Hansard — Wednesday, November 22, 2006 p.m.

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
		Page


Introductions by Members		5073

Tributes		5074
	B.C. Lions — Grey Cup champions
	Hon. B. Barisoff
	Hon. M. de Jong
	M. Farnworth

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5075
	Gravel extraction from Fraser River
	R. Hawes
	National Child Day
	C. Trevena
	Hadi Abassi and Vancouver Island Raiders
	R. Cantelon
	Homelessness
	D. Routley
	Chinese Benevolent Association
	J. Yap
	Non-profit housing conference
	D. Thorne

Oral Questions		5077
	Solicitor General ministry communications to Coroners Service
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	Investigation of child deaths and injuries
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. J. Les
	M. Farnworth
	B.C. Hydro contracts with coal-fired plants
	J. Horgan
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Coal-fired plants and greenhouse gas emissions
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	H. Lali
	Compensation for recipients of fraudulent degrees
	R. Fleming
	Hon. M. Coell

Petitions		5081
	K. Krueger
	M. Farnworth
	G. Coons
	M. Sather
	D. Chudnovsky
	C. Puchmayr
	R. Chouhan
	B. Simpson
	K. Conroy
	G. Robertson

Tabling Documents		5082
	Office of the Ombudsman, annual report, 2005
	Elections B.C., annual report, 2005-06
	Elections B.C., service plan, 2006-07 to 2008-09
	Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, annual report, 2005
	Office of the Auditor General, annual report, 2005-2006, Serving the Legislative Assembly and the People of British Columbia
	Office of the Auditor General, report No. 2, 2006-2007, The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: A Review of Estimates Related to the Province's Commitments
	Office of the Merit Commissioner, annual report, 2005-2006

Point of Privilege		5082
	C. James
	Hon. M. de Jong

Standing Order 35		5083
	J. Kwan
	Hon. M. de Jong

Reports from Committees		5084
	Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth
	J. Rustad

R. Cantelon: It is my great pleasure to introduce today some distinguished guests — champions, really — who are visiting us today: members of the Vancouver Island Raiders, Canadian Junior Football League's national champions. Dom Abassi; Curtis Vizza; Matt Hunt; Graham Norrish; Scott Dixon; Aaron Gillcash; Kent Jones; Mitch Migneault; Towo Arop; Vaughan Llewelyn; Omokude Orifa; Sheldon Keteku; Ricky Clarke; the coaching staff, Hamead Rashead, Doug Hocking; traders Kyle Neckrash and Andrea Leitch; and the CEO, Hadi Abbasi, his wife Fiona and daughters Katie and Chloe are here. The president is here, Kip Sihota; the administrator, Deb Dudley, and director of marketing, Elaine Nelson. Please give these champions a warm welcome.

H. Lali: Last week when I was at the Victoria airport, I ran into Mr. Ted Hughes. He said he was going to be here for the proceedings, and lo and behold, when I look up into the gallery, I see the former Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, Mr. Ted Hughes, who actually suggested that we should have a family and child representative. Would the House please make Mr. Hughes welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: In my very long but not very illustrious career as a fastball player, I often played against a fellow by the name of George, who became a friend. He kept telling me about how great a ballplayer his son was. Today I rise in this House to congratulate New Westminster's, B.C.'s, Canada's and the Minnesota Twins' own Justin Morneau on being named the most valuable player in American major league baseball.

The 25-year-old star earned the honour after hitting 34 home runs, having 130 RBIs, batting 321, and he joins Victoria's Steve Nash and Joe Thornton as Canadians named most valuable player in their respective leagues over the past year. I hope the House will join me in sending our congratulations, best wishes to Justin Morneau.

M. Karagianis: Today I have two groups in the gallery to introduce. The first is a group of Stó:lô dignitaries who are here today to urge the government to take leadership in resolving child protection issues in their community. Would the House please welcome Grand Chief Clarence Pennier; Grand Chief Doug Kelly; Tribal Chief Tyrone McNeil; author and adviser, Ernie Crey; Fraser Valley Métis president Kevin Paterson; In-SHUCK-ch interim government chief negotiator Gerard "Eppa" Peters; and In-SHUCK-ch researcher, Pauline Peters. Please welcome them.

In addition, I have a constituent here. Wendy DeCorte is in the visitors' gallery today to represent Voices Against Child Abuse. Could we please make her equally welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: At the risk of repeating what's already been said, I, too, want to acknowledge the presence of the Hon. Ted Hughes.

S. Hammell: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce 32 public servants seated in the gallery who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedures workshop. Offered by the Legislative Assembly, this workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between their work and the ministries and how that work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make all of these people welcome.

D. Hayer: I'm pleased to introduce to the House three of my constituents, our community leader and business person Anter Pamma and his son Anmardeep Pamma as well as Cheryl Richardson, senior sales manager of Sheraton Vancouver Guildford Hotel in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. She is also director of the Surrey Board of Trade. Would the House make them all very welcome.

C. James: I see that we have in the Legislature with us today a former cabinet minister, grand chief and someone who has a long-time commitment not only to aboriginal people but all families in British Columbia. Would the House please make welcome Grand Chief Ed John.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll add to that resumé that the Leader of the Opposition offered in welcoming Grand Chief Ed John. On a lengthy resumé we can add that he is an incredibly valuable member of the First Nations Leadership Council. It is a real honour to have him present — a former cabinet minister, as was pointed out — here in the Legislature today. Welcome, Ed.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge, in fact, a town, the district of Ucluelet. On November 13 in Hangzhou, China, at the International Awards for Liveable Communities, the district of Ucluelet won first place for community sustainability and received a gold award for environmentally sustainable projects for their Ucluelet official community plan for populations under 20,000 and received a silver award for the most livable community with a population under 20,000. In addition, the district of Ucluelet received the FCM-CH2M 2006 Sustainable Community planning award for Walk the Talk — Ucluelet's official community plan.

At the Union of B.C. Municipalities 2006 convention Ucluelet was awarded the Community Excellence Award, Leadership and Innovation, for Ucluelet's comprehensive development plan. These awards are in recognition of a community development plan that integrates community development and the environment under the framework of strong community values. The recognition awarded to Ucluelet is a credit to both the citizens and the district council. They have

been great ambassadors of the people of British Columbia. The province is pleased to acknowledge them at this time and recognize the district of Ucluelet.

J. McIntyre: I just want to add my voice of welcome to Gerard Eppa Peters. I'd also like to congratulate the In-SHUCK-ch on their recent agreement-in-principle. I would like the House to give an additional welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: I had the pleasure this morning of meeting with a delegation from the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. I see that their president, Francis Frank, has been able to join us this afternoon. There may be others in the gallery as well that I just can't quite pick out because my eyesight is starting to go. I do want to welcome Francis and thank him for being here today. It's always a pleasure to meet with the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and find out what they're doing for children and families in that part of the province.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we have today some very special guests. I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms who will now invite our guests to be presented at the Bar of the House.

Today we have with us members from the Grey Cup champion B.C. Lions football team. We have Wally Buono, the head coach; Brent Johnson, CFL outstanding defensive player and top Canadian award winner; Geroy Simon, CFL outstanding player; and Mark Washington, the Tom Pate award winner for community service.

As you can all see, they brought the Grey Cup with them. I think that on behalf of particularly all the members of the House and all British Columbians, we are extremely proud of what you have done for the province of British Columbia in bringing the Grey Cup back out west.

At this point in time I'd like to ask the Government House Leader to say a few words.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, was it really six months ago that the B.C. Lions came to Abbotsford for their training camp? Sounds like a winning combination.

They had a goal. The team had a goal, and that was to win the Grey Cup. They went through the season, dominated the season — I think 13-5, if I'm correct. They dominated as a team, dominated individually as players. I know players will say that is not what makes up a team, but the fact that they took five of six individual CFL awards is also worth noting.

That got the B.C. Lions to the western final and, fair to say, they dominated the Saskatchewan Roughriders in that game as well. That meant a return to the Grey Cup, and they met a good team from Montreal that I think has been to the Grey Cup about five times in the last six years — so no stranger to that important forum. They dominated.

They dominated from beginning to end. They got an MVP performance from their quarterback, a record-tying performance from a kicker by the name of Paul McCallum. The defence dominated, the offence dominated, and on an all-important fourth-quarter play, the defence — I don't know how they did it — came over the top and caused a fumble basically on the goal line. It was the right call, gentlemen. It was a fumble.

We are all proud of the fact that with a 25-14 victory, the B.C. Lions will etch their name on that Grey Cup for the 94th time that it's been awarded. We're proud of them for their performance on the field, Mr. Speaker, but this is a group of individuals — on-the-field players and off-the-field coaches. I hope, gentlemen, you will pass along our regards to coaches Ritchie and Chapdeleine and all of the people that allow them to do their jobs — the folks in the front office.

The B.C. Lions are about more than just on-the-field football. They are a group dedicated to work in the community, whether it's the Make-a-Wish Foundation, whether it is the United Way, whether it is the B.C.'s Children's Hospital. This is a group of athletes who extend their reach into the community in so many positive ways, and we're proud of them for that as well.

They broke down their opponents. They broke coverage; they broke records; and at the end of the day they even found a way to break the Grey Cup.

We are tremendously proud of them and hope they will enjoy…. There are a lot of teams in the CFL, and most of them represent cities. The B.C. Lions represent all of British Columbia, and all of British Columbia's proud.

M. Farnworth: Well, after listening to my hon. colleague's remarks, I feel that he's not only taken the whole nine yards; he's taken the whole ten yards. But I do think it is important that we add our voice from this side of the House. We are extremely proud of what you've accomplished and what you've done for British Columbia.

I think it's important to note that the Grey Cup is one of the oldest sporting trophies in this country. It encourages rivalry between teams, between communities and between provinces from coast to coast. I think that is a terrific thing. It is one of those things — whether you are a British Columbian or Canadian, the Grey Cup is a tradition that unites this country from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Government House Leader and Opposition House Leader please join me at the Bar to personally congratulate the B.C. Lions.

C. James: This being the first opportunity to do so, I rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

M. Karagianis: Also, this being my first opportunity to do so, I rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege as well.

R. Fleming: I also rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

R. Hawes: The recent Fraser Basin Council report on the flooding dangers of the Fraser River gave grave warnings of a disaster waiting to happen. While I agree with them that the dikes in the Fraser are dangerously low, a significant reason for this is that the riverbed itself is rising due to the infill of gravel and silt, particularly in the Chilliwack area.

Every year over 350,000 metres of gravel are flushed out of the Fraser Canyon and settle into the lower reaches of the river. In the Chilliwack area alone the riverbed has risen as much as one and a half metres in some spots. This is equivalent to a five-foot loss of freeboard on the dikes.

Clearly, a big freshet topping the dikes could cause a flooding disaster that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Similarly, the side channels and the tributaries to the Fraser are infilling and causing flood damage even with moderate rain. Every year the carrying capacity of the river channel and its tributaries is decreased.

Why can't we simply just clean the gravel out of the river and the side channels? Well, federal DFO officials claim that gravel removal may harm spawning grounds and fish stocks, and therefore, in the mid-1990s a moratorium was placed on gravel removal. For decades we regularly dredged the river and its tributaries, and we had abundant fish stocks.

Now, after ten years of silt and gravel buildup, DFO has fears for the fishery. We who live in the Fraser Valley watch every year as the creeks erupt over their banks and spawn is covered with layers of mud and silt or spread over farmers' fields, and the DFO turns a blind eye to that. While our government was able to negotiate removal of some gravel from the Fraser, DFO permitting has been difficult and short fisheries windows have never allowed more than a small amount of gravel to be removed.

The time for DFO officials to realize the dangers they are causing to both property and people is now. The time for action is now. I urge our Ministry of Environment to work more closely with DFO officials to get the gravel out of the river and its tributaries.

C. Trevena: Monday was National Child Day, a day which marks the adoption by the United Nations of the convention of the rights of the child. The convention details the basic human rights that children, anyone under the age of 18, are entitled to. It is a wonderful document. I would urge all members to read it because it details what our obligations are as a society to our children, including keeping them from abuse and exploitation and providing them with the protection of the state if needed. It also requires that there be assistance to parents and caregivers to make sure that children have adequate food, clothing and housing.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we in B.C. could hold our heads high and say that — as Canada, a signatory to the convention — in B.C. our children were getting the best possible start in life? Sadly, that's not the case. Not in a province where one in four children lives below the poverty level and where elementary schools are becoming community dining rooms, serving breakfast and lunch programs with food donated or coming from food banks. This is not just in big cities. These are our small towns and small cities: Port Hardy, where one youngster wished every day was a school day so she would never be hungry; Prince George, where kids eat at the soup kitchen.

We are failing our kids by letting them go hungry. We're failing our kids when day care workers admit they supply the clothes for their charges that their parents cannot afford. We're failing our kids when they are forced to live in overcrowded or unsafe homes or have no homes at all.

How many teenagers are falling through the cracks, staying at friends, couch surfing, sleeping rough because there is no assistance for them? This is what's happening in B.C. These kids don't see a golden decade. They don't benefit from five great goals. But I hope that soon we will have a National Child Day where we can be proud because we have invested in our children, in our future — proud that none of them in our rich province is going without shoes in the rain, without a bed of their own and without fear of another day of hunger. Only then should we celebrate National Child Day.

R. Cantelon: I rise to tell a real-life Cinderella story: how an incredible junior football team can inspire an entire community and show leadership that can be a model for ActNow to mobilize the community into action. It began with a dream. A very dynamic and successful businessman, Hadi Abassi, the president of Atlas Truss in Nanaimo, had a dream about a junior football team. But his dream was not just about a football team. Hadi wanted to give something back to the community — not just a football team but a team that would be part of everything in Nanaimo.

At every charitable and fundraising event his team, the Vancouver Island Raiders, was prominently there taking enthusiastic part, leading the way. Their work with the Boys and Girls Club of Nanaimo was particularly poignant. Their encouragement and role-model leadership has literally changed lives.

It did not begin well. They began zero and three in their first season last year, but then won the last six games, as well as the hearts of Vancouver Island fans with their never-say-die attitude. Then this year was a different story. As much as Hadi and his team had inspired the community, the Raiders also became inspired by the warmth and support of the team. They

ran up a perfect 13-0 record. So it came down to this: a championship game against the top-ranked team in Canada, also with a perfect 13-0 record, from a great football city on the prairies — the Edmonton Wildcats — for the Canadian Junior Football League championship.

The showdown was played out in Nanaimo on November 11. The Raiders took an early lead and held on well into the second half, but those tough and worthy Wildcats came back and took a lead late in the fourth quarter. It was hard to watch. But the Raiders wouldn't quit. On the last play of the game Victoria's own Scott Dixon split the uprights to win the game, and 3,000 fans went wild.

Vancouver Island has its first Canadian junior football championship. So join me in congratulating a big man with a big dream and an even bigger heart — Hadi Abassi, and his champions, the Vancouver Island Raiders.

D. Routley: I rise in this House today to speak about a growing problem in communities across B.C. That is the problem of affordable housing.

In my own community, in Cowichan, we have experienced this problem and its resulting crisis of homelessness. Right across the province homelessness is a growing crisis and, in light of the wealth of this province, a true tragedy.

In our community we experienced a fire where several squatters were injured. One was very severely burned; one died. We had two other deaths of homeless people exposed to the elements. Our community response has been outstanding and astonishing. Our local media have written thoughtful and balanced commentary about the issue of homelessness and poverty in British Columbia.

Non-profits, the business community, churches and the general public have risen to this challenge in my community, and I celebrate them and their achievement in addressing this issue and bringing about a shelter for people who are vulnerable. These community efforts deserve the support of this House.

Tens of thousands of British Columbians have slipped beneath the waves of poverty and are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of homelessness. B.C. Housing's own data shows us that homeless people cost us more than 40 percent more living on the street than if we were to adequately house them in public housing and give them the services they require.

The fire victim who was severely burned has spent over a year in a burn ward at a conservative — very conservative — cost of over $1 million to this province. The B.C. Housing data that shows us we pay more to have people homeless…. The experience of this one fire victim points to the necessity that we must act now. We must act now as a province, as communities and with the support of this House to end the tragedy of homelessness in British Columbia.

J. Yap: Earlier this month I had the opportunity to attend a special event to mark the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Benevolent Association in Vancouver. The CBA is the leading organization dedicated to advancing issues of concern to the Chinese Canadian community. Its founding in 1906 was at a time in Canada's history when Chinese immigrants weren't always treated with respect and dignity. In fact, there was widespread discrimination against Chinese Canadians.

The CBA was started to help Chinese immigrants defend against racial discrimination, advocate for fairer treatment of Chinese Canadians, settle internal disputes and help to unify the community. In its early years the CBA provided free medical care and schooling for Chinese school children. Over the years the CBA has championed and been involved in a wide array of issues affecting Chinese immigrants.

The CBA advocated for Sunday shopping in Vancouver's Chinatown and traditional food handling by Chinese restaurants and retailers. Perhaps the most prominent has been the efforts to seek an apology and redress for payers of the Chinese head tax, which only this year met with success when the government of Canada offered a formal apology for the head tax.

As the CBA marks its 100th anniversary, its members can feel a sense of satisfaction at how far the community has progressed in our province, at how Canadian society has truly embraced multiculturalism, at how Chinese Canadians today participate fully in our institutions and economy.

With the great economic growth proceeding in Asia-Pacific, including China, British Columbia is uniquely positioned to further develop its trade and cultural relations with China, not only because we are the only Pacific province of Canada, but also thanks to the efforts of organizations such as the CBA and its thousands of members, past and present, who have made and continue to make vital contributions to building our province and nation.

I ask all members of this chamber to join me in offering best wishes to the Chinese Benevolent Association on the occasion of its 100th anniversary.

D. Thorne: I had the pleasure of spending the last few days at the 14th annual conference of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association. The theme of the conference was housing matters — appropriate because it can be interpreted in as many different levels as can non-profit housing itself.

This theme describes the conference topics, the diverse interests of the sector and the reasons they do the work they do. It is tough work, which is often not recognized, but work that really matters to our economy, to individual mental and physical health, to family wellness and to the social fabric and vitality of each of our communities.

Conference topics addressed a wide range — matters of housing management, maintenance, affordability — but also the issues of new development and how to sustain non-profit housing into the future. Discussion revolved around how we sustain this sector and keep it viable for future generations, for young and old, as needs and priorities for affordable housing evolve over time.

Non-profit housing is an important tool for government to meet its obligations to support vulnerable and disadvantaged households. I came away energized and utterly convinced that our capacity to plan, forecast and meet those future needs matter now and even more into the future.

C. James: The opposition has obtained, through FOI, confidential documents dealing with correspondence between the government and the B.C. Coroners Service. In these documents there's a section on budgetary requirements and the ability or inability of the Coroners Service to complete child death reviews.

Also in these documents, sent to the opposition inadvertently, is a handwritten note from the Deputy Solicitor General to the chief coroner. In that note David Morhart asked to sever more information from the document because it contradicts public statements made by this government.

My question to the Solicitor General is: can the Solicitor General explain why his office is actively suppressing information that would allow British Columbians to finally get to the bottom of the government's failure to children in this province?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, let me make it very clear that I have always been very open and transparent with respect to any of the issues that the member refers to. We have dealt with them honestly and transparently in this House. I have made all of the information available that the opposition sought with respect to those matters.

C. James: I do. I'd like to be clear about what the question is because it's a different question than the Solicitor General is responding to.

This question is related to an FOI we received that, in fact, has handwritten notes from the deputy in the ministry that make it very clear that withholding information to ensure there is not a contradiction to government information is the direction that should be taken. The note is very clear.

The Deputy Solicitor General asks: "I want a further severing because it contradicts what we have said to this point." He actually recommends using section 13 of the FOI Act and calling it advice to the minister, in order to avoid public scrutiny.

It's outrageous, and it's an arrogant abuse of the FOI Act. It certainly shows that this government, after the Hughes report, is still putting its political interests ahead of protecting vulnerable children.

Again, I ask the question to the Solicitor General. Would he explain why his deputy minister would try and suppress this information and how British Columbians can possibly trust him after receiving this kind of information?

Hon. J. Les: It is pretty clear in this province how FOI requests are to be dealt with. There is clear legislation around that, and I expect nothing less than full compliance by my ministry to any FOI requests that are received by my ministry.

C. James: I do. While the Solicitor General might not know what's going on in his ministry, I have evidence in my hands that the deputy minister asked for further severing of information to control the political message. This is, as I said, an outrageous abuse of the FOI Act.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services: does she believe the political message box control is an appropriate use of FOI legislation that she is responsible for, in fact, and will she commit today to do a full investigation of this serious breach and fully and transparently bring the information to the public of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: I would reiterate: the requirements of government under FOI legislation are very clear, and I don't believe that they are ambiguous. They call for the appropriate release of information. It is nothing less than my expectation that that should be complied with to the letter of the law.

M. Karagianis: Well, this is not the first time that this government has altered the facts in child protection in order to further their political purposes. Last fall the Premier and the Solicitor General stood in this House time and time again defending the child protection system. However, in September of 2005 a confidential request for legislative amendments was sent to the government from the B.C. Coroners Service. It stated that amendments to the Coroners Act were "urgently needed." That was over a year ago, before the Hughes report, and it completely contradicts the story this government fed British Columbians for months.

Why did the Solicitor General ignore the advice of his staff, and why did he hide that from the House?

Hon. J. Les: It's pretty clear that there are legislative and administrative arrangements in place that allow the coroner through the child death review unit to

carry on those child death review processes. That is clear. So that work has been ongoing.

We are aware that the Coroners Act, I believe, at this point is about 25 years old. Like any act of this Legislature, it needs updating from time to time. The Coroners Act, too, will be updated fairly shortly. Next spring, as a matter of fact, is the intention to do that. What we need to do in the meantime is to appoint the child and youth representative, because as the Hughes report points out, it will be valuable to have the advice of that individual in crafting some of the provisions of the new Coroners Act.

M. Karagianis: Yes, thank you very much, Hon. Speaker. I do. I'll reiterate again that the information that came from the Coroners Service said legislative changes were urgently needed — urgently.

I will also quote for you what the Premier said here in this House in November of 2005. "If the legislative changes are needed, they will be made" — right? That was two months after staff had made this recommendation of legislative changes — urgently made these recommendations. In fact, the following day the Solicitor General stood in this very House and assured us that the Coroners Service had all the adequate mandate and requirements they needed for child death reviews. But the confidential documents that we have state that the Coroners Service in fact does not have the legislative authority. They say: "They do not have the authority to make recommendations based on child death reviews."

This government knew that the child protection system was a complete mess, but the Premier insisted otherwise until the very last minute. I'd like to know: why did this government choose to mislead British Columbians and put children in harm's way?

Hon. J. Les: The member, of course, mixes her terminology at random. This is about the child death review process, the legislative underpinnings of that and the administrative support that is required to make that function.

It functions well today. It functions because of the legislative authority. It functions because of administrative arrangements between the coroner's office and the department of vital statistics, for example, and the child and youth officer and other agencies of government.

When the new act is introduced in the spring, obviously some of those arrangements will change. That is no different than other legislation that changes over time. So the system is working. It's working well. It's producing good results.

M. Farnworth: In the FOI documents that the opposition has obtained — a July 2005 briefing note — the manager of child death reviews revealed just how little was getting done. He quotes: "No research has been conducted, no prevention initiatives have taken place, and no assessment of children-in-care deaths has been undertaken." That's in July of 2005. That's what was really going on.

But the Solicitor General told this House a much different story. He said the job was getting done. Can the Solicitor General explain why his words in this House are completely contradicted by his staff's writings?

Hon. J. Les: As a matter of fact, there was important work being carried on by the child death review unit. I have two reports here. I'm sure the member opposite is aware of them. One deals with the sleeping practices involved in infant deaths in the years 2003-2004. Another one is a child death review report that came out earlier this year, dealing with the years 2003, 2004, 2005.

Clearly, important work was being done by the child death review unit. I have made no bones about it in this House, in debate last year, that there were issues around the management of files, particularly the transition files that predated the child death review unit. I have never denied that those issues existed, and I've committed to this House that those matters were being dealt with.

All of those issues have been dealt with, and the child death review unit today is fully staffed and is, frankly, one of the leading units of that nature on the North American continent.

M. Farnworth: Well, the Solicitor General may say that work — important work — was being done, but clearly, his staff say there were a lot of things that weren't being done. They're saying that no research has been conducted and no prevention initiatives have taken place. That was in July of 2005.

Hon. Speaker, in a briefing note from the Solicitor General in the FOI, one of the quotes is: "A review of completed coroner files was for quality assurance only." That's not what we were told in this House. No recommendations. No prevention. No assessment. Just the empty words of the Solicitor General.

Again, to the Solicitor General: was he wrong? Was he misinformed? Was he misleading British Columbians?

Hon. J. Les: In fact, I was right then, and I'm right today. I said very clearly that there was ongoing work going on, and the proof is in the pudding in the two reports that I have referred to earlier today. There will soon be a report of the 955 transition files. That work is in its final stages.

I think this is a process that had been working. It is now working much better; it is producing very good results. I would simply refer the members opposite to the Hughes report, where he goes on to say: "I support the expanded role for the coroner." That is the child death review process. "That office is well placed to identify trends that emerge from the data that its investigation work produces."

I think that also, elsewhere in the report, he went on to say that it is now time to go forward and not look

backward, and frankly, I would encourage all members of the House to do that today.

J. Horgan: It's nice to be here, and it's nice to be here to ask a question of the Minister of Energy. I've got a number of them to go, but let's start with this one.

This summer B.C. Hydro signed a number of overpriced contracts with independent power producers, two of which deal with burning coal to generate electricity in British Columbia for the first time. My question is to the Minister of Energy: why — when other jurisdictions are closing coal plants, and with all of the green, clean and renewable energy sources available to us — would you and this government be supporting coal-fired technology?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, during the '90s there was a government in place that did not look forward to British Columbia's needs for electrical generation. When I assumed the post of Minister of Energy and Mines it became pretty evident to me that there was no plan in place to actually provide electricity in British Columbia, and we had to embark on some processes to get electricity.

We put out the 2002 energy plan that actually included…. I'm sure the member has read it from cover to cover. I would hope he has read it. It, in fact, talked about coal-fired power for the province, to use the best available technology.

B.C. Hydro has made a call. There are two coal projects, but besides that there are 36 other projects that are clean and green in British Columbia.

Those two projects will have to go through a very rigorous environmental assessment process that we believe in on this side of the House. Contrary to, maybe, what they believe on the other side of the House, we believe it's important for that to go through that process and meet the very stringent rules that the Ministry of Environment has in place.

J. Horgan: I do have a supplemental, and I'm delighted to engage with the minister on these important issues. I'm always delighted to go back to the 1990s. I know the minister starts there every morning and looks at all the positive things that happened there, like the Keenleyside power plant and the return of the downstream benefits, and I could go on.

My focus today is the first-ever approvals for coal-fired generation in British Columbia. In an era of climate change, when everyone else in the world is looking for solutions to global warming, why is it that the knuckle-draggers in the B.C. Liberal Party are promoting coal-fired generation? Will you go and talk to the people in the Similkameen Valley? Will you go and talk to people in Princeton and say to them that their health is not a consequence and that the B.C. Liberal energy policy takes priority? Is that your plan?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I want to remind the member that the public is appalled to find out that we're actually net importers of electricity in British Columbia. That happened while we had an NDP government who didn't care. There were some projects that came on stream, but not enough to look after what we need well into the future. We want to have safe, secure electricity generated within the borders of the province, and self-sufficiency is one thing we're going to do.

But it's interesting that this member talks about coal the way he does now. Environmental protection guidelines from 1996: all new thermal power generation projects, as well as existing facilities that are undergoing significant modifications, are required to install controlled technologies that will achieve emission directives based on best available control technology. That's from the NDP. That's from Anne Edwards, who actually approved of coal-fired generation, and from Joy MacPhail, who said she didn't have any problem with coal-fired generation.

Here we are with coal-fired generation, including biomass. Wood waste is already being burned. Now we hear that they just woke up to the fact that we are short of electricity and that we need to actually look forward to what we're going to do for electricity.

Environment Canada's inventory of provincial greenhouse gas emissions for 1990 through 2004 shows where our province has stumbled badly in the last few years. It shows emissions for British Columbia running at about a 30-percent increase over that time. By comparison, Quebec was at 6 percent.

Probably the most disturbing number here, though, is that in 2004, the last year this study looked at, British Columbia had the second-worst emissions of any province in the country in terms of increase of rate of emissions.

The question that I have for the government is: how does the government respond to this? What we know is the government responds to what is a very disturbing situation by accelerating global warming, by choosing the worst-possible power source at this time, which is coal. My question is to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister explain how this decision by his government can be justified at a time when British Columbians are looking for action to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, not support radical increases?

Hon. B. Penner: As my colleague the Minister of Energy pointed out, it wasn't just financial deficits that the previous government left this province and that doubled the debt in ten years. It left us with an electricity deficit.

Hon. B. Penner: They left us, unfortunately, with an electricity deficit. While they were busy building fossil-fuel power plants in places like Pakistan that cost us millions of dollars — we lost money on that — and didn't provide a single kilowatt of electricity for people here in British Columbia, they were leaving us more and more dependant on imported electricity.

Our government has been active. We've supported a variety of green power projects which those members actively oppose. In fact, the Environment critic has been actively opposing the Ashlu River small hydro project despite the support of the Squamish First Nation and despite approvals from all environmental agencies, including the federal government and the Canadian environmental assessment process.

The member for Nelson-Creston, the former Energy critic and the person who said the NDP has no idea how to handle climate change — and he is right — has been actively opposing another small hydro project at Cascade Falls.

We have to build more electricity, and we have to do it in an environmentally responsible way. That's why we tightened the standards just last year after I became minister, the second time our government has done that in terms of coal-fired generation. It will be subject to a comprehensive environmental assessment process review, and we look forward to those results.

S. Simpson: Well, this government and this minister certainly have something in common with the federal minister. They are the only two Environment Ministers in the country who campaign in favour of emissions instead of against them. Clearly, this minister knows nothing about global warming, but maybe he can do some simple math. With 1,000 homes in British Columbia powered by hydroelectric power and natural gas, 325 tonnes of emissions annually. The same 1,000 homes in Alberta powered by coal, 8,800 tonnes of emissions. That's what you're campaigning in favour of, Mr. Minister.

These two plants are going to produce 1.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. That will double the amount of emissions in our energy sector, the equivalent of putting 300,000 new cars on the road for the next ten years.

My question to the minister is this: how can this minister expect to have any credibility at all on global warming when he is condoning these types of radical greenhouse gas–emission increases rather than supporting the environment and the interests of British Columbians, who want action to reduce our emissions, not increase them by almost two million tonnes a year?

Hon. B. Penner: We can certainly see why the NDP's former Energy critic, the member for Nelson-Creston, says the NDP has no legitimacy on climate change or global warming, because the report that the member referenced in his first answer about a 30-percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions for British Columbia…. Some 24 percent of that occurred while the NDP was in office.

That was in a time when our economy was on its back, thanks to their policies that doubled our debt. If the member opposite is so concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, why does his party continue to actively oppose green power projects like the Ashlu River project and the Cascade hydro project — which, by the way, would displace 77,000 tons of CO2 emissions? Think about that. Make yourselves consistent.

Mr. Speaker: Members, members. Listen to the questions; listen to the answer.

Hon. B. Penner: Perhaps it's time they took the advice from the member for Nelson-Creston and had a conversation with the Green Party so they could get ideas of their own.

H. Lali: If the minister is looking for inconsistencies, he might start looking in the mirror first. We know that the B.C. Liberal Party has received over $700,000 dollars in donations from the coal industry. We also know that in 2005 the B.C. Liberals brought in new regulations that now allow coal-fired plants to emit 70 times more nitrogen oxide, 260 times more sulphur dioxide and seven times more particulate matter than Sumas 2 did.

We further know that on May 10, 2000, the Minister of Environment then said, regarding Sumas 2: "Well, I just can't see how you can pump thousands of pounds of particulate matter, including toxic chemicals, into our air without leaving a serious impact on our already dubious air quality in the Fraser Valley… I can't, for the life of me, understand why the provincial Ministry of Environment has remained on the sidelines here and is taking a neutral position."

My question is to the invisible minister from Chilliwack. I'd like to ask…. I can't, for the life of me, understand why the provincial Minister of Environment has remained on the sidelines here and is taking a neutral position. Will the minister please explain the blatant hypocrisy of his position when it comes to the coal-fired project in Princeton?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is quite right. The previous NDP government did take no action on the SE2 project. That was a project, as you know, that would have provided no electricity for British Columbians, would not have been contingent or required to comply with our conditions. We would not be able to impose conditions on that project. Again, it would not supply any benefits to British Columbians.

Now, I happen to have a letter from the member for Yale-Lillooet, dated January 26, 2006, and it appears he's changed his position a bit with respect to this project, because what he asked me in January is quite a bit different than what I'm hearing today about an appar-

ent outright opposition to this project. What he asked me in January was that this project be allowed to go through an environmental assessment process review. The member has been successful. That's exactly what's going to happen.

H. Lali: I'd like to read another quote here. "Few things are as important as…

H. Lali: …ensuring the safety of the very air we breathe." This is from the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. This Liberal government would never propose a coal-fired power plant for the lower mainland, but they seem to believe that they can get away with forcing one against the will of the people of the Similkameen Valley.

My question is to the Minister of Energy or to the Minister of Environment: do either of these hon. ministers care enough about the lives of people that they are about to mess up, and also, would they have the guts enough to commit today that they will come to the beautiful Similkameen Valley and meet with my constituents in an open public forum and try to sell their snake oil there? I'll even volunteer to set up the meeting for them.

Hon. B. Penner: It's not the first time, but we're way ahead of the member. I've already met with the mayor from Princeton as well as members of the public from the Similkameen Valley.

As the member requested in his letter of earlier this year, there will be a comprehensive environmental assessment review of the Compliance Energy proposal. The member should know — I hope he knows — that that agency operates under its own statute. After all, it was created by the NDP government, so I would hope they have some confidence in how it operates and wouldn't appreciate interference in that process.

However, at the end of the day that process allows for public participation. I would encourage all people who have an interest in the issue to get actively engaged. That's what the environmental review process is for, and that agency will do a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the social, economic and environmental consequences or benefits of any proposal. I look forward to that report.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Advanced Education has spent months evading students who have paid tens of thousands of dollars to study in B.C. for fraudulent degrees. The government knew for years that Kingston College and its president, prominent Liberal donor Mr. Michael Lo, ignored laws against issuing bogus degrees.

But instead of finally closing in on Kingston using the previous legislation, the Liberal government rescinded the act and passed weakened legislation that outsourced oversight in the sector and stripped out important consumer protections for students. Worse, Mr. Lo was even appointed by this government to the industry's new self-regulating agency.

Can the minister tell international students victimized by a friend and insider of this government what he can do for them today before they're forced to leave B.C. broke and empty-handed after their visas expire later this month?

Hon. M. Coell: B.C. has a long tradition of having both public and private education in this province. The private sector develops and contributes a valuable asset to this province. We have over 500 institutes in this province that are governed by PCTIA, which is the Private Career Training Institution Agency. There have been some closures over the years. There were 45 closures during the NDP's period of government. There have been a number of closures during our period of government, and there may be more.

I believe that the system we've set up has teeth. The registrar of PCTIA has the ability to go in and close down an institution if he sees fit. He has done that in the case of Kingston. The report was given to me, and I referred it to the Attorney General, who's having a look at it with, hopefully, some recommendations to me as to where we can go with the students.

K. Krueger: I rise to table a petition signed by over 2,000 residents of the North Thompson Valley against nuclear energy development and uranium mining in B.C.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to table a petition of over 4,200 residents of Port Coquitlam, demanding that this government keep the downtown Port Coquitlam liquor store open.

G. Coons: I rise to present a petition and individual letters to the Minister of Finance. These are in addition to the ones already received. The letters now total 126, and over 500 signatures, that call on the government to raise welfare rates and index them to inflation, remove arbitrary barriers to accessing welfare, to allow recipients to earn at least $500 per month before it is deducted from their welfare cheques, and to raise minimum wage to $10 per hour and abolish the $6 training wage.

M. Sather: I rise to present a petition from 275 folks in Maple Ridge who are calling on the government to put a moratorium on any development of lodges in B.C. parks.

D. Chudnovsky: I rise to present a petition from members of the Greater Vancouver Taiwanese Seniors Association, expressing their concerns regarding waiting time for specialized physicians, tests, surgeries and emergency room care.

C. Puchmayr: I rise to introduce a petition from students in my community. The students state that they owe $25,000 in student debt, that they cannot afford to graduate and that this seriously contributes to the skills shortage in this province.

R. Chouhan: I have a petition signed by hundreds of people regarding crystal meth — to stop the sale of ingredients in the pharmacies.

B. Simpson: I rise to present a petition. In January of 1997 there was an order-in-council passed that restricted overtime payment to log truck drivers and equipment operators. This was put into effect. Earlier this year the previous Minister of Labour indicated he was willing to rescind that order-in-council if he was given feedback. I have the signatures of almost 300 logging truck drivers and family members who want that order-in-council rescinded, and therefore, I table this for the current minister to reflect on it.

K. Conroy: My first petition is from 130 registered nurses of B.C. who are supporting the implementation of regulations to prevent injuries from medical sharps.

My second petition is 11,400 signatures from citizens throughout B.C. supporting the restoration of publicly funded and publicly administered long-term care facilities. I'd like to point out that this petition was originally presented to our caucus on October 3 by Jim Sayer and Jim and Jerome Albo. It is with great honour that I present it today to this chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members that when you are presenting petitions, be to the point.

G. Robertson: I rise to table a petition from 836 citizens calling on the Minister of Health to stop the closure of the Hampton Court mental health facility in Vancouver where three of the 16 residents have tragically died since the closure was announced nine months ago.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the following documents: Office of the Ombudsman annual report, 2005; Elections B.C. annual report, 2005-2006; Elections B.C. service plan, 2006-2007 to 2008-2009; Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner annual report, 2005; Office of the Auditor General 2005-2006 annual report, Serving the Legislative Assembly and the People of British Columbia; Office of the Auditor General Report 2, 2006-2007, The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: A Review of Estimates Related to the Province's Commitments; Office of the Merit Commissioner 2005-2006 annual report.

C. James: I rise today on a matter of privilege. Just over a year ago, on November 17, the member for Chilliwack-Sumas stood up and told this House that the government had, through legislation, provided the chief coroner with the authority to conduct child death reviews. The member told this House: "The coroner has completely and clearly laid out responsibilities. In addition to that, we have laid out a process in legislation that this House passed in 2002 for child death processes to occur."

The member was restating his conclusion of November 15 when he told this House: "We have the chief coroner of this province, who independently can enter into any appropriate investigations related to child deaths in British Columbia."

I have in the package a document that the opposition has obtained that demonstrates the government did no such thing. The member was aware that the legislation the member spoke of did not provide the authority that he claimed. This document produced for the government by the office of the chief coroner accompanied a request for legislative amendments made two months before the member rose in this House and misled us on this matter.

Two months before the member rose on the issue of legislative authority the Coroners Service informed the government:

The Coroners Service outlined for the government the implications of this: "Despite a public commitment to review 100 percent of child deaths, approximately 40 percent of child deaths may not be reported to the B.C. Coroners Service. Necessary multidisciplinary reviews into preventable child deaths might not be conducted." In other words, because the coroner lacked the legislative authority he required, he might not be able to conduct adequate reviews that could offer recommendations that would help prevent further child deaths.

When the member rose to tell this Assembly that the government had ensured that the Coroners Service had the authority to conduct child death reviews — in fact, any appropriate investigations related to child deaths in British Columbia — he had in hand a document from the chief coroner which concluded that amendments to legally adapt the Coroners Act to support new responsibilities are urgently needed.

The member claimed in this House that the coroner had the authority to review and investigate appropriately all child deaths in British Columbia. When he

made that claim he knew the chief coroner did not have that authority. I must remind this House that with the government's decision not to hold a fall legislative sitting, the coroner's office still lacks that authority.

I believe I have demonstrated that the member misled the House on the coroner's authority to review child deaths. I will also table documents that demonstrate that the member for Chilliwack-Sumas misled the House on another key point: the ability of the coroner's office to conduct those reviews.

On November 15 the member for Chilliwack-Sumas told the House that the government takes its responsibilities to investigate child deaths very seriously. "This," said the member, "is about children, and we want to make sure that the tragedies that occur in this province are properly reviewed. We are committed to doing that, and we have done so."

The child death review process since January of 2003 has been a problem. The documents I attach show very clearly, through the briefing notes, that the managers and staff pointed that out to the minister. The note reviews the many areas where the government let children and families down.

This note points out that the government only provided half the funding that the chief coroner requested to take over child death reviews. One year ago the member concluded: "We have set very high standards in terms of how these child death reviews shall occur in British Columbia." I believe the documents that I will table show that this couldn't be further from the truth. More importantly, the member for Chilliwack-Sumas knew that when he deliberately mislead the House.

From the documents I have tabled today I believe I have made a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. If, based on my submission, you find there is a prima facie case of privilege, I'm ready to move the appropriate motion, a copy of which I will provide with a full package to the Clerk now.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'd like to receive and review the material and reserve the right to respond at a later time.

J. Kwan: I rise under Standing Order 35 to seek leave to move a motion that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: the need to increase the shelter portion for welfare recipients to address the growing homeless crisis in British Columbia.

How serious is the emergency? Mayor Sullivan released a survey two days ago on homelessness and street disorder. Of the 2,500 citizens who responded to the survey, 84 percent say that disorder has increased in the city, and 71 percent say that sleeping and camping in public parks or on beaches is a major concern.

Since the government reduced shelter allowance rates in 2002 rental housing costs have increased by over 10 percent. We all know they were already inadequate in 2001. Now they're so inadequate that the Premier agrees that rates must be raised to reduce homelessness. Over half of those at risk of homelessness in the lower mainland are income assistance recipients.

Based on CMHC forecasts of a tightening rental market and increasing rental costs, that proportion will increase over the winter months. If the government does not act now to raise the shelter rate for income assistance, there will be more homelessness in the coming months — the coldest months of the year.

Many of them could be children. For the first time, last year's homelessness count turned up families with children on the streets or in shelters. I remind members of the media reports of homeless deaths due to hypothermia last December as an appeal that we don't want to be reading similar stories this year. We're seeing an unprecedented number of arrests, homeless squats and pepper spraying, with both police and citizens being assaulted. Businesses are being impacted, and according to the mayor of Vancouver, the city's reputation is being diminished in the lead-up to the Olympics.

Other communities — such as Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Nanaimo — are faced with the homelessness problem as well. In fact, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith had to use his constituency office as a temporary shelter for a few days when the temperature dropped below minus 6 just a few weeks ago. Groups across B.C. are calling for action now to prevent homelessness this winter.

The Premier told the recent convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities that he doesn't want to accept people living on our streets. The Premier promised an increase in the shelter allowance portion of income assistance as part of his effort to do more to reduce the number of homeless. The Premier must do that now. The Premier must move up his promise and raise the shelter allowance rate now to ensure that more people do not end up on the streets this winter.

Mr. Speaker, I'm providing you with a written statement of this matter, and I ask that you allow an emergency debate to immediately raise the shelter rate for income assistance recipients today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I'll try to respond now, if I can. I'm obliged to the member for her submissions around the application under Standing Order 35. In fact, responding is probably a good place for us to start. This House in its wisdom has established a set of criteria around which we are obliged to measure applications. We have done so in the past, in the life of this parliament, and we will do so again here today.

The first significant point, though, is for us to understand the nature of the application. The House has been recalled, and the government has made no secret of the fact that the House has been recalled specifically, from the government's point of view, for the purpose of taking the steps necessary to ratify the unanimous recommendation coming from the committee to select a children and youth representative.

The section 35 application that the hon. member refers to seeks, as is set out in that section, to adjourn the business of the House in order to have that discussion. Implicit in that statement is, I would suggest, the assertion that the matter to which the hon. member has referred in her application should take precedence and is more important than the matter that the House has actually been recalled to address. The member should know that is how I interpret the application that has been brought here today.

With respect to the hon. member, I disagree. That is not in any way to diminish the general import of the matter that she has raised, except to say that like a number of her colleagues…. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, whom I've read comments from as recently as this morning, has said that it is of paramount importance that we get on with the task of ratifying the unanimous recommendation from the committee. I happen to agree with those statements from the Leader of the Opposition and repeated statements from the member from Powell River, who has also, in perhaps less eloquent ways, suggested that it is time to get on…

Substantively, I have to point out that I disagree that it would be appropriate in this instance to interrupt that business of the House to engage in the debate around the discussion that she has raised.

I should point out as well, and will, that under the rules this House has adopted under section 35, there are some limits placed on the utilization of this tool. One of them relates to whether or not the matter has previously been canvassed in this chamber during this session. I am advised that during the course of previous question periods during the session the matter has been raised.

The MLA for Cowichan-Ladysmith has raised the matter in discussion with the members of the executive council. It was the subject of extensive discussion during the estimates debate with the Ministry of Forests and Range and with responsibility for housing on May 4. It was also, I should say to the credit of all members, the subject of extensive discussion during the debate and response to the throne speech.

To the extent that the matter has been canvassed, it is clearly a matter of interest and importance and also a matter that requires ongoing attention. But for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to suggest and submit to you that the application pursuant to our rules fails and also suggest that of paramount importance is the task for which the House has actually been called to address, and that is the appointment of the children and youth representative.

J. Kwan: Just to add a couple of comments in response to the Government House Leader. Let us be clear. The government actually had a choice to call the House back in October, and the entire House would have been ready to deal with the matter before us.

Having said that, the motion I put forward does not preclude us from actually continuing on with that work after the conclusion of the debate. I would respectfully disagree with the Government House Leader in terms of the importance and emergency nature of the issue that's before us.

Right now in the downtown east side community, my own riding, we have people who are sleeping in the women's centre on the floors because they are homeless. We have unprecedented amounts of civil disobedience on the matter, and I would say that…

J. Kwan: …the homelessness crisis has reached a pinnacle point, which the House needs to address immediately.

J. Rustad: I have the honour to present a report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth.

J. Rustad: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report, which includes the committee's unanimous recommendation to appoint Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as B.C.'s first Representative for Children and Youth.

Hon. M. de Jong: While I'm disappointed — I don't know that that's ever happened — I move the House do now adjourn.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.