wonder

where we'd be today. I wonder if reconciliation would have been achieved. I

wonder if this bill would be here. I don't think so.

That being said, we in the opposition will be supporting this

bill. I would hope that the people of British Columbia would also be supporting

this bill. We can no longer live as we have in the past. We must recognize that

the great socioeconomic gap between first nations and non–first nations in this

province must be closed.

The minister touched on this. There are many parts of

reconciliation, and land is an important part. Land is integral to

self-governance. These issues are all laid out clearly in the articles of the UN

declaration on the rights of indigenous people that just in September was

ratified resoundingly in the world. So 144 votes yes and four no votes — a huge

majority of progressive minds.

Canada was integral in building that UN declaration. The articles

speak specifically about reconciliation, about treaties, about land and about

self-governance. This government has not supported the UN declaration. Neither

vote no — very shameful.

I believe it's going to change to be 145 to 3, because I think

we're going to see Australia in the process of changing their no vote to a yes

vote. I believe that in part that precipitated a change of government — the

previous government of Australia not supporting the UN declaration.

[1500]

Reconciliation — the minister is right — is not a single event. It

is a continuum. The government and the minister should heed those words. The

continuum of reconciliation isn't just one bill that this government forced,

kicking and screaming, to be made through the courts. It is about many things.

It is about recognition and respect for the rights of indigenous people all over

this world. In this province? Yes. In this country? Absolutely. But everywhere.

There are hundreds of millions of indigenous peoples throughout the world who

demand the respect of non-indigenous governments.

I am going to take the opportunity, if I may, to again urge this

government to formally support and adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples. It would be consistent with the words of the minister in his

promotion of this bill, which we support. But the bill should not be considered

reconciliation if it's done in isolation.

With that in mind, perhaps the minister will reconsider and

actually support the UN declaration, which, as I stated in the articles of the

UN declaration, would support such a bill, because it is about reconciliation of

certainly one question — of land, which there is precious little of for many

urban first nations. That's a tricky reality. Most of us on both sides of the

House would certainly hope that that could be dealt with progressively through

the B.C. treaty process, but that didn't happen here. This was a court-forced

negotiation.

Again, to Chief Ernie Campbell and the Musqueam people, we on this

side of the House offer our congratulations and our thanks for standing up for

what is right not just for the Musqueam people but for all first nations.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister

closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the hon. member for his remarks

and for the assurance of support. I know that it means a lot to the Musqueam

people that this House, it would seem, will be in a position to speak strongly

in favour of this agreement.

I should take this opportunity to do a couple of things. Firstly,

lest I forget, I do want to thank and pay tribute to the teams of negotiators

that participated in these discussions. As I think all members can imagine,

something of this magnitude doesn't happen all by itself.

To the teams that assembled for the Musqueam, for the province and

those that assisted those teams, I say thank you. Job well done. We are the

beneficiaries. British Columbians, including the Musqueam and descendants, will

benefit from the work that they have performed, which is reflected in both the

agreement and the legislation that we have before us today.

I should also…. He is not here to speak these words for himself,

but I know from discussions with Chief Ernie Campbell that there is one

individual he has repeatedly paid tribute to — and I will do so on his behalf —

and that is the MLA for the area most directly involved.

[1505]

There are two. One is the MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena. The other,

of course, is the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey, who we generally refer to as the

Premier of the province. There are two Chief Campbells referred to, but Chief

Campbell of the Musqueam yesterday and in the lead-up to yesterday has

repeatedly paid tribute to the level of engagement, interest and leadership

displayed by the Premier.

It's true that when one is trying to make a breakthrough in any

endeavour worth tackling, it does take a level of focus and concentration and

attention, and that was certainly present and part and parcel of what took

place. I would like to relay to the House those comments, and of course, I share

them and am the beneficiary of that leadership on a day-to-day basis as a member

of the executive council.

The member spent a little bit of time providing observations

around the UN declaration. I don't know if I'm taking the wind out of his sails

or not, and it may be that I have not been as clear about this, but because he

raised it, I will respond.

I think Canada should sign on. I think Canada should support it. I

have said that before, and I'll say it again. I think there is a way to do this

that is not inconsistent with our constitutional framework. I think it is of

huge importance to aboriginal peoples right across Canada, and I think it is a

mistake, quite frankly — a mistake that can be rectified. I have made those

views clear to the federal officials and will continue to do so.

[ Page 10493 ]

So I thank the member for raising the issue, and hopefully, having

my response on the record will relieve him of any concerns he may have about

what my position is with respect to the issue that he raised. As the official at

the First Nations Summit, the Chief said that reconciliation is not an event but

one fateful and important step along that path.

I am grateful for the expression of support that the member has

provided on behalf of the official opposition, and I know that as this

legislation moves forward — and I'm hopeful and now optimistic that it will

rather quickly — we will get on with the task of working with the Musqueam in

developing a future for their community, their families and their children that

all British Columbians can be proud of.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a

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

Bill 12, Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits

Agreement Implementation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate of

Bill 7, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

[1510]

Committee of the Whole House

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 3:11 p.m.

section 17.

C. Wyse: I would like to clarify with the minister whether

there is any limit to the amount that is allowed to be spent on a local

government election campaign.

Hon. I. Chong: No.

C. Wyse: Therefore, I would move this amendment to this

section by adding the following,

section 17.1:

[1 7.1 The following

section is

added:

Election Expenses Limits

89.01

(1) A candidate, elector organization or

campaign organizer must not incur an election expense if this will result in the

election expenses of the candidate, elector organization or campaign organizer

exceeding the limit set out in subsections (3) and (4).

(2) For the purpose of determining an election expenses limit under

subsection (3), the number of voters for a local government jurisdiction is the

number shown on the revised list of voters for the jurisdiction prepared under

section 62.

(3) The election expenses limit for an election campaign is $1.00

multiplied by the number of voters for a local government jurisdiction, as

determined under subsection (2).

(4) For clarification, the election expenses limit set out in

subsection (3) apply to election expenses incurred in the calendar year that the

election takes place.]

On the amendment.

Hon. I. Chong: I understand the effort he is attempting to

make here and the comments made by other members of the House opposite who have

indicated that they would like to make amendments additionally to Bill 7 that

deal with spending limits and the types of expenditures in that area.

As I indicated at second reading as well as on other sections that

we debated, the intent of this legislation was to reflect targeted specific

changes that were in agreement as a result of some consultation with UBCM, as

well as with some input from the broader local government community and local

government election officials. With that regard, the area of election expense

limits was not an area that was proposed to be brought forward at this time.

I also indicated to the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain,

who has over the last number of years raised issues with me, that while we both

would agree that this is an area that could solicit more public input, it might

be well served by a broader public consultation. As I say, I agree to that, and

that should take place probably, and most likely, after the 2008 civic

elections.

With that, I know the member will expect that I would not be

supporting his amendment.

[1515]

C. Wyse: Always most respectful of my colleague, with

absolutely no reservations, but the legislation begs the actual issue, and the

issue is whether there are unlimited sums of money that may be spent in local

elections.

As a matter of fact, as we go through the legislation that exists,

we will come across other points that are contained here within the legislation

that even question my possible ability to stand here and use the information

that I'm now going to put in front of the House. I want to use information that,

in actual fact, demonstrates literally the thousands to hundreds of thousands of

dollars that are spent in local elections in order to influence the outcomes

that take place.

In actual fact, that isn't necessarily limited to just exclusively

the larger communities here within the lower mainland. That is why the amendment

is being made upon this particular part so that it applies across the entire

province.

Later in the legislation, in other sections, I will make reference

to requests that have been made to the

[ Page 10494 ]

minister for similar types of amendments around the Vancouver Charter. My

information would suggest that they have been in front of her ministry for a

number of years. This is not a new request. Because the minister, in actual

fact, has chosen not to move on the item does not preclude the use of this

particular opportunity to bring forward an item that requires resolution.

Now, in the debate that was made, we had colleagues around here

who pointed out that in the Coquitlam area, we were talking literally about tens

of thousands of dollars that were used in elections. I know of small communities

in the interior, one in particular, a very small community by the standards that

we're talking about here in the lower mainland, that literally tens of thousands

of dollars were spent by the various candidates upon running for one office,

that being the mayor in the community. Within Vancouver we know that in 2005

millions of dollars were spent between three parties that were running in order

to determine the outcome of elections.

Provincial and federal laws set these limits in place in order

that elections are not unduly influenced by those who have funds versus those

who may have fewer funds available to them. This is a principle that has been

established by the senior levels of government, including this one here.

When we talk about local governments, we are talking about the

child of this level of government. Why this level of government would not extend

the same regulations that apply to them to this other level of government, which

equally deals with items of importance, equally deals with items that

potentially have financial gains for individuals or organizations — decisions

that are important to certain organizations or parts of the society that do not

necessarily reflect the broader views across the whole area….

So the sums of money able to influence the decision-making

composition is an important principle that is here and, therefore, begs this

particular amendment.

These are the reasons why this House should be considering this

particular amendment, should be voting for it at this point in time and passing

it so that it will be in effect for the upcoming election in 2008, rather than

continuing to postpone the consideration of this item election year to election

year to election year.

Therefore, I call upon this House to consider this rationale and

vote for the amendment that is here.

[1520-1525]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Fraser

Conroy

NAYS — 39

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Jarvis

Nuraney

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Bond

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

C. Wyse: I wondered whether the minister could give a brief

clarification on what is meant with the additional requirements that are

included under

section 18, as compared to what would have previously existed.

[1530]

Hon. I. Chong:

Section 18 does require additional

information in the campaign financing disclosure forms related to having a

campaign account and support given by or referred from an electoral organization

or campaign organizer. So it will require candidates' electoral organizations to

have more transparency in terms of what other campaigns they may also be

involved with.

As well, because we are requiring this of candidates and electoral

organizations, it will also extend now to the new campaign organizer definition.

So all persons would be required to fulfil this new obligation.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

C. Wyse: On

section 19. Again, to the minister. I would ask

her to clarify who will actually make the declaration that is referred to in (b)(iii).

Hon. I. Chong: There has not been any change. But for the

benefit of the member, the declaration must in each case be made by the

financial agent who is filing the disclosure statement; or in the case of a

disclosure statement for a candidate, him or herself; and for

[ Page 10495 ]

elected organizations, the person who is designated as the chief financial

agent or officer, as well, or for the campaign organizer who they designate as

their financial agent or official agent.

There has been no change to that part of it.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

C. Wyse: Again, to the minister. I would ask her to provide

a brief outline of what the effect of

section 22 is.

[1535]

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of

section 22 is to apply the

same penalties for failure to file campaign financing disclosure statements to

elector organizations and campaign organizers — which is, again, to ensure that

we capture that new category — and also to create a new penalty that prohibits

an elector organization or a campaign organizer from engaging in campaign

financing or spending after failing to file a campaign financial disclosure

statement.

C. Wyse: I would also seek some clarification on the extent

of the penalty, so that I would understand the limits on when this group or

individuals are restricted from being able to be involved in future elections as

a result of improprieties under this

section of the act.

Hon. I. Chong: To the member. I think he will recall that

currently there is a requirement to file your disclosure statements in March.

There also is a provision for people to late-file, as he knows — I think within

30 days after that. But if there is a total failure to file a campaign financial

disclosure document, this is where the new penalty will now apply.

That will disqualify a campaign organizer or an elector

organization from endorsing a candidate until after the next election or any

other by-election subsequent to that. In addition, it prohibits the elector

organization or campaign organizer from accepting campaign contributions or

incurring election expenses relative to those future elections until after the

next general election.

B. Bennett: Madam Chair, I seek leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Bennett: I'd like to introduce seven students from Yahk

Elementary School, which is located in the great little community of Yahk right

against the Alberta border, not too far north of Idaho. There are seven students

here out of a 19-student school. It has to be one of the smallest schools in the

province, and they've come all the way down here to see how we practise

democracy here. I told them they were going to be on TV. So smile, kids. Welcome

to the House.

Debate Continued

C. Wyse: Once more, to the minister. In her answer, if I

followed her accurately…. And I can make no guarantees that I did that — my

limits; not hers, by any means.

To give an example, if we use the election of 2008, the next local

election would be in 2011. Suppose there happened to be a by-election between

'08 and '11 and the organization is disqualified from being involved in the

by-election. Does that mean they would be eligible to be involved in the local

election of 2011?

[1540]

Hon. I. Chong: When I indicated by-elections, I wanted it

to be clear that the campaign organizers and elector organizations would not be

entitled to, as I say, endorse a candidate or accept campaign contributions or

incur election expenses in relation to the by-elections or, as well, until after

the next general election. It would go after November 2011, so it would be a

by-election between 2011 and 2014 or the general election in 2014.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

C. Wyse:

Section 24, I believe, includes an additional

penalty that is involved in here. Once more I would ask the minister to briefly

outline what the additional penalty is and where the addition comes into play.

Hon. I. Chong: This is similar to the previous section. In

the previous

section it referred to persons and organizations that fail to file.

In this particular case, it's those who file a false or incomplete disclosure

document.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

C. Wyse: To try and give the minister a direction of where

my questions will be coming from…. Specifically, it's under 93(3) — the portion

that's contained in here.

My question to the minister is — if she could briefly outline for

the House here: what in actual fact are the limitations that are defined in

(3) for the use of that information?

Hon. I. Chong: This

section makes it clearer that the

purpose of using information and reports, disclosure statements in particular….

They are to be used for election purposes and are also to be used for

conflict-of-interest situations, for purposes of looking at potential

disqualification — again, to use it specifically for those purposes — and, of

course, with the Vancouver Charter. This provides parallel sections so that

everyone falls under the same requirements.

[ Page 10496 ]

C. Wyse: Would the minister agree with me that the use of

the information…? Is it very narrowly allowed to be used for, if I counted

correctly, two distinct sets of circumstances?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the minister's great ability of being

so succinct in helping me understand this area.

[1545]

I wish to move an amendment to

section 25. I have, again, copies

of the amendment for the minister as well as for the Table. The amendment would

be:

Section 25 is amended by striking out all of subsection

(3) from the proposed

section 93. ]

On the amendment.

C. Wyse: As the minister has pointed out, individuals can

go in and access this information. They can look at it. Then once they have that

information, the use of it becomes exceptionally narrowly defined.

If we look at the provincial or the federal information and when

you look at the financial disclosures, it allows for people to determine whether

the moneys were being used to influence the elections — set up the people that

are making the decisions. Therefore, if you're able to establish the group that

is of your persuasion, of your particular point of view, and you've done it

under the anonymity of knowing that these donations are able to be made, that

information can only be used in order to develop the case for decisions that may

be made over the upcoming term of office. It becomes very narrow for the use of

that information, in our judgment.

In actual fact, the other levels of government look at it and

leave it up to the public's ability to determine how that information is used in

developing their case and understanding all the different influences that may

come into play by the decision-makers on the items that they're dealing with

over the upcoming year.

It is becoming increasingly more important for that knowledge to

be able to be used at the discretion of the public. When we have a look at the

decisions that local governments do make, we often have a tendency to

concentrate upon the financial aspects of it. That's a component that jumps out

to many people — not necessarily all people, but many people — when they look

upon decisions that are being made by local government, particularly when we're

dealing with land usage or we're looking at usage in changing of zonings,

changes of building bylaws or building codes and things of that nature, where

those changes may in actual fact have a profound effect upon financial returns.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that people would have the ability

to use that information in saying that group A or individual B had donated X

sums of dollars towards a particular campaign.

That isn't necessarily just restricted to financial items. Of

course, there are other issues that come up in front of local government and

that are also of importance to the community. By continuing to narrowly restrict

the use of information to the points that the minister has made is, in our

judgment, contradictory to the general intention that we've heard on a couple of

occasions from the minister…. The intent of the bill is to improve on the

openness, accountability and transparency of what goes on at local government.

[1550]

Continuing to walk by the more important…. I possibly may want to

take out my adjective because they're all important, and I realize that

inadvertently I was downplaying the significance of some other issues that have

been introduced here. I did that inadvertently. Important items that are not

included in this legislation that we know affect all local government

decisions….

Also, when we get into the Vancouver Charter, I will be referring

directly to requests in this area — which, again, have been in front of the

minister's office for a number of years — and the continued argument to say that

they weren't included in a polling of independent electoral officers from around

the province of local governments, including regional districts, of course….

Then to be saying that these important items are going to continue to be

extended through 2008, when there is an opportunity here, with a very, very

simple amendment, to make that change….

I know that where I'm from, up in the Cariboo, they are going to

be absolutely astonished that with about ten words, I'm able to effect this very

significant opening up to the public for their ability to use information that

has been solemnly declared — to be able to have insights into the direct

influence-making that takes place upon governmental bodies and who is elected.

We have seen earlier attempts at putting limits on total amounts

of contributions of an anonymous nature be defeated. We have seen attempts to

put in a limit, a cap, on the amount of money on elections in total being

defeated.

All of that having been said, this simple amendment at least

allows the information that is there to be used throughout the term of office of

the government that is elected by members of the public — to have and be able to

use that information around decisions that are being made by their local

government. So in the general spirit of this amendment act, this amendment would

be passed.

Hon. I. Chong: I listened very closely to the member. I

needed to really understand where his purpose was.

Section 93(2) of the Local

Government Act does specify that the public inspection of campaign finance

disclosure statements may only occur for purposes of the Election Act. Then it

also goes on to regular business hours and things such as that.

The change that we have brought in under

section 93(3) would in

fact extend to not just elections for the purposes of that part, but it was

indeed opening up the possibility, as he's actually speaking of, where we would

be able to use that disclosure statement informa-

[ Page 10497 ]

tion to take a look at possible conflicts of interest. That was not

previously in the section.

So perhaps the original question he asked — if it was limiting…. I

said it was limiting insofar as those are the two specific purposes. Perhaps he

was not aware that there was only one purpose before, which is strictly for the

purposes of elections. As I say, this does open it up for issues of conflict of

interest. As I was listening to him, this is where he appeared to be going. So

this subsection does provide for that.

In supporting his amendment, we would completely eliminate that,

which would then allow for no limitations. It would mean that the disclosure

document could be used for things such as marketing, for solicitations of

donations from various non-profit groups — a variety of purposes. It would be

completely open, and I don't think that was the intent of the amendment. I would

hope not, because even in our provincial legislation there are limits as to what

you can use the disclosure document for.

I'm hoping that, with that, the member understands why the

amendment would not be supportable. It would certainly allow for potential

abuses, and I don't think that is what his purpose or intent is. So of course,

with that, I would be voting against the amendment.

[1555-1600]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 39

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Bond

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

Sections 25 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

C. Wyse: I would ask the minister for, underneath

subsection (c)(5.2), an explanation of the last phraseology: "…is not entitled

to obtain a copy of those materials." I would like an explanation of what the

effect of that statement is.

[1605]

Hon. I. Chong: This would be in reference to items and

paperwork that are generated at polling stations on election day — for example,

poll books or any kind of solemn declarations that electors or individuals make

on behalf of persons who are voting. These are very much issues of privacy.

Sections 30 to 34 inclusive approved.

section 35.

C. Wyse: We now switch to a

section that, if I understand

it correctly, is going to apply to the School Act. In doing such, I would ask of

the minister what the general intent of sections 35, 36 and 37 is, whether the

intent of these is to bring the School Act and its appropriate parts into line

with what our previous amendments have been doing underneath this act. I require

some clarity in my mind about what those three sections are meant to do.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, the intent is to ensure that these

provisions mirror the others with regards to the changes made for the voting.

C. Wyse: Specifically, then, with the School Act, that

would include just simply assigning, expanding the

definitions to the broader

groups and organizations and items of that nature?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes.

Sections 35 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 38.

C. Wyse: In order to assist the minister, I believe that we

will have a series of sections that come up immediately dealing with the

Vancouver Charter. My question to the minister is that we're now moving into a

number of amendments which are simply meant to reflect what had taken place

underneath the general part of the acts that cover the rest of the province and

the local government.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes.

C. Wyse: Again, to try and assist the minister, in

discussions that we have had here in the House over yesterday and today, I have

given the minister, I hope,

[ Page 10498 ]

ample indication that our understanding is that her ministry has been

receiving correspondence around the items we have been moving amendments for.

Assuredly, I will be up pushing for those same points, given that her ministry,

to my understanding, has been requested by Vancouver council, by resolution, as

well as community groups here…. The charter itself is meant to specifically and

only apply to this part of the province. Therefore, there is actually additional

documentation that will add on a point or two.

Just so the minister is aware, I will be, in essence, posing the

same type of questions to her around the mirroring amendments to the Vancouver

Charter that we have talked about over the last little while.

[1610]

Section 38 approved.

section 39.

C. Wyse: On

section 39. I believe that this is meant to

mirror making it easier, as a non-resident who holds property inside of the city

boundaries of Vancouver, to be able to vote in the Vancouver municipal

elections. I wish to have that clarified, please.

Hon. I. Chong: It's not about making it easier. What it is,

is eliminating a duplication that currently exists. There will still be a

requirement for eligibility for non-resident property electors to provide proof

of eligibility. What is currently occurring is that they are required, prior to

being entitled to vote and also on the same day as voting day, to bring the same

documentation forward. Once they've proven they are eligible to vote, then they

should be eligible to vote.

We are, I guess, for ease of streamlining, ensuring that that does

not create a problem on voting day. Proof of eligibility would remain the same,

so it's not about making it easier in that regard, if that helps the member.

C. Wyse: Again, most respectfully, I do accept the point

that is being made, but without this amendment the non-resident property owner

was also required to have done another process before election day. The point

that I was attempting to make properly — maybe a little shoddily with the

become a qualified voter. You can do it all in one day rather than it being

required to be done ahead of time.

Hon. I. Chong: It's not about making it easier. There is

only one document that can be obtained. If a person chose to wait till election

day and provided their proof of eligibility and obtained their certificate to

allow them to vote on voting day, they could do so. But we're saying that if

they chose to do it in advance, they can do so now.

If the member is suggesting to not be able to do it in advance and

wait till voting day, it certainly does require additional confusion and

additional documentation on voting day when there is so much activity taking

place.

Here we're allowing that those who choose to provide proof of

eligibility so that they can vote on voting day can do so well in advance of

voting day and then show up on voting day to exercise their right.

C. Wyse: The Vancouver Electoral Reform Commission makes

the recommendation that for the Vancouver elections, the non-resident voter

would be removed completely from being allowed to vote. So we do have

reservations with No. 39, but we'd be now prepared to move on with the vote on

No. 39.

[1615]

Section 39 approved on division.

Sections 40 to 42 inclusive approved.

section 43.

C. Wyse: Again, if the minister would clarify the intent of

section 43 and why it is being introduced into the amendment bylaw — the purpose

behind it for such a large community as Vancouver.

Hon. I. Chong: This is similar to

section 6 that was passed

yesterday, which dealt with all other candidates making a declaration of intent

to take office if elected, which was applying to all local governments. So

section 43 will just provide that same criteria through the Vancouver Charter.

Sections 43 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 46.

C. Wyse: Again, just to ensure that I've been tracking the

plurality of the two sections, I would ask the minister if she could explain

what the intent of 46 is.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to assure the member that

sections 46, 47 and 48 are paralleling or mirroring sections 9, 10 and 11, which

we did pass yesterday. I just want to give him that assurance.

Sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

C. Wyse: I want to thank the minister for that

clarification. It did give me the assurances that I was seeking.

section 49, if the minister could explain to me what is meant

in 57.01(2) by "reasonably possible." It seems to be a relatively vague phrase

to me, so I would like to have some idea of what is meant by those two terms.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would refer the member to

section

12, where we used the same phrase and which we passed yesterday. Perhaps we did

not have the opportunity to canvass "reasonably possible," but it really means

as soon as is possible.

[ Page 10499 ]

If an elector organization determines that it is an elector

organization and wants to make that notification, and they are not there at the

office when it closes at 4:30, then as soon as possible, we would hope, would be

the next day or the day after that. So I guess in legal terms "reasonably

possible" means, really, as soon as it can.

[1620]

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

section 51.

C. Wyse: We would not necessarily be concerned with

section

51 itself. But at the same time, as the minister has explained, we have some

parallel legislation between the charter and what we dealt with for the rest of

the province.

I had indicated yesterday, through an amendment, that we would be

looking for a narrowing of the total amount of anonymous contributions that may

be donated as well as the different types of organizations from which the

donations could be accepted.

So I would, then, move an amendment to

section 51. Once more, I do

have copies for yourself, hon. Chair, as well as the minister.

Section 51 is amended by striking out everything after

"Section 58" and substituting "is amended

(

a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the

following:

(1) A candidate, elector organization or campaign organizer must not

accept campaign contributions or incur election expenses except through the

financial agent or a person authorized by the financial agent. , and

(

b) by adding the following subsections:

(3) A candidate, elector organization or campaign organizer must not

accept anonymous campaign contributions that, combined, total more than $5 000

and must return campaign contributions in excess of this amount to the local

government.

(4) Despite

section 59, a candidate, elector organization or

campaign organizer must not accept campaign contributions from trade unions or

from corporations. " ]

On the amendment.

C. Wyse: In November of this year there was something that

not very often happens at the council of the city of Vancouver, in which

unanimously there was a motion passed from…. All three of the political parties

at city council voted in favour of a motion to ask the Minister of Community

Services for an update on the city's three-year-old request for electoral

financial reform measures, which included, amongst other things, restrictions on

campaign contributions, restrictions on campaign spending, tax credits for

municipal campaigns or political contributions, reporting of all contributions

regardless of when the contributions are received, and financial reporting

requirements similar to those for federal and provincial parties.

Earlier I had talked about the total sums of money that had been

used in various campaigns. In actual fact, when we look at the United States

presidential election of 2004, it turns out that $2.71 was the sum of money that

was spent per eligible voter in that particular election. When we come to the

2005 election in Vancouver, when you look at the money spent by the three main

political parties, it turns out to be $9.71 per eligible voter — approximately

three times the sum of money spent in the United States election.

[1625]

When we look at

section 51 — where it sits by itself, it is

commendable. But it doesn't go far enough, in our opinion on this side of the

bench. In actual fact, with the similar general intent of other sections in the

act, at least as we read it, there looks to be very specific legislation to

restrict the total number of contributions that an individual can make in any

campaign. But there isn't a total overall effect — the total sums of money that

are collected by a candidate or slate of candidates that are running for office.

What this particular amendment attempts to do is to set a limit on

the total sum of anonymous donations that may be collected, and in doing such,

follows along with the general intent of providing for openness, transparency

and accountability.

At the same time, this amendment also restricts from whom the

bodies may receive their donations. It removes a couple of organizations, unions

and corporations from making donations towards municipal campaigns in Vancouver.

By doing such, it then leaves the financial aspect of these campaigns up to

living human beings that are defined along a biological aspect of it.

I've had people in other conversations tell me that in certain

legal sets of situations, corporations are defined as though they are alive,

well and breathing and, in that aspect, are assigned the same rights as you and

I. On this side of the House we do not believe that in today's age, elections,

whether they be at the municipal level or other levels, should continue to be

receiving donations from these types of broad organizations.

Very much within the intent of what Vancouver has been requesting,

in our opinion, for quite a number of years now, we have moved this amendment,

and we will move subsequent amendments to achieve what Vancouver has been

requesting. Not only has the city council been requesting this, but so have

community groups here within Vancouver been doing the same. It is our

understanding that those community groups, likewise, have been advising the

ministry of similar types of requests.

On this side of the House we do not find it acceptable that, at

such close proximity to an election here in Vancouver, we would not take the

opportunity to pass amendments of this nature which, in actual fact, gives what

Vancouver and the community groups here within Vancouver have been requesting

for a period of time. Previously, when we debated this amendment earlier in the

section of the act, the minister had argued that given the vastness of the

geography of the province, it may create some type of a disparity.

However, we are now in the part of the act which is very specific,

in which the local government that is responsible for it, with very diverse

political groups of

[ Page 10500 ]

individuals sitting at council, unanimously is behind requests of this

nature, and the community groups that are within Vancouver, likewise, are in

support of these types of amendments.

On this side of the House we believe that arguments which have

been used by the minister to deal with the rest of the province do not stand up

to the same scrutiny, given the situation that applies here.

[1630]

It is with that that we would at least assume that the minister

would be able to support this amendment and subsequent ones, with it applying

simply here to Vancouver and in its charter.

Hon. I. Chong:

Certainly, I do appreciate the member's

persistence and perseverance when it comes to making amendments. As noted, this

is a similar amendment to that made on

section 14 yesterday by the member for

Vancouver-Fairview. As I indicated at that time, these changes, which may well

be changes that local governments want, do require broader local government and

public consultation because they are substantial and important amendments.

The local elections legislation has been the same for all local

governments across British Columbia, including the city of Vancouver, since

1993. The previous administration and the members opposite who were previously

Municipal Affairs minister would know that it was their government that brought

in changes to ensure that local government elections across British Columbia

were parallel and that they were, in fact, consistent.

To make a change specifically for the Vancouver Charter would go

against exactly what the NDP government of the day proposed to do. I want to,

first of all, state that.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Secondly, to again speak about these changes that the Vancouver

council brings forward — and certainly, I can appreciate that they want to be

viewed somewhat differently and to have some of their own sections in the act —

would again defy what we are trying to do by ensuring that all persons in

British Columbia, no matter what municipality they reside in, know that local

government elections, and the rules which they must abide by, are held in the

same way.

I note, too, that there had been conversations, perhaps in 2004

just prior to the 2005 civic elections, and that there had been these changes

that had been requested. Then after 2005, if in fact Vancouver city council and

the elected persons there felt this was so important, I would have expected that

they would have engaged UBCM and the broader public in 2006 and 2007 to ensure

that the broader consultation would take place so that people in the rural and

remote areas of our province — whether it's in the interior, in the Kootenays,

in the north, on Vancouver Island — all would have had an opportunity to

participate in this debate. As I say, they are significant enough that it would

warrant the broader public debate to take place.

However, Vancouver did not initiate that public consultation. They

should have, as I said, if it was that important but waited until last fall,

just a year prior to this upcoming election, before they indicated that this was

of some concern. With the greatest respect to the Vancouver councillors and the

council themselves, if this is of such significance, I would hope that after the

November 2008 civic elections they do in fact engage the public and the broader

local government community so that this matter can be dealt with.

My understanding, though, was that in 1999 these were items that

were also brought forward and initiated by the then Minister of Municipal

Affairs, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who at that time thought it

was of such significance that there would be broader support, as well, to make

these changes. My understanding was that at that time it was initiated by the

minister — and the ministry, I suppose. The conclusion was that there was

indifference across the province and certainly no consensus.

[1635]

So the attempt was made there. I acknowledge that it's some ten

years later. At the same time, I think that the attempt should be made once

again, with the broader public, as opposed to the minister, wanting to initiate

those changes, as was done in 1999 — because clearly it was not supported in

To sum up, this is an amendment that we did not support in

section

14. So by that token, we would not be supporting this amendment to

section 51.

C. Wyse: The last time I looked at this bill, the bill

belonged here in this Legislature and, therefore, is the responsibility of this

Legislature and would be the responsibility of the minister. If that's a false

assumption on my part, I apologize.

I'd ask of the Chair whether Vancouver city council had been

advised that it was their responsibility to canvass the public to see what their

opinion was on this particular request for amendment that had come from the city

council three years ago.

The Chair:

Seeing no further….

C. Wyse: I asked a question, through you, to the minister. May

I rephrase my question, please?

The Chair: Would you repeat the question, please, Member. I

don't think it was fully heard at this end of the House.

C. Wyse: For that I apologize. I will attempt to enunciate

better.

Was the city council of Vancouver advised by the ministry that it

was their responsibility to have canvassed the public here in Vancouver about

what their feeling is towards the proposed amendments that they had requested?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, Vancouver is a member of UBCM, and

they know that UBCM is the general

[ Page 10501 ]

vehicle for which broader local government support is required when there are

changes that are being made, specifically changes that affect all local

governments. I would expect that Vancouver would know that they needed to engage

with UBCM and to get support from their member municipalities if they wanted to

make changes to the Local Government Act that affect all local government

elections.

C. Wyse: It may be an assumption that isn't necessarily

that solid. Part of the reason for not moving upon this amendment was that city

council of Vancouver had not done something.

To me, it seems to be quite reasonable to write to the minister to

look at doing something that is clearly, here, within that jurisdiction and, if

further hoops were going to be required for amendments or changes, that the

ministry would have advised what those hoops or other actions that were

requested had been passed on to the group, rather than simply allowing the clock

to tick along….

I'm assuming — and the minister will have another opportunity to

correct my assumption if it is inaccurate — that those types of requests had not

been made of Vancouver. Therefore, to be asking at this point in time or to be

using it as a reason for not moving on the request I find somewhat

disconcerting.

I would have another question to the minister. Does the Vancouver

Charter mirror the legislation exactly that applies to every other part here in

British Columbia?

[1640]

Hon. I. Chong: To the member on his last question: yes, on

elections it does.

I just want to clarify, lest there be any doubt, that when any

local government is seeking changes to the Local Government Act or changes that

would apply to all local governments, it is a general practice of our ministry

to advise that council, whoever they may be, that they need to get support from

their member municipalities. After all, we don't have 160 separate charters for

every particular municipality.

It is a practice of the ministry that we do advise that, if there

are changes that are requested or wanted, they not be dealt with in isolation;

that member municipalities are engaged; and that, if they wish to lead on that,

they can do so.

It's not about not moving on an initiative. It is certainly an

area that Vancouver is well aware of. But with all due respect, if they think

that they can just wait until six months or a year before the civic elections

and believe that changes can be made which will affect all local government

elections, then I'm sorry. They have made their own assumption — certainly not

one that I've made for them.

Just to be clear, we take a look at all changes that are requested

from local governments. Certainly, we advise them that if they are significant

enough — and I would believe that local government elections are — they need to

engage in consultation with their member municipalities. UBCM is usually the

first place and the easiest place to start that dialogue.

If it's not undertaken, then we can only expect that perhaps their

minds have changed on the matter or that they don't think it is worth pursuing.

I don't know what is the case, but I do know that there was not that

consultation process that took place in 2006, nor in 2007.

C. Wyse: As usual, I appreciate the response from the

minister. The error may be mine, but I think I missed the answer to the question

that I proposed. I'm going to propose it again. Does the Vancouver Charter

mirror exactly this legislation that governs all other local governments here in

British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: In relation to elections, yes, it does.

C. Wyse: Well, I need to go through the charter

section by

section. My question once more: are there differences in how the Vancouver

Charter applies to how the city of Vancouver operates, as compared to how the

provincial statutes apply to the rest of the municipalities here within British

Columbia? Are there differences in the two acts?

Hon. I. Chong: What we are dealing with in Bill 7 are

changes to the Local Government Act, and to ensure that we are dealing with

local government elections…. So I would say again, in relation to local

government elections, they do parallel. The member, I think, is aware of that.

That is what we are proposing for changes currently in this piece

of legislation. I would ask the member to…. If he wishes to speak to that, I

will continue to provide him with responses to that effect. If he would like to

vote on the amendment, then we're certainly prepared to do so.

G. Robertson: I rise to speak, first of all, strongly in

favour of this amendment. As we have raised a number of issues that we raised in

section 14 and the amendment to

section 14, which the government chose to vote

down, that are absolutely critical in terms of campaign finance reform for the

city of Vancouver….

[1645]

Now that we're dealing specifically with the Vancouver Charter,

which is a dedicated piece of legislation to the city of Vancouver, it only

stands to reason that these same strong points for campaign finance reform

should apply.

The minister's logic here is wonky. If she contends that the same

rules should apply to every municipality across B.C., then it should make sense

that the same stringent campaign finance rules that apply to the federal and

provincial governments should also apply to municipal governments. You can't

have it both ways.

The minister is contending here that there need to be generic

campaign finance laws across all municipalities in B.C. but that that's not the

case for the municipalities, the province and the country. We can have

completely contradictory campaign finance laws, depending on municipality,

province or country.

[ Page 10502 ]

Can the minister defend her logic in that municipalities must have

the same rules,

whereas the municipalities themselves can have completely

different campaign finance laws than the province or the country?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I'm sorry to disappoint the member,

but each province establishes its own rules. The federal government, too, has

its own rules in the way elections are held.

But the Community Charter, as well as the Local Government Act and

the Vancouver Charter, is the legislative framework that we, the province,

establish — the legislative framework for which our local governments are

allowed to carry on. Included in that and in those acts are, in fact, the local

government elections. So it is logical that because we provide the legislative

framework for our local governments, we have that consistently applied for our

local governments.

I know the member is…. It's clear that he would like to seek

election in Vancouver at the civic elections. Fair enough, but this is not just

about Vancouver. The local government elections will also affect Richmond and

Surrey and Abbotsford and Trail and Ucluelet and Tofino and Port Alberni. It's

all our local governments. So it is important that there is consistency applied.

Again, it was in 1993 that that attempt was made by the NDP

government of the day. It was in 1993 that the local elections legislation was

made the same, and has been the same, for all local governments across British

Columbia, including the city of Vancouver.

I think the NDP government of the day thought that was important.

They obviously moved that forward. I would agree that it is important that local

government right across British Columbia can depend upon local government

elections to take place in the same manner.

For that reason, again, I would not be supporting the amendment

that would specifically change that approach.

G. Robertson: I'd just, with all due respect, remind the

minister that we're talking about 2008. We're talking about several municipal

elections that have happened since some of these statutes were put in place.

Significant changes have occurred in the municipal arena, particularly in the

city of Vancouver, with regard to outrageous sums of money being contributed to

local election campaigns.

In terms of the amendments that have been proposed and

specifically the amendment we're dealing with here today, the absurdity of the

scale of campaign contributions that's taking place in Vancouver, particularly

in the last 2005 election, should trigger a response in terms of campaign

finance reform. Clearly, the elected officials, unanimously in Vancouver, have

requested that changes be made, and it's backed up by several community

organizations that had extensive process within the community.

Does the minister feel that the scale of campaign contributions

that took place in 2005 was within the norm for municipalities in B.C. and that

nothing really needs to be done because Vancouver's the same as everywhere else?

[1650]

Hon. I. Chong: I know that this is a very passionate issue

for this particular member from Vancouver-Fairview because of his potential

future. However, I have to remind him and other members again that it is fair

that all local governments be engaged in this initiative or this potential

change. To suggest that other local governments — large cities not unlike

Vancouver and larger cities, whether in the Okanagan or here on Vancouver

Island…. They, too, should be allowed to engage in this. It goes back to the

nature of the issue.

This was not an item that other local governments felt should be

brought forward. Or if they did, it was not brought forward to my attention or

through to UBCM, which is one of the reasons why it did not bring about debate

at any of their conventions. Certainly, we all read the papers.

We all know that Vancouver goes through its contentious, I guess,

and rather hotly contested campaigns. I acknowledge that they are experiencing

some problems or concerns about this. If they felt and do feel that this is an

area that warrants support, they need to ensure that their member municipalities

can provide that support to them.

We went to the situation where, in 1993, local governments across

British Columbia were all treated in the same way, when the NDP of the day

decided that that was important. I need to understand why it's not so important

now. What makes it so different in 2008 versus 1993? Is it because this member

is wanting to become the mayor? I don't know. If that's the only difference,

then I'm sorry. That's not the reason why we should make this amendment.

G. Robertson: I'm curious as to why the minister is so

obsessed with other members' private affairs and potential interest in municipal

politics. Perhaps the member opposite has some personal interest herself in

pursuing municipal office and a robust fundraising effort to support that.

We're talking about amending the Vancouver Charter here. The

member for Cariboo South has proposed an amendment to the Vancouver Charter.

Vancouver is dealing with a significant aberration in terms of campaign finance

and has made very clear and compelling arguments to this minister for the need

to see changes in the Vancouver Charter regarding campaign finance reform.

Does the minister contend, then, that any changes or amendments to

the Vancouver Charter should have the support of the UBCM and all other

municipalities around the province? Or is Vancouver capable of initiating

changes to its own charter with the province of B.C.?

Hon. I. Chong: I think we're venturing into other areas, so

I will just offer this very brief comment on that. Changes to the Vancouver

Charter that affect the local government system as a whole are not made in

isolation. Changes to the Vancouver Charter that are

[ Page 10503 ]

specific to the Vancouver Charter can in fact be initiated by the Vancouver

city council. But where there are changes to the charter that affect all other

local governments and the local government system, there is a requirement that

we do so in consultation with our member municipalities so that there is

consistency applied.

[1655]

With the greatest of respect, I think I've offered and said

everything I possibly can on the substance of this amendment. I think it's

appropriate for us to take a vote on it.

C. Wyse: I can understand that there may be some haste to

move along with this particular amendment. Before we do that, I think it's

important to remind this House that the request for these amendments occurred

long before the year 2008, long before incidents that are taking place here in

the present.

I have been dealing with the past. If I was talking with a young

child and we were talking about the amount of time that has passed in here, a

young child would look upon this and say that it's the distant past. Three or

four years ago is a long time for a request to be in front of here.

It didn't come exclusively from city council. It also came from a

commission, the Berger electoral commission. It also came from citizen groups

here within Vancouver. Many, many members of this House stood up yesterday and

pointed out the importance and significance of this particular amendment as it

applied to other parts of the province.

The debate…. To narrow it down to the immediate present as a

rationale to move along on this item and be dismissive takes away from the

significance and importance of openness, accountability and transparency that,

to this moment in time, we have been spending our focus upon.

This House, in my humble opinion, has been distracted by recent

comments that have been made in the debate from the significance of this

amendment. I'm hoping that in the future, with the subsequent amendments that

are going to be introduced on similar aspects of it, we can stay focused upon

the intent of the motion that arises from the distant past.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would be in concurrence with the

minister that when you are ready to call for the vote, we would be looking for

this to be a division.

The Chair: Members, the vote is on amendment to Bill 7,

which is placed by the member for Cariboo South. It amends

section 51.

[1700-1705]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 38

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Jarvis

Nuraney

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Bond

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre