Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 26 -- Thursday, August 23, 2001

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Introductions by Members		1405

Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act (Bill 26). Hon. M. de Jong
	Introduction and first reading	1410
	Hon. G. Plant

Oral Questions
	WCB workplace smoking ban	1415
	J. Kwan
	J. MacPhail
	Affordable housing in B.C.	1420
	R. Stewart
	Recruitment of senior Liberal government staff	1425
	J. MacPhail
	Social worker shortage in northern B.C.	1425
	S. Orr
	Government action in federal-provincial relations	1425
	B. Suffredine

Tabling Documents		1430
	Report on diagnostic and treatment facility of Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria, B.C.
	Health Services ministry, website document, Tobacco Truth, Tobacco Facts; Secondhand Smoke, Firsthand Damage
	Document regarding ventilation of secondhand smoke, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada

Oral Questions
	Community enterprise grant for Horsefly	1430
	Response to question taken on notice

Tabling Documents		1430
	Attorney General ministry and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights, annual report, 1999-2000
	Attorney General ministry and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights, annual performance report, 2000-01

Reports from Committees		1430
	Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001 (Bill Pr401). T. Christensen
	Second reading	1435
	Committee stage	1435
	Third reading	1435

Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001 (Bill Pr401). T. Christensen
	Second reading	1435
	Committee stage	1435
	Third reading	1440

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001 (Bill Pr403). R. Sultan
	Second reading	1440
	Committee stage	1440
	Third reading	1440

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) (Bill 25)
	Second reading	1440
	Hon. G. Abbott

Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 7). Hon. G. Plant
	Committee stage	1450
	Third reading	1455

Community Charter Council Act (Bill 12). Hon. T. Nebbeling
	Committee stage	1455
	J. Kwan
	J. MacPhail

Point of Order		1600
	Committee stage of bill, scope of debate
	Hon. G. Collins
	J. MacPhail
	Chair's ruling

Community Charter Council Act (Bill 12). Hon. T. Nebbeling
	Committee stage continued	1605
	J. Kwan
	J. MacPhail
	Third reading	1620

Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 19). Hon. R. Coleman
	Committee stage	1620
	Third reading	1620

Parental Responsibility Act (Bill 16). Hon. R. Coleman
	Committee stage	1625
	J. MacPhail
	S. Brice
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Plant
	Third reading	1805

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, 55 years ago tomorrow a young lad came kicking and screaming into this world. He was born in White Rock, he grew up in White Rock, and he went to school in White Rock. He's lived his whole married life in White Rock. He was the mayor of White Rock. What an exciting life he has had. He is known in some circles as Mr. Triple O. Would the House please join me in wishing the member for Surrey–White Rock a very happy fifty-fifth birthday.

J. MacPhail: My opening comment is: 55? And you can figure out what I mean by that.

I am delighted to welcome to the gallery today some extremely talented young people, a group of gifted children from 13 to 16 years of age who are attempting to complete high school in two years. They are watching us today. Their names are Krista Poon, Freddy Tsai, Alex Shyr, Casper Shyr, Zhou-Wei Liu, Amy Zhou, Wendy Wang, Ana Pop, Christina Pop and Albert Chang. Please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: In the gallery today we have someone who, I'm sure, wishes he was 55. He served as a Vancouver parks commissioner from 1963 to 1974, as a councillor for the city of Vancouver from 1976 to 2001 and as Chair of the greater Vancouver regional district since 1993, I think. He is now Chair of the TransLink board. He is a man who has dedicated his life to local public service. I hope everyone in the House will make George Puil welcome.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Today in the gallery we have a guest by the name of Chris Lee. Chris is a constituent of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. However, he's also a graduate student at Brown University in Rhode Island, U.S.A. He is visiting Victoria today to meet up with a good old friend, Tracy Tang, who is a staff member of our government. I'd like the House to make Chris welcome.

I also would like to welcome in the gallery a good old friend, Scott Clark. Scott has been a resident of Whistler for many, many years. He has been very active in my campaigns as mayor and as a member of this House. Scott moved to Victoria two years ago, and he and his family reside here now. He's doing very well, I'm very pleased to report, and it's great to see him in the gallery right opposite me. I'd like the House to make him welcome as well.

W. McMahon: It's my pleasure today to introduce to you my son Roger, in the gallery. He's visiting from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I ask that you all make him welcome.

R. Harris: Joining me in the House today is my wife, Cathryn, and my youngest son, Matthew. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. K. Whittred: In the gallery today is Steven Howard. Steven is director of communications of the B.C. Hospital Employees Union. I'm going to be meeting with him later this afternoon. He's also a constituent of mine from North Vancouver. Will the House please make him welcome.

B. Locke: In the gallery today is a young lady who has spent a couple of days with me. Her name is Amy Benwick, and she's from Surrey. Will the House please make her welcome.

H. Long: In the gallery today we have a legislative assistant, Alex Dutton. Believe me, she has worked very hard for four of us in the caucus. She'll be leaving us to go to Queen's University. We want to wish her the best of luck and ask this House to wish her the best in her new endeavours and in her journey there.

R. Stewart: In the gallery today we have my family — or most of them: my wife, Anna Rosa, and three of our children, Christina, Matthew and Amanda. They've been in Victoria with me the past ten days or so, enjoying this great camping weather. Would the House please welcome them in from the rain. As well, we have the daughter of the member for Yale-Lillooet. Miss Emily Chutter is here along with some friends of her family as well as of my family: Carrie Froese, Tyler Froese and Larkyn Froese. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to welcome my baby sister from Ontario, Donna Bennett. She didn't used to like me calling her my baby sister, but she's gotten older, and she doesn't mind it so much anymore. She and her husband, Brian Findlay, are both classical musicians. They're up there somewhere, I think, with their two boys, Adam and Benjamin, who are also musicians and hockey players, I understand. Please help me welcome them to the House.

D. Hayer: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House my wife's sister Lygie Haazen, my brother-in-law Nick Haazen, my nephew Nickolas and my niece Isabelle. They're visiting here from Washington, D.C. May I ask the House to please make them welcome.

K. Manhas: I'm also delighted to introduce some young people who are here today, some very hard-working and integral members of our caucus staff who've made the time to come to watch question period today: my legislative assistants Alex McMillan and Kate Wellburn. I'd like to make a special mention again of Alex Dutton. On her penultimate day with our cau-

cus team, although she's returning to school and although, as a McGill graduate, I may not agree with her choice of educational institution, I wish her all the best in her endeavours at Queen's.

Hon. G. Bruce: Those of you who drove up and down Vancouver Island Highway during the course of the last year and during the campaign would have noticed some very fine, large billboards on the side of the highway — some that I am particularly interested in. The man that was responsible for putting those very fine, large billboards up is a good friend of mine in the House today, Mr. Con Lang. Would you please make him feel welcome.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: On behalf of the Minster of Forests, I am pleased to introduce Bill 26, Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act. This bill is a lot less complicated than its title. The bill allows government to honour our commitment to preserve the integrity of the proposed Sliammon treaty settlement lands as set out in the initialled agreement-in-principle and at the same time to address impacts on two affected timber sale licences. This bill manifests in a very practical on-the-ground and real-world way our government's commitment to treaty-making in British Columbia.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26 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.

J. Kwan: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Can the minister tell this House how many people die every year in British Columbia from secondhand smoke and how many get sick?

J. Kwan: The minister's own website says that every year, 500 non-smokers in B.C. die from diseases brought on by secondhand smoke and that many thousands more become sick. To the Minister of Health Services: will the minister stand up in this House today and explain to thousands of workers who make their living working in pubs and restaurants, many of whom are women and young people, why he failed to stand up for them when the Premier and his cabinet colleagues made the decision to interfere with an independent agency, WCB, and halt the introduction of protection against secondhand smoke scheduled for early September?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is a very clear objective of this government that we want to reduce tobacco use in British Columbia and we want to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. Governments across Canada have wrestled with this challenge of how to move towards tobacco reduction throughout society. The government of British Columbia could have made the sale of tobacco illegal ten years ago. Clearly, that was not practical. What we have in place are programs that will reduce tobacco use, and we are seeing some success from those various programs. We want to continue to work to reduce tobacco use, but we want to do it in a responsible way that moves us forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a further supplemental question.

J. Kwan: What we have in place, as we saw yesterday, is interference from the Minister of Labour in reintroducing a review of the WCB regulations, which puts thousands of workers at risk. The minister's own website also says that a non-smoker breathing secondhand smoke is exposed to roughly 3,700 different chemicals, many of them poisonous and many of them cancer-causing.

To the Minister of Health Services: how does the minister reconcile the fact that he's telling workers that secondhand smoke is dangerous and can kill, while he sits idly by and his government forces workers to endure the effects of secondhand smoke?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, the Ministry of Health Services is not sitting idly by. We have an aggressive tobacco strategy. There is $10 million of funding going into programs now to reduce tobacco use. We have seen studies that show that British Columbia is the lowest in Canada, and we want to continue working towards that. I think the actions that have been taken by this government are responsible in trying to move that agenda forward in an orderly, systematic way that really looks out for the interests of the population as a whole.

J. MacPhail: Until yesterday, British Columbia led the way in its tobacco strategy, reducing the use of tobacco in British Columbia with great success. Yesterday the Minister of Labour dismissed concerns of workers who are worried about the effects of secondhand smoke and of having to wait seven months for new regulations. He said to them: "They're not going to get cancer in the meantime by waiting from now until

that period of time." Again to the Minister of Health Services: do you agree with the Labour minister that no one will get cancer or get terribly sick while they wait for the new regulations?

Hon. G. Bruce: If the House would allow me to get all three of my feet out of my mouth, I would appreciate that. The fact of the matter is: it was not a very thoughtful comment, at the end of a long scrum, and I acknowledge that.

We are moving as quickly as we can in bringing this regulation in. It will be brought in by April; that's eight months from now. We clearly wanted to have a review of this so that we not only have a healthy and safe workplace for the people that work in these institutions but in fact have institutions viable and alive that these people could work in. That's our objective.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the working people of British Columbia will accept the minister's apology, given with sincerity, but there's more that the Minister of Labour can do by putting substance behind that apology. I think it's clear that this government doesn't care — or it sent a very strong signal yesterday that they don't care — about the health of workers.

The Minister of Health Services knows full well that secondhand smoke kills, and he knows full well that the risk has increased to thousands of workers who have to work in pubs and bars today. The bottom line is this: the pub lobby gave the Liberals tens of thousands of dollars, all fully supported by big tobacco, and the Premier caved in to those demands. Again, I ask the Minister of Health Services to stand up in this House and explain to workers why they get secondhand smoke from the government and Liberal donors get first-class treatment.

Hon. G. Bruce: Pubs, hotels and the like are all part of the small business community in the province of British Columbia. The small business community employs thousands of people throughout this province. In fact, governments of all stripes have always claimed how important small business is. But small business can't function in an economy that's blown to smithereens, as this member and the other, in respect to their previous government, did to small business in the province.

If you want to protect the health and well-being of employees in small business, you have to make sure you have a strong and healthy economy. As well, you have to have a strong and healthy workplace, and that's in fact what this government's going to do.

R. Stewart: This question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Last week the minister met with his federal, provincial and territorial counterparts in Ontario to discuss affordable housing issues. With a number of low-income Canadians dependent on public housing to provide shelter for themselves and their families, many are looking for government to step forward to address the shortage of public housing in Canada. Can the minister tell this House what actions he and his counterparts agreed to take to address the issue of affordable housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: We did have a very positive and constructive set of meetings last week in London, Ontario. I can confirm that the federal government has put $680 million on the table for affordable housing. B.C.'s share, should we be able in the weeks and months ahead to reach agreement with the federal government, would be about $90 million.

The principal concern that came out of the provincial and territorial governments was more flexibility in terms of the parameters around federal funds. I'm pleased to note that when Minister Gagliano joined us on Thursday, he did promise that additional flexibility that we were looking forward to. So we're looking forward, in the weeks and months ahead, to working very hard not only with the federal government but with municipalities and non-profits to, indeed, provide a lot more affordable housing to people in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville with a supplemental question.

R. Stewart: Affordability of market housing is also a major concern to British Columbia families. According to the director of the Centre for Urban and Community Studies, more than two-thirds of people who rent in Vancouver will not be able to afford average market rent. Will the minister tell us what he's doing to address the problem of housing affordability and market housing in B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: This government did make some very substantial commitments around affordable housing in the last provincial election campaign, and unlike the former government, we actually intend to keep our promises with respect to affordable housing.

We've committed to over 1,100 affordable housing units in the current budget. We certainly are going to follow through on that. We have also taken some important steps with the Minister of Finance and others to ensure that we have a healthy, competitive, dynamic housing industry again in British Columbia through progressive changes to the tax system. So once again, we can move forward and have the number one economy in housing and elsewhere in this country.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, last night the Premier told this House that executive search firms that recommended the president of the B.C. Liberal Party for a top civil service post volunteered their time to the B.C.

Liberal Party. That would have meant that they would have had to file the value of that time with Elections B.C. It turns out that four firms donated only $10,900. That's not a lot of money for four firms looking at over 200 people over 18 months. However, today the Premier changed his story, saying that they worked for the Liberal caucus and not the Liberal Party, so they don't have to file their contribution with Elections B.C.

To the Premier: last night the Premier said that the firms worked for the Liberal Party; today the Premier said they worked for the Liberal caucus. Which is it? And will you release the documents, regardless, pertaining to the search for the hire of the president of the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. G. Campbell: As part of our role as opposition, it is correct. We did look across the country for top-quality people that are willing to come and serve in the province. There were four recruitment firms from British Columbia that helped us in that search. I am pleased to say they were successful in identifying excellent people who are willing to come and work for us. There is no question that the work that was done by those firms was in no way an election expense. It was a volunteer effort on behalf of the opposition as we moved forward to create a top-quality public service that was appointed based on merit so that we could move British Columbia forward after a decade of decline under the NDP.

S. Orr: I feel that over the past decade children and families, our children and families, have been very poorly served in this province by the previous administration. My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. British Columbia has historically been plagued by a shortage of social workers, especially in the northern communities. These vacancies, especially in the northern areas, can affect the delivery of important services that many children and families need and depend upon. Can the minister tell us what he is doing to address the shortage of these front-line workers?

Hon. G. Hogg: Indeed, we have been having difficulty filling the vacancies in the north. In fact, there are about 173 social workers in northern British Columbia, and in March of this year there were about 33 vacancies. I'm pleased to say that we've been able to reduce that to some 13 now and are hoping to have the vacancy level down to about eight in the next few months.

We have introduced incentives. There's a $12,000 incentive for social workers who commit to working two years in the north. There's also an academic incentive to social workers who are interested in pursuing further education. If they commit to working four years, they're entitled to receive that academic incentive. There's also a lateral transfer provision that allows them, after a four-year stay, to move to other parts of the province that they may wish to work in.

With those three incentives, we're finding that we're better able to meet the needs. We're also working with the Minister of Advanced Education to increase the number of social workers graduating from institutions in British Columbia.

B. Suffredine: My question is to the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. Many British Columbians feel disconnected from the federal government. They feel forgotten by their Ottawa representatives. Recent polls suggest that western Canadians in general are increasingly dissatisfied with the federal government and the role it plays in their lives. Will the minister tell us what this government is doing to ensure that the federal government is addressing the concerns of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Indeed, we have had several incidents over the past decade under the previous government that have, I think, contributed to western alienation. I think particularly of the Nanoose Bay and the Alaska ferry blockade problem. The Premier went to Ottawa right after he was sworn in and met with the Prime Minister, the Liberal government and the leaders of the opposition parties to get a dialogue going with them. I think we've had a great improvement ever since that time.

I'd just like to mention a couple of examples. One is energy policy. Western Canada is now speaking with one voice with the federal government in terms of dealing with the United States. The second one is softwood lumber. I think it was almost unprecedented when, on Tuesday of this week, we had the Minister for International Trade, Pierre Pettigrew, and also David Anderson here in Victoria meeting with the Minister of Forests and the Premier about coming up with a solid British Columbia and Canadian position on softwood.

We are also, as mentioned in the throne speech, having a dialogue on British Columbia, a congress on British Columbia. Early in the new year we're inviting all members of this Legislature, federal MPs from all parties, aboriginal leaders and mayors to a dialogue in Vancouver.

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise pursuant to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to table a report on the diagnostic and treatment facility of Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria.

J. Kwan: I rise to table two documents. One is Tobacco Truth, Tobacco Facts; Secondhand Smoke, Firsthand Damage, which I have retrieved from the Ministry of

Health Services website. The second document is Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, which answers questions on ventilation of secondhand smoke, which clearly states and answers the question on whether any Canadian agencies found any acceptable ventilation standards for secondhand smoke. The answer is clearly no. I am tabling these documents for the House.

Hon. G. Abbott: On August 14 the member for Vancouver-Hastings asked a question regarding a community enterprise grant to the community of Horsefly, which the Government House Leader took on notice and which I would like to respond to today. In her question, the member suggested that the government had reneged on a commitment to Horsefly.

That was not correct. First we need to note the distinction — and I hope the subtlety of this doesn't escape the opposition — between a grant application and an approved grant embodied in a signed contract. For better or worse, the Horsefly application was the former: a grant application. There was no reneging on commitments. The government, in fact, is loath to do that, although I know the former government was quite used to doing exactly that.

Hon. G. Plant: I rise to table the annual report for the Ministry of Attorney General for the year 1999-2000 and the annual performance report for the Ministry of Attorney General, April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001. My name is in the documents, but I bear no responsibility for their contents.

S. Orr: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. I move that the report be read and received.

"Hon. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"1. that the preamble to Bill Pr401, intituled Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001 has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading;

"2. that the preamble to Bill Pr402, intituled Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001, has been approved and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading;

"3. that the preamble to Bill Pr403, intituled The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading,

T. Christensen: I move that Bill Pr401, intituled Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001, be now read a second time.

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

Bill Pr401, Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr401; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

T. Christensen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr401, Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration Act), 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Bill Pr402, Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr402; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

T. Christensen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr402, Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

As explained in the House yesterday, the Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co. is in the process of acquiring the operations and affairs of the National Trust Co. All of the other provinces of Canada have passed comparable legislation allowing the personal trust affairs to be transferred to the Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co., and we are now asked to facilitate this transaction as well. It is not a controversial bill. That's the story.

R. Sultan: By leave, I request that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr403, The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr403; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

R. Sultan: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr403, The Bank Of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 25, intituled the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3), be now read for a second time. I'm pleased to present Bill 25 for second reading. This government appreciates

that local governments sometimes need to address local challenges in ways which are not defined under the Local Government Act. That's why we're introducing the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3). Like the previous two municipalities enabling and validating acts, this act gives local governments more flexibility in the way they handle their affairs. It gives them the option of seeking approval from the provincial government on a case-by-case basis to develop and implement solutions that aren't specifically outlined in the Local Government Act.

In the case of the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, certainly this MEVA is an act which will benefit from this amendment. The regional district has been facing financial challenges following one of the longest and most expensive arbitration cases in Canadian history. In 1999 the regional district ended up with a bill of approximately $5.3 million on behalf of Naramata residents due to the Blackwell arbitration case.

This case involved a dispute between Blackwell Stores Ltd. and the former Naramata irrigation district, later taken over by the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, concerning access to water rights for a subdivision Blackwell planned to build. The dispute, which went to arbitration in 1994, was not settled until 1999. After consulting with Naramata residents, the regional district has decided to impose a special equal share parcel tax, a form of property tax, to recover the $3.3 million still outstanding.

The regional district's approach requires all Naramata property owners to pay one equal parcel tax, regardless of how many properties they own. Since the Local Government Act doesn't authorize an equal share parcel tax, the regional district has requested authority to pursue its plan through an amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3). This legislation will allow the regional district to address its financial concerns in a way that has been approved by Naramata residents.

Before I move on to the balance of the MEVA, Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge the efforts of two members of this House with respect to the resolution of this matter. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of Provincial Revenue, also known as the MLA for Penticton–Okanagan Valley, and the efforts of the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, also known as the member for Okanagan-Westside. Both of those members have worked long and hard to try to find a resolution to this very, very difficult issue, and I commend them for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) also allows local governments to validate past actions that did not fully meet the technical requirements of the Local Government Act. On behalf of the Minister of Health Services, I move the following as part of the amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3): "Municipal anti-smoking bylaws approved by the provincial health officer or deputy to the provincial health officer, between April 1, 1996, and August 9, 1996, be retroactively validated."

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, Mr. Minister. Could we do the amendments at the committee stage of the bill, please?

Mr. Speaker, in August 1996 the former Health minister delegated authority to approve municipal anti-smoking bylaws to the provincial health officer. It became apparent that there was a potential problem with a specific problem of time during which the provincial health officer or deputy to the provincial health officer may have signed the municipal anti-smoking bylaws believing the authority had been delegated to them. We are taking steps to ensure that these bylaws are on solid footing. The provincial health officer acted in good faith and with the best interests of British Columbians. This is a clerical error that must be corrected to provide British Columbians the protection they deserve from illnesses related to exposure to secondhand smoke.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the legislation we're introducing today will ensure the validity of anti-smoking bylaws passed under the authority of the provincial health officer in 1996. I'm also confident that it will help the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen recover the money it spent to resolve the Blackwell Stores Ltd. arbitration case and plan for the future with confidence. I ask all members of the House to lend their support to this very important piece of legislation.

Bill 25, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3), read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 7, Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001. If the Speaker gives me a moment, I'll call the Attorney General to begin the debate.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The effect of the amendment is to ensure that the definition of calendar year in the Interpretation Act is respected. It does not change the intent of the statute as it has been described in first reading and second reading. It's really just a drafting issue that was caught in the last day or so by legislative counsel.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 7, Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 7, Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: My question is on the makeup of the members for this council. What consideration was given by the minister with respect to this makeup? Did he consider community makeup, meaning people from the broader community and from the associations to be involved in this council's work? Did he give consideration to workers who may have something to contribute in this area and so on? In terms of the makeup, how did the minister arrive at this breakdown?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Mr. Speaker, to deal with that question, local government representatives are not full-time employees doing the council duties. That's number one. The second thing is the fact that these are working people. These are people that pay taxes, so these are the people that are closest to the communities, and they know what their community members feel needs to be represented in dealing with the new Community Charter Council. I feel that as far as the workers are concerned, there is no problem. There is clearly representation on the charter council, in multitude, by people in the workforce who are representative of individual groups in communities. I feel very comfortable that all of these voices are going to be heard.

However, what we will do, once the charter council is established and the deliberations on the potential charter take place, is invite interest groups that we feel would be affected by certain sections of the charter — depending on the charter council and what direction they're going in. At that time we will invite these interest groups to come and discuss these sections that would apply to them, and I believe that in that sense, we really complete the democratic process.

I should also say that I'm not aware that comprehensive programs were introduced in the past to deal with Local Government Act changes. I think that allowing local government to have a real voice and be a real partner in creating a community charter that is a tool for how local governments in the future will exercise their duties and their powers is the best way to go.

J. Kwan: Certainly, the representatives from UBCM are individuals within the community. There is no doubt about that. There is also a broader picture in terms of representation. On the one hand, you are an elected official, and your mandate, of course, in that instance is to represent the municipality in which you have been elected at the local government level. Having said that, though, they are still individuals who may have different points of view, community associations who may have significant contributions in terms of the shaping of the charter in the process that the council would embark on, workers who work for the municipalities. I assume that none of the UBCM representatives, or the combination here, are people who are workers within the municipalities, who may also have a lot to contribute to the makeup of the community charter when it's introduced next year.

In that vein, would it not be wise to ensure that there's broad representation, as is often done in many different areas of government? Certainly, when I was in government as a minister of the Crown, we attempted to ensure that there was broad representation so that the voices from all sectors were at the table. In this instance, one would think that it is very important to ensure that that representation is there as the council

Did the minister at any point consider that broader representation outside UBCM on this council? Who did he consult with in arriving at the list of people that he has decided to put on the council?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Certainly, I've had discussions with various people on that subject, and I think that in general the agreement was that indeed local council representatives do represent the communities in all aspects of the communities.

The member should remember that there is a trend where the voice of local community members, through new consultation processes at a local level, are heard much more strongly. It is also recognized that on many councils there are members elected that do represent special voices in the community. Environmental organizations often manage to get members elected to their council. When these council members participate in the process of deliberating on the elements that should make up a community charter, that input is there.

The member opposite should also know that we will undertake a comprehensive consultation program with the Community Charter Council. Not only that, we will have a large and strong presence at UBCM. After UBCM in October we will actually go on the road and visit communities throughout British Columbia. At that time there is no doubt that there will be representation from all kinds of organizations that would at least see their voices being heard. When that happens, we take everything into consideration.

I really think that the path of consultation we have chosen is the right path and the most constructive path, and I'm very comfortable with the makeup of this council representing, indeed, the voices of all British Columbians.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry; the minister didn't actually answer the question. Who did he consult with, with respect to the makeup of the council?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I've worked on this particular project for about three years, just gathering data. Believe me, in that process I've met many, many people all over British Columbia and basically gotten a feel for what they were looking for. I can truly say that if there's one thing the general voice of the province is, it's that people truly want to see the provincial government have much less control over the destiny of communities.

We are giving the communities the tools to focus more on their own destiny, and once the charter is there, there are certain new elements of accountability by the local councils in dealing with the community. The community charter will not only empower local governments but also give the communities a chance to really, through benchmarking, channel how much improvement is done to what happens in a community. The voice of the community at large will always be part of the decision-making program. That's the beauty of a charter, rather than what we're dealing with now, the Local Government Act.

J. Kwan: Perhaps the minister is not understanding my question. Or perhaps he's trying to avoid the question. Let me be very specific. The community charter was established per the act before us, which says that the makeup of the council will consist of the following members:

           "(a) the minister, who is to be the chair;
             (b) 3 persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to represent provincial government interests;
             (c) 4 persons appointed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to represent local government interests;
             (d) 4 persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the advice of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, who are to be members at large."

My question to the minister is: who did he consult, if anyone, specifically on the makeup of this council? Did he consult UBCM representatives? Did he consult CUPE, who are the workers? Many of them are workers for municipalities. Did he consult with community associations who may have an interest in participating and being part of this council? My question to the minister is very specific on the consultation of the makeup of this council.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: …to repeat my answers. I've consulted over the last three years with a large variety of people representing all sectors of our British Columbia society — nothing formal by calling a meeting but just meeting with people, which is always the best way to get people to give you the information that I truly believe is important to share. The makeup of the council is clearly done in full cooperation with UBCM. I've met with the table officers; I've met with the board members. The board members and the table officers put forward names they wanted to see represented on the board. These members do represent all areas of British Columbia. That was my answer before, and it will continue to be my answer.

J. Kwan: Then it's clear that the only people the minister has consulted on the makeup of the charter council are representatives from UBCM. He did not go beyond the scope of UBCM in consulting with community organizations or with the privacy commissioner, as an example, who may have an interest in terms of shaping how local government could impact issues of privacy for individuals. He did not consult with the workers who are a huge component affecting local governance.

Clearly, the only people, it appears to me, in this answer from the minister are the consultation with UBCM…. I think that's most unfortunate, because the minister is actually embarking on a huge project, with the introduction next year of the community charter, which would revamp the governance of local government. That has huge ramifications, and it is of particu-

lar interest, I would imagine, to every single individual throughout British Columbia in their respective communities. Many people would have, I think, a valid contribution, being part of the council, not just providing information through the consultation process but being part of council as recommendations are being made to the government for legislation in the future.

I think that's unfortunate. I think it would have been better to ensure proper, fair and broad representation on the council — for the minister to have embarked on a broader consultation before the makeup of the council was decided upon and then to ensure that the makeup of the council is a broad representation of community interests in British Columbia.

On that note, I disagree with the makeup of the council and will therefore be voting against section 1.

	YEAS — 59
Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Lee	Thorpe	Murray
Plant	Campbell	Collins
Bond	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Bell	Long	Trumper
Johnston	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	K. Stewart
Visser	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

J. Kwan: My question is on the role of the council. Is it the intent of the minister that the Community Charter Council would actually write the legislation relating to the community charter?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, about three years ago we started to look at the community charter that was introduced by the now Premier in 1995, in order to entice the then government to become more in line with the way that local communities are thinking and how the relationship between provincial and local governments should happen. The bill did not pass through the system. Three years ago I took that bill and started to work with some administrators and other individuals to look at how much of the bill still made sense, considering it was 1999-2000. We removed considerable pieces from the bill of '95, sometimes because it didn't make sense and sometimes because a local government act that was introduced by the previous government had taken care of some of these sections. Then we started to go through a process of what was needed to make a charter that would truly empower local government as partners with the provincial government. We have a list of suggestions. These recommendations will go to the Community Charter Council, and they will deliberate over all of these issues.

The reason we chose this path is that the charter council that will eventually be created is for local communities, and it should not be created without local communities. That's why we have a charter council made up of local government and provincial government representatives.

That's the history. There is no charter per se. The only charter is the charter from '95 that was tabled here in the House. We have a working document that will be used by the charter council members to fulfil the mandate of the Community Charter Council Act. That is, to go through certain and various ways of consultation with local governments and groups that are impacted by the sections that will be finalized by the charter council and have a consultation program through the UBCM after that and broad exposure of charter council elements to local governments throughout British Columbia. By January 15 the product should be ready for the legislative staff to do numbering, cross-referencing and whatever else is needed, and then introduction into the House shortly after February 15.

J. Kwan: In section 2(1), where it outlines the role of the council, it reads: "The Community Charter Council is responsible for preparing a report to the executive council recommending legislation, to be titled the Community Charter, that will establish a new foundation for municipal government in British Columbia."

Do I take this to mean that the Community Charter Council would actually write the legislation itself, to be titled the Community Charter, and that would be a component of the report that would be forwarded to the government? I note that in section 2(2) it then goes on further to say: "The report must include a draft Community Charter, including required consequential and transitional provisions, prepared with the assistance of staff of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and the office of the legislative counsel." I take it to mean that it is the responsibility of the council to provide a draft community charter as part of this report, with the assistance of staff.

J. Kwan: I'm wondering what it meant when the minister earlier, in second reading, had indicated that the draft community charter has already been written.

I will quote, if I may, from Hansard the words of the minister. The quote is as follows:

I ask the minister: what does this mean, when during second reading stage he had actually said that the community charter, the draft legislation, has already been written and that his staff are very proud of it? They may be very proud of it, but that's not the question. If the legislation has already been written, then why would he now bring in legislation that says there's a council whose job is to draft the community charter?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I think that in my previous answer to the question I already explained to the member that the 1995 community charter is a document that has been delivered to this House. We have taken that document and cleaned it up, so to speak. Where there were areas that had not been covered in '95 and now need to be covered because we live in the year 2001, certain sections were written as a starting point for the charter council to begin working with.

It is the charter council that, through deliberation, will put finesse to these areas that need that debate and that discussion and that input from local government. When we do a report, there will be a charter attached to it that will be the document that eventually will finish up here in the House for further deliberation. I look forward to the members participating in that exercise.

J. Kwan: Then a copy of the community charter has already been drafted and written.

J. Kwan: Thank you. As I read the comments from the minister during second reading of the bill, he clearly says that the proposed legislation that is going to be brought into the House has already been written. The staff has already looked at it, and they think it's very bold and very innovative, and they're very excited about it.

So there is a copy of the community charter already — a draft of the community charter existing. Will the minister confirm that there is already a draft copy of the community charter? Yes or no?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: One more time. In 1995 a community charter was introduced in this House. Many of the points that were raised in that draft no longer apply. I'll give one example: the CORE program that was, I think, done away with in 1998. These are the kinds of things we went over and looked at to see if they still made sense to be in there. We were left with a number of sections and areas that will still be represented there. We also recognize that we are living now in the year 2001. There are new elements that have to be considered for local government. These new areas should be considered by local government and the provincial government as a partnership. That's what we're doing.

What I've spoken of is a draft of some of these ideas, as I explained earlier on. We have a whole series of ideas for starting points for the discussions. That is the material that staff who have looked at this draft material, the starting material, find very bold, very innovative, and that certainly will bring a new era in the relationship between local government and the provincial government. That's what is there. Once the charter council has worked with all that material, then truly a community charter will be delivered to the Legislature around or just past February 15.

J. Kwan: How long is the document, the draft community charter, that exists now?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: How long? It is 11 by 17; 17 is the length and 11 is the width. And it is about 100 pages. You asked me how long, so….

J. Kwan: I understand that the minister's attempt at humour is very, very funny. About 100 pages is the length of this document. Is this a public document?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As this is in preparation for legislation, clearly it is not in the public domain yet.

J. Kwan: The minister has just responded to my question of whether or not this document is a public document. He just finished saying that it is draft legislation, so therefore it is not in the public domain. Yet on the other hand, he's saying that draft legislation is really just a working document, that the work he has embarked on since 1995, I think he said, is not in legislative form. So which is it? Is it draft legislation entitled the Community Charter, or is it just working documents, working notes that he has gathered since 1995? Why won't he release it to the public, given that

it has significant importance to the public? If it's 100 pages long, the public would certainly be interested in reviewing it and perhaps giving some thought to it and then responding to it.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The member must be getting very desperate trying to find other arguments to rise to speak again. I have at no time said that this is legislation. This is not draft legislation; this is not community charter legislation. It's a working document, as I've said before, as a starting point for the charter council to start doing its work. At the end of that work, at the end of that exercise, there will indeed be legislation prepared that will come to the House, the rightful place where legislation should be introduced.

I don't know how the member did it when she was a member of government. We will follow the parliamentary way. When it is ready and it is presented, she will most likely share with me the elation that I have on this particular piece of legislative drafting. No, it is not legislative drafting; I am following your part. It's a working document, and that's it.

J. MacPhail: I think the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is exploring an important issue. The record has been corrected by the minister. The minister will well remember that in my second reading remarks I was concerned about his statement that the draft legislation was….

J. MacPhail: I think what the minister is getting used to, in his role, is that as an executive council member, you have to speak with clarity, because you're in charge of making decisions. Perhaps it's a learning curve, and we accept that. But the fact of the matter is that these matters are crucial to explore for this reason: why would a council be appointed to draft a piece of legislation when the minister says the legislation has already been drafted? This is a matter that I've been exploring with the Premier in the Premier's estimates: how do decisions get made in this government?

There are numerous committees being set up; there are numerous councils and task forces being set up. We're trying to explore, in a very cogent way with the Premier, the decision-making process of the government. This legislation is all about having a community of interests draft legislation. That's what the whole bill is about — nothing else. Yet the minister said: "They all recognize this as one of the boldest and most innovative pieces of legislation they have worked with for a long time." That's all. The minister really needs to speak with clarity. Otherwise, he undermines the whole intent of his legislation. The suspicions people have about the fix already being in are exacerbated. That's why this is being clarified on record.

To recap, the minister now says there is no piece of legislation, and therefore there is no requirement for him to release the piece of legislation that he referred to. The Community Charter Council will be starting from scratch, and the public will be able to have input into the whole parameter of the community charter.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This is a document that has its foundation in the community charter that was introduced here in 1995. We have been working for a number of years to improve it. It will be introduced in this House one day. At that time, the members opposite will have the opportunity to look at it and ask questions. They may make some recommendations for amendments. We will deal with whatever comes, and then this bill will hopefully pass. Then we'll have legislation that will truly give local governments a place in how they deal with local issues. They deserve something that has not happened in this province before, and I continue to work hard to make sure that it is the very best community charter this province will ever see.

J. Kwan: My question is to the minister. I ask him to explain to the House what he meant when he told the Vancouver Courier earlier this month: "I think that 95 percent of the charter will be adopted as it is written now." If the charter is already written and 95 percent is going to be adopted, then what is the process about for the council to engage with the community to draft this legislation that supposedly has not been drafted and yet has been drafted? The minister is anticipating that 95 percent will be adopted as it is written.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I read that article in the Vancouver Courier. There were a lot of elements presented there that I certainly haven't talked about. There were assumptions made by a couple of lawyers who made comments on the draft, on parts that are just not part of the draft.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There is a quote there, and I certainly have said to the individual that I believe the directions, the suggestions that we are making towards the channel, are directions that will ultimately lead to the goals we set out in the first place: to make the charter a workable document for local government. I'm not denying the quote. It is just that the interpretation he tried to give is incorrect.

J. Kwan: It is obvious to me that the minister has several different stories. During second reading of the bill he actually clearly said — and was very excited to advise the House — that this bold and innovative piece of legislation that they've worked on for a long time is now before the House, and there is draft legislation already in place. When he spoke with the Courier earlier this month, he said that 95 percent of the charter will be adopted as it is written now, clearly indicating

that the draft charter is already in existence and that he anticipated 95 percent of it to be adopted.

Today we are before the House addressing Bill 12, the Community Charter Council Act, which establishes a Community Charter Council to work on and prepare a report and a draft community charter for government. Yet the work has already been done. You've got to ask the question: if the work is already done, what is this process about? Is it just simply smoke and mirrors? Is it just for public relations to say that you are going to do consultations, when all the work has already been done?

Clearly, the comments by the minister illustrate that. He has flip-flopped, within the last 15 to 20 minutes, two different ways: yes, it's been done; no, it hasn't been done. Perhaps he really doesn't know whether or not it's been done.

Why doesn't he just come clean and tell the House? Show us. Table the document before the House. Table it and invite the public to review it and comment on it. Engage in a true consultation process, inviting all members and British Columbians who have an interest in local governance with respect to their local communities to provide input. Just table the document. It could be easily done, yet the minister is refusing to do so.

The question is: what does he have to hide? Why doesn't he come clean with his agenda, whatever it is, and just show British Columbians what his intentions are? Invite true consultation for all sectors of the community to participate and be involved in the drafting of the legislation. Why doesn't he just scrap the document of which he says some 95 percent would likely be adopted? Why doesn't he just scrap that document and start anew, if this truly is the process and the new era of this Liberal government?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I think we have a fundamental difference. I truly believe that local governments have to be part of creating a community charter. In the future that will be their tool to do their duties and fulfil their responsibilities as local government. I will not participate in an exercise where the voice of local governments cannot be heard. That is why we have always said that the Community Charter Council will be entrusted to come up with a community charter that will have the support of local governments. That's the exercise we're going to go through. In spite of all the twists that I hear from the members opposite, I will not change that attitude. I believe in local government and in empowering local government. These are principles that the member, when she was the minister of the Crown responsible for municipal affairs, did not necessary represent, as shown by the action of the UBCM, who actually walked out of meetings because there was no consultation as promised.

We will continue to consult with local governments. We will expose this to thousands of local elected officials. With all their input, we will have this working document completed to reflect exactly what the very best way is to have a relationship between local government and provincial government. That's the bottom line; it is the only line. It doesn't matter what the member opposite tries to push for. That's the way it's going to be. After February 15 we will have a community charter prepared with the partnership of local government. It will be a charter that local government will believe in, support and work with to make the community aspects better for every community in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I raised some questions during second reading that perhaps the minister can help us through now with respect to section 3. Under which of the various principles will the public be able to address the issue of electoral reform at the municipal level, including the advisability of having a ward system?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: See "Principles to consider in preparing report." Section 3(c) says: "Municipal governments must be democratically elected, responsible, accountable and accessible." How a local government will introduce, for example…. If they decide to have a ward system, it will be done by that local government and most likely with input from the community members. Section 3(c) covers exactly that question.

J. MacPhail: Does the working document contain any information or advice on ward systems?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It doesn't deal with election. That's under the Election Act.

Is the minister saying that the working document excludes information about the ward system because it's not appropriate to discuss under the charter?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Elections are not an area the council will be looking at. So I believe that with advice from the council, the Election Act will reflect, as it does today, the Local Government Act.

J. Kwan: Is there any reference in the draft legislation that touches on the structure of governance as they relate to local government?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The principles that are set out in section 3 are basically the guiding principles for the Community Charter Council to work with. They will use these principles to look at core powers within local government. They will certainly deal with many of the aspects of local government. Certain areas will not be visited at phase 1 of the community charter; planning and land use is one area. The area of elections is also not part of phase 1 of the community charter.

J. Kwan: I'm trying to understand what the minister is saying. Is he saying that, no, the draft legislation community charter has no reference around the structure of governance as they relate to local governments, or is he saying maybe there is? I'm unclear on his answer. The question is quite simple. In the draft legislation that the minister now has, is there any reference to the structure of governance to local government? This question goes directly to section 3(c) as they relate to accountability issues to local government.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: My answer has to be quite like my previous answer. The charter council will look at the mechanisms of local government. They will not be able to look at all aspects, so what will happen is that the core powers we will be looking at…. There will be changes made in these areas. Areas that we do not touch this time but are coming up in future legislation…. In these cases the Local Government Act remains the place where these sections are covered.

J. MacPhail: The next round of municipal elections is in November 2002. Am I correct?

J. MacPhail: So is it the minister's view that the community charter — which is as revolutionary as creating an order of government, as revolutionary as dealing with taxation — will not be addressing the issues of how we elect our municipal councils? What does democratically elected, responsible, accountable and accessible mean, then?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I think the answer I gave before is the answer I give again. We will look at certain elements of the core powers. Certain issues that we cannot deal with will remain status quo as they are described in the Local Government Act.

J. Kwan: In section 3(b) it says that municipalities are recognized as an order of government. Could the minister please explain that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: One of the duties that the Community Charter Council will be charged with, of course, is that as a council they will look at all these principles and determine what exactly they feel the community charter has to reflect. I cannot prejudge the deliberations that will be made by the Community Charter Council.

J. Kwan: Section 3(b) actually says, "municipalities are recognized as an order of government," and there is a list here from (a) to (l) of principles that would be used to guide the council in its work. I'm trying to understand…. Under section 3(b), is it the intent of the minister to give the council this direction — that is, that there is a possibility of considering municipalities as a third order of government?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Section 3 starts with principles to consider in preparing the report. These are principles to consider for the Community Charter Council. They will do the consideration and then make a report to government on how they see that order of government issue being dealt with. I also believe that in the Local Government Act itself, in the preamble, it is stated that local government is an order of government.

J. Kwan: So the minister is saying that under 3(b), because the council can do the work and determine what an order of government means, the option is open to them, potentially, to consider local governments as a third order of government.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to talk about what the deliberations by the Community Charter Council will entail.

J. Kwan: I'm going to move forward, because the minister keeps on not answering the question. I will take it to mean that he is allowing the Community Charter Council to entertain the idea of determining whether or not local government is a third order of government, per section 3(b), which is one of the guiding principles for the work of the council.

Section 3(c) goes on to say that as part of the guiding principles, municipal governments must be democratically elected, responsible, accountable and accessible. My question to the minister is: in his draft legislation that now exists, is there any reference to in-camera meetings? Is there any reference to making sure that information, minutes and so on are protected for the public's interest?

J. Kwan: Then my question to the minister is: how does he define accountability? What are the areas of accountability that would be applicable for the council to consider in its work as it embarks on developing its report for his consideration?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I would not prejudge, first of all, what the conclusion will be by the council as a whole, how they would describe accountability.

J. Kwan: The question around accountability is a very important one. The guiding principles for the work of the council as they're being laid out in Bill 12 are critical, because local governments often may not want to allow for broad accountability measures, including the minutes of in-camera meetings, agendas set for in-camera meetings, when it is appropriate to actually have in-camera meetings, when the public is allowed to be heard or even to listen in to the discussion, and when the media is allowed to participate. All of those questions are critical to the question of accountability. The guiding principle says that municipal gov-

ernments must be democratically elected, responsible, accountable and accessible, and I'm asking the minister what he defines accountable to mean.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, I'm not going to give a response to a question on a discussion that hasn't even taken place. I know one thing: local governments do believe in accountability. They believe in transparency. It is the level of government that is the closest to the people, and communities will hold their members accountable. How the tools will be created is up to the discussion that will take place with local government and provincial government, and I'm certainly not going to speculate on the results except to say that I believe we all know the importance of accountability and transparency.

J. Kwan: The minister is refusing to provide the information that he says he already has. He already has the draft legislation in place.

I'm going to move on to the next section, which says that the municipal governments must be provided with adequate powers and discretion to address existing and future community needs. Under this guiding principle, does the minister mean to say: giving local governments broader powers for decision-making? What areas is he contemplating?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, I cannot prejudge future discussions by the Community Charter Council. This document — let's be clear — is not the community charter. This document is a tool to establish the Community Charter Council, which will work with the working papers that have been prepared over a number of years to conclude with a community charter. The questions we're getting asked in the House right now are questions that should be asked in February, when the community charter is on the table — not today.

J. MacPhail: How outrageous for the minister to stand up and say that. What's the intent of the words, then? His job is to come into this House and explain the intent of the legislation that he's sponsoring. Why include the words? Why does the minister feel it's not his responsibility to explain the words that he has tabled as legislation? This isn't about the community charter; it's about the principles underlying the community charter that we're exploring. The minister himself put those principles in the legislation. As we ask questions about the intent of the principles to give guidance to those who won't be on the council.... Are we supposed to just say: "Sorry, that's not our business to ask"? Of course it's our business to ask. They're his words, and he has to explain the principles.

It doesn't say that these are guiding statements; it says they're the principles by which the council will be doing its work. Why is it that he can't explain it?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: One more time. Again, I look at the preamble: "Principles to consider in preparing the report." That's the instruction to the council. For me to give a definition of any of these aspects would be totally out of line. It would be prejudging, and it would, in a sense, really reduce the value of the activities that this council will undertake to prepare a community charter that is meaningful and is the tool for communities to take control over their own destiny.

Every question that I get on the essence of the wording, be it "accountable," be it "accessible," be it "democratic…." I cannot give the definition, because that is the council's work. That has to be done after this Council Act has passed.

J. Kwan: When the minister spoke on second reading, when he advised the House that there is already existing legislation and that he's proudly proclaiming the work having been done and being reviewed by staff…. At that point the legislation had already been drafted, and he deemed it to be appropriate to reference the draft legislation. When he spoke with the Courier newspaper, he told the Courier newspaper that some 95 percent of the charter will be adopted as written. Here we stand today in the House asking questions around the guiding principles behind the work that will be guiding the council, and he is refusing to answer the questions in terms of what the guiding principles mean and to what extent they enable and allow for and define the scope of the work of the council.

I have another question relating to taxation in section 3(e). The clause reads: "Municipal governments have authority to determine the public interest of their communities, including authority to determine the level of municipal expenditures and taxation." I know that local governments' source of taxation is really property taxes. Yet I don't see the word "property taxation" within this clause. It's just "taxation." Does that mean to say that the work of the council will be opened up with a scope to allow for beyond property taxation considerations?

Hon. G. Collins: I've been sitting here painfully listening to the questioning. It is very clear that in second reading we have a broad-ranging discussion. There are opportunities for members to talk about all sorts of things. When we get to committee stage, we deal with the content of the section that's before us. It is inappropriate for a member in questioning to be standing up and looking at a section here and then referring to what may end up being legislation before the House at some future date. To ask the types of questions that the member is asking and to keep coming back to other legislation, draft legislation, working papers and seeking the contents of those…. Those are not before the House now.

What is before the House now is section 3. These are guiding principles. I believe the words are: "They must consider the following principles." You can con-

sider them. There's a broad, wide-ranging scope for that discussion to take place. The member can't ask questions that are out of order about what the legislation might look like a year from now or six months from now, when the council, the very people who are going to be formed by this act, haven't had a chance to do the things and address the various issues that the member is addressing.

Those are very appropriate questions for the House when the legislation is actually before the House. I expect that at that time, all sorts of discussion and debate will take place in committee stage, as well as second reading, about the community charter, which may well be an inch thick. I expect it will take a great deal of time.

I know, as well, that when the previous government brought in their act on municipal governments, which was about that thick, there was no consultation that went on. There was no charter. There was no involvement at all.

J. MacPhail: Once again, the Minister of Finance comes to the rescue of one of his colleagues who can't answer the questions, under the ruse, the guise, of a point of order.

The member was merely putting in context the nature of her questioning, in that she was raising the issues in the context that the minister was saying several different things. Her questions stand alone, without reference to future legislation. They stand alone. Her preamble was just to say why she's concerned about these things.

The Minister of Finance has to stop protecting his ministers from being held accountable in this Legislature. The questions are about principle. The questions are about the exact meaning of the words in the legislation.

I have heard both sides of the argument. We are dealing with section 3, which involves the principles of Bill 12. I remind the committee to restrict their comments to provisions under section 3 and not to broad principles of the bill.

J. Kwan: My question is to the minister on section 3(e) and the word "taxation." I am interested in the scope of the work that is given to the council under these guiding principles, which the council is to consider. Does taxation include only property taxes or beyond property taxes, meaning to include other taxation avenues?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I will not prejudge what the input from UBCM may well be on that particular issue, but in general we look at broader options for consideration. That's the word. We are not dictating anything. An issue comes on the table, and the board as a whole will consider the issue. What the considerations will lead to will be reflected in a community charter that we will be introducing next year. At that time I also expect, like the Minister of Finance, that we will have broad discussion on all of these elements in detail. But the members have to wait until that time.

J. Kwan: Under section 3(g), which reads, "Municipalities must be able to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs," could the minister please define for the House what "financial and other resources" means?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Again, without giving a direct answer, I can say that over the years, first of all having been in local government myself for ten years and in discussions with mayors and councillors over time, they have often suggested ways where a municipality could create revenue without having to go to the property tax base. I expect that UBCM, as a full partner in this exercise of creating a community charter, will come forward with some ideas. It will be deliberated and discussed, and it will be voted on. After we have had these discussions, we'll see if indeed the consideration of the principle has led to some new opportunities.

Again, I'm not going to prejudge what these opportunities are, because we are not going to dictate as a government what it has to be. It is the council as a whole that will discuss potential options.

J. Kwan: I'm trying to establish the scope that is being given to the council to do its work, as they undertake the work with these guiding principles. Financial and other resources in terms of a scope could be varied and very large, as a matter of fact. Does it include, as an example, the possibility of looking at fee-for-service, wherein services that are now paid for by the municipal government would have the option, under these guiding principles of the council, to be recommended to be associated with a fee and considered as other financial resources? Or does it only mean to say that in the area of taxation, financial and other resources would be an introduction of a new tax in some form or another? These have tremendous impacts for British Columbians in every municipality in which I'm sure they'd be interested. What is the scope that is given to the council as they embark on this work of trying to explore options and opportunities for financial and other resources?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, local governments already have the authority to charge fees in certain areas. I come back to my previous point, and that is that it will be the council that will ultimately dictate the scope of opportunities that may be available. It will be happening through discussions with the council members collectively. It will represent provincial viewpoints, and it will represent local government viewpoints. Whatever comes out of these discussions will determine the scope of that particular section.

J. MacPhail: For clarification, he meant January 15 under this or February 12, the return of the Legislature?

The minister, earlier on in discussions, kept on referring to a date of February 15, just earlier this afternoon. This refers to January 15 as the date it needs to be returned. Also, the Legislature is returning February 12. Perhaps he could just clarify which one he means.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The date January 15 is when the Community Charter Council is to report to the executive council. Shortly after February 15 we intend to introduce that charter council into the Legislature for first reading and the following legislative steps.

J. MacPhail: Where would the public take comfort in the fact that it will be tabled in the Legislature? Where's the commitment to that in the bill?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to make sure I said it right, and I was right…. Once cabinet has received the report, a date will be set for the introduction of the legislation into the House. I believe that in the throne speech and at other opportunities, the Premier has very clearly stated that the timing for introduction of the community charter is shortly after February 15, and I have no doubt we will deliver on that.

J. MacPhail: So do we have a commitment from the minister that the final report that's being sent to the executive council will be made public in some way before the legislation is introduced?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I cannot really commit to anything that will be in a direction that cabinet will give to me. So I think the date of February 15, which the member opposite asked about, reflects fully our intent. A commitment to make it public beforehand as a community charter will be something that cabinet has to deal with.

J. MacPhail: Well, the final report that's being legislated is from the Community Charter Council, and the legislation specifically says it goes to the executive council rather than the Legislature — which is an interesting approach to openness and accountability — unless, of course, the minister commits to releasing the report. So in order to reassure those that may have alternative points of view from the government.…

J. MacPhail: Maybe I wasn't speaking loudly enough; just let me know. The legislation is very clear that it's going to the executive council. It's not at all clear that the report will be released as a public document. So I'm asking the minister today to make a commitment to release the report of the Community Charter Council publicly.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said before, the Community Charter Council itself cannot deliver a report to the House. It has to go to the executive council. The executive council will then decide what to do with the report. It would maybe be a good idea to release it, but I'm not going to prejudge that. It's not the position I'm in. It will be up to the executive council to make a decision on how the report will get into the public domain.

J. MacPhail: Let me get this straight. The 90-day commitment of the new era is to strike a council made up of a very narrow group of representatives to do a report of which we can't find out what the underlying principles really mean and to deliver it to the executive council with no commitment that the report will ever see the light of day. Is that what we're dealing with here?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That is the interpretation that the member gives to my statement. That's her business. I look at it a different way. The executive council will receive the report by January 15. That's the commitment that the Community Charter Council makes under this act. It is the executive council that will decide what to do with the report. For me to prejudge their action would not only be unwise but it's just not the right thing to do.

J. Kwan: I would assume that the minister would have the prerogative to determine, once he is in receipt of the report from the council, whether or not to release it to the public. If the minister is committed to accountability to the public and the consultation process, then he would commit today in this House that he would indeed release the report for the public's information and for them to peruse a document which I would assume would no doubt be very thick and very big. But the minister would not commit today. Does he need to seek permission from the Premier — the centralized agent of this entire government — for a decision? Does he need to seek permission before he commits whether or not he would release this document once it's completed?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm really amazed that the member opposite, who has been a member of government, is not aware of how documents and reports go through the system. She must know, as a former member of the Crown, that the report is not delivered to me as the minister. The report is delivered to the executive council. For her not to realize that, after many years in government, really surprises me. But I am certainly pleased to enlighten her that, indeed, I as the minister will not receive the report. The report

will go straight to the executive council. The executive council will then determine how to handle it for the public exposure. What we will see is the community charter here in the House as a piece of legislation shortly after February 15.

J. MacPhail: The only reason this is going to the executive council is because this government has determined that it will go to the executive council. Not only are they shutting down public access to it by their actions, they're shutting down public access to it by legislating it. It is only because this legislation says it goes to the executive council that it goes to the executive council.

Secondly, not every document that goes to executive council is a confidential document. In fact, I would assume, based on this government's commitment to openness and accountability, that this would be a public document. All we're asking for is the minister's commitment to make the report public. Who would've thought, reading the New Era document, that that would be in dispute? Who would've actually contemplated that this government would legislate a ruse of secrecy?

I will tell you, because I understand the government has much more work to do today, the opposition will be voting against this section on the basis that it is not going to be made public — the document. There is no commitment to make it public. We'll do so on division.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 12, Community Charter Council Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole. For the information of members, it will be committee stage of Bill 19.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 19, Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 16.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: There has been much discussion since this bill was tabled about defining a child as a person who is under 18 years of age. The discussion I have heard is on holding parents accountable for what one can call a senior teenager. What studies or supporting documentation did the minister glean in order to have the bill applicable to children under 18 years?

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason for the definition of a child as under 18 years is to stay consistent with the Young Offenders Act.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's understanding, then, that every child will be charged criminally, as well as a parent charged or convicted under this? Is that why the age of 18 — so that not only will the child be convicted under the Young Offenders Act, but then the parent will be held accountable under this act?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are no charges under this act. This allows for an action under small claims action. To use the terminology "charging parents" is not correct. The parent is held responsible for damages done by the child over whom it can be shown they should have had reasonable supervision. The argument around the age factor is one that a judge at a settlement conference would take into account relative to anything that took place.

J. MacPhail: I fully understand that this isn't about charging, but the minister said that the logic behind having children under 18 years as the scope of parenting that's covered by this act was to match up with the Young Offenders Act. Decades and decades of discussion have gone into when a youth or a child is subject to a different test of criminal charge than an adult is. That's to deal with the Criminal Code.

I confess on the record now to all who listen: I'm not a lawyer, and I've actually had no direct experience with the Young Offenders Act. But I do know and have followed closely the debate that has raged across this country about the intent and the applicability of the Young Offenders Act and the balance that's needed. Much of that discussion occurs around the age of the child. In fact, I think there's even an ability to raise a child to adult court and the more stringent test of adult behaviour for a child that would be chronologically under the age of 18. That debate has raged.

So what I'm asking the minister to do is table the studies that show why that same test applies to parents who may be subject to a civil suit brought against them that concerns the negligence of their children.

Hon. R. Coleman: The definition isn't about study; it's about school-age children aged 18 and drawing a parallel to the Young Offenders Act age bracket for what we consider to be a child in most areas under actions like this. It's not a matter of having to study what that definition is. That's been the definition used in other pieces of legislation, and it's a definition we apply here.

J. MacPhail: The reason why the Young Offenders Act determines a threshold of a chronological age is because that child, himself or herself, is being held accountable for his or her actions. It doesn't involve anyone else. There's not a test that says that the maturity or lack thereof of the child is in relation to anyone else.

In this particular situation, the parent is being held accountable for the actions of the child. I must say that the reason I raise this is because there's been much discussion in the community about this. The discussions centre around: how is it that a parent — clearly, there's a new problem that we're trying to solve here with this legislation — of a teenager who's 16 or 17 or sometimes 15 can be held accountable for the actions of a 15-, 16- or 17-year-old?

"The lawyers contacted argue that in most cases, a youth of 15 to 17 years is a fully responsible individual or, at least, old enough that their actions cannot be attributed to the influence or lack thereof of anyone else. That, they say, puts the fundamental basis of the law into question."

This is a lawyer who is a family law lawyer in the Victoria area. His name is David Shaw.

"'At what age does the parent no longer really control the child?' Shaw asked. 'If this is restricted to a young child, the victim has, I hope, the problem of establishing that the child understood what they were doing and intended to create the damage. If it's an older child, I have problems with the idea of parents controlling the child.'

"'The legislation implies that if your child has committed property damages, you're failing in your duty as a parent. I assume the victim merely has to prove that you're the parent of that child,' said Shaw. 'Who is this helping?'"

This is a family law lawyer who actually has read the act. That's why I started off by saying I'm not a lawyer. The minister has given no comfort to the debate by suggesting that the age determination was related to the Young Offenders Act, a criminal act, an act dealing with criminal intent.

Hon. R. Coleman: The fact of the matter is that Mr. Shaw isn't entirely correct, and maybe he hasn't read the act. If he had read section 14, which allows for damage to be either given to parent or child, depending on age, or if he had read the section which allows for the balance of responsibility to the child where.... In the very first part of that section — and I'm sure we'll get to it — a judge is told he may take into account the age of maturity of the child when he measures parental accountability. The fact of the matter is that this act allows for those measurements further down in the act. The definition just defines a child.

J. MacPhail: If the minister is basing the chronological age limitation on the basis that it's somehow relevant to the Young Offenders Act, can he show any studies that show such laws have actually had an impact on youth crime?

Hon. R. Coleman: I will answer the question one more time. The age is a definition of a child. That definition was based on the experience of members with the legislation, including the fact that the Young Offenders Act deals with children under the age of 18.

J. MacPhail: My question was not about that. My question was: does the Solicitor General have any studies that show such laws have an impact on the level of youth crime?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is actually not about youth crime; this is about victims. This is about victims and parental responsibility. That's what this act is about.

J. MacPhail: Well, it isn't about that. The legislation is about parents being held accountable for the actions

of their children in property damage. That's what this is about. If somehow this government's interpretation of how they treat parents is to say that the only aspect of this legislation that the government cares about is the victim, then we need to explore what it is we're trying to achieve here.

I assume that what the Solicitor General means by victim is the victim of a crime. It may be a crime that has not gone to court. It may be a crime that has not been tested under the Young Offenders Act, but it's property damage — right? It says: "suffers property loss." They will be able to start a civil action. So I assume that what we're trying to stop here is property damage or vandalism — crime against property owners — by young people. Has the Solicitor General got any evidence that parental responsibility legislation has led to a reduction in vandalism and property damage, in the words of the act?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're on the section dealing with the definition of a child. If you want to debate the rest of the act, I guess we can move on to those other sections. The fact of the matter is that this is parental responsibility legislation. Every single tool that we can give to any community is going to assist that community in reducing crime or reducing vandalism. I would anticipate that this would be no different. To measure it is impossible. The act hasn't been passed in this province as yet, so we have no way of measuring it as of today.

J. MacPhail: Does the Young Offenders Act have a threshold above which the child is subject to the Young Offenders Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not going to get into a debate relative to the Young Offenders Act. This is the Parental Responsibility Act; I'm prepared to deal with it.

J. MacPhail: The reason I'm asking the question is that I'm trying to find some guidance on how this legislation is appropriate. It's my recollection that the Young Offenders Act applies to children who are 12 or older. I'm not sure about that, but there's a threshold below which it doesn't apply. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, I'm not about to get into a debate about the thresholds in an act that isn't before this Legislature and that I don't have in front of me at the moment.

J. MacPhail: My gosh, the government's having trouble that we're actually asking some questions.

Let me just provide the logic for the government, who clearly haven't thought this through. The definition that says that it's a person under 18 years of age could apply, then, to a three-year-old. That's the significance of my question. What other legislation that deals with youth vandalism applies to three-year-olds? Does that follow?

Hon. R. Coleman: Get as agitated as you like. I'm not going to buy into that.

The reality is that the Young Offenders Act in this country is 12 to 17, but that's about criminal law. This is about parental responsibility. The act allows for measurements by judges, when they go before them under a small claims action, to take into consideration the age of a child. Any reasonable person who wants to make a reasonable argument about this would understand that going before a judge and saying, "This three-year-old child deliberately broke my window; I want the parent to pay for it...." The judge would say, "The child's three years old," and that would be the end of it.

Apply the logic that you want to apply to the act, but apply it fairly. The age of a child in here is under 18 years of age. We use that as a standard. Then we put in the act a number of measurements that can go before a judge under a small claims action to determine the responsibility of the child. The first one is the age and the maturity of the child.

The Chair: I just want to remind members to make all their comments to the Chair.

J. MacPhail: Well, the judge already has the ability to make those rulings. Any judge now, under the current common law, has the ability to pass the test of maturity, etc. What I'm trying to figure out is why we need this legislation and why we have legislation that applies, unlike any other legislation, without an age threshold. Why was it left out?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe this will help. The member should refer to the School Act, which has no lower age threshold — it's no different than this act — and as I understand it, neither does the Ontario or Manitoba legislation that this is patterned after. In addition to that, the member is right about common law, but the reality, though, is that that usually is an expensive process to a higher level of court.

That's expensive when we're talking about property damage. If somebody has a $500 window broken, they don't want to go spend the legal costs and everything else to deal with something like this, relative to responsibility. Small claims actions don't usually require a lawyer. This is just one more tool to assist people in communities to recover damages relative to actions.

J. MacPhail: The reason why the School Act doesn't have an age limit is because it applies to children who attend school. That's why. Children start to attend public school at the age of five, sometimes four.

We have an act here that's broadly applicable to a child, regardless of his or her age. It applies to children that could be defined as fully consenting, thinking adult individuals at the age of 16 or 17, and it applies to a three-year-old and a five-year-old and a four-year-old. I would suggest that the criticism levied against this act about its age breadth is absolutely legitimate, and there's absolutely no study the minister can put forward where there's any linkage between youth vandalism and parental responsibility legislation — none. I can say that there are studies to show that there is no link, no impact.

Hon. R. Coleman: The fact of the matter is that it's challenging to link any piece of legislation back to any level of actual solution that comes relative to a piece of legislation. It goes to enforcement, it goes to ability to apply, and it goes to the people that deal with it. The member is obviously debating the first section of this act, but it's always easy to draw the outside parallels of any portion of a piece of legislation. The member opposite would know that because she's debated from this side of the House relative to legislation. The outside parallels are always easy to draw.

When an act allows for measurements to deal with those outside parallels the member wishes to draw, like a three- or four-year-old, the fact is that the court may consider age and maturity and other factors within it. You don't draw legislation that says: "This specific situation could occur." The fact of the matter is that you build legislation with balance and measurements in it, and this legislation has enough measurement in it to protect a parent from unnecessary action from somebody under this act.

J. MacPhail: However, this is a bill about — as the government has said over and over again — the rights of victims. They've said that that's the reason why this legislation was brought in. We all sympathize with victims of crime. However, even the organization CAVEAT B.C. objects to this legislation — the pre-eminent organization defending the interests of victims of crime. They object to that.

If this is about victims, what is to prevent a victim from bringing forward a claim for consideration? Because there is no threshold of age, what is to prevent that victim from bringing forward a claim against the parent who has to attend small claims court with the threat of up to $10,000…? What do you call it? I don't want to use the wrong word, because my colleague used a wrong word yesterday, and she got quite a lecture from the Attorney General. The word is compensation — to be subject to a claim for $10,000 in compensation.

Hon. R. Coleman: What's to stop anyone from bringing a frivolous or vexatious claim under any type of a legal proceeding is a good question. But under this situation, the court would dismiss it, and the small claims court actually has a right to award costs against the person who brought the frivolous or vexatious action.

S. Brice: I just would like some clarification from the Solicitor General on the definition of parent, and in particular (b), the adoptive parent of the child. I would be interested in knowing just what the thinking was that included that as part of the definition.

Hon. R. Coleman: We believe that adoptive parents should have the rights and responsibilities of birth parents. To provide them with less would be, frankly, unconscionable. At the same time, no person considering adoption should see this act as an impediment or risk of an adoption, for it is not. No responsible parent, whether adoptive or birth, needs to be concerned about this act. A parent that were to adopt a child that had fetal alcohol syndrome or something like that would have all the protections within this act relative to the age, maturity, health and behaviour of the child — like any other parent.

J. MacPhail: I gather that the list of exclusions under (h) is where the state assumes the role of parent.

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member's question is whether those people are excluded from this act, the answer is yes. That's because they're in the care of government.

J. MacPhail: Why, when government is the parent, is there no application of parental responsibility?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through the variety of other services within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, we already take those responsibilities. If something were to happen, the government would step up and take responsibility.

J. MacPhail: So you mean it's now available to a person who suffers property damage by a child in care that the victim can sue the government for up to $10,000 in compensation?

Hon. R. Coleman: I just told you they're excluded, so no, they can't sue the government for up to $10,000. But if there's a child in care, they would go to the local social service agency or to the children and families agency or to whoever was dealing with that file and deal with that file with the government. But they are not included in this act relative to being able to sue in small claims court.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I know that. That's why I'm asking the questions. I'm asking: why is it that when government is the parent, there's a different test?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess that goes back to a philosophical question, depending on where you sit. Frankly, if you're in care of the government, that doesn't make government the parent.

J. MacPhail: Believe you me, I think one of the most wonderful jobs performed in society is as a foster parent. I also know that the government, when they were in opposition, was terribly critical of the Ministry for Children and Families and the services that they provided. What I'm trying to figure out here is, by the exclusion of children whose parent is the government.... I think the Solicitor General must know that the state is assigned as guardian and must have the best interests of the child paramount. That's what the law requires when the government takes a child into its care. Why would there be any less parenting required for those children? Are they less valuable? Why is it that government doesn't have to be responsible as a parent and a guardian for the actions of that child when there's a victim of vandalism?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, any department of government when someone's in opposition does receive criticism, but that doesn't mean we were vastly critical of the Ministry for Children and Families. As a matter of fact, I remember sitting in this House and all members being concerned about the issues and the offer being made from one side of the House to the other to work together on solutions to help deal with the issues and concerns in and around children and families. For the member to say that is almost like a blanket comment that we were completely critical of Children and Families. Frankly, that's an unfair statement. As a matter of fact, I know that as an opposition MLA, I worked with the Ministry for Children and Families on a number of files that were good and successful both for the people and for the communities involved.

The bottom line for me is that these children are in care. They're in the care of government. We did not choose to deal with this legislation relative to the children who are in our care as being defined as being under the care of a parent. We've exempted them; we've done that.

J. MacPhail: My questions on this topic flow from this: when the Attorney General was commenting on this legislation, he said that making parents more responsible will help to make their children responsible. I assume that the children who are in the care of government deserve exactly the same love, attention and support as if they were with their own parents. That's the reason why social workers sometimes make the decision, in the best interests of the child, to take them into the care of government. When that child is taken into the care of government, there's a legislated requirement, of which I am very proud, that the best interests of the child have to be the paramount consideration in parenting that child.

I'm wondering if the exclusion is because the Solicitor General knows full well that this legislation isn't in the best interests of the child.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's a ridiculous statement. Foster children are in care of the government, and nobody…. First of all, does it mean we love somebody less if we don't include them in a piece of legislation? That's nonsense. To say we're sending a message…. That's nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that these children are in the care of government. Government takes certain levels of responsibility for children in care. For the member to advocate, as I'm hearing right now, that we now tell foster parents — who are sometimes provided with children in the middle of the night in dire and difficult circumstances coming from abusive situations — that in addition to this, we're going to capture them in an act relative to parental responsibility, when they're acting as an agent for government to take care of those children…. I think that's a wrong advocacy position to take, hon. member. I'm surprised at you for taking that. I would never have thought I would hear you advocate that we would include foster parents in an act where we're dealing with parental responsibility and not children in the care of government.

J. MacPhail: In fact, it's exactly the opposite that I'm advocating. The minister knows full well that I'm advocating that this legislation is not in the best interests of the child, whether it be a biological parent or a foster parent. When the government itself has to be responsible for children, they exclude themselves. I'm not advocating the inclusion of foster parents. The minister misunderstands the fact that the foster parent isn't legally responsible for the actions of a child. The government is; the Ministry of Children and Family Development is.

Foster parents do an unbelievable job. The fact of the matter is, as the minister rightfully points out, parenting is extremely difficult, whether you are a foster parent or the biological parent who has the daily care of your children. There's no difference. They're extremely difficult circumstances that some parents sometimes find themselves in. That's why I'm wondering if the exclusion is because the minister recognizes that and understands fully that he would be legally liable if the best interests of the child weren't paramount and that this legislation doesn't put the best interests of the child first. It puts the property owner's interests first, over and above the child.

Hon. R. Coleman: Sometimes in legislation we choose to disagree, and at this point I choose to disagree with the member. Frankly, this is the exclusion that's in the bill, and it will stay in the bill. The fact of the matter is that the children in the care of government….

The government has those children in care, and this bill is to deal with parental responsibility in other areas.

J. Kwan: In the instance where the person is in a divorced family situation, where the child is with one parent and not the other, and in the instance where the individual does not have custody of the child, is the parent who does not have custody of the child responsible for the actions of the child under this act?

Hon. R. Coleman: If I understand the member's question correctly…. First of all, we're in definitions. When we get to section 10, you're going to find that there's a number of measurements, including whatever else the judge may want to take into consideration when making an award in this. Under the definitions section here, excluded is "an individual described in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) or who has no right of custody and no right of access to the child."

J. Kwan: Yes, I see that. Under the definition of parent in (i), it describes that if you have no custody or no right of access to the child…. But in a circumstance where you have very limited access to the child and you don't have custody, is that parent held accountable under this act?

J. MacPhail: God almighty. It's a very important issue, and the House Leader seems a bit impatient.

J. MacPhail: The question is now under this section. You can't have it both ways.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess we're basically…. If I assume what we're doing here is debating the entire bill while we're in section 1…. I would suggest that it's probably caught under section 10(g).

J. MacPhail: So section 10(g) limits or excludes the responsibility of a parent who may have very limited access and not custody. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I could get some direction from the Chair. Section 10 deals with the factors that a court may consider if there's an action before the court. They're all taken together, and the judge may also include other things in his determination of whether reasonable supervision was undertaken. Frankly, I think that to try and take one portion in one section in the absence of the rest of that section is probably unfair to this portion of the discussion. Maybe we should deal with that when we get to section 10.

J. Kwan: I'm going to ask a question around property laws. In all of the discussion so far, it appears that it is referencing private property. But does this include public property as well?

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair — and this is just for the benefit of people who weren't here for the second reading — the opposition voted against this piece of legislation. For instance, we're voting against this section on division.

J. MacPhail: This is the parents liability clause. We're to understand that the loss or damage to the property experienced as a result by an owner, by a person legally entitled to the possession of the property, can include public property.

J. MacPhail: I don't know the answer to this, because I'm not a lawyer. Do levels of government have access to small claims court, and do they proceed on that basis?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, the member has posed a very good question. We're just going to find out whether government does have access to small claims court.

There is one side of it — that if it's public property privately donated, it would be caught. But we're not clear on their access to small claims court right at the moment.

J. MacPhail: How would this proceed? Is there a time limit under which the claim has to made to small claims court?

Hon. R. Coleman: The small claims court actions apply. That's what this particular legislation allows for. It also applies that only actions under this can be brought to small claims court.

J. MacPhail: So if a child is charged and convicted under the Young Offenders Act, can the person suffering the property damage then proceed to also make a claim in small claims court?

J. MacPhail: So we could have a situation where a child could be in jail for property damage and the parent could also be sued in small claims court for up to $10,000?

Hon. R. Coleman: That parallel could be drawn. This deals with the damage and the actionable claim for the damage on behalf of parental responsibility. The Young Offenders Act deals with people who are charged with a criminal activity which could include damage to property. Somebody could be incarcerated under that act, yes.

Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, what we're dealing with is basically, for lack of a better description, restitution for damage. The child may be charged and have been given something through the courts as far as they're back in the community to make restitution. In that case, there would be no claim in small claims court because there would have been restitution.

If there hasn't been restitution and the child has been charged, this is still an actionable claim for the value of the damage that was committed.

J. MacPhail: Is there ever a situation where, under the Young Offenders Act, a child is convicted for a crime where he or she is, as part of the sentence, ordered to make restitution?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, that does happen, and it's taken into account by the courts. You can't go to small claims court and say that you want the damage to a $500 window repaired by somebody that's been in young offenders court and has already made restitution for it, because there is no loss of damage at that point if restitution has already been made. You wouldn't take action under this. If they walked in with that type of claim and sat before the judge, if the child has paid the $500 through young offenders court, they would stay there about 30 seconds and probably find themselves paying some costs. The reality is that you can't get double jeopardy because small claims actions are about actual damages you had to pay for and you've had no other money back from anywhere else.

J. MacPhail: I understand that, but the minister has said that both tests can apply. The Attorney General said the basis of this legislation is that making parents more responsible will help to make their children more responsible.

The test under the Young Offenders Act sometimes isn't restitution on the basis of paying for the damage; it's restitution to the community in some other form. It could be — well, I won't even speculate — community hours or whatever. That's about making children more responsible for their actions under the Young Offenders Act. So it wouldn't be restitution for the property damage to the owner per se, but it is restitution to society. That is a way that the Young Offenders Act makes children more responsible. In that circumstance, then, would the property owner still be able to proceed with a claim against the parent for money?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, we catch this under section 14 of the act where, in determining the damages to be awarded, the judge may take into account any restitution — i.e., the return of property made or any compensation paid by the child or parent or someone on their behalf. Settlement conferences can be as much as this: "I'm sorry." An apology is made, and the judge orders that as being the settlement. So to try and prejudge it on every single individual hypothetical case is probably folly on all our parts.

The reality is, though, that some of the situations the member describes can possibly happen where somebody is charged in young offenders court, and they're convicted. They could be given community hours. It could be given by a judge that they should go and apologize to the people who were the victims of their crime. They could go into some restorative justice. All of those things apply to the young person under the Young Offenders Act. This is about somebody being able to make a complaint or a claim under the Parental Responsibility Act for some damage that has been incurred to their property.

J. MacPhail: The reason I'm exploring these questions is to try to indicate some of the situations that parents do face on a regular basis in their struggle to parent. It is very helpful for parents to understand the possibilities that they will be faced with. That's why I'm asking the questions.

J. MacPhail: For those of us who aren't lawyers, can the minister define the term "jointly and separately liable"?

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually asked this question in a briefing the other day. It's the same as "joint and severally." It's the plain-language term for "joint and severally."

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 6 standing in my name on the order paper:

J. MacPhail: Would the minister please explain the intent in plain language?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's to clarify that the small claim can only be made by instance, not by number of children. So if, say, there were five children involved in an incident, somebody can't get $10,000 or $5,000, or whatever the number is, from five different children. It's to protect against that happening. It was actually something that I noticed after the briefing the other day, and we discussed it and felt it should be fixed so that there's no more than a certain level on a loss.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's because this applies back to the Small Claims Act, and the upper limit in the Small Claims Act is $10,000.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister aware of the number of families in the province whose annual income is $10,000 or less? Is the minister aware of that statistic?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the statistics on the income of every individual in the province. I would assume that there are some, that there are a number. Again, under section 10, I think we gain those measurements relative to…as we go through this discussion and when a judge looks at something relative to someone's income. But you don't write legislation based on saying that parental responsibility is any different whether you have a lower or higher income. I don't think you prejudge the quality of a parent based on that either.

J. MacPhail: I don't see in the bill where a factor that the courts may consider is income, so that's why I'm asking this question. There are tens of thousands of people in the province whose income is $10,000 or less. It is possible, then, that their entire income for one year could be subject to a small claims court. So is there some other…? Do judges under the Small Claims Act have to take into account income?

Hon. R. Coleman: The small claims courts take into account economic hardship, and they also take into account hardship relative to filing fees.

J. MacPhail: What does it mean when it says "excluding interest and costs"? Does that mean that the parent could be responsible for interest and costs in an amount of $10,000?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, and that's consistent with the language in the Small Claims Act.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have statistics on small claims court in terms of what the practice is for awarding costs and interest? Is it de rigueur?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have those specific stats with us, but we can undertake to get those to the member.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned earlier that small claims courts take into consideration hardship situations faced by individuals before the courts when they are making a determination for an award of compensation. Does the minister have statistics to back up that information?

The reason I ask that question is this. In my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant the average income is $16,000 for individuals or families. We are the lowest-income riding in all of Canada. In a situation where a parent or parents are faced with small claims court under this piece of legislation and may face a compensation award of $10,000, it could literally bankrupt that family. In my thinking, this would devastate that family and the interests of the child for the future even more than what this act is attempting to address, the issue of young people coming into conflict with the law.

Hon. R. Coleman: Under small claims, it's part of the rules to take hardship into account.

J. Kwan: I was asking the question of whether or not the minister has statistics around those decisions that have been made arising from small claims court.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I don't have those with me, either. I will undertake to get those to the member as well.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister could also provide us with the statistics about the range of frequency of levels of award that small claims courts do award. I'm not asking for it now; I understand that the minister will get that information. I must say that this is one that the opposition feels very strongly about, and really must. But because there are two of us, we understand that the record of history will show that "on division" means it's the two of us against this. We're wholly against section 6.

J. Kwan: What would happen under this piece of legislation if an award for compensation is decided upon by the court, and the individual or the parent or parents cannot pay? What is the consequence to the parent or parents in that circumstance?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of procedures relative to that, whether it be to get a judgment and enforce the judgment or whether the person can come back before the judge, outline their financial difficulties, and the judge can set up a payment plan. There are a number of factors they can do, like in most courts. That would be the answer to that question.

J. Kwan: Is the minister aware how often the situation arises where an award is ordered by the small claims court and the individual or persons involved are unable to pay?

Hon. R. Coleman: I will endeavour, like with the other statistics that both members have asked for, to provide you with those statistics. I'll ask the small claims people. That's like the question: how long is a piece of string? There are all kinds of varying responses that come out of any particular small claims or any court action. You could have people that pay immediately, people with judgments against them, people that have time to pay and people who could come back before the court because of difficulties. There are all of those, so I will check whether those statistics are kept. If they are, I will make sure the hon. member gets them.

J. Kwan: While the minister is researching and looking for that information, could the minister also commit to provide the list of options a small claims court undertakes to allow for the collection of the compensation, whether it be through the garnisheeing of somebody's wages or the like? What options are being exercised right now in British Columbia under the small claims court in its attempt to collect compensation?

Hon. R. Coleman: What I'll do is undertake to have my office get from the library a copy of the Small Claims Act immediately and deliver it to the member's office this afternoon, which I'm sure outlines those.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 7 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

J. MacPhail: This goes to my question that I was going to ask on section 7. Could the minister please explain the intent of the amendment? How will it work for the ordinary person? Is it up to the ordinary person claiming the damages to notify the insurance company?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually just to clean up the language a little bit. The subrogation already existed in the act. This is if an insurance company pays out a claim or pays somebody damages on behalf of damages done to them. Under insurance it allows them to have the claim subrogated to them and then take the action themselves, if they so wish.

J. Kwan: I'm not clear on this point under this section of the act. Can the insurance company sue for compensation?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to clarify this for you. If an insurance company pays for damage on behalf of somebody that's had damage done…. This happens now in insurance. If I'm the insurer and I pay a claim, I can have you subrogate your right to sue to me so that I can go recover whatever I've paid, whether it be the deductible or whether it be a portion of the insurance. That allows the insurance company to take the place of the person that received the damage to step in and take action, if they so wish.

J. MacPhail: So a parent could be sued for an incident that she or he has no knowledge of until the insurance company brings it forward.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is after an insurer has paid compensation, but all the way through this act, the first thing is the proof of the action of the child. The proof of the action, the proof that something happened and that this person did it, is the first balance of proof before you ever go forward to small claims on the responsibility test for the parent. So the reality is no, because the damage…. This goes from neighbour to insurer. The insurer could come and say: "We've looked into this, and we have this difficulty."

J. MacPhail: I understand the point the minister is making, but a child could wilfully and negligently — whatever the act requires — break a window. The owner of the house could just claim it on his or her

insurance, never bring it to the attention of the parent, and then the insurance company can sue the parent?

Hon. R. Coleman: Theoretically you're correct. However, it would be a pretty expensive window before an insurance company would ever get involved at that level of that test, simply because most homeowners insurance has about a $500 deductible on it. They have to pay the deductible first. That's the damage the parent has received. So theoretically, you're correct. The damage could occur. The child could do the damage wilfully. It could be proven. They subrogate it to the insurer, who takes the place…. The action could come in, and the parent would receive the action from the insurer. It still comes down to balance of proof and reasonable supervision, which is all contained in other sections of this act.

J. Kwan: Okay, this is relating to the insurance company aspect of the compensation component. For example, a person sustains property damage, and the person then goes forward to claim for the damage under his or her house insurance. Then as a result of that, the person's insurance also goes up for the next years of coverage. Under the consideration for compensation can the increase for insurance coverage for future years also be claimed under this act?

J. MacPhail: It's necessary for me to ask clarification of intent of the legislation, because the explanatory note is very general. I am asking for an explanation of this section based on the fact that there's no explanatory note.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically what this says is that an action here doesn't interfere with any other right of action under any other law, whether it be common law or some other legal proceeding. However, any awards under this will be taken into account, or any awards from another proceeding would be taken into account in awarding any damage.

J. MacPhail: Reasonable supervision for parenting is captured solely in section 10.

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 10 gives a number of things that the court may consider, including under (k), any other matters that it wishes to consider. So it's completely open to the courts for determination.

J. MacPhail: It's an interesting list, section 10. I have to say that I look at this list not as a legislator but as a person who will be subject to the legislation. I'm the parent of a child who will be covered by this legislation. Are these the exemptions? I'm trying to figure out how these factors were taken into consideration, and I particularly want to ask the minister to see whether these factors were taken into consideration in consultation with any multicultural, ethnically diverse communities.

Hon. R. Coleman: As I understand it, this gives a list of things the court may consider. Then we have the other, which is any other matters considered relevant to the determination. The member's description could be caught in any one of those or in any other matters the court wishes to bring into relative determination. Obviously that gives flexibility for the court to take into account ethnicity, language issues and cultural issues. It's not the intent of the act to close down the ability of the courts to take all of those things into account.

J. Kwan: When the minister came up with this list of areas for consideration, what consultation, if any, did he undertake with any groups, whether it be youth groups, parenting groups or CAVEAT, the organization that is very much concerned about impacts on victims? Was there any consultation done with any community organizations? If so, what are the organizations or associations?

Hon. R. Coleman: A copy of the Small Claims Act and small claims rules has just been dropped off to the member's offices by my staff.

Relative to the member's question, there was a private member's bill presented in this Legislature in 1998 by the then Attorney General critic. It was part of a discussion within opposition caucus at that time, when we looked at this legislation back in 1998. It was contained in our New Era document that we were, through legislation, going to bring in parental accountability. We also have the examples of the language in two other pieces of the legislation in Canada, in Manitoba and Ontario.

J. Kwan: The question to the minister is: what consultation did he undertake for this piece of legislation, as it stands now — not his New Era document or any other document, for that matter, but rather this bill, Bill 16, Parental Responsibility Act — as it relates to the House? What consultation, if any, did he undertake? Perhaps he didn't do any, and he could just get up and say that he didn't do any consultation relating to Bill

16, section 10, when he had the legislation drafted and presented to this House.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's been in this Legislature as a private member's bill since 1998. It was part of an overall new-era commitment that was in an election that went before four million people in British Columbia, of which I think about 70 percent voted, in a provincial election. I think that's pretty broad consultation, frankly.

J. MacPhail: Was a private member's bill ever printed in any language other than English?

Hon. R. Coleman: My experience has been that English in legislation has been the language of this Legislature. There have been other materials, back-up literature, brochures, and what have you, through various ministries over the years relative to pieces of legislation and their implementation and information to the public. So I would suggest that the private member's bill was printed in English.

J. MacPhail: The reason I ask this is because the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I are trying to raise the issue that there are cultural differences in parenting that may be adversely affected with this legislation. I went into that in detail in second reading. The defence that the minister uses about consultation on this matter and that the public had lots of time to think about this is that there was a private member's bill. Somehow the member here thinks that all private member's bills have to be published in different languages. He misses the point. I'm talking about cultural differences in parenting. We've gone through that in great detail in second reading.

If indeed there was no consultation done with the multicultural community — with SUCCESS, for instance — let me ask this: under section 10(h) where it says, "whether the parent has sought to improve his or her parenting skills by attending parenting courses or in any other manner," did the minister consult with any providers of parenting courses before this legislation came in?

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 10 deals with a number of factors that the court may consider. That's one of the factors they may consider. We have a Ministry of Children and Family Development that delivers courses like that. Section 10(k), "any other matter that the court considers relevant to the determination," deals with the member's issue. The court would take that into consideration.

Relative to the comment about the language of the bill, I would ask the member if Bill M201, 2001, was printed in any other languages.

J. MacPhail: I saw the Minister of Energy and Mines getting it out right away.

The issue here is that the minister himself raised, as a defence against the lack of consultation right now, that the private member's bill has been in the public domain since the year 1998. The point we're trying to make here — which shows just how the member simply doesn't get it — is that there are cultural differences in parenting that could inadvertently make the parent of a different ethnic background subject to this legislation unfairly. That's the point.

Here we're trying to find out whether the minister has even considered that. The answer to that question is that he hasn't considered it. I raised it in second reading, so the minister has had time to think about this. There's a parenting course called Nobody's Perfect. Is the minister aware of that program, and has he actually consulted with them about the advisability of this legislation? It's a widely known program throughout the province, funded by his government.

Hon. G. Plant: I don't think I've ever heard a more sustained attack on the judiciary of British Columbia than the debate the member of the opposition is conducting. I can't believe that the member doesn't understand that courts work hard. The courts work hard every day to accommodate the divergent cultures, the divergent behaviour patterns of people like the member opposite, who doesn't seem to be able to conduct a sustained, principled debate for longer than five minutes.

Hon. G. Plant: Actually, if the member were to do something unusual, which is to read the piece of legislation in front of her, she would see that this legislation actually involves court proceedings. This piece of legislation will actually give the victims of crime the right to go to courts, and so courts are actually a part of this legislation. Courts are given, under this section, a wide variety of tools to ensure that justice is done according to appropriate principles in particular cases that are subject to this general cause of action.

I think, for example, that clause (k) is a good place to look at issues of cultural diversity, which I know the member is concerned about and which I think are quite reasonable things to be concerned about. In fact, one of the reasons why a clause like clause (k) is put into a section like this is to ensure that in the event that the express list of considerations is not a complete enough list of all of the things that ought to be taken into consideration in doing justice on a case-by-case basis, the court will be able to take into consideration any other matter that it considers relevant to the determination.

J. MacPhail: Another rescue in the most arrogant, patronizing fashion possible. Not everybody is a lawyer; not everybody has been to court. I admitted that at the beginning of the debate. For the Attorney General to come in here in a patronizing way is…. I fail to see the necessity of it. And to take over the discourse that we were having with the Solicitor General, in whose

name this legislation stands…. Frankly, the vast, vast majority of parents have not been to court, don't understand the court rules and have never had to use a lawyer. That may all change.

All we're trying to do here is get some information about how the bill works. Somehow the members of government think that they've given comfort to parents who are from a different background. I'm telling you today that they don't have that comfort.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance wants us to move an amendment. We've voted against the bill. We want the bill not to proceed.

There is no way to amend this bill that takes into account all of the pressures that parents face, particularly parents from a culturally diverse background. So again — before the interruption from the Attorney General in his failed attempt to rescue the Solicitor General — I'm asking: is the minister aware of the parenting course Nobody's Perfect, given by the government across the communities in this province?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, there was no rescue. But if the member wants to categorize it, I guess that's fine by me. The reality is that the Attorney General was the private member who, as the Attorney General critic, brought this legislation to this Legislature in 1998. Obviously, it comes as some kind of a revelation that it's been around for three and a half to four years. All of a sudden the member says: "Where did this come from, and where was the consultation?" The Attorney General was the person that brought it as a private member.

I'm aware of these programs. I'm fully aware of that parenting program. It's nothing new. It's something that any MLA that's been an MLA in this province for any given amount of time — which I have been for over five years — would know. Those programs exist in most communities, in addition to other parenting programs that may or may not be sponsored by government. There are all kinds of programs.

The question the member keeps posing is related to the ethnic community. As the Attorney General has said — and as I said prior to that and will repeat again so we can get it straight one more time — 10(k), "any other matter that the court considers relevant to the determination," allows the courts to do their job, which is to take those factors into consideration when making a decision.

J. MacPhail: The Attorney General comes from a very multiculturally diverse community. Is the Solicitor General aware of the now Attorney General consulting with organizations that represent multicultural communities?

I fear this legislation for parents who live in my community, particularly communities from Asia and South Asia. Although I haven't discussed it with other communities, they are particularly concerned about the differences in parenting and their struggle in coping with those differences and the consequences on their children. It is on the basis of that that we raise our objections, and it will be on the basis of that that we will be voting against this section on division.

Hon. R. Coleman: I can't let this die just like that, because I think it's wrong that a member would stand in this Legislature and look at a section or any matters considered relevant to the determination and then demean people from other cultures relative to their parenting skills. They are parents — period. Parents are parents. This is about parental responsibility, and their measurements are in there for everybody.

J. Kwan: It is absolutely astounding how the minister misrepresents my colleague's point. The point is clear that this piece of legislation impacts my constituents as much as my colleague's constituents, as it does all of the members in this House. That is why it is so important that we enter into this debate. That is why it is so important for the minister to understand the point, especially around multiculturalism, and the issues around language differences and cultural differences as they apply to the application of this bill to children and families and parents.

The point is this: the minister has done no consultation with the multicultural community in trying to assess the applicability of this bill or to determine the number, the amount of consideration, on the items that have been listed under section 10. In fact, the media have spoken on this issue from the Chinese community, who are concerned around this as well. For many parents it is not an issue of whether or not they lack parenting skills, but they have a different culture of parenting. They are concerned about whether or not, and how negatively, this would impact them, because they are concerned around the approaches of disciplinary action, as an example — to what degree it is appropriate or not appropriate in a different culture. Without the understanding of all of these broad implications, parents fear that they may be held liable unfairly. They fear that they may not be measuring up to the responsibility that is forced on them under this piece of legislation. That is the point.

You know, the members here sit here and shout and scream, and they undermine the multicultural community as though somehow a difference in parenting skill is unimportant or irrelevant to this bill. The point I'm trying to make is that it is very relevant. The members should know that. The minister should have undertaken consultation on this bill with stakeholders within the multicultural community and the broader community, which he has not done.

Hon. R. Coleman: There was no question there, so I guess we'll just allow the section to continue.

J. Kwan: The minister said previously on section 11 that the Young Offenders Act is not relevant, and yet the act actually references the act itself. Could the minister please explain the discrepancy in his comments?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's no discrepancy. I said it wasn't relevant to the discussion that was taking place at the time, relative to somebody being incarcerated as a result of an offence versus as a result of a damage claim and if the two parties were intertwined. I said that part of it wasn't relevant.

J. Kwan: Under section 11, in terms of the proof of the offence, this act shifts the onus of proof from the person who engaged in the act to the parents. That is the only difference that we're talking about in the case of a criminal activity related to a property offence. In shifting the onus to the parent in terms of proof, what kind of proof would one have to bring forward to prove their case?

Hon. R. Coleman: A criminal case and it being proven is just one way an action can be proven. The other is that if there is no criminal case proven, you then have to prove the action took place before you can actually move to the area of responsibility.

J. Kwan: The act further goes on to talk about proof of the identity of the child named in the order as guilty of the offence and sufficient evidence that the child was found guilty of the offence. So when you talk about proof of the identity of the child, are you talking about legal documentation — birth certificates and the like? What kind of proof are you requiring?

Hon. R. Coleman: The proof is the proof that would have been heard at trial.

J. Kwan: Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please explain, under 11(3), the sentence that says: "without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the order"? What does that mean?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's the officer that has control of the records from a criminal case.

J. Kwan: This section talks about the disclosure of evidence obtained under the Young Offenders Act. The section reads: "If evidence obtained under the Young Offenders Act…is presented in an action under this act, the court file must not be disclosed to any person except to the following: the court, authorized court employees and authorized persons who provide services to the court." Then it goes on to list individuals. Does this mean to say that the child who is the offending party or the person who committed the crime…? Would the identity of the child be protected because of the age factor?

J. Kwan: The section further goes on and lists a whole bunch of other persons: the claimant and the claimant's lawyer or agent, the child or her parents or their lawyers or agent, peace officer, Crown counsel, etc. Is the list that's provided an exhaustive list? Would there be other persons that may be or need to be included?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, section 13 probably deals with this in conjunction with section 12. The purpose of that section is to make it clear that even though information obtained under the Young Offenders Act is made available for a proceeding under the Parental Responsibility Act, the limitations on disclosure of publication contained in the Young Offenders Act still apply to that information or evidence.

J. Kwan: I have one other question relating to this. Has the minister sought the advice of the privacy commissioner relating to this aspect?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually not relevant, because it's the court that makes a determination or the Young Offenders Act that sets that litmus test for it. The Young Offenders Act is what's determining what limitations on disclosure of publications are allowed.

J. Kwan: I would think that it is relevant. In other circumstances where it applies, even though the courts may be involved in different circumstances, the privacy of the individual is of the utmost importance. There have been situations where, in drafting legislation, when I was the minister of the Crown, we would seek the advice of the privacy commissioner to ensure that there is full protection for the individual. So I just want to ascertain that that work has in fact been done. I want to ensure that there is certainty around the privacy issue.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is, as is being mumbled across the floor, way more restricted. Actually, court records are outside the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and are much more restrictive than just that act.

J. Kwan: The minister earlier referenced section 13 in application to the question that I had in this instance around the provision of limiting disclosure. The Young Offenders Act application on limitation of disclosure applies in this legislation. Is that the only act that applies?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are all the other applications relative to court and disclosure and confidentiality, but this deals with the Young Offenders Act, which is…. The limitations on disclosures or publication contained in the Young Offenders Act still apply to that information or evidence under this act. That's very restrictive, and it does protect the young offender very, very well.

J. Kwan: Would the minister provide me with a list of the acts that apply with respect to limitation on disclosure and the application of the Young Offenders Act and its limitations? The minister says that it is very restrictive. I'll take his word for it, and I would like it if he would agree to provide me with a list of what those restrictions are, just so I am reassured on the privacy question.

Hon. R. Coleman: The Young Offenders Act is on the Web. If the member would like me to have it printed off and delivered to her office, I'd undertake to do so.

J. Kwan: I was actually not looking for the Young Offenders Act itself. Rather, specifically, the minister reassures me that the act is very restrictive in its nature in terms of protection of the privacy of young people. I would like him to outline for me where in the act that is and what restrictions are there. He also mentioned that there are other applications of other acts relating to the protection of privacy question. What are those? Would the minister provide a list of those as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, that's not what I said. I said the other applications of court confidentiality and the handling of evidence apply. I didn't say there were a bunch of other acts. I don't know that it's really the responsibility of my office to take the Young Offenders Act and highlight the sections that protect the confidentiality of young offenders for the member, but if that's what the member would like me to do, I'll arrange to have that done.

J. Kwan: The minister has said that the Young Offenders Act is far more restrictive in terms of its protection to young people in terms of the limitation of disclosure. I have asked the minister to provide evidence as such to illustrate that, to prove and to give me the assurance that that is in fact the case. The minister has also said that there are other applications in terms of limitation of disclosure in the court system that are being used. I would like the minister to also provide me with a list of those.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't know the legalese and the practice as such, but part of my job is ensuring that the interests of British Columbians are protected and that those questions are asked in the House. That's why I'm asking for that information: to make sure of what the minister has said and to give me the level of comfort that what the minister has said is in fact in place.

I take it to mean that the minister will endeavour to undertake that work to provide me with that information. I seek advice from you, hon. Chair. I need an answer from the minister.

J. Kwan: Well, hon. Chair, I'm going to then keep on asking the question until I get an answer. The minister is simply refusing to answer the question. I need an answer to the question.

J. Kwan: I'll ask the question again. I'm asking the minister to provide the information to assure the House that the limitation on disclosure for young people under this act is in fact as he has expressed, that under the Young Offenders Act it is more expressive and that in the court system there are other measures that would be in place, and to provide that information to this House to ensure that indeed the limitation on disclosure is there for the protection of young people.

It is absolutely astounding and disappointing that this government, in the new era, says that they are open and accountable and that they want to provide information and invite the public to participate, but the minister refuses to provide information that goes right to the heart of this legislation around the protection of young people. He simply refuses — refuses to answer the question, refuses to provide the information. I think that's shameful.

J. Kwan: All of his colleagues sitting around here are cheering him on to say no to the opposition member who asks the question, who wants information to ensure that young people's protection is in fact in place. I think that's an absolutely shameful display, hon. Chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: Sections 12 and 13, read together, provide the protection that is required. I've ex-

plained to the member that the federal statute called the Young Offenders Act, which provides that protection for disclosure for a young offender, is there. She can go read it; she can look on the Web. It's very clear in the act what the protections are relative to this disclosure requirement. Hon. Chair, I've answered the question.

J. Kwan: Section 14, "Amount of damage award," talks about the determination of the amount of damages to be awarded under this act. We covered this earlier, when we talked about restitution. On the question around restitution, if a young person who has already been convicted under the Young Offenders Act and the restitution made there may not be accounted for, although it may be accounted for but it also may not be accounted for by this section of the act…. In that instance, I am concerned that there would be issues of double jeopardy in that the individual would have to pay twice, whether it be restitution monetarily or restitution by community hours or whatever format the courts deemed to be appropriate. Again, the question to the minister is on the issue around double jeopardy.

The Chair: I just want to be clear that we have passed section 13. We are speaking to section 14.

Hon. R. Coleman: The actual intent of this section is to avoid exactly what the member is describing and worrying about, and that's double jeopardy. It's determining the amount of damages to be awarded. A judge may take into account any restitution — i.e., the return of property made by the child, the parents or someone on behalf of the child, their parent — or any compensation paid by the child or parent or someone on their behalf. It's to actually avoid what the member is trying to describe. The reality is that you come before the judge, and the judge says: "Have you received any payment relative to this particular claim from anywhere else?" That's what this section is there to avoid.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.