British Columbia Hansard — Monday, March 29, 2004 (37th Parliament, 5th Session) (h0329pm-11) (h0329pm 11)

h0329pm-11

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, March 29, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 22, Number 11 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon.

Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

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

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) ..............................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Gulzar S. (L).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon.

Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) .....................................................................................

Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L).............................................................. Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L).................................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ...........................................................

Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) ..............................................

West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).......................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)..............................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)..............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North..................................................................................... John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon.

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers.....................................................................Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge............................................................ Gulzar S.

Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock.......................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................................

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Monday, March 29, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 9783 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ......................................... 9783 Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 17) Hon. G. Abbott B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr401) B.

Suffredine Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr402) M. Hunter Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ............. 9784 Cultural diversity awards for business D. Hayer Role models for children B. Locke Gibraltar mine reopening J.

Wilson Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 9785 Call for public inquiry into case of Frank Paul J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant Hon. R. Coleman Open Learning Agency severance payments J. Kwan Hon. G. Collins Medical Services Plan contract and access to personal information of B.C. residents J. Bray Hon. C. Hansen Offshore oil and gas development R. Visser Hon. R. Neufeld Transfer of community living services R. Hawes Hon. C.

Clark Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ......................................... 9788 Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr403) V. Anderson Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................... 9788 Railway Safety Act (Bill 20) Hon. M. Coell J. Kwan Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 13) (continued) J. Kwan B. Penner B. Suffredine Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 9792 Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 9836 Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Hon. R. Coleman J. MacPhail G. Halsey-Brandt K. Stewart D. MacKay

9783 MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. C. Hansen: I am delighted to introduce a con- stituent who is visiting in the gallery today. She is the daughter of Samantha Thorpe, who is the administrative coordinator for the Minister of Provincial Revenue. Sorry — I had better get this right so that I don't start family disputes here. The constituent I am introducing today is Cynthia Howard. She is here today visiting her daughter, who is Samantha Thorpe with the Minister of Provincial Revenue's office.

She's been a constituent in the constitu- ency of Vancouver-Quilchena for 35 years, and this is the first time she's been able to get over here to see question period. Would the House please make her welcome. [1405] S. Orr: Today I have three absolutely wonderful guests in the gallery. One is a gentleman who needs absolutely no introduction when he's walking around Chinatown. He truly is the patriarch of the Chinese community. His name is Phillip Chan. He's 91½ years old, and he was born here in Victoria in 1912.

When he leaves here, he's going home to dig the garden so that his wife can put in the spinach, and she's 90. He's just wonderful. With Phillip is his younger brother. His younger brother is called Paul Chan, and he is a mere 82 years of age. He is a Second World War veteran who was assigned to the secret service. We had lunch together, and they were regaling me with absolutely amazing stor ies. Their father owned a restaurant in town here, and on one given day he fed more than a thousand people in Victoria during the Depression years. Paul went to fight for the country in World War II.

Remember that they didn't get the vote until 1947. We were talking about how different it was then to now, how little they had and how they had no rights. Today people have everything, and they still feel very blessed that they live here. W i t h t h e m i s a v e r y d e a r f r i e n d o f m i n e w h o i s a huge supporter and a great worker of mine. She has helped a lot of people in this community and helps me immensely with the Chinese language, and that's Cath- erine Campbell. Would the House all make these great people very welcome. J.

MacPhail: I am honoured to ask everyone to wel- come Cindy Stewart, who is the president of the Health Sciences Association, to the House today. Would the House please make her welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills LAND SURVEY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to introduce today Bill 17, the Land Survey St atutes Amendment Act.

This bill is consistent with the government's commitment to both deregulation and operating more efficiently and effectively. The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to transfer the authority for setting and enforcing land survey standards from the province to the Corporation of Land Surv eyors of the Province of British Columbia. This authority is currently within the ambit of the surveyor general. Currently, standards for th e practice of land sur- veying are set out in the general survey instruction regulation.

This regulation will be repealed as a conse- quence of transferring authority to the corporation. The corporation will thereafter be responsible for making changes to those standards and ensuring that their membership adheres to them. The surveyor general will be able to review and approve any new standards adopted by the corporation, thereby maintaining an appropriate degree of government oversight to ensure that adequate standards are in place at all times.

Additional amendments to the Land Surveyors Act modernize the governance system for the corporation by, for example, updating it s disciplinary powers, al- lowing surveyors from out of province to become members, and revising examination and admission authorities. A number of other acts will be affected as a consequence of the amendmen ts to the land surveying statute. These are the Coal Act, the Freedom of Infor- mation and Protection of Privacy Act, the Land Act, the Land Survey Act, the Land Title Act, the Mineral Ten- ure Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Pipe- line Act and the Strata Property Act.

The amendments to these acts authorize the corpora- tion to do various things, such as make rules for surveys under those acts that were formerly the responsibility of the surveyor general. Finally, a change is being made to the legislation to enable the corporation to change its name to the Association of British Columbia Land Surveyors. These changes will come into effect on January 21, 2005, to coin- cide with the 100th anniversary of the corporation. [1410] This bill has the full support of the Corporation of Land Surveyors of B.C. and other affected professional associations.

This bill also follows through on the gov- ernment's commitment to reduce regulations and im- prove efficiency by seeking out appropriate alternative service delivery mechanisms. I am pleased to present this bill to the House today. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

9784 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 B. J. FIELD SERVICE LTD. (CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2004 B. Suffredine presented a bill intituled B. J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004. B. Suffredine: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. B. Suffredine: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. KIDD RESOURCES LTD. (CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2004 M. Hunter presented a bill intituled Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004. M. Hunter: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order pape r, be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. M. Hunter: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) CULTURAL DIVERSITY AWARDS FOR BUSINESS D. Hayer: British Columbia is a cultural mosaic, and nowhere is that ethnic diversity more prominent than in Surrey. Last week the Surrey-Delta Immigrant Services Society, under th e direction of Lesley Ann Woodman and its board of directors, held its ninth annual cultural diversity awards to honour those busi- ness people who embrace em ployee and customer di- versity in their businesses. When I was the president of Surrey Chamber of Commerce in 1996, our team was instrumental in initi- ating these awards.

Surrey, with almost 400,000 people and thousands of businesses, is representative of virtu- ally every ethnic cultural background. These awards recognize those that celebrate and encourage their heri- tage in their business. I would like to honour these business people for their efforts and their dedica tion to diversity by nam- ing those who were finalists for awards and those who won. In the category of business with 25 or fewer em- ployees, Injury Management Solutions from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead won. Ot her finalists were Guild- ford Town Centre and the Janitor Room Supply House.

The Gipaanda Greenhouses won for business over 25 employees. Also finalists for this category were Boston Pizza in Fleetwood, again, in the Surrey-Tynehead rid- ing and the Surrey Leader newspaper. In the category of not-for-profit in general, the final- ists included the Boys and Girls Club of Delta and Delta Youth Services, Inter-A student society, and the winner of this category was Surrey Chamber of Com- merce. In the not-for-profit public institutions category, the finalists were the city of Surrey, the George Mackie Library, and the winner was the Surrey public library.

Royal Bank won the corporat e division. Other finalists were Home Depot and RHM Teleservices Interna- tional. I would ask that all members of the House join me in congratulating all the winners and the finalists for these important awards that promote equality and celebrate the differences of culture we have in this great province of ours. ROLE MODELS FOR CHILDREN B. Locke: I would like to ask everyone in this chamber to pause for a moment and ask themselves: who are the role models for children in British Colum- bia today?

There are few high profile names that come to mind, like Rick Hansen, Silken Laumann, Jimmy Pattison, Martha Piper and Brendan Morrison. These are people known around the world for their accom- plishments and the challeng es they faced along their way. They have gone beyond their field of endeavour and given back to the commu nity and are inspirations to all of us. But who are the role models closer to home? Who are the people that are in fluencing children and youth every day?

Of course, for most children it's their par- ents and grandparents, but it also might be a teacher, a pastor, a police officer, the school secretary, a neighbour, a volunteer or a coach. [1415] Although the saying "It takes a village" is overused, it is still a strong and real message for all of us to re- member. Kids are learning by watching and absorbing the things we do and say. As adults, our world is mov- ing so fast we sometimes forget that the young people in our lives are trying to keep up with us. As a mom of two teenagers, which can multiply in our house to ten or more, I talk to teenagers every day.

They, too, like to be ackn owledged and valued, and sometimes they wear clothes we don't like or have one more piercing than we ca n understand. Sometimes we think they don't want us in their lives at all, but the

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9785 truth is that they do. We may have to work a little harder to nurture the relation ship, but it is those rela- tionships that will have a si gnificant influence on their future. A simple word of en couragement, dusting off a scraped knee or helping a child with a problem that may seem minor to us are the important actions that shape young lives. As a community, we share a re- sponsibility for all the children in B.C. GIBRALTAR MINE REOPENING J. Wilson: This year the city of Williams Lake cele- brated its seventy-fifth bi rthday.

Today they've re- ceived a birthday gift that is absolutely wonderful. Taseko Mines has announced that the Gibraltar copper mine will be reopening this summer. That means that 280 direct, very well-paying jobs will be returning to the Cariboo — plus a private sector investment of $120 million. Taseko has wanted to reopen ever since shutting its doors in 1998. Like so many mines in B.C., the nineties were unbearable for its Gibraltar operation. They were forced to close not once but twice during that decade of decline.

That was when the previous government alienated mining companies and pushed hundreds of jobs from the province. There are still labour issues to be resolved at Gibral- tar, and both sides are working to make sure the bene- fits are fair to all. In the spirit of cooperation with man- agement and union, the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour has offered to sit down with each party and help them reach a resolution. We recognize that all parties are in support of getting back to work at Gibral- tar.

The Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Minister of State for Mining are two others who are working hard every day to breathe new life back into mining. This announcement is a victory for their efforts. Mining activity is comi ng back to help pay for schools and health care and th e programs we all value. I know my colleague from Cariboo South shares my enthusiasm about the Gibraltar copper mine. Many similar mining opportunities exist for our fellow north- ern caucus MLAs all across the north, where mining companies are very interested in doing business.

With proper diligence and the will to succeed, I am certain that names like Red Chris, Tumbler Ridge, Mount Pol- ley and Wayside will soon join the name Gibraltar as an active part of the B.C. economy. Congratulations to Taseko, and we are all excite d about the future of the Gibraltar copper mine. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CASE OF FRANK PAUL J.

MacPhail: Last week the Solicitor General told this House that he did no t see anything that would actually lead him to believe that it was in the public interest to call a public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul. Soon after the Solicitor General said that, Crown counsel announced that they had appointed a lawyer to investigate new evidence brought forward by the police complaint commissioner.

Given that the Crown has determined that this new evidence warrants an investigation, why won't the Solicitor General ac- knowledge that it is serious enough for him to recon- sider his decision to block a public inquiry? Hon. G. Plant: When the police complaint commis- sioner referred the material to me that supported his recommendation to government with respect to the holding of an inquiry in this matter, having read the report of Mr. Ryneveld, I de termined that it would be appropriate to refer the material to the criminal justice branch. That happened.

I am told there is a review un- derway, and there will be a de cision made shortly, but that is a separate process en tirely from the process fol- lowed by the Solicitor General in respect of his powers under the Police Act to respond to the recommenda- tions of the police complaint commissioner. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. [1420] J. MacPhail: Y e s , w e u n d e r s t a n d t h a t . T h a t ' s w h y the question is to the Solicitor General.

As the Solicitor General appreciates, this case is fundamental to the confidence British Columbians have in the fair treat- ment of visible minorities by the police. Accusations of racism in the police force may be difficult to face, but face them we must if visible minorities and aboriginal Canadians — indeed, all Canadians — are to have con- fidence in the fair distribution of justice.

Given that the Attorney General has just made the comments he has made, which have been reported in the media through Crown counsel, and given that the police complaint commissioner and Frank Paul's family are both demanding a public inquiry as a result of new evidence, is the Solicitor General, who is in charge of the police in this province, prepared to accept that there are legitimate question s about racism on the po- lice force that can only be confronted through a full public inquiry? Hon. R. Coleman: As I said last week, this incident took place in 1998.

The members opposite were in gov- ernment from 1998 to 2001. There was a coroner's in- quiry done at the time. There were disciplinary meas- ures taken at the time. There were also some things put in place so that further incidents of this would be miti- gated in the future with regard to the operation of the police in this province. We actually audit that when we do high-risk audits of police departments. There are two issues here . Obviously, I await the fundamental issue with regard to the independence of Crown.

With regard to reviewing the file, the police complaint commissioner's file was forwarded by the Attorney General. I think th at's the proper process on

9786 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 that side. On this side, I think that having sat down with the chief coroner and reviewed the information and having sat down with officials and looked at it, the proper decision was made on my part as well. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the Solicitor General is suggesting that because this occurred in 1998, he somehow isn't responsible. The incident — the tragic death — occurred in 1998.

Because of the previous administration, this province has an independent police complaint commissioner — because of the previous administration. The police complaint commissioner wrote to this Solicitor Gen- eral, after receiving a complaint from Frank Paul's fam- ily, dated October 4, 2001. What doesn't he get about that — that he's trying to pass blame elsewhere? I know the government maintains that it's con- cerned about fighting racism.

The Minister of Commu- nity, Aboriginal and Women' s Services is responsible for B.C.'s anti-racism program because I don't think the government's appointed a minister of state for multi- culturalism. It doesn't seem that they want to do that, given the resignation of the other one. So the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is responsible for the anti-racism program, whose stated mission is to provide multicultural and anti-racism education, to provide critical responses to racism and hate. That's what this whole case is about. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. member, time for the question now. J. MacPhail: Because the Solicitor General rejected a public inquiry, because issues of racial discrimination are likely to become the central features… Mr. Speaker: Question, please. J. MacPhail: …of attempted cross-examination, will the minister responsible for multiculturalism stand up and say…? Does he support the Solicitor General's con- cern that racism may be examined in the context of a public inquiry?

And as the appointed anti-racism activ- ist and advocate at the cabinet table — the only one — will he take a stand for a full public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul? Hon. R. Coleman: Two previous police complaint commissioners did not see fit to hold a public inquiry. The present police complaint commissioner for- warded additional information he thought…. I met with him last week. We went over that. He's not go- ing to make any public comment with regard to the decision the minister has made, after having the dis- cussion with me. He will allow government to go through its process.

He understands the Crown coun- sel's process, and frankly, we will allow that to…. That will take place. [1425] When you deal with a public inquiry, you're deal- ing with issues in and arou nd a number of questions, as the member knows. That's to deal with the public interest and whether decisions in the past or other processes that were in place with regard to the Coro- ners Act or whatever were followed, and they were. Therefore, we are dealing with the issues in and around that the member has identified. Frankly, we await the report from Crown counsel. OPEN LEARNING AGENCY SEVERANCE PAYMENTS J.

Kwan: On February 26 we asked about the sever- ance packages at the Open Learning Agency that ap- pear to have been deliberately structured to contravene government guidelines. The Minister of Finance prom- ised a swift investigation and to get the money back. It's now been a month. Will the Minister of Finance please report the findings of his investigation? Hon. G. Collins: Indeed, that day I asked for a full investigation. I have received a good deal of informa- tion to date. Just earlier — l a t e l a s t w e e k — I sent a letter to the board of the Open Learning Agency re- questing additional information.

We've sought legal advice, as well, with regard to this case. That's what's taken longer than one woul d normally hope. As soon as we have the information back from the board, then I'll be pursuing it further. Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: I remind the minister that confidential board meetings from the Open Learning Agency strongly suggested that the OLA rework the language of the contracts for senior executive members, includ- ing the COO, Bill Harlan, and CEO Terry Piper. Soon after, Ms.

Piper walked away with a big severance payment to go and work at Humber College. This raises serious questions about the use of public dollars. The Minister of Finance says he's still working on get- ting the information. It's now been more than a month. His action is anything but swift. Either the Open Learn- ing Agency broke the guidelin es, or they didn't. Which is it? Which is holding up? Hon. G. Collins: One of the risks of asking ques- tions when one doesn't have complete information is that the member might get it wrong. What we're try- ing to do is get all the facts.

As I mentioned in re- sponse to the first question, I have requested and have, as recently as last week, received additional legal advice with regard to this file — a legal opin- ion. As I said, I requested last week additional in- formation from the board to determine some details around some of the contents of some of the minutes, and once I have that information, I'll be glad to make it public.

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9787 MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN CONTRACT AND ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION OF B.C. RESIDENTS J. Bray: Recently in the media, BCGEU organizers have been talking about the fact that any changes to how we deliver MSP registra t i o n s e r v i c e s b y a C a n a - dian subsidiary of a U.S. firm would invoke the USA Patriot Act. Specifically, they've suggested that Cana- dians' health data would make its way directly and without question to U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Obviously, claims like that create concern, and I've had many calls to my constituency office over the last week on this issue. My question is to the Minister of Health Services. I'm asking the minister if he could tell me whether or not we would ever enter into a contractual arrange- ment with a company that would allow for any Cana- dian data — health data or otherwise — to end up in U.S. law enforcement hands. Hon. C. Hansen: The initiative that we're taking with regard to MSP is going to provide for better ser- vice for British Columbians in getting information and applications processed.

We are out seeking a technol- ogy partner to work with us to make sure that we can bring a new system in place. Certainly, the Patriot Act is an issue that's come up recently, and it's one that causes considerable concern for governments all across Canada. We are seeking legal advice from the Attorney General's ministry to make sure that we are able to structure the business relationship and the contract in a way that ensures that patien t confidentiality in this province is protected and will not be compromised. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT R.

Visser: Recently the Royal Society of Canada — one of their panels — released a report that concluded that there are no scientific gaps that would hinder the development of British Columbia's offshore oil and gas reserves. Furthermore, that panel also suggested that there is a potential to generate $110 billion worth of economy out there. [1430] Despite all that, the NDP leader, Carole James, simply says: "I say no to offshore oil and gas — not now and not ever." That rais es a bunch of concerns for people on the north end of Vancouver Island — that type of attitude.

I was wondering if the Minister of Energy and Mines could tell my constituents about some of the benefits that he's learned about and how they will flow to the people of North Island. Hon. R. Neufeld: There are huge benefits that are available in the oil and gas industry, whether offshore or onshore — for a quick example, $2 billion in revenue to the provincial government to provide health care and education. That's just for royalties and lease sales; that has nothing to do with the jobs that are created. Thousands of jobs are crea ted.

Onshore right now the industry invests about $3.5 billion yearly — $3.5 billion yearly — in exploration and production of oil and gas in the province of British Columbia. There are huge opportunities offshore B.C. We now have two scientific panels, one from highly respected folks from the province of British Columbia…. I know the Leader of the Oppositi on may not like scientists, but in fact they're highly respected in British Columbia, highly respected in Canada — another group. Also, an environmental firm has said there's no reason why we can't move ahead, with a good regulatory system. Mr.

Speaker, huge opportunities for British Colum- bia. We ought to take the move forward so that we can continue to provide great services to this province. TRANSFER OF COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES R. Hawes: Fearmongering seems to be the style adopted by the new leader of the NDP, Carole James, as she has frightened peop le with developmental dis- abilities all over this province, saying that we are now cancelling our plans to move ahead with a transfer of governance to the local authorities in the community living sector. That includes people from my constitu- ency who have worked very hard on this.

Yet Carole James says that the plan we were moving towards and are moving towards is a very good plan. I want to just quote what she says. If, God forbid, we ever descend into the depths of darkness again and elect an NDP government, she would sit down with the stakeholders and the process — sit down with the people who have been working hard on this — and put a good imple- mentation plan in place to do it correctly. My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Why have you delayed the trans- fer? Is it moving ahead, and is it moving ahead in the way that Ms. James seems to endorse? Hon. C.

Clark: We remain committed to making sure that we change the governance of community liv- ing services, of aboriginal services and of services to children and families in British Columbia. What we've said is that we want to make sure we have them on a solid, firm foundation when that change happens, and that means it is going to take probably a year longer than we had initially anticipated. Why? We want to make sure that when this change happens, it happens well and that the authority we c r e a t e i s o n a f i r m f o u n d a t i o n .

W e h a v e d o n e g r e a t things in this ministry, like doubling the number of children who are adopted into permanent, stable fam- ily homes. We have lowered the number of children in care. That means more families are staying together, and fewer children are coming into government care. We've increased the amount of alternative dispute resolution, which means that fewer people have to go to court to resolve the family issues they have. We have made some great st rides in this ministry. We want to make sure that we carry on with the successes we've made. The regional committees did a tremendous

9788 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 job of laying the groundwork, of setting out a road map for reform. We intend to pursue that reform. We remain committed to the regional governance for these authori- ties. We will get there, and we will do it well. [End of question period.] Introduction and First Reading of Bills PHEIDIAS PROJECT MANAGEMENT

(1979) CORP. (CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2004 V. Anderson presented a bill intituled Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp. (Corporate Restora- tion) Act, 2004. V. Anderson: I move the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time. [1435] Motion approved. V. Anderson: I move the bill be referred to the Se- lect Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. Bill Pr403 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. J. Bray: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members J.

Bray: I've been informed joining us in the gallery is a class from a school — one of the oldest in Victoria and one of the oldest in British Columbia — that's ac- tually just a few blocks from this place. It is a tremen- dous school with a great history. They are a class from South Park Elementary School, and I'd ask the House to please make them all very welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members we'll be discussing the estimates of t h e M i n i s t r y o f P u b l i c Safety and Solicitor General.

In this House I call second reading of Bill 20. Second Reading of Bills RAILWAY SAFETY ACT Hon. M. Coell: I move that Bill 20, entitled the Railway Safety Act, now be read a second time. I am pleased to present the Railway Safety Act for second reading. British Columbia has a long history of railroads. Since the last spike of the CPR was driven in 1885, railroads have been an instrumental part of the growth and economic deve lopment of our province.

While the railway industry continues to be a dynamic part of our economy, we must now recognize the chal- lenges of our world today — the challenges of technical advances and global competition. Transportation and enhanced public safety are both vital to B.C.'s economy and quality of life. Both are addressed in this new rail- way safety legislation.

There are three purposes of the Railway Safety Act: first, to harmonize with the federal rail safety regime; second, to repeal outdated railway safety legislation and regulations; and third, to regulate the administra- tion of provincial railway safety to the provincial safety authority and Transport Ca nada. Historically, the province has regulated railway safety. While there were updates here and there over the years, we now need to modernize railway safety legislation to reflect the province's current roles and responsibilities.

Canada's rail network includes both federally regu- lated railways, those crossi ng provincial lines, and provincially regulated railways, those operating within the province. In the mid-1990s the federal railway safety framework was substantially updated and mod- ernized. The federal rail sa fety regime includes rules governing all aspects of railw ay safety, including engi- neering, equipment and track maintenance. It also re- quires a systematic approach to managing safety.

Working with their employees, each railway must for- mulate a safety management system which commits the railway to operating in a safe manner, consistent with the regulations, and to reporting on its results. The railway is then monitored to ensure compliance with the safety management plan. The other provinces are now using most or all of the federal government regulati ons, rules and standards. However, B.C. fell behind with legislation and regula- tions that were inconsistent and unresponsive, I believe, to the changing times and needs.

The Railway Safety Act is a positive move, harmonizing our provincial system with the federal regulations so that B.C. is consistent with other jurisdictions, offering uniform standards and objective-based regulations.

While retaining the ability to address particular needs and circumstances in B.C., we can assure our railway systems can be competitive while ensuring public safety is maintained. [1440] The second purpose of the Railway Safety Act is to see a number of outdated and inconsistent railway safety regulations repealed, resulting in a decrease of over 10,000 regulations largely from harmonizing with the federal railway safety regime and, on a larger scale, with the rest of North America.

This change also en- sures those working and doing business in British Co- lumbia can do it under a modern and enhanced legisla- tive framework, in line with all other jurisdictions. Thirdly, the Railway Safety Act enables deregula- tion of the appropriate compliance and enforcement

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9789 activities to the B.C. Safe ty Authority and Transport Canada. The act also creates the office of the registrar of railway safety, which will issue permits on a basis of a provincial railway's ability to operate safely. Railways are one of the very few industries that were not covered by the Workers Compensation Act's rules. Employee safety will enhance with the repeal of the provision in the Worker s Compensation Act, too, that will be consistent with rules across industries. Now we will have consistent rules across all of these industries.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Railway Safety Act reflects the prov ince's current roles and re- sponsibilities in the area of railway safety. The Railway S a f e t y A c t i s p a r t o f o u r n e w - e r a c o m m i t m e n t t o streamlining regulations and enhancing public safety. By moving to objective-based safety systems and offer- ing a standardized approach to benefit businesses and employees, we are working to ensure effective railway transportation and enhance public safety — both vital to B.C.'s economy and quality of life to our citizens and our communities.

I ask that all members lend their support to this important piece of legislation. I move that Bill 20 be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today. J. Kwan: B i l l 2 0 i s t h e R a i l w a y S a f e t y A c t . T h e Railway Safety Act is a 12-page bill that, according to the minister in his first reading speech, "will result in the repeal of over 10,000 regulations and harmonize provincial legislation with the federal railway safety jurisdiction.

While enhancing rail safety in British Columbia, the new act will also provide for smarter regulation with rail comp anies and their employees together establishing a quality management system. The proposed act also provides for the delegation of railway safety administration to outside agencies, such as the B.C. Safety Authority and Transport Can- ada." Today in second reading, the minister continued to elaborate on these points. He re's what the minister did not tell us, though, in first reading of this bill.

Bill 20 is a piece of legislation that allows the government to pass off responsibility for railway safety standards and enforcement in British Columbia. The Railway Safety Act does this in two ways. One, Bill 20 gives government the power to dele- gate the administration of railway safety standards to an independent authority. Wh ile this authority is, by law, not an agent of the government, it will be charged with the power to administer the act and any regula- tions created in the future.

Here we see yet another authority being set up at arm's length from government — another independent authority charged with responsibilities and powers once held by the government. We saw it with B.C. Fer- ries provincial safety standards and, just last week, when a bill covering business practices and consumer protection was passed. Now we're seeing it with rail- way safety standards. Two, Bill 20 allows the minister to appoint a regis- trar of railway safety.

This registrar, who is handpicked by the minister without any guidelines or competition process, will have the power to issue fines and permits to railway companies. It all makes sense in theory. First they sell off B.C. Rail to CN; now they're privatizing the safety standards that CN has to operate under. How fitting. The minister tells us that Bill 20 will allow for the harmonization of provincial legislation with federal legislation. There is nothing in this bill that guarantees that this will happen in the fu ture. All this bill says is that it may happen.

Some provision may be adopted. [1445] Furthermore, Bill 20 allows for the adoption of railway safety standards by any standard-making body. What does this all mean? It means the minister will be allowed to pick and choose whatever railway safety standards he sees fit. Once these safety stan- dards are decided upon, they will be carried out under an independent authority and a railway registrar handpicked by the ministry. Bill 20 repeals 31 pages of previous legislation detailing railway safety standards.

At the same time, there is nothing in this bill that guarantees that the 31 pages will be replaced with anything that guarantees that the interests of employees, consumers, industry competitors or the environment will be protected. After reading this bill, it is clear that the big winner with Bill 20, the Railway Safety Act, is the railway industry. Indeed, the timing of this bill is rather curious, fol- lowing police raids on the Legislature, an ongoing po- lice investigation, a billion-dollar B.C.

Rail deal that's tainted — that's the best language that I'm using in this House — and the firing and suspension of high- ranking ministry staff. The introduction of this bill comes at a very strange time indeed. The opposition will be speaking in detail on this legislation in committee stage and canvassing detailed questions with the minister regarding this bill. Motion approved. Hon. M. Coell: I move that it be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Railway Safety Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for con- sideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading, continued debate on Bill 13. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 (continued) J. Kwan: The minister made much of streamlining, modernizing and accelerated redevelopment in his

9790 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 introduction of this bill. As the minister's press release notes, this is the second ph ase in the reform of our en- vironmental protection re gime. Within walking dis- tance of this chamber there are brownfield sites. Across this province there are an estimated 7,000 contami- nated sites, with some 260 of those sites being what we see most commonly — former sites of gas stations. These are often properties of considerable commercial value.

Nationwide it has been estimated by the Na- tional Round Table on the Environment that there are over 30,000 abandoned or idle commercial or industrial brownfield sites. Not only is this property not providing a benefit to its owners, but it is also in many cases holding up the needed development of our city centres. But these is- sues, while important, are not what should drive regu- latory and legislative change when it comes to protect- ing public health and the environment. What brown- field sites demonstrate is that when industry fails to protect the environment, we all pay for the conse- quences.

Media reports over the weekend suggest that the government is moving to reduce the number of con- taminated sites to just 30 by simply reclassifying these sites based on risk assessment criteria. While all regula- tion is risk-based to some degree, when it comes to toxic pollutants, there is an overriding public interest in the establishment of what is t o b e c o n s i d e r e d a n a c - ceptable risk. This bill gives power to the minister to establish regulations that denote risk levels.

We all assume he will do so based on the best scientific infor- mation available and that he will fight to enhance the necessary work his ministry will need to do to ensure compliance with those regulations. Given the huge, indeed overriding, public interest when it comes to public health and environmental pro- tection, it means that when it comes to this type of leg- islation, the public needs to be engaged in and aware of just what the government is considering. Consultation must engage more than just experts.

We all fully ap- preciate the necessity of running parallel legislative changes and regulatory changes, but when it comes to the protection of our health and natural environment, broad legislative strokes that do not provide an expla- nation of what we will see in regulation does a disser- vice to the public and to the notion of an open and transparent government process. [1450] Should there be a sliding scale of what is consid- ered truly toxic, in need of extensive cleanup and those sites that represent a comparatively small risk to our health? Probably. It would make sense to do so.

But in doing this, we need to make sure the public is made a w a r e o f j u s t w h a t r i s k t h e g o v e r n m e n t i s t a k i n g o n their behalf. One of the most extensive changes in this bill is

section 44 of the Environmental Management Act, this

section entitled "Determinations of contaminated sites." At present this

section encompasses six subsections that are again divided into 12 sub-subsections that are further divided into nine sections within those sub- subsections. The current

section 44 runs to two pages of text in the current act. They are to be replaced by four sections that take up less than half a page. The way this is done is to insert the phrase, "Subject to the minister's regulations," and to make conditional those things that are currently mandatory. As I've said, legislative and regulatory reform is not in and of itself a bad thin g. Where problems arise is w h e n s u c h r e f o r m i s u s e d a s a n e x c u s e t o r e p l a c e t h e protection of the environmen t and our health in a sub- servient position to that reform.

The minister will be aware of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in October of last year that reinforced the role of government in protecting the public by en suring contaminated sites were cleaned up and the role of government in protect- ing the environment from to xic substances. The court in that judgment was unequivocal in its support for the principle of polluter pays when it comes to cleaning up contaminated sites.

In supporting the position of the Minister of Envi- ronment for Quebec, who is being sued by Imperial Oil, the court has this to say about Quebec's environ- mental quality act: "The Quebec legislation reflects the growing con- cern on the part of legislatures and of society about the safeguarding of the environment. That concern does not reflect only the collective desire to protect it in the interests of the people who live and work in it, and exploit its resources today.

It may also be evidence of an emerging sense of inte rgenerational solidarity and acknowledgment of an environmental debt to human- ity and to the world of tomorrow." Indeed, it would be a sad commentary if, in its zeal for regulatory reform, this government would turn its back on that debt. The opposition, again, will have further questions when we come to committee on Bill 13 around this issue — particularly highlighting the notion of the need for health and safety protecti on in the interests of the public. B.

Penner: I hadn't been planning to speak to this bill, but after hearing the comments from the member opposite, the member of the opposition, I thought I would contribute a few thoughts to this bill and why in my view it's very important. She gets it partly right when she notes that there are many sites around the province today that are sitti ng idle. One of the signifi- cant impacts of that is a loss of revenue to local gov- ernments. When those properti es are not deemed to be of high commercial value, their tax value to those communities is decreased. A bigger problem, though — and, Mr.

Speaker, you'll be aware of this, no doubt, from your experience — is that when those sites are inactive, it also means that people aren't working. It means we aren't getting the kind of employment opportunities in this province that, frankly, British Columbians deserve. I've had more than my fair share of experience dealing with two contentiou s issues in the Chilliwack- Kent constituency, which I have the honour to repre-

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9791 sent.

I have spent more time than I care to think over the last number of years struggling under the previous legislative and regulatory regime enacted by the previ- ous government that has led to no improvement in environmental protection and yet at the same time has cost the community of Agassiz, the district of Kent, thousands and thousands of dollars in forgone tax revenue and has prevented young people and others in that community from having the employment oppor- tunities they might otherwise have had. [1455] Let me elaborate, because I know you're eager to hear the details.

There are tw o specific sites in the dis- trict of Kent that have caused that community more concern and distress than anything else I can think of. One is a former Ministry of Transportation and High- ways yard where, in years gone by, sand and salt were loaded onto highways trucks to go and maintain the roads in the wintertime. That site's been sitting empty, I believe, since the late 1980s — sitting idle. The con- cern there is, according to the old legislation, there may be rock salt on the site. Well, surprise, surprise.

Yeah, it was used to store rock salt for winter when the trucks had to go out and maintain the roads. I personally have never thought of rock salt as being all that particularly hazardous, yet it was caught up in the full-monty regulatory regime of the previous contaminated sites system we had in the province. It had to go the fu ll distance, and as a result, that site has sat idle. We were told things like, well, the reason we don't want this land to transfer without getting a clean bill of health and all the remediation taking place is: "What if, some day, someone were to actually crawl on that property?

Their skin might make contact with rock salt that is deeply embedded in the soil from many years ago." What if, indeed? That has been the response from the people in Agassiz. Certainly, it hasn't stopped other people from trespassing across that land as it's been sitting empty and not cont ributing any significant value to the community. Another example. This one is higher profile in the community, because it happens to be on the busiest intersection in that community . I n f a c t , i f y o u ' v e b e e n to Harrison Hot Springs in the past few years, you've likely driven past this site.

It used to be known as the old Penny Pinchers gas station. It was a Shell gas sta- tion. On your way just by the CP Rail line was a gas station and corner store. It went out of business in the mid-1980s or late 1980s, and it, too, has sat idle lo these many years. The concern has been: what about the gas that may have escaped from the underground storage tanks over those many years? Successive buyers or potential buy- ers have come forward and said: "We're interested in this property." Then they'r e warned: "Wait a minute. It doesn't have a clean bill of health.

It has to go through the contaminated sites pr ocess, and you might be forced to spend untold dollars — not even hundreds of thousands of dollars but maybe an unlimited amount of dollars, an unknown quantity — to remediate it be- fore you can undertake some kind of other commercial activity on this most pr ominent commercial space in Agassiz." So what has happened? The site has grown weeds. It's an eyesore. The buildin gs are derelict. The tanks were removed years ago. A number of tests and studies have taken place, sometimes at the expense of the community of Agassiz.

What they've shown is that the gasoline contamination, which is subsurface, has been diminishing over time through natural processes. So let's just step back and ask ourselves a question. The member from the opposition says: "Oh, but we have to be cautious about the environment." I agree, but let's ask ourselves this philosophical question, be- cause it's one I haven't yet had a good answer to.

What greater harm or risk to human health or any other spe- cies' health would have taken place if the prospective buyer of that property had been allowed to go ahead and do what they had intended to do years ago, which is to set up a Subway sandwich shop? Would the pres- ence of a Subway sandwich shop at that location have caused more risk to human health than leaving that site derelict, with weeds and du st blowing and bothering neighbours? The answer is no, yet that has been the effect of the previous regulatory regime we had in this province with respect to contaminated sites.

It freezes the status quo without ensuring that we 're actually taking action to deal with the threat we think may be there. I don't see how that benefits anyone. Now, the good news in terms of this site is that through natural processes over the last 15 years, with the water table moving up and down, it's actually had the effect of diminishing the amount of gasoline residue. I'm told the technical answer has to do with various microbes that are subsurface and are being fed oxygen from the water. They have gone out and essentially eaten up the gasoline residue, so the site has cleaned itself over time.

I am pleased that working with the predecessor to the current Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, we were finally able to get that site a relatively clean bill of health so that someone would actually step up to the pl ate and buy it. They're now taking steps to redevelop it. Soon — here's the good news — they'll be hiring young people from the community of Agassiz to work serving customers and tourists that are travel- ling through that community. We'll no longer have an eyesore at that corner. We'll have a productive busi- ness employing young people and paying taxes.

The workers working there will be paying income taxes, and the business, if it's successful, will be paying cor- porate income taxes. More importantly maybe for the community of Agassiz, they will be paying higher property taxes. The value of that site is going up, be- cause it has finally been released from this cumber- some process that has previously dealt with contami- nated sites. [1500] Those are two examples that have caused a consid- erable amount of angst in the community of Agassiz,

9792 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 and I don't see how the public has benefited from the many years of delay. In fact, provincial taxpayers have been missing out on an opportunity.

The city of Agas- siz had wanted to purchase that old highways yard for redevelopment purposes — maybe to use as a fire hall or some other emergency facility — but they said in their contract with the previous provincial govern- ment, which I think was entered into in about 1996: "We will not complete on this deal until it gets a clean bill of health in terms of the contaminated sites legisla- tion." The previous government could not deliver on that, so there that site sat, and provincial taxpayers didn't get the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the com- munity of Agassiz was willin g to pay for that property if it had had a clean bill of health.

Again, the concern there was about the potential for rock salt. How that would interfere in the operation of a fire hall is not clear to me nor to anybody else that lives in the district of Chilliwack-Kent. However, I'm proud to endorse this legislation. I think it's a much-needed and long-awaited step for- ward. If it can help move things forward with other sites around the province in a way that, unfortunately, Agassiz did not get the benefit of because we had to deal with the previous legislation from the previous government, then I will certainly salute it.

I say good on those other communities that won't have to struggle the way the community of Agassiz did. B. Suffredine: I also was concerned to hear com- ments from the opposition about slowing down and not making changes. I have been part of a committee that's been looking at this sort of change. Essentially, what was wrong with the way the legislation was and has been for years is th at it encouraged sites to be left alone. Now, the former speaker said: "Well, what would be worse than if you put a Subway shop on that location?" I say le t's go even further than that.

Let's look at things like the CPR to Nelson that's now stood idle for about 25 years. What could be worse for the environment than letting a site which has contaminants on it be encouraged to be used for nothing? If it's contaminated and if it's a problem for the environment, it's only going to sit there and make it worse.

That site is a great example of the fact that the city of Nelson has been held back for a quarter of a century from commercial devel- opment, from putting things on that site that would not harm the health of any person and that would not increase any risk to the environment over what exists there today. There is another site that comes to mind immedi- ately in Kaslo, where formerly there was a motel. Peo- ple had stayed in the motel for the last 30, 40 or 50 years.

The owner is trying to redevelop that site to put condominiums — brand-new tourist-attractive condo- miniums — on a site in Kaslo on the water — great tourism resort activity. What 's the block? Once upon a time, back around 1900, it was a mine site where they shipped ore and loaded it onto boats. There is a little bit of a trace of the metals that were there back in the 1900s, which exists all along the beach. Because there is a trace of metals there that aren't natural, it's deemed to be a contaminated site under the old regulations. There's nothing being done about it.

It's not helping the environment any by holding back this development. The change in development or the redevelopment to condominiums won't change the use that has been there for 50 years. It won't make it any more hazardous to anyone's health, and it won't make it any more haz- ardous to the environment. The new changes bring about a change in philoso- phy, a two-step test: is it hazardous to someone's health to do this, or will it create a hazard to the envi- ronment? Those are both sound, logical things to do that respect the kinds of needs that we have to respect if we're going to make changes.

I say good on the min- ister for bringing forward changes that are logical, which don't prohibit development simply on the basis that the contamination isn't the level that nature put there in its natural course — as long as those changes are things that don't cause a hazard to people using the site or to nature surrounding it. Motion approved. Hon. B. Barisoff: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Com- mittee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. Coell: I call Committee of Supply for the estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Fam- ily Development. [1505] Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:06 p.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (continued) On vote 16: ministry operations, $1,381,568,000 (continued). J.

Kwan: Following up on estimates debate from last week, it is interesting to note…. I must first put this information on the record. I was canvassing with the minister a number of questi ons about the '02-03 budget and particularly what she refers to as the strategic in- vestment fund, which contai ns millions of dollars — I think as high as $100 million. The minister refused to

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9793 answer any of my questions when I put questions re- lated to this matter to her. She specifically stated that she would provide the opposition a briefing on this amount of money. Actually, let me backtrack just for a moment here. The minister actually calls this money "strategic in- vestments," and the former minister actually referred to them as transitional funding. In fact, from the govern- ment's own release at one point, it refers to these transi- tional fundings as high as $100 million.

When I put these questions to the minister to see what happened to these moneys, instead of getting answers, the minister offered a briefing, as I said. The opposition leader and I had requested that the meetin g be set up for Friday or, alternatively, for Monday. The minister's office had informed the opposition cauc us that the deputy minis- ter would not be available on Friday, as she had a meeting set up already. However, she would be avail- able for Monday.

This morning the Government House Leader's as- sistant told our office that the Minister of Children and Family Development had decided that she would only give the opposition a briefing on what happened to close to $100 million of these so-called strategic in- vestment dollars if the opposition agreed to collapse the estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Family Development by 9 o'clock tonight. Now, Mr. C h a i r , w o u l d n ' t t h a t j u s t b e c o n v e n i e n t f o r t h e m i n i s - ter? She wouldn't answer qu estions in these estimates.

She pretended to offer a briefing for the opposition, and then she only threatened , quite frankly, that the briefing would be offered if the opposition promised to finish up questions by the end of tonight. [1510] What is the minister so worried about? What is she so nervous about? What is she trying to hide from the public? Why wouldn't she an swer questions in this public forum?

Furthermore, why would she put for- ward a threat that says: "We would only provide in- formation to the opposition" — that is legitimately for the opposition to seek answers to — "if the opposition agrees to collapse estimates debate"? We obviously r e f u s e t h a t k i n d o f b l a c k m a i l , t h a t k i n d o f t h r e a t . I t i s outrageous. It is outrageous for the minister to make such a suggestion. We called the minister's office.

When we called to go through the promise of the briefing with her, we were told, first of all, that there was no staff to pro- vide it, even though we did our own checking and found that the staff was indeed available. We actually have e-mails to that effect. In fact, we have an e-mail confirming the briefing for this morning at 10:30, which was only pulled later on because the minister wanted us to promise we would collapse estimates debate — end the process of putting questions to her.

It is clear that it is the minister who is playing politics with the ministry staff's schedu le as well as that of the opposition. We know the minister is unhappy about having to answer questions for this troubled, scandal-ridden ministry, but seeing as how the minister has not yet answered questions on spec ial needs kids, on youth and autism and early childh ood development, on the massive cuts to the child and family development side of her ministry, it was clearly impossible for us to wind up today. That only deals with on e segment of the ministry.

Of course, there are still Community LINK programs to cover, as well as the cuts for the Vancouver school board in terms of funding for the school board to pro- vide hot meal programs, counselling programs and the like for needy children and families. Since the minister is re fusing the opposition the briefing that she promised, which her staff had actually all set up on Friday, we will now put on record some of the questions we wanted to follow up in the briefing with the deputy minister. Maybe the minister will an- swer them, although I doub t it.

Nonetheless, I think these questions deserve to be on the record. Just like the Doug Walls questions, they deserve to be on the record, and the minister sh ould be answering these questions. No. 1, what is the reason for the large discrepancies between the estimates that were made at the start in the year 2002, which were restated in restated estimates made at the start of 2003, and the actual figures? In estimates debate on March 23, 2004, the minister gave the numbers for the years '02-03 in terms of the dis- crepancy.

When you add it a ll up, this includes a $99.4 million discrepancy made between February 3 and March 31 of 2003. A February 18, 2003, budget fact sheet claims that the 2003 budget contains "more than $100 million in transitional expenditures, most of which will create savings in subsequent years," which is close to $100 million, as I stated. What was this $100 million spent on? What programs? What in itiatives? We could only find three news releases relating to this $100 million.

The current minister talks about $60 million for 27 "strategic initiatives." The former minister talked about $25 million for transitional funding, and we know, from a November 2002 community living comanage- ment committee document, that a working group run b y D o u g W a l l s r e c o m m e n d e d a restructuring fund of $45 million to $50 million. The government's own fact sheet talks about $100 million. Naturally the opposition would want to find out how these many different numbers jibe. What is the correct figure? How much money was allocated in the strategic investments, and to whom?

What oversight was there on how this money was allocated, and by whom? Did Doug Walls hand this money out? Or who handed this money out? What was it spent on? From which area did the money come? There is nothing in the voted appropriations descriptions for the budget estimates about strategic investments. When was the decision made to make strategic invest- ments for this government? [1515] We understand that the auditor general told the ministry they could not carry over the whole whack of money into next year's budget. Instead, the govern-

9794 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 ment found a way to park the money in smaller parcels — $20 million, we know, for the Victoria Foundation, $20 million for the Vancouver Foundation and $10 mil- lion for United Way. But the people in the community h a v e n o i d e a w h a t t h a t m o n e y i s b e i n g u s e d f o r , a n d we wanted to ask that question at the briefing. Does the minister have any say as to how the money is to be spent? Why have there been no public announcements? Why was there no public call for proposal? Normally, that is the process.

When the government has grants to give money away to the community for work to be done by the community, there is a public call for proposal. There were no public announcements around this. There were very few public anno uncements indeed, and they came much later, after the money was handed out, only to cover a few million dollars in total. Did this allocation go through to Treasury Board? Did Treasury Board approve the allocation of these grants? What procedures did the minister follow? What process did the allocation go through?

We have a copy of an internal MCFD e-mail that indicates that time-limited funds from the '03-04 budget year were set up in a separate vote from the ministry by Treasury Board. We wanted to ask why, and how these might connect to parked funds from the '02-03 fiscal year. The e-mail also says that the fund s expire by the end of the '03-04 fiscal year but that as long as the paperwork is in place, work can be done into this fiscal. We wanted to ask at that briefing what kinds of programs these mon- eys might be funding and how they were being ten- dered.

These are just some of the questions that we wanted to put to the minister. The minister refused to answer the questions. She refused th e briefing now. The brief- ing would only be offered to the opposition if it is con- tingent on the opposition to wrap up estimates debate. You know what? The opposition will not be threat- ened by the minister in this way, Mr. Chair. There is no way we will actually agree to wrap up debate at the minister's convenience. These are important questions to be asked and answers to be had for a government to be held accountable, and the minister should be an- swering these questions.

Hon. C. Clark: There is a reason that I haven't an- swered any questions about children with special needs and those kinds of thin gs. It is because the mem- ber hasn't actually put any questions on the floor. She has asked a number of the same questions again and again and again; rephrased it repeatedly; asked very, very long questions, which re ally are just statements of her own opinion as opposed to questions.

That has meant, I think, that if she hasn't got some of the an- swers to some of the questi ons that she'd like, she may want to consider actually as king some of the questions about the areas she is interested in, and we could quite happily get onto those things. I'm always delighted to go on with estimates. I en- joy the estimates process. I enjoyed it when I was op- position, and I enjoy it even more now that I'm in gov- ernment. I'm happy to carry on with our debate and with our discussion. I am, though, looking forward to some meaningful questions from the member.

She has had some, but I must say many of the questions have been repetitive. If she has topics she would like to carry on with, I would be happy to canvass some of those topics with her. I can give her some inform ation about…. This is not typically an appropriate venu e to be discussing these kinds of issues. We are de bating the 2004-05 budget estimates. I know the member wants to talk about the budget debate in 2002-03, an d I think the reason she suggested she wasn't able to debate that at the time was because she was having a baby. I guess that's un- derstandable.

Of course, there was another year in be- tween, when she could have raised questions as well, and she didn't then either.

It 's not really appropriate to be talking about them here, but I can give her a high- level answer. [1520] Victoria Foundation, $39 million — that is, the insti- tutional legacy trust fund, $2 million; aboriginal strate- gic investments trust funds, $9 million; adoption and permanency trust fund, $3 million; youth education assistance fund, $3 million; Vancouver coastal child, family and community development fund, $2 million; community living restructuring fund, $20 million; Queen Alexandra Foundation for Children, $5 million; aboriginal strategic investment fund, $1 million; Van- couver Island regional child family community ser- vices trust fund, $2 million; West Shore accommoda- tion partnership, $2 million; McCreary Youth Founda- tion, Overland Foundation, $2 million; HRFA facility upgrade agreement, $1 million; supports for sexually exploited children and youth, $1 million; BCHMC mortgage payout, $6.9 million; UBC child and youth mental health plan, $9 million; Young Women's Chris- tian Association, $600,000; United Way of the lower mainland, ECD Partnership Success by 6, $10 million; Canuck Place, $200,000; school districts for school-based restructuring, $6.3 million; UNBC–northern regional CFD strategic investment fund, $2 million; University College of the Fraser Valley–Fraser regional CFD stra- tegic investment fund, $2 million; IA–CLBC transfer of assets, $5 million; Vancouver coastal regional strategic investment projects, which are various organizations in the lower mainland, $1.5 million; ECD Building Blocks, $1.3 million; aboriginal organizations, $0.8 million; aboriginal planning tables, $2.5 million; CLS service provider capital and other restructure grants, $4.9 mil- lion; aboriginal research chairs at B.C. universities, $2.2 million; interior region CFD strategic investment fund, $2 million.

Of course, if we were able to do this in the context of the briefing, I could certainly give the member more detailed information about these things. J. Kwan: It is interesting that the minister says she is happy to engage in estimates debate. Maybe that's why the minister cancelled a briefing that was set up with her staff and confirmed by her staff on Friday,

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9795 only to turn around and have the member from Chilli- wack — who carries the Minister of Finance's bags — come in and say to our staff that the minister would only proceed with the briefi ngs if we agreed to wrap up estimates by 9 o'clock. I would say there is a com- plete disconnect with what the minister is now saying versus her actions. It simply is not true.

The reality is that they agreed to provid e a briefing, and then they turned around to cancel it, only to say: "If you don't do what I want you to do, we are not going to provide you with the information." All right. The minister just provided a list of com- munity groups that got grants from the ministry out of these so-called strategic investments. The minister says these groups got these moneys. Let me ask the minister this question: what process did the ministry follow in providing these grants to the community?

Was there a public-proposal call into the community so that people could apply for the funds, or were these organizations handpicked by the ministry somehow to receive the funds? Hon. C. Clark: The foundations are doing requests for proposals. J. Kwan: The foundations were put through a re- quest for proposal, the minister said. There were more than foundations that received the dollars, so when was the request for proposal put out? What is the lan- guage of the request for proposal? Who applied under this request for proposal? Hon. C.

Clark: We set up the funds with specific criteria, and each of those organizations has a man- agement structure which sets in place certain criteria for granting that money. It's important to note that that's hands-off from government, so it's not something that our government directs or manages directly. J. Kwan: The minister says there were requests for proposals. What was the language of the request for proposals? Let me just ask that one question first. Hon. C. Clark: The specific agencies do their own requests for proposals, so they would have different language depending on the different agency. J.

Kwan: Maybe the minister can outline each step of the process. She did, in fact, say that she went out for requests for proposals and that the language for the request for proposals was di fferent for each agency. That's rather news to me. Requests for proposals from government normally are put out with a global request for proposals. People then apply to them or to an agency of government. Interjection. [1525] J. Kwan: The minister says it's not a government or an agency of government. It doesn't matter.

A process is followed, then evaluation is done on these applica- tions, and then determinations are made on who gets these moneys. Maybe the minister can outline step by step the process that she foll owed with respect to these grants that were given to the community. She said it applied to foundations. What about the dollars that were granted to other organizations? What process did the minister follow if it's not the same process as under the foundations' procedures? Hon. C. Clark: The member is, I think, very con- fused about which budget ye ar we're in. It is the 2004- 05 budget year.

When she pu ts a question about what criteria did I follow in 2002 for the budget, I'm afraid, first, that's not in order for the House to be able to an- swer that question. Second, I was not the minister then, so it is not really a question that I think any due re- search would support. It is important to note that the foundations did RFPs. It's important for the member to know, too, that the foundations aren't government and they're not government agencies. The Victoria Foundation isn't a government agency.

It is an independent agency of government that makes decisions based on the needs of their community, so it is a fundamental disconnect for the member to suggest that things like the Victoria Foundation are government agencies. They aren't. They are independent of government. That's why these strategic investment funds were treated the way that they were. The foundations do their own RFPs.

It is my under- standing — although we don't have all of this informa- tion available in the House because we didn't come prepared to debate the esti mates from three years ago — that the money that went out to community agencies was given out based on a criteria, which I'm sure would have been debated in the budget estimates over the last couple of years. J. Kwan: The minister keeps claiming that this has nothing to do with the '04-05 budget. It is simply un- true. The minister knows very well that it has every- thing to do with the '04- 05 budget.

These agencies granted dollars, provide for a service that is still being provided in the community. The ministry is still ex- pecting the reporting out of how these dollars were spent and how it actually benefited the community. It is still being evaluated by government. All that evaluation is done by the minister's staff right now. That is funded out of the '04-05 budget. The fact is that not all of the do llars have been spent, I be- lieve, because some of them are actually going out in instalments and so on, and it is contingent on reporting out and so on.

So it is absolutely current for this minis- ter under the '04-05 year. For the minister to claim: "Oh well, gee, I wasn't the minister then. It was somebody else who was responsible…." It is this government who is responsible. This now minister took over the responsibility of that ministry so she is therefore responsible for the actions of previous ministers, as well, in term s of what happened to the

9796 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 ministry's dollars and the spending. That is account- ability. I know that is a new thing for this minister, but you know what? She has to live up to it in order to be paid and to be recognized as the minister and, I might add, as the Deputy Premier as well. She should have responsibility and should be overseeing what is going on in her own ministry. The minister says that I don't understand the process. Let us be clear. At least two foundations got $20 mil- lion each — the Vancouver Foundation and the Victo- ria Foundation.

She says they don't give out RFPs, that it is up to them to decide. It's not the government's responsibility. Did the Victoria Foundation and Van- couver Foundation apply to the government through an RFP process to access the $20 million to begin with? Let me stop there and ask the minister that question. Hon. C. Clark: The member is sort of blowing hot and blowing cold at the same time. She, on one hand, complains that we're cutting services, and now she is complaining that we're adding money into the com- munity to support services.

I should point out to her that supporting services in the community is a centre- piece of our three-year service plan to transform ser- vice. We want to make sure we are delivering services that meet local needs. That means that some of the de- cisions about where the money can be spent should be made locally. We believe these kinds of strategic shifts will strengthen families and provide more choice of flexibility to adults with developmental disabilities. [1530] The trust funds are helping us build that capacity in communities and are assisting us in transforming our service to communities.

It is a long-term investment in the future of children and families in British Columbia. I think it takes foresight, in spite of what are significant financial pressures in the short term, to make those funding decisions, which means that in the long term we take care of our strategic interests and our strategic investment in human resources in British Columbia and find ways to try and support families. That's what this money is for. It's to go into communities, based on decisions that are made locally, reflecting the needs of local communities there. J. Kwan: Let's be clear, Mr. Chair.

The minister's trying to hide behind words th at she is creating to hide the reality of what's going on in this ministry. The min- istry over three years cut out $175 million. That's the government's decision to cut $175 million out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That's w h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s d o n e i n t e r m s o f c u t s i n p r o - g r a m s .

T h e n i n e a c h o f the successive years in the spending of the budgeted amount, the government underspent the dollars that had already been cut from its budget to the tune of over $127 million by the minis- ter's own admission previously. In the year '02-03, $127 million was underspent. Then the minister says, "Oh. Well then, we redi- rected those so-called savings into the ministry under this thing which was formerly called transitional funds and what is now called strategic investments" — as though the minister and the government planned these strategic investments all alon g, when in fact it isn't true.

They ran into a situation where they couldn't spend the money. We actually have internal e-mails that tell us this information — that the '02-03 budget had an increase in it for transition expenses, which actually increased the funding for that fiscal year for community living. But community living B.C. was not ready to go into operation, so the transition funds show up as a surplus on the MCFD books.

Then miracu- lously, for some reason, on or about the last day of the fiscal year all this money apparently went out to these community groups with no public announcements other than the money that went into United Way. MCFD staff and senior bureaucrats say they have no say in how the money is allocated. How did they de- cide who got the money and who to give the money to? The minister still has not answered the question. I believe that there was no request for proposal. The minister claims that it is up to the foundations how they handle the money, but how did the foundations get the money to begin with?

That is the question. The other question I want to canvass with the min- ister is this: what guidelines did the ministry follow for the reallocation of funds? What Treasury Board guide- lines did the ministry follow? Hon. C. Clark: I can give the member an overview of how this is structured. The province issues grants to the foundations, which — again, it is important to note — are independent of government. They're not government agencies and not government itself. There were conditions on those grants including re- porting requirements and the fact that evaluation was required.

The foundations were chosen based on their capacity and their mandate. The foundations then struck evaluation committees. They issued RFPs and made granting decisions. The recipients also report to the foundation, and then the foundation reports to MCFD. J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer my question. Was there Treasury Board approval? What Treasury Board guidelines did the ministry follow with the spending and reallocation of these funds of over $100 million? Hon. C. Clark: All of our granting decisions and all of our grants follow government guidelines. That's always been the case. J.

Kwan: The minister says they follow guidelines. Is the minister saying that she actually went before Treasury Board and got Treasury Board approval for the reallocation of these unspent dollars? Hon. C. Clark: There is granting policy. We fund following that granting policy. No, I never did appear before Treasury Board in 2002-03.

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9797 J. Kwan: Technicalities. The minister says: "Oh no, I didn't appear before Treasury Board in 2003 and 2002." Did the ministry go to Treasury Board, and did the ministry get approval from Treasury Board to reallo- cate the funds? [1535] Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we follow granting policy in this ministry with this and with all other cases, as I'm aware. I can't speak to financial decisions, in that level of detail, that happened over two or three years ago. The appropriate place for that debate….

This member has had two years in which to discuss the es- timates for two years ago. We're now on the 2004-05 budget estimates. If the member has questions about this budget year that pertain to this budget year, I'd be delighted to answer those for her. J. Kwan: Were grants of this magnitude contem- plated in the original budget? Was it part of the origi- nal budget? Was that the plan all along — the transi- tional expenditure funds that were supposed to spend the money?

According to e-mails I have, it's indicated that the transitional funds weren't ready to be spent by community living B.C.; therefore they had to find some way to spend these moneys. Was it part of the original budget plan? Hon. C. Clark: As I said a n u m ber of tim es previ- ously, we can endeavour to get that information for the member from the budget year of two and a half or three years ago. J. Kwan: With the exception of this, Mr. Chair, and I established earlier on today in the debate that the minister….

While she continues to pretend she is offer- ing briefings, that is subject to a condition that the op- position wrap up estimates debate by 9 o'clock today. That's what the minister said this morning. We actually had a briefing set up at 10:30 this morning with minis- try staff. The ministry staff said they weren't available. We have it on e-mail that the deputy minister and her staff weren't available on Friday, but they were avail- able on Monday. This morning at 9:45 our staff got a call from the member from Chilliwack, who plays the MA role to the Minister of Finance in setting House business.

He phones our staff and says that the sched- uled briefing… The Chair: Member, member. J. Kwan: …would only go ahead if the opposition agrees… The Chair: Member, please take your seat. J. Kwan: …to wrap up by 9 o'clock today. The Chair: Member, please take your seat. I just want to caution you. You are becoming repetitious here. You've just discussed this a matter of a few min- utes ago, and now you're saying the same thing. I want to make sure that we keep the debate moving along and try to prevent being repetitious. J.

Kwan: It's the minister who brought it up again — to say that she'd be happy to provide this informa- tion to the opposition. Well, I have to get up and set the record straight with the mini ster's words. It is simply not true. She cancelled. She instructed staff to cancel a briefing that was set up this morning to get this infor- mation, because the opposition refused to stand down estimates by 9 o'clock today. I'm responding directly to a comment that was just made by the minister, Mr. Chair. What she said is completely false — to pretend she will provide information to the opposition when in fact she doesn't.

Information is only provided and briefings can only be set up if we do what the minister wants us to do. Well, we won't do that, and we'll con- tinue to ask questions, as it is the right of every mem- ber in this House to ask the minister questions and for the minister to be held accountable. Having said that, the minister still hasn't answered the question. She still has no t answered the question with respect to Treasury Board procedures, with re- spect to how these dollars were spent and whether or not the magnitude of these grants…. We're talking about over $100 million.

The magnitude of these grants that were contemplated — was it part of the original budget? Keep in mind we were going through a steep process of budget cuts impacting the community in the most severe way. Hon. C. Clark: I think it is fair to say that I do enjoy the estimates process. I think it may even be fair to say it is a matter of some amusement for my colleagues that I enjoy it as much as I do. I'm quite happy to carry on with the estimates debate. I hope the member's not too concerned that we might end before she gets to ask some questions. I'm looking forward to her putting those questions on the record.

In respect to the question she just asked, I have al- ready answered that. J. Kwan: Well, no, she didn't, actually. If you go back to review Hansard…. I just happen to have a copy of Hansard here. I reviewed that this morning to see what the minister said, actu ally, last week. You know what? Almost all the questions that I put to the minis- ter, she didn't answer. She al so just didn't answer this question around the origin al budget. You know what? I would expect that the minister will continue to stonewall. She's trying to hide something.

That is obvi- ous. [1540] I think there is, to say in a very courteous way, a lack of accountability within the ministry in terms of how these moneys were spent. I think it's fair enough to say that the government's plan for this regionaliza- tion was a complete disaster insofar as the government mismanaged the entire proc ess. Funds they had cut from the community, which provided for critical ser-

9798 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 vices, that they said they needed to do something else with were taken away from community. They had real- located these dollars. The accountability on the reallo- cation of these dollars…. Now the minister won't come clean to tell the public what happened to these moneys, what criteria were used to make those determinations or what kind of processes were followed through. The minister won't even offer the information with respect to the process on how the dollars were given out. The foundation dollars that she claims are inde- pendent of government….

Well, somehow the founda- tion got those dollars. What made the government de- cide that the foundation should have $40 million worth of critical dollars in terms of services for the commu- nity? What process was in place to make that determi- nation when the government is cutting and closing residential beds, as an example, for those with devel- opmental disabilities in the community. Mr. Chair, $175 million was being cut in this process, and the gov- ernment cannot account for why and how they came about with underspending $100 million worth and how somehow that went out to community groups in grants.

I just want to cover this off as well, because it is new information that has surfaced since the budget process. Actually, it does have to deal with the volun- teer cuts — the volunteer cuts that the minister claims that the community groups actually offered up. I estab- lished last week that in fact community groups did not offer up these moneys. One group sent an e-mail to the opposition advising us that board members of the De- velopmental Disabilities Association received phone calls and were threatened by the former deputy that if they didn't come through wi th these cuts, they would lose their contracts.

Since that time, here is more information that has come forward with respect to these threats and the process that the ministry went through in taking mon- eys away from community gr oups. This actually came from the B.C. Association for Community Living, which is a very large orga nization representing many, many people. Here's what they had to say with respect to these so-called volunteer cuts: "As you're aware, there are increasing concerns about the community living services budget in the Minis- try of Children and Family Development.

Over the past several months executive directors have been meeting to collectively brainstorm and problem-solve the budget is- sues. We very much appreciate the efforts of so many of our organizations to come to meetings to address the fis- cal issues you are facing as staff and volunteer leaders of local associations." Then it goes on to talk about how the groups came together. Here's what they had to say about the situa- tion they were faced with: "It was abundantly clear to all of us present that the '04-05 budget targets would be met.

On December 15 the Ministry of Children and Family Development staff and leadership will meet with Treasury Board and the Minis- ter of Finance, and they must have an ironclad strategy in place that will assure Treasury Board that the budget will be met. If the staff of the Ministry of Children and Family Development do not have a plan that meets with Treas- ury Board's approval, the mini stry staff will take over management of the Ministry of Children and Family De- velopment budget." I say that's a threat.

"We have been briefed on the 'mitigating strategies' — cutbacks — at Treasury Board and the Ministry of Children and Family Development will implement should they not have another alternative. The only way to describe them is draconian. The strategies include re- tendering of contracts, terminating contracts, benchmark- ing, aggressively pursuing cuts to supports for high-cost individuals and one-to-one day programs, closing two- person homes, across-the-board cuts and collective bar- gaining. [1545] "You can well imagine the damage such measures could do to individuals and families if driven by Treas- ury Board.

In addition, the communities' enormous ef- forts to realize a greater vision for community living through the creation of Community Living B.C. will be entirely at risk if the budget targets for 2004-05 are not met." The document goes on to say: "This weekend the BCACL board met and reviewed the strategy group's proposal. We reflected on its impli- cations and the current climate in the Ministry of Chil- dren and Family Development, the government and be- yond. It is, to say the least, a profoundly disturbing time.

It is a time in which the risks to individuals and families, both served and unserved, are at an all-time high. How- ever, after much deliberation, the BCACL board en- dorsed the approach captured in the proposal, with both a deep sense of regret and yet a hopeful eye to the fu- ture." They came to the realization, it goes on to say, first, that the harsh reality is that the budget targets of this government are immovable and, second, that they have to do the best they can under these kinds of circum- stances. This is a docume nt written by John Kehler, president of the B.C.

Association for Community Liv- ing, about these so-called voluntary cuts. Throughout all the budget years of '02-03, '03-04 and '04-05, community grou ps weren't volunteering their cuts. They had no choice but to make the cuts. The B.C. Association for Co mmunity Living has actu- ally sent out a document in that regard indicating that, and they're saying that these so-called voluntary cuts that the ministry is forcing them to come through with are draconian at best. Let's be clear: those are not the only people who are concerned about this situa- tion. There are many others who have raised their concerns.

Here are some other documents from, in fact, the government's own interim authority and what they have to say about these cuts. Of course, if you look at the

summary chart on the government's own budget books, it shows that the budget target for community living in terms of cuts for '03-04 and '04-05 is $49.6 mil- lion, of which they estimate that only $9.9 million had been achieved when they negotiated this deal in De- cember 2003. That meant they had to cut a further $40 million — yet to be made as of January 2004. They were forced to make these cuts remaining by '04-05 — $40 million on the threat by the Treasury Board — and if they didn't, the alternative would be severe.

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9799 Here, the government's own interim authority on the intolerable situation that this government placed agencies in when it forced them to agree to these so- called voluntary cuts: "Community Living faces a significant dilemma in responding to the government's budget targets. No one believes reduced budgets make any sense in an envi- ronment already characterized by wait-lists for those re- questing support.

Everyone can agree that reduced gov- ernment support for people with developmental disabili- ties and their families is wrong. …The widely held belief is that the budget reductions will be imposed regardless of the community opposition. "Rather than have budget reductions imposed, a de- cision was made to work with the ministry to accomplish the final budget reductions in a way that most protected individuals and their families. …The al

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0329pm-11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0329pm 11
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cd88e21d4872d160d81b09e2cb687638009c3470

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