Hansard — Tuesday, May 15, 2007 a.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


Second Reading of Bills		7969
	Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 34)
	Hon. R. Coleman
	D. Thorne
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House		7974
	Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21)
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	N. Macdonald

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7984
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism (continued)
	N. Simons
	Hon. W. Oppal
	B. Ralston

Hon. G. Abbott: In Committee A, I call continued estimates debate of the Ministry of Attorney General followed by the estimates debate of the Ministry of Economic Development, and in this chamber second reading debate on Bill 34, the Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007.

Bill 34 proposes amendments to the Homeowner Protection Act that strengthen consumer protection for people buying new homes in British Columbia. These amendments have probably been talked about in this House since as far back as 1998, when the first act came into place in B.C. — have been debated between different critics and what have you. There have always been concerns with certain areas of the act that probably needed some improvement as the act sort of mellowed like aging good wine.

They provide a framework for improved qualifications for licensed residential builders. They also regulate the construction of owner-built homes in British Columbia. Owner-builders are currently exempt from the Homeowner Protection Act requirements that homes be built by licensed builders and covered by new home warranty insurance.

More than a quarter of the single-detached homes built since the Homeowner Protection Act regulations came into effect in 1998 have been constructed under this exemption. People in industry have told us for a long time that this is a concern — the abuse of the owner-builder authorization to build homes for sale, rather than people that would actually occupy their home and occupy them to live in. This creates a gap in consumer protection, unfair competition for licensed builders, lost tax revenue to government, and in particular, it creates a gap with regards to new home warranty insurance for those people who would want to buy a home from an owner-builder going forward.

Bill 34 sets forth a series of new measures including providing the Homeowner Protection Office with the authority to issue owner-builder authorizations, setting the conditions under which an owner-builder authorization is provided, setting limits on how often an owner-builder may receive an owner-builder authorization and how much time must elapse before selling the home.

It does also include, though, hardship clauses in order to be able to deal with those individual one-off situations that may come along. It clarifies the owner-builder's responsibility to buyers within the first ten years, including stronger penalties for not notifying potential buyers that the home was owner-built.

It establishes more effective enforcement tools, including compliance orders and administrative penalties up to $225,000. These are overdue, and they were discussed many times. As I said, this is a bill that has evolved over the years, and everybody I have talked to in the industry and outside of the industry thinks that it's about time.

Initiating a review and appeal process for both licensed and residential builders and owner-builders, enabling a new owner-builder fee to support administration in compliance activities. Bill 34 maintains the ability of British Columbians to use their skill to build their own home while providing restrictions and penalties to those who seek to abuse the owner-builder exemption.

We recognize that the circumstances of people's lives sometimes change unexpectedly. To avoid this undue strain on owner-builders, Bill 34 provides the registrar with discretion in applying owner-builder time restrictions where those rules may present a hardship. In addition, Bill 34 incorporates changes to some of the definitions with the act to ensure consistency.

This bill also includes a change that we will refer to as the Pendray amendment, which has to do with an owned-farm corporation being able to become an owner-builder on the site of their farm, which was not something that was allowed under the previous act. I won't speak to what we like to affectionately call the Pendray amendment this morning.

My colleague from Abbotsford-Clayburn will be doing that in his second reading debate and comments this morning with regards to the change that came forward by a citizen in B.C. who wished to tell us, prior to his unfortunate passing with a significant disease, the concern that he saw with the act and how that change could be beneficial to farmers and to the farming community.

I look forward to listening to the debates and concluding, as we move on. In conclusion, these proposed amendments will allow the government to increase consumer protection for everyone buying a new home in B.C. while supporting a vibrant construction industry.

D. Thorne: Comments on the separating of Bill 34 this morning. Certainly, we have needed to strengthen the Homeowner Protection Act, an act that was legislated by the NDP government in July 1998 after the Barrett Commission recommendations. I support the HPO as a tool in a consumer protection toolbox.

I can see where this bill is going, a bill that has a lot of housekeeping details and a lot of measures that will give the HPO more flexibility and more power to work within when they're determining things like fining and

That being said, I must say that Bill 34 is disappointing. I don't believe that it goes far enough. It is long overdue, but since it is so long overdue, we should have gone even further. I guess it is a small step towards protecting consumers. Looking at it from that angle, certainly I will be recommending that my caucus support this bill.

However, some of the most substantive issues and decisions in this bill are being left for cabinet to decide when the regulations actually get discussed, debated and passed. If you read through this proposed bill, you will see that the meat of the bill is — as is often the case, I think — in the regulations.

Setting the time frame before an owner-builder can sell, setting the criteria for issuing an owner-builder authorization, setting the criteria for excusing a builder from certain obligations, setting the criteria for which fines can be imposed, setting the fees for an owner-builder authorization, setting the criteria under which an owner-builder must provide a security in the absence of third-party warranty insurance and setting the licensing requirement for builders.

All of those, the meat of the bill, will be done behind closed doors by cabinet. For me and, I suspect, at third reading for my caucus, that's going to be an issue for a lot of debate and a lot of concern.

Mr. Speaker, I have a note that somebody would like leave to make an introduction.

C. Trevena: In the gallery at the moment are 28 grade 5 and grade 6 students from École Willow Point Elementary in Campbell River. They're here with five parents and their teacher Mary Begg. Mary has been nominated for the Campbell River Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year Award. Her love of teaching and guiding of her students are clear to everyone who knows her and respects her. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

D. Thorne: That being said about the regulations, I certainly hope we are going to see more changes to the HPO in the near future — that this is just the beginning of implementing recommendations not just from the Barrett Commission but from papers like Raising the Bar, which the HPO published in 2005.

One wonders why it has taken so long to start implementing any of those recommendations and changes. These recommendations are coming from the HPO after much consultation with the industry. We have not moved on that, so I'm assuming this is the first small step towards implementing the Raising the Bar paper.

For instance, licensing of all builders — full licensing. The recommendations in Raising the Bar are that we change the current policy of having warranty providers being the evaluation authority on all aspects of licensing to narrowing their influence and their authority in that area, and having the HPO itself responsible for the other parts of the full continuum of licensing.

I hope we are going to move in that direction. I think it's fairly clear, if you read through that report, that builders — and I'm assuming consumers as well — are very concerned about the fact that warranty providers really are uninterested in most aspects of the licensing strategy, whereas the financial parts are what they are interested in and probably should remain involved in.

Some of the other issues that are not addressed or will not be addressed in this chamber…. We'll have much more discussion about these in committee stage. For example, what about the many areas of the province that have no building-permit process?

Occupancy permits are nonexistent in those areas. People generally do what they want. They live in homes they're building. There are all kinds of problems generally with owner-builders in those areas, which we're not even touching here. I'm assuming that we'll be moving quickly in those areas as well, because this is another huge area of concern for consumer protection.

What about the whole issue of inadequate home inspections — the concerns in those areas? Then the even bigger issues that arise when warranty insurers don't pay out on legitimate claims, and the HPO has no power to get involved or to break into that dispute process and come up with some kind of resolution.

I really believe that what we wanted when we brought in an office like the HPO was that it be for consumer protection — a huge part of it — and that it doesn't become a licensing bureau, in essence. The HPO has to be more than a place where people get a licence for building, get education, and where we regulate and monitor in the way the College of Physicians and Surgeons monitors, but where we don't have a strong consumer protection part of it. Part of that has to be dealing with the warranties — dealing with builders who do build bad buildings and what happens to the consumers afterwards.

Southern British Columbia is littered with stories — and we're all very aware of them — of people whose lives have been ruined by bad buildings, bad warranty and builders who don't repair adequately even if they can be brought to the plate to repair, which is not always the case. So that whole area — hopefully, we can bring that into the committee stage.

The whole modernization strategy is a huge concern. I know it's not mentioned in this bill, but its shadow is over the whole bill. Based on what we know is not in this bill, the modernization strategy could be looked at as a kind of scary recommendation.

I think the industry does need to be modernized. I think there are a lot of really good points in the modernization strategy, but we must be very sure, before

we modernize an industry, that the industry is working the way it's supposed to be — the best we can do to make it work the way it's supposed to be — that we truly do have consumer protection built into offices like the HPO and that we have some protection for builders as well.

In most cases these builders, whether they're owner-builders or big residential companies, are not in this business to make problems for consumers. We have to make sure that we're doing the best to have a level playing field, where they are protected as well as the consumer.

I have some concerns, and I'm sure in the future we'll be doing lots of talking in this chamber on the modernization strategy and on the Limitation Act, which is a proposal coming through the Attorney General's office right now. We will be looking at limitations on the lengths of time that the consumer has to deal with builders and bad buildings and all of those areas that I've been talking about.

Both the modernization strategy and the Limitation Act proposed changes are a concern when we look at a bill like Bill 34. I'm hoping that very soon we'll have another bill introduced so that we can deal with much, much more, and those proposed acts won't seem as premature.

The minister referred to the percentage of homes that are built by owner-builders, and the staff at HPO had told me the same thing. It is about 25 to 30 percent of homes. And of course, we know that significant numbers of those fall through the cracks because they're not registered in any way.

Even the owner-builders that do register often get an exemption which…. They shouldn't have gotten an exemption. It's based on incorrect information — fraud, you might say — and they don't have to have warranty insurance. As the minister has said, that's a huge issue for the industry, and certainly it's a huge thing for the person buying the home, the consumer.

I am a little concerned in this bill — and I did ask the staff from HPO about this — about the fact that they are not going to be asking for any security from owner-builders, at least not as a rule. The registrar will, hopefully, have the right to ask for security if they feel there's a specific or special need for security.

I'm hoping that time won't show that's a weak regulation and that we should have probably had it in the bill that as a matter of course, if there was no warranty insurance needed by the owner-builder, security of some kind would be required, particularly when you look at the areas of the province where we don't have a process in place to catch these people. They often fall through the cracks. I think there's a lot more building going on in these areas — areas like the islands and outlying areas.

For instance, I don't want to name any areas, but I know for sure that up around Powell River — and it's only one of hundreds — there is no building process in place, and there is a lot of building going on. In fact, the Vancouver Sun just recommended it as a really still-cheap area and a place to pick up some nice cottage land, if you want it. It's those cottages that bring about a lot of problems too. They often turn into big houses, they double in value, and they get sold by an owner-builder who has fallen through the cracks.

We have to remember that's a real consumer issue as well. When people can't recover damages and there is no warranty insurance, we all have problems. It reflects on our whole society and certainly the economics of the province. It's a big deal.

Even with the new powers and flexibility that this bill will give the HPO, I'm hoping that's going to be enough for them to at least start working on getting even more teeth, as they call it. They feel they've been gumming people to death, and it hasn't been working too well. I think this bill is like the baby teeth, perhaps, and I'm looking forward to those second teeth when they come in.

I also want to just generally say in second reading that I think the HPO should be given the power to do more to protect consumers in this province. That is really what it was meant to be, and we have to be very careful that we don't allow the HPO to become more of an overall licensing bureau for residential and owner-builders.

I'm just about finished what I wanted to say at second reading. I will be recommending to my caucus that they support Bill 34. I am hoping we'll have a fulsome debate at committee stage as we go through clause by clause.

Most of the clauses are very much housekeeping details and will probably get no debate. They'll just pass, and that's as it should be. But there are three or four of them that we'll probably have major discussion on, around time limits and corporations and licensing. Also, I'm hoping that there'll be lots of debate and suggestions around what these regulations should look like when cabinet does get to discuss them behind closed doors.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to speak today on Bill 34, the Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007. I rise to speak in support of this bill and in particular to highlight the good work of the minister and his staff in responding to a request on behalf of the farm community.

As the minister stated, I want to speak to what we affectionately know within government as the Pendray amendment. About a year and a half ago, a well-known and well-respected farmer in the Saanich Peninsula, a leader in the agricultural community and a friend of this House first learned that he had ALS, otherwise known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

At 56 years old and as a strong, healthy individual, this was the last thing that Dave Pendray and his wife Linda and their family had in mind for their life plan. But Dave Pendray, characteristically, quickly came to terms with the reality of his crippling disease and set about to build a new house on their farm for him and Linda — one that would best accommodate his escalating disability.

It wasn't long before Dave Pendray ran headlong into the rules and regulations of the Homeowner Protection Act — in particular, the owner-builder provisions of the act. To summarize the difficulty, because their farm was owned by the farm company rather than the Pendrays personally, they were deemed under the existing act to be not eligible for the owner-builder provisions.

There were other difficulties as well. If you know Dave Pendray as I do and as the member for Nelson-Creston does, he was not a big fan of redundant government regulation. That would be putting it mildly.

After the minister and the HPO graciously helped Dave Pendray deal with the immediate issues, Dave said to me: "This is a problem, and it needs to be fixed. You guys need to change this legislation so that it never happens again to someone else." I approached the minister again about a possible change in legislation to help farmers in the same situation as Dave Pendray.

Fortuitously, the minister was in the process of the comprehensive review that went into the development of this proposed legislation. I told the minister that he had to get this legislation changed because I didn't want to have to explain to Dave Pendray that it couldn't or wouldn't be done.

It is generally a fact that changing legislation is normally a very long process, and that's if you can make it happen at all. But I was very happy to be able to visit Dave Pendray less than three days before his untimely passing in late February. My mission was to make sure that Dave knew that the amendment had been drafted, it had cleared cabinet committee, and it was going to the Legislature in this spring session.

I told Dave that the Pendray amendment to the Homeowner Protection Act was going through, to the benefit of all farmers in B.C. The great thing is that I do believe Dave understood every word I said, and he said back to me, "That's good. I'm glad you got that done," as he gripped my hand.

Less than three days before his death Dave Pendray was still working for farmers. On May 3 there was a very well-attended memorial for Dave Pendray on the Saanich Peninsula. I was pleased to be able to tell his wife Linda and their family and friends that the Pendray amendment would be presented to the Legislature in this session.

I sincerely want to thank the minister and his staff on their behalf. I know that it continues to be important to the Pendray family and their friends, many of whom have asked me about it since that time. So on behalf of the family, thank you to the minister and this House for considering this amendment to give more flexibility in the terms of owner-built homes on farms in British Columbia.

C. Puchmayr: Well, we've come a long way with homeowner protection over the years. I remember that at one time people were purchasing homes that had no protection from liability. We had a Homeowner Protection Act that really wasn't protecting people who owned homes.

If we go back a little ways and look at some of the changes that were made, certainly the Homeowner Protection Office has been a very positive change. It probably hasn't gone far enough in the eyes of some people, but it certainly has gone in a direction that has created a little more confidence in the building market and in the market for the buyers.

Prior to regulations that came in with that office, there was an inquiry into some of the building that was going on in this province. It was called the Barrett inquiry. It held many meetings all over the province. One of the things that came up over and over again at these meetings was the ability of companies and developers to hide behind numbered companies — registered companies but companies that had limited liability, if any liability whatsoever.

Some of those companies, once they completed the projects, had absolutely zero assets. There was sometimes a minimal insurance put on the project, sometimes a two-year insurance on structure. When those failures happened after that, there was no insurance that was able to come into play to assist people who put their life savings into some of these buildings, their investments into their homes — a lot of times young people with their first homes.

In my community we saw, with the lack of homeowner protection, a development that cost $8 million to remediate. It was built by a fairly renowned developer at the time, Andre Molnar, who had a history of building some attractive-looking buildings.

The engineer who looked at that project and analyzed it after the failures…. They did a report, and I was given a copy of the report when I was on city council. It identified 426 potential code violations.

If you look at a company that's building a project, a development that has zero liability, a limited liability, a numbered company…. At the end of that project all you can go after is that numbered company, and the developer is able to walk away without having any accountability to those who purchased their homes.

People lost their life savings. People sold their homes in New Westminster. In areas they sold their single-family homes and decided to move down to the waterfront, which was a good development on the Westminster Quay. They purchased what they thought were well-built, attractive homes and found out that they were a crisis and a nightmare of leaky condos.

People did lose. Some people walked away from their mortgages, which exposed them to an inability to purchase further on down the road. Some continued to be assessed, and they were assessed over and over again to such a degree that they basically purchased those homes more than once.

In one of these developments that I was trying to assist the homeowners with…. For it to cost more to remediate a development than it did to build is alarming in this day and age. So I really commend the government of the day, and I'm not taking credit for it because I wasn't in that government. But I really commend the government of the day that actually went into the

communities and not only spoke to homeowners or people that were being exposed to some of the fraudulent practices in that industry but also spoke to some of the builders.

We found that there were some good builders out there. There were some builders that took pride in what they built. There were some builders that went the extra mile and made sure that the buildings they were building were of a high degree of quality. People who were purchasing those buildings were purchasing a good investment that had a resale value at the end of the day, which they either could leave to their children or could resell and not lose their assets.

It was good to see the industry…. The inquiry was certainly important and timely, because some of the development community was putting out information blaming the building code. I still talk to people today who say the building code was to blame. They're blaming the building code and saying that it's the R-2000, I think it was called…. The homes are too well insulated, and the moisture is happening from the inside.

Well, during the inquiry — and I read the two reports — there wasn't one example of a house or condominium that failed where water actually came from the inside and damaged the building from the inside out. It was all water coming in from the outside. Issues with flashing, issues with poor craftsmanship, poor workmanship…. Over and over and over again we saw the examples of that.

I remember going to the UBCM convention back in the late '80s. There was a letter from the Urban Development Institute, when we came into the conference hall, that was put on everyone's chair. It was blaming the building code for the leaky-condo crisis, and it was trying to make a significant argument that the code was to blame.

Here we have some developers that are taking shortcuts and are building buildings very quickly and selling them at a high profit, but not putting the craftsmanship into those buildings. They're failing, and people are losing their investments and losing their life savings. Then you have an industry that's saying it's the building code that's to blame.

Homeowner protection is a very important component that certainly has shown there needs to be some government regulation when it comes to homeowner protection. There needs to be the provision that now exists, where you can't have a numbered company. The company that's being insured has to meet certain criteria. There's a ten-year insurance. There are different insurances that are available. It's created a lot of security and confidence in the condo market.

At one time nobody was buying condos, and they weren't buying condos because the chances were that you were going to buy a property that was a leaky property. There was a really high risk of purchasing a condominium that was a leaky property. So people had no confidence in that industry.

We didn't see condominiums built for a considerable period of time, and we actually saw the increase…. You know, people talk about the cranes. Well, the cranes started coming up as the confidence started building in that market. People started going back into condominium purchases once they started getting some comfort that the government of the day put in some regulations that made builders more accountable.

Again, it's not all the builders that were causing the issue; it was certain builders that were building buildings that weren't up to standard. There were some municipalities that waived their rights to inspect. What they did was they passed bylaws that gave the rights to inspection over to a code consultant. A code consultant was merely someone that was authorized to go in and say, "Yes, this meets the code," and sign off on it and put their stamp on it. It was found that there were violations by the code consultants as well. Some of the code consultants lost their bonding, and they lost their bonds.

But again, the code consultants were numbered companies in some cases as well, so there was no more liability. So then what happened with the law of joint and several liability was that the municipalities ended up being the ones with the deep pockets. When the lawsuits came through some municipalities, the municipality paid, which again means the taxpayer was paying the brunt of a crisis that was created because an industry was allowed to regulate itself to a very high degree.

If all builders built with a high standard and a high moral standard and a high ethical standard, you could probably make an argument that they could regulate themselves. But it certainly wasn't shown in the situation, in the crisis that we experienced in British Columbia.

Frankly, other countries are experiencing this as well. I met with a political figure from Taiwan, and they're having that same crisis right now in other countries, where they're looking at our models to see what they need to implement so that they can get a better quality of building.

I look forward to my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville going through the committee stage of this bill and addressing it. I certainly look forward to ensuring that we have a strengthened, good, positive working relationship with the builders, so they know where they stand when it comes to building.

I praise the government in the '90s for having the foresight to bring in homeowner protection legislation so that we could build confidence in this community again. We're seeing the effects of that today, where young people are now buying their first homes, condominiums and apartments. They know when they're buying brand-new homes that they're buying them with a certain amount of security and a certain amount of liability protection.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Forests and Range closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: Interesting, listening to the member for New Westminster. There was nobody without blame on the leaky-condo issue back in the 1990s, and I think we are all aware of that. There was no specific thing that was done that anybody can point to specifically that was the issue.

There were planning departments. It took changes to how they calculated FSR from the footing to the overhang, which created no overhangs on buildings in a wet coastal climate. We had planning departments that would actually tell people how to build, when the architect and the engineer were saying that probably wouldn't work. We had inspections — a lack of them at some municipal levels. We had all kinds of issues, including, frankly, the builders and the industry and all the rest of it.

But we're not going to get into a debate about leaky condos today. If the member wants to find my opinions on those in my Hansard debates from about 1996 through about 2001, you can find in housing debates what those comments were, in the discussions back with various ministers under the former government with regard to it.

I'm just going to close with a couple of quick comments. I think it's important for the House to understand: in order for legislation to have enough flexibility to work on the ground, sometimes you do have to do things by regulation. It would be ludicrous to think that we would come to the Legislature to change fees every time you want to change a fee and spend two years drafting a piece of legislation to do that.

Those mistakes have been made on legislation over the years, and I think we've all learned from that — that in actual fact you can consult on regulation, you can make it work with legislation. It does allow you the ability to have more flexibility and to move with the law so the legislation doesn't become something redundant but can become something flexible and adaptable to a marketplace.

I think it's important to realize that we consult on most regulations that go out with regard to industry, including the issues that are going forward. With regard to Raising the Bar and to the modernization strategy, I understand we'll be doing estimates debates later this week. I'm sure we can spend some time on that particular side of things, and we'll deal with it.

I do believe that these amendments are timely. They're the ones that I felt needed to be done, on advice from the Homeowner Protection Office and extensive consultation. I think that we will move forward on these.

I should advise the member, although she may want to debate this in committee stage, that there is no drafting taking place on any more stuff on the Homeowner Protection Office, so don't expect anything coming out the pipe real quick. The time it takes for legislation to be done is very extensive. It can be up to a two-year process to get it to the floor of the House.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34, Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; S. Hammell in the chair.

D. Cubberley: I wanted to begin by just asking in a general sense if the minister could clarify the difference between the status quo in terms of practices currently for maintaining an employers list at the college and what this legislation is going to mandate. Where do the changes lie here, and what is there that's being captured that isn't currently captured?

Hon. S. Bond: The college is not currently required by legislation to keep an employers registry.

D. Cubberley: Can the minister clarify whether the college does, in fact, collect this information currently and whether employers have the practice of going to the college for the information?

Hon. S. Bond: Employers do not go to the college for employment information.

D. Cubberley: Are they prevented from going to the college for employer information?

Hon. S. Bond: I am advised that the college actually doesn't collect employment information for that purpose.

D. Cubberley: That's interesting, Madam Chair, because in my conversations with people at the college, my understanding is that they do in fact collect this information and that it is available.

I'm interested in knowing if there is an employer practice currently. Is the minister aware if there's an employer practice of going to the college for that information, or not?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm advised that while that information in some form may be collected by the college, they would have difficulty releasing that information. They do not provide that service to employers.

D. Cubberley: I'd just like to explore that a little further. It would be interesting to know why they have difficulty releasing that information.

Hon. S. Bond: It's because that's not the purpose for which that information was collected.

D. Cubberley: I'm having some difficulty again. If they maintain this information, if they do collect this information, is there anything in current practice or in legislation that prevents them from making that information available to employers or that prevents employers from consulting the college in order to get that information?

Hon. S. Bond: The role of the College of Teachers is not to create an employment registry. While they may have information about an employee's current history, it is very unlikely that they would have the historical past of a teacher. Their role and function is not currently, and certainly no legislation would require them, to provide employment information to school districts.

D. Cubberley: It doesn't require them. What I'm hearing is that what changes in here is that there is a requirement that they supply this information if they're asked. This would be comprehensive — where the minister senses that currently they either couldn't or wouldn't do this and that the information isn't actually kept, isn't available to employers regarding prospective employees.

Hon. S. Bond: An employment registry is of value to school districts because it provides the historical path of where a teacher has been employed, so that if they move from one part of the province to another, we could actually have a sense of knowing what happened in the previous district. If the member opposite has other information that suggests that the College of Teachers collects historical data about previous employment records, we'd be happy to hear that and to have that information verified.

To our knowledge, they do not have historical employment records. The benefit of an employment registry is to allow school districts to check where teachers have been, so that we can ensure that our schools are safe places for our children.

D. Cubberley: I think we all have a strong commitment to making our schools safe places for children. The challenge is to ensure that we do it in a manner that's expeditious and that's comprehensive and that if we do make change, it will actually result in improvements to safety on the ground. That really will be the tenor of all of the questions that I ask today and that we ask on this side.

I guess one of the things that are important in this is whether the design of this and the way it is set up in fact captures that history comprehensively. One of the things I wanted to ask about is whether the minister sees the registry as being rolling, in that it captures things as they happen, or whether the registry, as it appears to, has a fail-safe date of October 15. Then until such time as we hit the subsequent fail-safe date, anything that happens, happens and isn't reported for a year.

Let me just ask whether that was the intent — to allow the registry to run for a year and then to update it. Or did you consider that it might need to be a rolling registry?

Hon. S. Bond: At this point the intent is that it would be done yearly. We have set a date which we believe that staff and districts are able to work toward.

D. Cubberley: That means, I just would note, that for that period of one year each year the registry would not be contemporary, the way it's currently designed. That may be something we want to consider further, because it would have been possible to simply design this to require that as information changed, information would be reported. Where new employees were retained, at whatever time that occurred, that information could be required to be supplied to the college as easily as by having a one-year lag in the reporting. I would be interested to know why that choice was made.

Hon. S. Bond: We understand the member opposite's point. Our point is to move to start an employment registry in the province for the first time. I would assume that as we implement, we will be monitoring. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of teachers, once they're placed, are there for the balance of a year. But as we implement, we will evaluate.

We also need this to be manageable. The member opposite is well aware that this is the first time this has actually been contemplated. It's essential that we move it forward, and we certainly will be looking at what types of adjustments may be necessary as we move forward. Our goal is to get one underway, which would be leading-edge in the country, in fact.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to ask what the status of teachers on call is under this. Are they captured by this? If they are captured, how are they captured? Are they defined as employees? Are they defined as employees by school boards under collective agreements? Or do they in some way have potential to slip through the net?

Hon. S. Bond: Teachers on call are members of the College of Teachers, for the vast majority. And yes, they would be captured with this legislation.

D. Cubberley: So would each of their displacements then be captured on the registry? Because they're moving around.

Hon. S. Bond: As they're placed on an on call list, they would obviously be added to the employment registry, which would mean that some teachers on call would be reported by more than one school district.

D. Cubberley: One of the things that's a key issue in making this work is for employers to use it. The way that this is set up, as far as we can see from the legislation, it's entirely optional as to whether an employer does or doesn't consult the employment registry. So my question

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, it was school boards that asked for this tool. School trustees, in particular, have been eager to see this tool in place. We certainly believe that those who are in the significant role of being responsible for hiring individuals to work with children would not need to be told to use a tool that's this essential. In fact, they asked us to make sure that we moved forward with this type of tool.

D. Cubberley: Well typically, when we legislate, we don't legislate for those who are going to do what we're legislating in any case, whether it's good behaviour or attaching their seatbelts when they get in the automobile or the like. We typically legislate for those who may not take that step. I would like to hear more on why the assumption is that all school districts and all prospective employers will know to consult this list without placing any obligation on them to do it.

I would say most school districts would know to send information to the college about discipline, but we're not leaving that to chance. So the question is: why would we leave it to chance? When this is the vehicle for guaranteeing the safety of kids, why would we leave it to chance as to whether employers do or don't consult the list?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, we believe that school boards asked us to work with them to create this tool. We believe that they completely understand the importance of making sure that children are safe in their classrooms and that they, in fact, will use this. We simply don't feel that it's necessary to mandate the use of an employment registry which boards have requested that we create.

D. Cubberley: Well, I just want to speak to that a little bit because this sounds really like creating a power tool and then simply assuming that everyone will know how to operate it, will know to operate it and to consult the employment registry. You know, I don't see anything else being left to chance within the bill. So I have some difficulty understanding why we wouldn't put this in, essentially because it costs nothing to place this obligation on the employer and it sends a message.

If one is looking for — and I think that one always is, as a legislator — a sense of balance in these kinds of matters, one would not simply place obligations on the college, on principals, on superintendents and on others around reporting, then place no obligation on employers to consult the material pulled together by that reporting.

So I ask once again. I think taking it on trust is an unusual approach in a bill which is being explicit about not taking things on trust. So I'd like a further response on that, and then I might try an amendment.

Hon. S. Bond: I guess, from our perspective on this side of the House, we might agree to disagree with school trustees and school boards on some issues, but one thing that I do know is that the issue of safety in classrooms is paramount to school trustees across this province.

They have requested that this tool be created through legislation, and we are confident that this tool will be utilized in the due diligence of hiring employees in school districts across the province. We actually believe that school districts will do just that.

D. Cubberley: I would respectfully submit that most of the information that is going to be contained in this employment registry is currently available at the college on request. School districts who do due diligence go to the college — principals and others — to access the information.

I think the legislation intends to make it systematic and to create a registry that will be comprehensive. We support that. We think that's a good idea. But I do not understand why we would not, at the same time, place an obligation upon employers to consult the registry being created.

In that regard, with the assistance of the Clerk, I'm going to attempt to move an amendment to the section. I'll try to do it to this section, although if it were successful — which it may or may not be — we would also have to apply it to the section covering the inspector of independent schools.

I will move an amendment. The process is that I offer the Clerk and the minister a copy of the amendment. If it can be made acceptable, I'll speak to it.

D. Cubberley: I just want to reiterate, because I do think this is important. I don't think this in any way tampers with the spirit and intent of this legislation, which is to try to create a comprehensive employment history for teachers and for those who are teaching under a letter of permission and not members of the college in a separate registry.

One might wish to consider in this regard that we are not simply dealing with school districts, which have long histories of employment relationships and very structured relations of collective bargaining and work with their teaching and other labour forces on an ongoing basis where they have standards of practice and the like.

We are also legislating for the independent school sector, which falls directly under the authority of the minister. In many cases they may have very, very high

standards — indeed analogous standards — of discipline and structured relationships with employees. But in other cases they will not have those and will not necessarily have the habit of consulting registries. They may in fact be dealing with people who — to use as neutral a term as possible — are less credentialed than those who teach in the public school system by dint of not being members of the college and not having the kinds of disciplines placed on them that come with holding a professional certification.

They may be enabled to teach under the inspector of independent schools. That sector equally requires, I believe, a message being sent to employers that, having created this repository of information — which is comprehensive, which is intended to support student safety and which we support…. There should in fact be an obligation placed on employers to consult the registry before making a hire.

I don't believe that tampers in any way, shape or form with the spirit and intent of the bill. I do believe that it adds an element of balance to the bill and sends a message to those whose practice is affected by this that the obligations apply all around. I think it's consistent with the bill and that it would improve it. I would therefore urge that the government support the amendment.

Hon. S. Bond: We will not be supporting the amendment. I would really hope that as we move forward…. First of all, a couple of things. The B.C. School Trustees Association has been supportive of the employment registry, and I can assure you that we have faith that trustees across this province will utilize this tool.

Secondly, I am not certain that the member's comments about access to the College of Teachers information, assuming that boards can actually access that now, are accurate. In fact, the information that's collected by the College of Teachers is unlikely to be able to be distributed based on a request about an employment history. Freedom of information would very much be clear about the purpose of the collection of that material and information, and that would not be related to an employment history.

Finally, I simply must make comment on the member's comments about independent school teachers and professionals. The vast majority of teachers that teach in the independent school system are credentialed by the College of Teachers, and if they are not, they are highly qualified, incredible individuals who teach in that system as well.

D. Cubberley: I must respond to that a little bit. I don't believe that in attempting to move in the direction that the government is attempting to move in, there is any slight intended towards teachers who teach under a certificate from the college. I don't take that from what the government says.

Certainly, I think it would be inappropriate and wrong to infer from my comments that I'm making suggestions about people who are approved to teach under other than a college certificate. That's hardly the point. I mean, the college certificate is not what's at issue.

The minister is the one who referred to the request coming from school boards and school districts. Many independent schools are not in a relationship with school boards and school districts that's analogous to that in the public system.

My comments simply applied to the entire group of people teaching in schools, no matter what kind, and that whoever hires them be obliged to consult the consolidation of information that this registry is creating. Once again, I did not hear the minister speak to the fact that that doesn't conflict with the spirit and intent of the bill.

What I'm coming to understand is that it's a choice of the minister. I don't believe I have heard anything that would suggest that it in any way conflicts with the intent, which is to improve safety in the classroom.

D. Cubberley: I believe that we're fairly close on section 1. I think we covered off teachers on call.

D. Cubberley: The member beside me asked me about costs, and I think that there are issues of costs relating to the creation of the registries. I think that I would like to reserve those for a later point when we can canvass that around, probably, the more expensive registries which are the on-line registries. So I will hold those comments.

D. Cubberley: I would just like to open this up a little bit, because this is for the public school section of the bill, which is the smallest part of the bill. The largest part of this bill is making changes to the Independent School Act.

This is a very significant section of the bill. It essentially is the part that captures conduct that needs to be reported publicly. There is, therefore, a very high onus on us to get this part of it right and certainly to make sure it does what's intended and not other things.

One of the questions that I have in this regard, and I think it's an important one, is a distinction between…. I mentioned this in my second-reading comments. In section (d) the mandatory reporting provisions are explicitly applied to three areas — (A), (B) and (C) — which are broken out as being mandatory. Then they

are followed by a Roman numeral, a provision which provides for additional reporting. In looking at this, it was a little bit confusing, and I called attention to this in the second reading comments.

Inasmuch as (A), (B) and (C) capture the things that are mandatory, (ii) then goes on to make everything mandatory. It's a very curious way to set a bill up — to break out three areas for attention that are arguably the most significant and are certainly things that you would want reported and made public, and then to have a kind of catch-all at the end that says "and everything else." So I would just ask for some comment on the design of that from the minister.

Hon. S. Bond: We want to make sure this is very clear. There are a number of screens throughout this process, the first of which is the school board. The school board will be required to report those issues which are extremely egregious in nature: physical harm to a student or minor, sexual abuse or sexual exploitation and significant emotional harm to a student or minor.

Then there is the clause that adds conduct or competence that breached the council's standards. There is a phrase attached to that piece, which is referred to as "in the public interest."

The first screen is what the school board actually chooses — outside of what they are required to report — to pass on to the College of Teachers.

Secondly, what is reported publicly is the discipline that the College of Teachers actually brings to bear. So in fact, the college may discuss a number of issues. They may not discipline a teacher. If that is the case, that is not made public. What's made public is discipline in those areas.

We want to be very clear here that whatever is reported to the College of Teachers must be significant and in the public interest to do so. Three items are highlighted that are specific and egregious in nature, and the first screen is actually at the school board level.

D. Cubberley: I do recognize all of that and that the first screen is at the school board level. But I still…. We're looking at a section which is dealing with obligations that are placed on the council of the College of Teachers. It applies to the record of disciplinary action taken by the council. It gives three things explicitly that the minister described as egregious and around which there would be no issue.

Then it gives a clause which, by its nature and sweep, includes those three things. It says "all other things." So one of the questions — and I didn't hear it answered — was why you would need to break out three areas and then have a residual clause that covered all areas. What was the purpose of that design?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, if we look at what the standards of professional conduct for educators are, there are things that are listed there that may not result in the physical activity that's contained in the first three items.

Let me give the member opposite an example. A pretty critical piece, 11.4 in those standards, says that professional educators have a responsibility to students to "establish and maintain the boundaries of a professional relationship."

There may be instances where it does not in fact result in the specific descriptions of that particular type of behaviour. We're simply saying that in the case that a school district or school board has a professional educator that exceeds those boundaries, we needed to be able to find a place to capture that kind of behaviour as well.

But let's be clear. This isn't about being late for school. This is about those behaviours which are in the public's interest and, most importantly, in the interest of children in this province and would be designated by a school board as outside of the three issues but related to the standards of conduct that say this is unacceptable and needs to move forward.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the comments from the minister. I just want to come back to the way that this was set up on second reading, and I'll quote the minister's comments from the record. At that time the minister said:

Now, the point that I'm trying to get at is that in this section, section 2 is not dependent on the phrase "when it is in the public interest to do so." That phrase is missing. It does appear at other points in the bill. That power is actually conferred, I believe, upon principals or superintendents at some point in the bill, but it isn't conferred upon the college at this point in the bill.

I took the minister's remarks because we are, after all, talking about the on-line registry here and what will appear publicly. I took the minister's remarks to imply that there was a judgment to be made, a residual judgment to be made about whether something was or wasn't in the public interest. There is some considerable significance to this matter.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it does reference it. It is not in this section of the bill because this section of the bill is talking about the on-line registry and the requirements related to that. If the member opposite looks to the section which talks about amending the School Act — to the section which talks about the superintendent of schools, who in fact must actually make the report to the College of Teachers in section 6 — it says: "If the superintendent of schools considers any conduct by or competence of an applicable person to be in breach of the college's standards of professional conduct or competence, the superintendent must send to the council of

the college a report, in writing, regarding that conduct or competence if it is in the public interest to do so."

In fact, it's very clear that the reporting screen which takes place at the school board level is related to the professional standards of conduct and if it is in the public interest to do so. So there is a filter there.

D. Cubberley: I quite agree, and I think that was the point that I was making. There is a filter at that level, but we are dealing with it at the level of the college in this section. There is no filter at that level. The reason that I come to rest at this point is…. I go back to comments that I made in second reading.

I think that we have to be aware, when we're doing this, of the power of visibility on the Internet. This is going to be an on-line registry. One of the questions that I think it behooves us as legislators to ask ourselves is whether it is our intent, in each and every case where there is a breach of conduct of the council standards of professional conduct or competence and whatever discipline was assessed from it — I'm not talking about the majority of cases; I'm talking about in every case — to end a teacher's career, because it will. When it appears on the Net, that will be the end of it.

So my question is about whether it is appropriate at that level to have absolutely no power under public interest to consider whether it should or shouldn't. Obviously, it should not in the case of the identified areas and, obviously, it should not in the majority of cases where discipline is assessed.

I think that we cannot be naive about the potency of making this kind of material available. It leaves cause for concern that the college has absolutely no power under the way this is constructed to make any determination relative to the public interest.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, moving forward with something like this is a matter of balance. But the priority is the safety of children in British Columbia. I know the member opposite doesn't disagree with that, but let's be clear here. There are two levels of the public interest test.

First of all, that is at the school district level, and I would assume and believe that superintendents are going to take that pretty seriously. I'm pretty concerned when one of the professional conduct issues in the code of conduct is about establishing and maintaining the boundaries of a professional relationship. If for some reason that's not captured in (A), (B) or (C), I want it captured in the bullet that follows if it's in the public interest to do that. So first of all, the test is that the superintendent has to believe it's serious enough and that it is in the public interest to report.

Secondly, the College of Teachers must then believe it's in the public interest to, first of all, issue discipline and, also, to make that public. We believe that this represents a balance.

No one in this House is interested in ruining the career of a teacher. But I can assure you of this: teachers themselves want to ensure that their profession is held in the highest regard. In fact, many teachers have said to us they want to be sure that teachers who abuse and take advantage of their privilege are absolutely disciplined and that people are made aware of that.

We believe there are appropriate tests in place that ensure that there is a balance between the privacy and integrity of teachers but, most importantly, the safety of our children.

D. Cubberley: Listening to what the minister had to say, there are two things. First, she chose an example around conduct that in all likelihood would, even under a public interest test, automatically lead to posting material on an on-line registry of this kind. I'm not concerned with that. In fact, I'm not concerned to specify which particular interest might be outside of it.

The challenge that I see we have is that in any case where a conduct or competence violation is determined, that it is…. If posting is automatic in each and every case…. I'm not talking about the areas that have been broken out specifically, and I am not talking about the area that the minister raised in here.

The professional code of conduct covers a lot of things. If each and every case requires posting, I think we simply do not want to be naive about what that means. That means that discipline assessed at this level is only for punitive purposes. It's never for corrective purposes — never for corrective purposes — because once it is posted on the Web, it's all over.

That's the point I'm trying to bring to bear on this. We're allowing a power of discretion to choose at other levels, but at this level there is no ability around the public interest for the college to make a determination. I think that's as far as I can go in making that point.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I can only reiterate the fact that there are two tests. The first test is at the school district level, and a superintendent would have to clearly believe that it is in the public interest — or if we were to characterize that in the life of a student, that it's in a student's best interest — to actually report something. It would be a very serious first-of-all step for the superintendent to make. So the first test of public interest takes place at the local level.

The fact of the matter is that the standards and expectations for professional conduct were actually created by teachers, and the College of Teachers itself is already based on the principle of the public interest. In fact, I read into the record the object of the College of Teachers in terms of their expectations: "It is the object of the college to establish, having regard to the public interest, standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of certificate holders and applicants…consistent with that object, to encourage the professional interest of certificate holders…."

So the college's object is very clear, and we believe that there are two tests in place that would provide the balance between the protection of privacy…. And we're very cognizant of how significant that is, that when discipline is handed out and it becomes a public matter, of course that's going to have an impact on a

person's life, and we expect it to be done from a professional perspective, with boards and with the College of Teachers.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for the comments. I think that we're dancing around nuance here. But there is an important point to it all, and that is that in all employee-employer relations, there are two elements to discipline. One is a punitive element which inflicts a punishment of some kind on a person for an offence that should be proportionate to the offence. The other is an attempt within the framework of what is permissible, which clearly (A), (B) and (C) are not, to correct the behaviour of the person.

So my point — and I will let go after saying this one more time — is that we are dealing with a form of visibility which is public, and it is more public than running an ad in a newspaper or any other kind of thing that we have done in the past. You don't have to look very far on a Google search to find out what happens when a piece of information shows up on the Internet. If it goes up on the Internet, it will be widely circulated.

My point is simply this. We are eliminating — and perhaps that is the intent, to entirely eliminate at the level of discipline we're talking about — the corrective function, because this is the end of careers when it becomes visible at this level. So if I'm sounding a note of caution, it's a note of caution for those who are assessed discipline by people whose intent was yes, to punish, but, as importantly, to try to correct and to bring them back to a high professional standard because they felt that they could rescue them as teachers. So I raise it in that regard and out of concern for us batting the thing out of the park.

I would say as an aside that one of the unintended consequences of something like this is that all actors within the system will look at the decisions that they are making around discipline differently because of the finality of it, because it has a finality now, which it may not have had in the past. I will rest my comments there.

Hon. S. Bond: I simply have to fundamentally disagree with that. I would expect that the behaviour of the people in the decision-making process about these kinds of matters would put children's safety at the priority. In fact….

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite can be uncomfortable with my response to that, but the fact of the matter is that this is a plan and strategy to provide balance. Of course we care about the integrity of people's reputations, but at the end of the day…. The member opposite made the point that if it made it to a registry, think about how awful that would be if it were a mistake.

Let's think about what would happen if for some reason the information about a situation was not dealt with through an employee registry. Think about the potential impact on children, which we've actually seen in British Columbia.

In fact, this is an attempt to find balance, to protect the privacy and integrity of teachers but making paramount the safety of children in classrooms.

N. Macdonald: The minister talks about balance. The question I have then is, of course, if you're going to do this, as the critic has very clearly said, you're finishing a career. So there is a need for balance, and the minister has said that she recognizes the need.

It comes to the point about the grievance procedure. In this, in putting people onto the Internet, you are essentially finishing their career. What balance does the minister see to make sure that people are correctly identified? What you've set up is something that is going to put them on the Internet forever, if they do not have the ability to remove themselves.

The ability to remove themselves after five years says: "…if it is in the public interest to do so." There are many, many cases where a person will be deemed to be in a place where they will not be removed.

Now, the minister will say that that's appropriate, if the person has done what I would expect to be something serious. No teacher is going to disagree with that. I am a member of the College of Teachers. We have extremely high standards, and there should be extremely high standards. I also recognize that there needs to be a system that works and that is fair so that the people who are penalized are people who deserve to be penalized. The minister cannot be cavalier about that.

I would like her to explain how she has certainty that the system will work in a way that is going to identify those who need to be identified.

Hon. S. Bond: I should say to the member opposite that the minister is not being cavalier about anything. This matter is incredibly serious both for teachers and for students, and also for families in this province. We have been asked by partners in education to actually move forward with this initiative.

I have repeatedly mentioned to the critic the fact that there are two tests in place before a person's name makes it onto the registry. In fact, one is at the school level, where the superintendent must think very carefully about, first of all, what behaviour took place. Does it fit under the three categories, or does it actually breach professional conduct, such as the example I have given?

Of course there are high standards. The member opposite, as a member of the college, identifies that. Of course there are. Teachers are in positions of incredible trust with our children, and the vast majority of them honour and respect that every day.

The second test, as I've mentioned to the member opposite, is that before this were ever to occur, a process takes place at the College of Teachers. By the way, to remind the member, the majority of positions are held by teaching professionals in the province. A process is underway when that takes place. Again, the test is: is it in the public interest?

There are two tests, and in fact at the end of that process, if the College of Teachers says that a person will be disciplined, only then will that name become public. In essence, there is a place where a group of people make that decision, and at the end of those two tests and that process, the name may become public.

I absolutely understand the challenge of making sure that the process is right, but at the end of the day, we also need to be sure that we are going to put children's safety at the front of that list.

N. Macdonald: The point would be that the children's safety has in the past and always will be at the top of the list, so that exists now. This government has changed the College of Teachers. That's for a different discussion, but it is not the same college that I joined originally.

Secondly, the minister points to two levels. Let's go back to the first level, the level that has discipline coming through at the board level. Does the minister intend to honour the grievance system that's in place, which is the system that provides due diligence for the individuals that are dealing with accusations? Does the minister intend to honour that system and allow that due diligence, that process, to take place? Or is the intention to change that with this legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, there are two avenues of discipline. One is employment discipline, and with that comes a grievance process. Of course, that will continue.

We are talking about professional misconduct of an egregious nature. In fact, we've had partners, including parents and trustees and even educators, saying: "We need to make sure that our children are safe in schools. If that means a process that would identify those individuals who choose to sexually exploit our children or to behave in some other way that's completely unacceptable, we should put a process in place."

There are two streams of discipline. One is employment; one is professional misconduct. Of course, the grievance procedure on the employment side will continue.

N. Macdonald: That's a very nuanced answer, because of course we are talking about not only the reputation of an individual. We agree that children need to be safe, but in doing that, you have a tremendous responsibility to have a process that deals properly with individuals. I'm sure the minister agrees that you want a proper process in there.

The minister split hairs around the grievance procedure. The grievance procedure is the due process that is in place at the board level. Is the minister saying that for all issues dealing with teaching professionals, due process is going to remain in place?

If the minister jumps ahead and puts forward a process that puts somebody on the Internet before the grievance procedure is completed, in essence you have undercut that fair process. Especially when such serious charges are made, there is an onus on the government to make sure that they are setting up something that is going to be fair for the individuals that are charged.

The question is…. The minister was nuanced in her answer at the board level. Do all people being disciplined at the board level have the opportunity to fully go through the grievance procedure?

In fact, if you are disciplined by the board today, there is a grievance procedure. That will continue. If you're disciplined, you may not proceed through to the College of Teachers. That also happens today.

This legislation says that if you decide you're going to actually physically harm, sexually abuse or sexually exploit children or significantly cause emotional harm to a student or minor, those behaviours will be reported. The regular process that deals with employment discipline will continue, and there will be all of the processes in place to deal with those board disciplinary processes.

We certainly have thought a lot about the balance between protecting a reputation and at the same time assuring British Columbians that our children are safe. It is a very significant decision, but we're committed to moving forward with what we believe is a balanced approach to protecting children and making sure that there are two places of test, in the public interest, to ensure that there is that protection of integrity for teachers as well.

N. Macdonald: Just so that I understand. Before the report is made by the school board, which is sent to the college to deal with, the minister is saying that a full due process will take place, which includes grievances. If the minister is saying that something different should happen or does happen with this legislation, then there is a problem with it, because one process should be completed before the next one begins.

In terms of safety with children, what the minister will know is that if there is even the slightest concern, that safety issue will be dealt with immediately. A principal would do that immediately. So we're not talking about an issue around safety for children. What we're talking about is arriving at the truth as to what happened.

To arrive at the truth, there is a due process. The due process that is in place now is to have a grievance procedure. If the minister is suggesting that that grievance procedure can be ignored and that it moves directly to the college, then that's a problem. That is something that is not completely thought through.

The question for the minister: is she saying that the grievance procedure will be completed at the board level before it goes to the college? If not, then what's the thinking on that?

Hon. S. Bond: On the regular employment side, grievances continue. In fact, an employee can grieve anything. To answer the member's question, though, the individual can launch a grievance. It may not be complete before the process moves on to the College of Teachers. Criminal charges and procedures may also be taking place at the same time.

Yes, they can launch a grievance. There is no guarantee that that grievance would be completed or heard before the…. In fact, it will move on to the College of Teachers, and criminal proceedings would also, potentially, take place at the same time.

You have, immediately, the children's safety taken care of. Immediately, if there is a concern, the principal will have the accused person out of the system. They are not going to be there; that's the fact. That's what has existed. You have educators around you who will tell you that that is absolutely what's going to happen, so we're not talking about safety of children. We're talking about due process.

Then you have an issue that not only will be career-ending but will put a person in a place in the public where they would be extremely uncomfortable. Now, if they have done what they're accused of, that discomfort is well earned. But if they have not, then the minister would I'm sure agree that they have been treated extremely unfairly.

We are not talking about a need to rush through processes. There is no reason why one process could not…. The process that this legislation would control could be finished before you move on to the next step. What the minister is suggesting makes no sense to me at all.

In terms of criminal action, that's completely separate. That will proceed at its own pace. But here you finish first with the process at the board level. To skip over it, to get rid of the grievance procedure and to say, "Well, let's move on. Let's get them on the Internet…." It makes no sense to me.

It is not a safety issue for the children. It is absolutely not that. It is a skipping of the system that guarantees that the person accused has some due process. If the minister can explain that there is some other process she has in mind, then explain it. Otherwise, the logic of skipping and putting them through to the college before the system allows the professional to have due process at the local level makes no sense to me.

Hon. S. Bond: There have been grievances in British Columbia that have lasted over eight years. During that period of time, the member remains a member in good standing at the College of Teachers.

This is not about rushing to get anyone on the Internet. This is about ensuring that we have a practice and a process that prevents examples that have happened in recent history in this province, where individuals who choose to abuse and take advantage of children have somehow managed to have that happen more than once.

We are putting in place a system which we believe is balanced, obviously, and that takes into consideration the rights of the person who is implicated in this process. There are two tests. It begins at the school level. This doesn't even begin to move beyond the school level unless the superintendent of schools, the educational leader in a school district, decides that it's in the public interest to do so.

There will be the ability for that individual to launch a grievance, but simultaneously that information will move forward to the College of Teachers, where other professionals will look at the merits of that case. Before anything is rushed to the Internet, there will be a process that takes place that considers, very seriously and most importantly, what's in the public interest.

We have canvassed this question numerous times about the balance between an individual's reputation and the safety of children. We believe that the legislation and the process that's inherent in this legislation provides that balance.

N. Macdonald: Well, you've done nothing to convince me that this is properly thought through, and I wouldn't expect that the minister would be able to. We have due process because you have things at stake that are important. We're dealing with the Basi-Virk trial, and it's — what? — three years to get in because there is a process. There is a process that is put in place, and it takes time to make sure that you deal with things properly.

With teachers' reputations and with their jobs, there is a way that you immediately get the children safe. That happens immediately. Based on an accusation, there is no principal that leaves any children with somebody who's accused. Then there is a requirement for the government not to put in something that politically sounds good so that you can go and brag about it on the hustings.

There is a responsibility to treat the people that this minister is responsible for in a proper way, with a proper process, so that you do not end up with somebody's career and reputation ruined simply because there is a rush to get things done.

Now, if there is a grievance procedure that takes eight years, I'm not aware of it. The grievance procedures that I was involved with moved along at a reasonable pace. If there are problems with that process, then fix those problems.

N. Macdonald: The minister would move through at the board level, cut that process short and then move immediately to some other process that has no impact on children's safety and that makes no difference. The end result…. Once the teacher is on the Internet, then they're finished.

It seems very clear to me that the intention is to get rid of the process at the board level and to make sure that it is not as onerous as it should be. I do not accept the argument that the minister has put forward — that this in any way has anything to do with children's safety.

The question that I would ask the minister is around that website, and I'll ask one more question on that. Once the website has a teacher on it, it says that they are able to come off after five years if it is in the public interest. Could the minister define how she would define "public interest" in terms of removing people from this on-line registry? What is "the public interest" as she would define it?

Hon. S. Bond: It is the College of Teachers that will make that determination, and it will be based on the object which I read into the record previously. They are very familiar and have a test which is in the public interest. It's the College of Teachers that would make that determination, not the minister.

N. Macdonald: Section 3 is where the grievance procedure is removed. I would like the minister to explain why you are removing the grievance procedure.

Hon. S. Bond: This doesn't remove the grievance process, and we want to be very clear about that. What it does allow is for the grievance to proceed at the same time as the College of Teachers is working on the determination in terms of their process. So it doesn't remove the grievance procedure. It allows them to continue simultaneously.

N. Macdonald: Well, this comes to the College of Teachers based on what the board decides. What the board decides — that information is tested through the grievance procedure. So I cannot see the logic in this, where you do not allow a proper process at the board level before it proceeds untested to the College of Teachers.

That makes no sense to me at all, nor do I think it would make sense to any thinking person. It does not make sense that you do not finish the process at the board level before you send it up to the college, because it has not been tested. To remove that puts teachers and other educators in potentially a very difficult place.

It does nothing to help keep children safe. It does everything to weaken a process that is necessary. Let's be clear. A person who hurts a child not only does not deserve to be a teacher; they deserve the harsh judgment of people in the public.

If you're going to subject somebody to that, you better make sure that you have a fair process. What this does is weaken that. I see no benefit, because I do not accept that in any way it makes any child safer. But what it does do…. Perhaps in a simplistic way it scores some political points, and it makes things potentially more difficult for an educator.

Potentially, you get to a place where you may harm somebody unintentionally. I know that's not the minister's intention, so this needs to be thought through. You have a grievance procedure. Why would the minister get rid of that due process, and what is she going to replace it with?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's be clear. We're not replacing due process. Due process will continue.

It's interesting, because the member opposite is a member of the College of Teachers. I'm wondering if he's questioning the validity of the College of Teachers' process in terms of the success that it has in actually looking at disciplinary procedures.

I can tell the member opposite this. We are concerned about the credibility and integrity of teachers in this province, and we're concerned of course that no one be inadvertently impacted by this bill. But I can tell the member opposite this. What we're concerned about on this side of the House is that inadvertently, because of a process that is not in place, children in British Columbia are put at jeopardy. We're going to make sure that we move forward and put children at the top of our agenda.

N. Macdonald: There is nothing about that which I find accurate in any way. Children are protected now; they've been protected in the past. They are protected by having the right person there at the right time.

This is not going to change, in any substantial way, anything to do with children's safety. This is nothing but a political stunt. It is public relations and nothing else. There is a need for due process.

The Chair: Members. All members of the House, could we please allow the speaker to have the floor. Would everyone please address their remarks through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: There is a need for due process. To score political stunts, you want to get rid of due process. I see no logic in that, nor do I see that in any way as acceptable. You have a grievance system. The grievance system provides the due process for individuals that are accused, and then you step into the next step.

Once it is established at the board level that the individual has indeed done what they have been accused of, it makes sense then to send the report to the college for that process. That is a sensible way to proceed.

The minister likes to stand up and give speeches about protecting kids — great politics. She can stand up and say that I'm against it. The minister can stand up and say that, but it is cheap politics. There is a process that should be followed. Once that process is finished, then you move on to the next step.

The idea that you get rid of the grievance procedure…. Then what does the minister think is going to make sure that individuals are not falsely accused, that the evidence is not…? In every other case you're going to

test evidence, but here you're not. You're going to just move straight along to the next step.

The minister says that this is protective of teachers. She says that that balance is there. I would like her to explain where the balance is. Where does she make sure that she has set up a process that will ensure that people are treated fairly?

What I would remind her is that children are looked after now in the process that we have. Even the slightest allegation means that that teacher is out of the class, and it's investigated fully. The suggestion from her that anything different would be the case is simply wrong. The suggestion that things that have gone wrong in the past are going to be corrected by this is wrong.

The only thing that keeps children safe is having the right teacher in the right place with the right support and training, and for parents to be vigilant. That will not change with this. Parents have to be vigilant. And teaching professionals have to be the right ones at the right place, and they have to be properly trained and supported.

The question I have is: how does she ensure that she has a process in place that is going to make sure that teaching professionals are treated properly, which is how they deserve to be treated?

Hon. S. Bond: I'd be most interested in the member opposite's reaction to the fact that in 2005 hundreds of people — parents, trustees, administrators — across this province said: "We want to make sure that there is a process in place that protects kids, that looks at the employment registry and the discipline registry." Hundreds of people across this province have been waiting for this piece of legislation. It's really interesting how they're going to feel today when the member opposite refers to it as a cheap political stunt to protect kids in British Columbia.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)

N. Simons: I thought I'd just pick up where we left off yesterday. The questions had turned to the issue of Bountiful, the polygamous community in the Creston Valley area. I'm wondering if the Attorney General could just remind us what the status of his ministry's involvement is with the community.

Hon. W. Oppal: The investigation has been completed as far as the police are concerned, and they have filed a report with the criminal justice branch. The criminal justice branch has come to a conclusion. The file is now with me, and I have to review that decision.

N. Simons: When the criminal justice branch arrives at a conclusion, is that a conclusion as to whether to formally lay charges? Or is that one of the considerations that they would have? What role does the Attorney General play in that particular process?

Hon. W. Oppal: The procedure is as follows. The criminal justice branch, under the Crown Counsel Act, independently of the Attorney General determines whether in any given case there is sufficient evidence to lay charges. In this case the criminal justice branch has done that. Now, I as the Attorney General have the authority to either agree with or differ or overrule the criminal justice branch, but if I do that, my decision has to be in writing, and it has to be gazetted.

N. Simons: Does the public have any advanced…? Will the public know when such a decision would be made? Is it entirely up to the Attorney General now as to whether or not charges, for example, will go forward?

N. Simons: Thank you again. I appreciate every time you acknowledge my standing up.

I just wonder if it's possible to explain how this differs from other cases, as obviously there are a number of…. The Crown has information laid before it all the time. He would be an even busier Attorney General were he to approve each case. What makes this particular case any different?

Hon. W. Oppal: I could start out by answering — and I don't mean to be flippant — that the fact that you're asking about it indicates that it's different.

Seriously, it's a case that has attracted a lot of public attention, not only here in this province but across the country. I can say that I've had in the last year and a half many, many letters and many, many communications and emails from persons who want to know what the progress of the case is. So there is a large amount of interest in the case.

Your question was: do we do this? I think it is implicit in your question whether we do this in every case, and the answer is no. Of all cases, 99.9 percent are handled by the criminal justice branch, independently of the Attorney General.

N. Simons: If I have this clear, the Attorney General is involved in this particular case because of public pressure, public involvement and public interest. I am wondering whether or not the statement that the Attorney General doesn't get involved in criminal justice investigations, and yet at the same time he tells us that it is up to him whether or not charges go forward…. Is that a contradiction? Am I missing something in that?

Hon. W. Oppal: No, it's not a contradiction. The Crown Counsel Act was passed some years ago so as to remove any political interference or any suggestion that politics plays a role in determining whether in any given case charges ought to be laid. It is for that reason that the criminal justice branch, of which Mr. Gillen is the head, operates independently of the Attorney General.

However, the Attorney General as the chief law officer of the province has a residual discretion to overrule a decision of the criminal justice branch. But if that's done, then it has to be done in a transparent manner, done openly in writing and be gazetted.

N. Simons: The situation as we have it now is that in the 0.1 percent of the cases where the Attorney General does get involved…. Is there consequently a political involvement in this case?

Hon. W. Oppal: I wouldn't consider it a political involvement. I would not consider the authorizing or laying of charges based on political considerations…. It would mean that I would look at the evidence and determine from the evidence, in an objective way, whether or not charges ought to be laid given the preconditions that I alluded to yesterday.

N. Simons: I believe that the preconditions you alluded to yesterday had to do with the likelihood of conviction and the likelihood of successful prosecution, as well as the general interest of the community, if it's in the best interest of the criminal justice system, etc.

Now, those two considerations, I would presume, are separated by the fact that the Attorney General hasn't done the investigation himself, leaving the other issue to be the only one for his consideration — that is, is it in the best interests of the community? I'm wondering if in fact the decision points are on likelihood of successful conviction or the public interest, for lack of a better term.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would consider both the public interest as well as whether or not there is a substantial likelihood for a conviction.

N. Simons: I think this probably exemplifies what maybe is underlying some of the issues in this particular case, and that is that we're using a very blunt instrument, the criminal law, to try to address what could be considered on a larger scale a broader social issue of importance to British Columbians.

My question to the Attorney General: is there anywhere in the service plan which indicates that there is a coordination of efforts between the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Income Assistance, the Ministry of Education — or the other ministries that have had interaction with the Bountiful community — in a way that could actually try and coordinate responses and maybe assist the community in some of the challenges that it faces?

Hon. W. Oppal: As a matter of fact, the Community Services Ministry has been involved, and they have done some investigation and/or work in the community with respect to the children in the community. I'm unable to say exactly what was done and what the results were. I'm told the Ministry of Education has been involved as well.

N. Simons: I think that does confirm to a certain degree what my concern is and the conclusion I've come to. That is that there is no coordinating body for the various ministries — and we all know that there are many ministries involved — to coordinate the activities of the social workers and the school inspectors, to ensure that we're getting a full picture and to ensure that the children and families and community members in Bountiful do not feel like they are somehow being targeted, but perhaps feel more that they can be part of a process of finding a solution. There seems to be a lack of a coordinating position, which I would suspect would best be served in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Hon. W. Oppal: Community Services is coordinating some of the services regarding the social issues that are involved. However, that's not really the role of the Attorney General's ministry. Our role here is to determine whether or not criminal charges ought to be laid. So there is a difference in distinction in the roles.

N. Simons: There is a distinction in the roles between the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General would be responsible for the actual investigation, as far as I understand it, and the Attorney General, apparently, now is in charge of whether or not the investigation of the Solicitor General is going to go the direction that they have recommended. So we already have two ministries involved on the criminal side of the issues which, I might add, will have very little impact on the overall problems that have been identified by outside community agencies. We would simply have a criminal case — a one-off, as it were.

In this particular circumstance, when we're looking at a community where we have some concerns about various social issues, a criminal charge, although promoted with letters to the minister, perhaps, will in fact leave a number of unresolved issues in the community that would become the subject of the next batch of letters.

I'm wondering if it would be within the minister's mandate or even within his, possibly…. Looking at solutions to the issue, would the minister consider having somebody available in his ministry to coordinate some of the responses to the issues that it seems the Attorney General's umbrella ministry is looking after?

Hon. W. Oppal: Just to correct a statement made by the member. It's not the Solicitor General who does the investigation; rather, it's the police. Now, the Solicitor General is responsible for policing. Having said that, it is not our role to coordinate any government resources. Rather, Community Services is involved in those.

My understanding is that they have done something in that area, but our role simply is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to lay charges.

N. Simons: I would disagree, just based on what would appear to be the commonsense approach, which is: okay, if the Ministry of Education can't coordinate responses, and if the ministry of child and family services or the Ministry of Health isn't going to coordinate the response to the community's issues, then where else in the government…? Is it not the government's mandate to try and address problems as they exist in communities?

If there's no particular position for that exact problem, would it not be appropriate to consider the challenges that have faced British Columbian Attorneys General over the last 20 years — as I think the minister said yesterday — to find an imaginative or an off-the-beaten-path resolution to this issue? Otherwise, it's going to continue.

Last year, charges were two weeks away. Two years ago, charges were two weeks away. Neither of those would have resolved the issue anyway. So is it this government's position that as long as the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are involved, nothing else needs to happen?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think maybe I didn't make myself clear. That coordination is being done by the Ministry of Community Services. They're doing that. It simply is not our role to do it. The Attorney General has a specific role in government as a chief law officer, and it's not to get involved in matters relating to social services, education or any of those issues that the member has alluded to.

Those matters are being now looked at by the Ministry of Community Services, and they have nothing at all to do with whether or not criminal charges are laid. So there's a distinct role for the Attorney General to play, as well as a role for other ministries to play, and that's being addressed.

N. Simons: My presumption was that as a member of cabinet, as a member of government, the minister would have some influence over how to address a particular problem that has plagued — I think, as stated by the Attorney General yesterday — Attorneys General throughout recent British Columbia history. I don't believe that the Ministry of Community Services has any more or less of a mandate to coordinate multi-agency responses to an issue.

We have issues about immigration. We have issues about possibly under-age sexual activity. I think that there are issues in education. There are a huge number of issues, and for each one of those, I don't believe that the Ministry of Community Services is the…. I've asked this before and never before has there been any indication whatsoever that there's anybody coordinating the responses.

I don't want to presume or jump to conclusions either. May I ask the Attorney General if the charges now being contemplated relate to polygamy or relate to crimes of a sexual nature, sexual interference or what have you?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll reiterate. The Ministry of Community Services is involved. They are coordinating and have been involved in coordinating services where and if needed.

It is our job to determine whether or not charges ought to be laid. I'm not really in a position at this stage to say whether or not charges would be laid as far as sexual assaults or sexual exploitation are concerned or whether the charge alleging polygamy would be preferred. Those are matters that we're still contemplating, and it would not really be proper for me to make any comment at this stage.

N. Simons: What we have is that three or four years ago people in the community were expecting charges within two weeks. Two years ago they were expecting charges. Two weeks ago the Attorney General mentioned that more charges were being contemplated.

I think that this is an issue of fairness, quite frankly. I think this comes down to the fact that the Attorney General has a problem on his hands, and he's trying to deal with it the same way other Attorneys General have tried to do.

We know that it's difficult to prosecute if there are no witnesses to come forward. I have no problem; I

understand the criminal justice system. I understand that there are some challenges. Because of that — not despite that, because of that — I would suggest that we have an issue that relates to many areas of provincial government jurisdiction and that if we expect the issues that are of concern to the community are going to be alleviated by the laying of charges, I think that we might be mistaken. I believe that the cabinet needs to address this issue in a way that actually looks for solutions and doesn't make it a political issue.

I find it sort of strange, quite frankly, that we can talk about a fixed-number community, talk about charges about to be laid against certain people, and yet not say what the charges are. I mean, I find this very selective in terms of what can and can't be said. I would be personally affronted if I was told year after year after year that criminal charges are about to be laid.

We have to think about the welfare of the children and of the mothers and of the boys and of the fathers — of the families there. I think that this is an issue of fairness. We have a criminal justice system. We have a number of provincial government agencies that are assigned to ensure that children are safe, that they are learning what they need to in school, that they have enough food on their plates and that they are not living in abject poverty.

What I find, through listening to the responses, is that in fact we have a one-track silo effect. We're looking for the criminal justice system to solve the problem that has been a political nightmare for Attorneys General in the past. I say it's time to start looking at some other solutions. It's time to enter into some dialogue, perhaps, to discuss some of the issues that we find most concerning in the outside community.

Once again my question would be to the Attorney General: has anything been put in place to ensure that those who are interested in leaving or those who have chosen not to remain in Bountiful have supports necessary for their successful reintegration or integration into the outside community?

Hon. W. Oppal: I have to correct the member wherein he stated that successive Attorneys General have said that charges are about to be laid. I don't think anybody said, to my knowledge, that charges are about to be laid. At least, I've been very careful. What I have said is that we expect to have a decision soon and that this is a matter of some priority. That's the most that I have said, not that charges are about to be laid.

As far as the social issues that the member has raised, I can say that the Ministry of Community Services has had a social worker there to assist, and that's the most that I can say. That's not something that's within the purview of my ministry.

I would point out that the Attorney General has a distinct role to play in government. As such, I don't always get involved in some of the other issues that have been referred to by the member.

N. Simons: There are obviously media reports that indicate that not only are charges forthcoming, but they'll be substantive polygamy charges. I don't know whether the Attorney General wants to comment on the media's comments, but those seem to be quotes from fairly reputable news agencies.

Can the Attorney General enlighten the community as to whether or not letters to his office actually end up…? How will they know if letters to his office end up having any influence over the decisions that his ministry makes?

Hon. W. Oppal: Letters to my office do not influence me or anyone else as to whether or not charges are laid — unless a letter contains some relevant evidence, and we haven't seen that yet.

N. Simons: I'm curious as to how it is…. How can the public ensure that the Attorney General pays attention to the particular issues of their concern the way that the Attorney General is paying attention to the issue facing the community in Bountiful?

Hon. W. Oppal: I pay attention to what the public tells me. I am accountable to the public, but some decisions have to be made in a clinical, objective manner. We assess the evidence in a clinical way. We don't do that by gauging public opinion.

The public, I can say, has very strong views on this, and those views are appreciated. I appreciate that the public has an interest in the matter. But we have a different role to play.

N. Simons: I just might have been confused by the reference to the substantial number of letters that the Attorney General received, in the same breath as why the Attorney General is making this unusual step of becoming involved — which apparently doesn't happen in 99.9 percent of the cases.

This is one of those cases where there is involvement of the Attorney General. The Attorney General explained that this was of great importance to the public and that the public had written a number of letters. I was simply following up on that and making, perhaps, an inaccurate supposition that those two were actually related when they in fact were not.

If I may just turn to issues unrelated to Bountiful. To go back to yesterday's subject and the Human Rights Tribunal, the question arose from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds about the issue around veterinarians. It was a case that we were not able to talk about, which is fine.

In this particular circumstance, it was before the tribunal. However, the substantive question that was asked at the time related to the backlog of hearings and the pressure on the Human Rights Tribunal to do what it is mandated to do with the resources that it has.

Can the minister enlighten us as to whether or not there has been any increase of funding or resources to that particular branch?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is no backlog. The Human Rights Tribunal is able to take complaints immediately. The only delay is occasioned by the availability of counsel.

N. Simons: Hon. Chair, I'm looking forward to finding out what the answer was in Hansard, but it's okay.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll repeat it. There is no backlog. If a person feels aggrieved, they can go before the tribunal and usually get a hearing date within a number of months. The only delay that is occasioned results from the availability of lawyers.

N. Simons: When the response yesterday was that because it was before, I think, the tribunal or the Supreme Court, the Attorney General was unable to respond on that basis…. I'm just concerned. I suppose it's an issue of semantics. Is there a backlog? Is there a waiting list? Or are there people waiting for the date that has already been set?

I think if my date for a hearing is set for next June…. I'll figure that that's not just a backlog; that's a delay. I'm wondering if there can be a delineation between what community members feel is a delay and what they might perhaps consider a backlog.

Hon. W. Oppal: Most cases can be dealt with within seven months. Cases can be dealt with earlier than that because mediation is available. If you get willing parties who appear before the tribunal and they're prepared to go to mediation, they will achieve early results.

If you want a hearing date, the hearing date can be accommodated within seven months. That's efficient work — when the tribunal has done a good job in a direct-access model in that it is able to accommodate members of the public in a timely way.

N. Simons: Have there been any audits of the work by the ministry in terms of satisfaction with the process and maybe an explanation of some of the delays or waiting times or whatever the minister wants to call them? That's in terms of evaluating independently and objectively the efficiencies of the tribunal.

N. Simons: I was not suggesting there is a desperate need for it. However, when there are statements of fact that indicate things are going well and that they are better and more efficient than ever, I'm just wondering what data might be available to share so that we can all celebrate the successes.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think you can celebrate the success when persons who have disputes can go before either a court or a tribunal, an administrative tribunal, and achieve fair and just results in a timely manner. As a person who has been in the justice system for many years, I can say that achieving a result for a complaint within seven months is something that we can all be proud of.

N. Simons: Far be it from me to suggest in any way that there might be some sort of political expediency in a response like that. I understand the ability of the member to be objective on issues such as this. However, I'm just wondering if we are to take the Attorney General's word for it that everything is fine. I don't think we would do the same kind of auditing systems in any other ministry or for any other program: "Trust me. It's all right."

I wonder if there is some way that maybe we can analyze how many cases came before, how many were resolved before, how many take a certain amount of time to complete, what types of programs need more support, what resources are missing. I would probably want to have some awareness of a number of factors in order to make sure the programs under my purview were run in an administratively fair and an efficient manner.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would welcome any scrutiny or any comments by the member opposite. In the meantime, I can recommend that he avail himself of the annual report that the tribunal files. That would be a good starting point. The numbers are all there.

If there's any other information that the member requires, we're more than prepared to share the information with him. It's in our best interests to see that the tribunal operates effectively and in a just manner.

N. Simons: I agree that it is in the best interest of all of us that we have all sorts of systems that are run in a fair and effective manner. I don't know whether the annual report would contain responses from community outreach agencies and services and whether their level of satisfaction has remained constant, or if they have some concerns and if those are being addressed.

Can the minister identify for us where the systemic problems were identified and how they've been resolved?

Hon. W. Oppal: Maybe this will help. I receive a lot of letters complaining about the functioning of the courts. I receive virtually no letters about the functioning of the Human Rights Tribunal. As a matter of fact, I'm trying to think if I've…. I don't recall receiving a letter. I may have read one in the last year and a half, but I specifically can't recall receiving a letter about anything that the tribunal may have done.

Come to think of it, I received a couple of letters where the tribunal refused to deal with the issue and thought it wasn't a meritorious issue. Those are the only complaints that I've ever received.

N. Simons: Perhaps you didn't receive any letters about specific findings, nor would the minister likely

respond to those in particular. So in terms of the functioning of the tribunal, there have been no complaints from the public?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think it's a fair answer that there haven't been. I might add that I respond to all mail that comes to me.

N. Simons: I would expect nothing less. I didn't mean to imply in any way that you weren't responding to letters sent to you. But thank you for the clarification for those among us who might think otherwise.

May I turn, if possible, to the issue of refugees again, which we touched on yesterday? As you know, the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds and other MLAs in the lower mainland are facing an influx of refugees in numbers that we haven't seen.

The proportion of refugees coming to Canada, arriving in British Columbia, seems to be growing. The challenges that face our communities in making sure these people are treated well and supported and encouraged to become full and active participants in our communities' activities and functioning….

Has the Ministry of Attorney General made special provisions for this new demographic shift that is hitting lower mainland communities — Burnaby in particular — very hard?

Hon. W. Oppal: We really haven't been receiving any extra requests, but I can say that the ministry staff has been meeting with the Burnaby Interagency Council — Burnaby Family Life is included in that — about issues regarding Burnaby's refugee issues. They have a meeting scheduled again for June 12.

Through a request for information, the ministry has requested input from the community regarding outstanding issues. I can say that $250,000 has been budgeted initially for Burnaby. The ministry staff has also met with the Burnaby school district and community service providers about how best to utilize the services of the settlement workers.

We're alive to the issue. We're quite prepared to work with the community. Our staff has been working with the community. A further meeting is set for June 12.

N. Simons: I'm pleased that the ministry's alive to the issue. I wouldn't want to contemplate the alternative. I'm quite aware that the ministry is responding to some issues. My responsibility as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to nudge and push and prod as I can to ensure that certain issues receive the attention that they need.

In this particular case, we're looking at a group of people who have arrived in British Columbia, some of whom are not prepared even to enter the school system — families that are living in poverty, families with very few English language skills.

According to 2003-2004 figures, almost 20 percent of the Burnaby school district consists of ESL students. I think that's probably where a lot of resources need to be geared, as well as the issues of child care and affordable housing.

Once again we have a situation where the Attorney General is responsible for immigration and multiculturalism. We presume that that includes ensuring that citizens in this province have access to the benefits and programs available to everyone.

I'm just wondering if requests for additional support in terms of funding or resources or both have been made by community agency groups in Burnaby and whether or not the ministry is contemplating some response that can meet the urgency of the situation.

Hon. W. Oppal: We have been working with the schools. Our staff has been working with the schools. In fact, $250,000 has been budgeted for Burnaby for workers who go into schools and work with refugee children.

As well, the current funding services for Burnaby include ELSA funding — that's English language services for adults — at $2.2 million in '06-07, and that's up from $1.7 million the previous year. In '04-05 it was $1.5 million. So we have been increasing funding for English as a second language for adults, many of whom are refugees in Burnaby.

We are, as I said, meeting continually with people from the Burnaby social service agencies in order to assist them in the ongoing issues.

N. Simons: Can the minister confirm or deny that B.C. is the only province that doesn't channel 100 percent of funds received from the federal government directly to service providers?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer to your question is no, we're not the only province that executes the duties in that particular way. Pursuant to our agreement with the federal government we contract services through community colleges, through schools, through NGOs and through private companies. That's a condition that we have agreed to with the federal government. I think that answers a concern that's raised by the member.

N. Simons: Yesterday I was canvassing the issue of the federal transfers and where that money would end up going. The minister was clear that the money only went to the Attorney General's office and to the Minister of Economic Development. The response that the Attorney General just gave says that in fact money is going to community colleges, schools, NGOs and private companies.

I understand that obviously there are some private companies and NGOs that do provide services in the community. Schools and community colleges were what I was asking about yesterday in particular — whether or not they were receiving some of the settlement funding so that they could deal with some of the high school kids who don't speak any English.

Hon. W. Oppal: To answer the question, we don't provide any direct services. We contract it out to the groups that I've already mentioned. As well, the Ministry of Economic Development contracts out services. The Ministry of Advanced Education does the same.

We send that out to service providers. We don't provide services within the ministry to people. We listen to proposals, and then the money is expended in that particular fashion.

N. Simons: I just need a little bit of clarification, I'd say. I was trying to figure out yesterday in this estimates process how much of the Attorney General's funding goes to other ministries. Yesterday I think it was $17 million that goes to the Ministry of Economic Development for advanced skills something-or-other. It's in the Hansard. Luckily, there was someone recording.

The issue today is that in fact Advanced Education and the Ministry of Education — and I believe the Attorney General might have mentioned other ministries — are receiving that funding. I would just like to know if there is a breakdown available.

The issue I'm concerned with is that the schools are already underfunded in terms of providing support services to children. Then you add on to that a group of young people who are perhaps not familiar with the school system nor with their environment, coming from a place of poverty, coming from a refugee camp, coming from wherever it may be.

I believe that the Ministry of Education needs to have the resources available so that they don't impact on the school learning environment in the way that they otherwise would.

What is the Ministry of Attorney General providing the Ministry of Education in order to permit children from other countries to adapt and permit children who are in the schools to learn?

Hon. W. Oppal: I should clarify something for the member. The federal government moneys that we get cannot be used for K-to-12. They are not used. That's the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. The funds that we get from the federal government are used for settlement services.

Included in the settlement services are programs for youth and families, particularly the vulnerable families of the type that the member has alluded to. ESL itself, as far as K-to-12 students are concerned, is a matter that's entirely within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. We have nothing to do with that.

N. Simons: As disappointingly empty as that response is, I can't imagine for a moment that the government is not renegotiating a deal that prohibits the use of funding for the K-to-12 population.

One-third of the immigrants and refugees arriving in this country are young people. How is it possible that the funds available for multiculturalism and immigration and settlement services are not going to assist young people and that in fact they're not allowed — prohibited, I believe the Attorney General said — to go towards servicing the needs of K-to-12?

We have to figure out that usually those young people are coming within the context of a family and that they need support from the settlement services.

Hon. W. Oppal: Settlement funds coming from the federal government have a condition attached to them: they cannot be used for ESL in the K-to-12 system.

Having said that, we are now working with the schools in order to assist them in providing funds for youth and families. I think that's what the member was referring to, and that is within our mandate.

Those preconditions that the federal funding has are something that is national in nature. The federal government, with some exceptions, doesn't fund education within the provinces. That's a provincial matter. As I said, we are now engaged in discussions, or will be engaged in discussions, with agencies to see how we can assist youth and families who are in need, for settlement purposes.

B. Ralston: I wanted to change the topic. I wanted to ask the Attorney General a couple of questions about what is called the sub judice — or before the courts — doctrine that is sometimes invoked in the Legislature. I'm looking at the Journals of the House of Commons from the last time this was considered by the House of Commons, the committee on members' privileges.

They quoted there from the distinguished former Speaker of the British House, who was speaking about the doctrine. It's a passage that I want to quote in full, given its importance. It's Selwyn Lloyd, this former Speaker.

In other words, the presumption ought to be a different way. The presumption should be for discussion rather than against it. Given that enunciation of the doctrine — and this is quoted in this…. I have some other questions that arise out of it.

Given that description of the sub judice rule by former Speaker Selwyn Lloyd of the British House of Commons, is the Attorney General prepared to agree, at the very least, with the proposition that matters of general interest ought to be discussable — in this case

in the House of Commons and in our case in the Legislature — and that the presumption should be for discussion rather than against it? It seems to me that the way in which the Attorney General has in recent weeks invoked the privilege is rather the opposite.

Hon. W. Oppal: With all due respect, this really isn't a proper question for estimates. I don't see how this question is relevant. We're doing estimates here.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the Chair can give a ruling on the Attorney General's objection. I don't see it as being something that isn't discussable in estimates. The ambit of estimates is very wide. This arises out of ministry operations and the role of the Attorney General. I'd invite a ruling from the Chair, and if that's not forthcoming, I propose to continue with the questions.

The Chair: In discussing it with the Clerk, you are right in some instances, on this particular one. But we are doing estimates. Basically, what we'd like to do is keep it on the basis of the proceedings as far as estimates. The minister is right, too, in saying this is not part of estimates. If you have a specific question to do with anything, we will decide at that particular time, but we'd like you to stay basically on the proceedings to do with estimates.

B. Ralston: Just so that I'm clear. With respect, are you ruling that the question I asked is out of order? I think it's important. This is an important issue of public policy, a discussion in the province. The minister won't discuss it in the Legislature. Now it appears he won't answer it here. He won't answer it before the media. I had thought this might be an opportunity for the minister to give his thoughts on this issue, but I'd appreciate a clear ruling.

The Chair: At this time I'm not making a ruling, but I'm saying that we want to stay on estimates. We will base our rulings here case by case as they come up. I'd still recommend that you would stay on Vote 16.

B. Ralston: I don't mean to be difficult, but I need guidance from the Chair.

I asked a question. The objection that appeared to be taken by the minister is that it's out of order. If that ruling is accurate, then obviously I won't ask that question or a line of questions that flows from it. I do have some questions arising out of a consideration by a House of Commons committee of this convention, rather than a rule, so I need the guidance of the Chair.

The Chair: I've been informed that we don't debate parliamentary procedure in here. Basically, we stay with estimates, so I'll just ask the member if he'll stay on the estimates and on Vote 16. We're not here to debate procedures.

N. Simons: That brings us back to where I left off, I believe — on the issue of support to immigrants and refugee youth in this province. As you know, the relevance of that issue is heightened by the media reports of youth gangs and hate groups — both relating, in effect, to social dysfunction, as a broad social way of putting it.

The Attorney General enlightened us that in fact the federal government is responsible for settlement services. The money for settlement services goes to settlement services programming, including to the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Advanced Education, the Ministry of Education, and a number of NGOs and various social services agencies.

Hon. W. Oppal: It doesn't go to the Ministry of Education. It goes to the three ministries that I've already referred to: Advanced Education, Economic Development and….

With the new money that we have, we're in discussion with the various ministries as to what we're going to do with that new money. I mentioned that yesterday. We're listening to suggestions, and we're looking for input.

N. Simons: Maybe I'll turn a bit to another issue of importance to community members, lower mainland or anywhere, where there are foreign workers and the issue of immigrant foreign workers. Can the Attorney General tell us what programs currently exist with respect to the speeding-up or enhancing of access to foreign workers?

Hon. W. Oppal: That really is a question that ought best be directed to the Minister of Economic Development, because it's within his jurisdiction.

N. Simons: Well, yes, I understand the minister is putting off, redirecting. That's fine, and those questions need to be asked of the Minister of Labour as well. However, so much to do with foreign workers and immigrant workers has to do with immigration and the rules that govern the entry of workers into the province.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General's office has received some concerns about the treatment of immigrant workers here and their access to services that will address any concerns they might have about their treatment.

Hon. W. Oppal: The federal government is responsible for the entry of immigrants. Once they are here, as far as their treatment and labour conditions and those related issues are concerned, then they become the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour.

I can say that we have not received any information or complaints regarding the treatment of foreign workers.

N. Simons: Well, the point is obvious that foreign workers are expected to be here and work for wages that are different from the citizens. They are not afforded the same rights as citizens in many cases, in terms of access to health care and to other services that are available to others.

I'm just wondering if the Attorney General has any influence over the direction of policy that would allow workers who are here to be afforded the same rights as any other worker in British Columbia.

Hon. W. Oppal: Temporary foreign workers are not entitled to services. Having said that, the children of temporary foreign workers do go to our schools.

B. Ralston: A different question. I see Mr. Gillen is here and may be able to assist in this question. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can advise what public interest and considerations went into forming the Crown counsel policy that an immunity agreement between a person and the Crown had to be in writing.

Hon. W. Oppal: As a matter of general policy, immunity agreements are reduced to writing for the purposes of clarity and certainty.

B. Ralston: Can the minister confirm that the Crown Counsel Policy Manual indeed states that?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm unable to say whether it's in the manual or not, but I can say that it's good practice and good policy anytime. All things considered, it's advisable to have those agreements in writing for certainty and clarity.

B. Ralston: How would the public interest be served or not be served if that general proposition wasn't observed and immunity agreements were not reduced to writing?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not so sure the issue of public interest arises here. I think it's more a question of what the agreement is in any given proceeding. So I don't know if, really, it's in the public interest or not in the public interest.

The real issues are: what is the ambit of the agreement, have the parties lived up to the agreement, and is the agreement certain and clear?

B. Ralston: I take it that the Attorney General agrees with the general proposition, given what he said — that if an agreement is not reduced to writing, problems of clarity and certainty and the obligations of the respective parties to an agreement would arise. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the member is correct in that that's why we have the policy.

B. Ralston: Given that as a general proposition, the Attorney General has stated that it's preferable to have such an agreement in writing. My information is that the Crown Counsel Policy Manual indeed recommends that as a procedural guide for prosecutors operating in the province. Can the minister advise: has there been any change in that general direction to prosecutors operating within the province?

Hon. W. Oppal: We would like to think that the general policy is a correct one, in that having these agreements in writing would provide clarity as to the rights and obligations of the parties who enter into those agreements.

B. Ralston: Does the minister or the ministry administer the policy that relates to the indemnification of cabinet ministers for legal proceedings?

Hon. W. Oppal: The policy is that we provide legal advice to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance, based on our legal advice, then has the ultimate authority to determine whether or not there will be indemnification.

B. Ralston: In giving that legal advice, does that legal advice follow a written policy, or is it decided on a case-by-case basis? If it's in a written policy, could the minister or a member of his staff direct me to the policy?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is a written policy, and we can provide that in due course.

B. Ralston: The minister has said that the ultimate decision as to whether or not to pay the legal fees, I suppose, submitted is that of the Minister of Finance or the Ministry of Finance. What section or group within the Ministry of Finance, as far as this ministry knows, makes that decision?

Hon. W. Oppal: Section 72 of the Financial Administration Act gives the authority to the Minister of Finance to determine whether or not, in the circumstances, there ought to be indemnification.

B. Ralston: Obviously, this policy would apply in the event of a minister or former minister being the subject of civil or criminal proceedings. What is the policy in relation to potential witnesses?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is no written policy as such, but there has been a practice that has grown within the last ten to 12 years that where a person or a legal interest is involved and the issue arises within the scope of employment, then indemnification will follow.

B. Ralston: I take it the Ministry of Attorney General has no role or opinion as to choice of counsel. That's left entirely to the prospective applicant for indemnification?

Hon. W. Oppal: Generally speaking, we defer to the person's choice — the person who's involved in the circumstances of the case.

B. Ralston: Perhaps it's just the minister's choice of words — the word "generally." Are there exceptions to

that policy, where either the Ministry of Attorney General or the Ministry of Finance would intervene and make a suggestion or impose a view? It may be just the minister's choice of language. I'm not sure.

Hon. W. Oppal: Counsel and the ministry often make suggestions, and if another issue arises with respect to whether or not the particular lawyer is prepared to work at government rates…. It's the government that pays those rates, you see.

N. Simons: I'd like to turn now to a program that's a federal program, but it's a program that affects many people here in British Columbia. It's the live-in caregiver program.

As the Attorney General very well knows, this particular program comes under significant criticism for a number of reasons. I'm wondering if the Attorney General could enlighten us as to what concerns have been raised about this program and what attempts have been made to address those concerns. That will save me time — from having to address the litany of concerns that have been raised with me, among others.

Hon. W. Oppal: We have no direct involvement in this program. We have heard the same complaints that the member makes reference to. I can say that the Ministry of Economic Development does have an involvement, in that after two years persons who come here under that live-in caregiver program would have the right to apply under the provincial nominee program, the PNP program, which is administered….

Hon. W. Oppal: I stand corrected. During the two years, they can apply under the PNP program to stay here on a permanent basis.

N. Simons: Well, as the Attorney General well knows, a large number of the Filipino community is affected by programs around immigration. In particular, 60 percent of the Filipino immigrants are women.

Many nurses in the Philippines are encouraged to come to Canada and British Columbia under that live-in caregiver program. It does take, as the Attorney General correctly points out, a significant amount of time before they can access the rights and privileges of being here. I think that common sense and critical thinking will allow us to realize that those who are living in the home of their employer and subject to all of the conditions that that implies are probably among a significantly vulnerable community in terms of workers here in this province.

I'm just wondering what the Ministry of Attorney General is doing to ensure that people here in the live-in caregiver program are being adequately cared for in terms of their rights as employees and rights as British Columbians.

Hon. W. Oppal: This is a matter that really falls within the ambit of the labour standards branch of the Ministry of Labour. Our ministry really doesn't have anything to do with that.

N. Simons: Can the minister assure the House that in fact the Ministry of Labour knows that this is one of their responsibilities?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure they know what their legal responsibilities are. I'm not in a position to go and get an undertaking for the Minister of Labour, but I'm sure she knows full well what her duty is under the law.

N. Simons: I have the greatest respect for the Minister of Labour. That is not the question. My question has to do with…. The responsibility of the Minister of Labour aside, the responsibility for the Ministry of Attorney General is for the settlement of immigrants and the care of temporary workers in terms of their rights and responsibilities.

What is the minister doing to assist those who are here in the live-in caregiver program to achieve the credentials necessary to practise what is probably their area of professional career — nurses, teachers or early childhood educators? What is the Ministry of Attorney General doing to assist those who are here under that program to earn their necessary credentials?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Ministry of Economic Development is well aware of this issue. It's an issue that's live. They know about it. They know that under the provincial nominee program that nurses and other workers can come here and can apply within the two years, and they in fact work with those people. That's really not anything that the Ministry of Attorney General does.

N. Simons: I, for one, believe that it's within the purview of the Attorney General to ensure that people here are accessing the rights and that — whether they're working in somebody's home or working on a RAV line or working anywhere — they should have the rights available to them.

I'm wondering: are there any programs at all for these workers in terms of promoting their access to services, such as ensuring that their rights are respected as employees. Do they know what their rights are as employees? Are they told that? Are they told what redress exists should they be treated badly, should they not be paid, should they be fired — any of those kinds of things??

Is that the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General, or is that someone else's responsibility?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure the member must understand that the Attorney General's ministry doesn't involve itself in matters that are properly in other ministries. That isn't the way government operates. It would be

chaos if the Attorney General started making decisions on Finance, for instance. We have a Finance Minister that does that. On labour issues, we have a Labour Minister and the Labour Ministry that administers employment standards.

Those are all matters that are properly within the purview of the Ministry of Labour, and they really have nothing at all to do with the Ministry of Attorney General. Where we get involved is in the area of settlement services. But save and except for that, if there is a breach of employment standards as such, then that's a matter that falls within the jurisdiction and the purview of the Ministry of Labour.

N. Simons: I would like to just register my discontent with that response. Quite frankly, again, the issue is so easily divided into its component parts, and you can eliminate any responsibility of government in the life of any person in British Columbia. And that's not what I'm looking for.

What I'm trying to figure out is: how are the rights of immigrant workers protected in this province? If it's only the Minister of Labour, then what does the Minister of Labour have from the Ministry of Attorney General to assist immigrants? The Attorney General is also the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and immigration. If you have immigrant workers working in homes that are beyond the view of the Minister of Labour and they don't know how to access their rights and they don't speak the language and their children haven't got day care and a number of other things, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General.

I hate this buck-passing that seems to be prevalent not only in this ministry but in other ministries. Who is going to take responsibility, then, for the women that work in these homes, whose rights may be trespassed upon? Who is going to stand up for them? Are we going to have to find a multilanguage phone number for the Ministry of Labour, or is it going to be one more tribunal that they can't access on line because they haven't access to a computer?

These are issues that the Ministry of Attorney General must respond to. Shouldn't he?

Hon. W. Oppal: With the greatest of conceivable respect, I listened to that, and I didn't even hear a question in that.

What the member here has done is given some personal opinion of his as to how he thinks the Ministry of Attorney General operates and where our jurisdiction ends. We're grateful for his advice.

I think that we have a situation where we've identified specific issues facing immigrant workers, specific issues facing refugees, specific issues facing people whose first language is not English. They appear not only in Labour; they appear in Education. They appear in a number of cross-ministerial boundaries. And every single ministry that we go to when we ask about the rights of people who are not born in Canada will say: "Go to the minister responsible" — every single time. This is bafflegab in the administrative sense.

I, for one, don't accept the minister's characterization of my little speech there as personal opinion. These are the opinions expressed through interpreters given the opportunity to express their concerns.

I think that it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General to ensure that everybody that comes to Canada has the supports necessary. If there are loopholes in that or if there is any suggestion that there are a large number of people in our community who are not accessing the information they need to preserve their rights, then it is the responsibility of the Attorney General — isn't it?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know how I can answer that. I can say first of all that, contrary to what the view of the member is, what he alleges is not the responsibility of the Attorney General. We are responsible for the Human Rights Tribunal if there is abuse of human rights and it falls within the Human Rights Code. Obviously, that's something that the Human Rights Tribunal — an independent tribunal — will address.

But the member has gone on here at length about people being abused at work and workers being taken advantage of and exploited. He somehow thinks that's the Attorney General's responsibility, and there's buck-passing if I don't assume responsibility.

We have laws, and we have other ministries here. We have a Ministry of Labour, and I've said that already. I don't know if it would serve any useful purpose for me to repeat what I've already said, and that is that if people are being abused and being exploited by employers, there are remedies for that. There are interpreters that are available in different languages so that they can go there and get assistance.

B. Ralston: In the brief time that remains, I have a couple of questions that arise out of the minister's responsibility for the Securities Commission. I don't know whether he has someone here who can assist him in those answers, but I do have a couple of questions.

The Task Force to Modernize Securities Legislation in Canada, which tabled its final report, called Canada Steps Up, late last fall, spoke of what is called in the securities industry and known in global capital markets as the made-in-Canada discount.

The reason for that discount is that it's widely regarded that securities regulation in Canada is of a substandard quality compared to other jurisdictions, such that equities generally in the Canadian market trade at a discount. In other words, the weakness and the ineffectiveness of the securities regulation is factored into the market price of equities and other financial instruments in Canada.

This task force set out to examine and make a number of proposals as to how that problem might be remedied. This jurisdiction is notorious for a variety of financial scams and, I would suggest, weak securities enforcement.

In the document at page 38 they talk about what they call the "new" British Columbia Securities Act and state that British Columbia began a consultation process in 2002 to determine the best options for streamlining and simplifying its securities regulatory regime. I understand there is a bill before the House that would deal with some of those recommendations, but generally this process has been ongoing for some five years.

Can the minister explain where that review is at? It was initiated in 2002. Where is it at, and what are the prospects to speed up this rather torturously slow process?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is a bill before the House now, and it deals with harmonization and the passport system. What has happened is that the provinces and the territories, with the exception of Ontario, have entered into a memorandum of understanding wherein we would have a harmonization process so as to have more uniformity across the country. There would be a passport system that goes along with that.

That bill is now before the House, and we would like to see it passed this spring. Much has come out of what took place in 2002.

B. Ralston: My understanding is that the province of Alberta has recently changed its view of a single national securities regulator. There is a current of opinion that is more widely shared than I think the minister is acknowledging that a single national securities regulator would bring about the kind of efficiency, effectiveness and enforcement of regulation that would end the made-in-Canada discount.

Thus far, as I understand the policy of British Columbia, British Columbia is not prepared to endorse that view. Could the minister clarify just what the position of British Columbia is on a national securities regulator that would bring about effective national enforcement of securities law?

Hon. W. Oppal: Just to correct the member. While the minister responsible for securities in Alberta expressed an opinion for a national regulator…. In fact, I spoke to him a few weeks ago. However, the Premier of Alberta has disagreed with that. So the last we've heard is that Alberta proposes to go ahead with the harmonization and the passport system.

The question of whether or not there ought to be a national regulator is a matter that has been open to considerable discussion. The province of Ontario is strongly in favour of a national regulator. In fact, the Crawford report, authorized by Purdy Crawford, strongly recommends that.

I've had meetings with Mr. Crawford, as well as the securities minister from Ontario. What we have to determine here is whether, having regard to our markets, it would be in the best interest of British Columbia to have a national regulator, more than likely based in Ontario, as opposed to the system that we're now embarking on.

We don't rule out the possibility of a national regulator. It may be in our best interests, the best interests of British Columbia, to have a national regulator. But that's an issue that's still very much open for discussion.

B. Ralston: Given that it's open for discussion, what are the minister's views? What is the position of the government? I detect some equivocation in the position. Is the minister in favour of a national regulator or not?

Hon. W. Oppal: We're focused now on the passport and harmonization system so as to make our regulations harmonious with other provinces so investors in other provinces can have access to our markets and to the regulators in our markets. That's what we're really in favour of now.

It may well be that in time, with globalization and all the other issues that are taking place, a national regulator may be appropriate. But at this stage we're committed to the terms of the memorandum of understanding that we've entered into with nine provinces plus the two territories.

B. Ralston: Given the chronic problem that has been identified publicly, I would say, has been weak and ineffective enforcement by the Securities Commission in securities markets in British Columbia, can the minister identify how the proposed system that British Columbia has entered into will produce superior results than the current system, which appears to be very unsatisfactory?

Hon. W. Oppal: In fairness to the B.C. Securities Commission, there have been a number of ongoing initiatives that they have encouraged and are embarking upon. There is a proactive campaign now going on warning investors of potential pitfalls that may exist in the marketplace. They're moving into the multicultural communities, many members of which have been involved in the scams that the member alludes to. So the Securities Commission is doing many proactive things.

It's important to note that while enforcement is important, it's far more productive to be proactive so as to prevent frauds and wrongdoings in the marketplace from taking place so that we get involved in the process before there is victimization.

As far as the enforcement issue is concerned, we are working together with the other provinces — there is a national working group right now — to see how we can increase our level of enforcement. I'm well aware of the comments that have been made, and we recognize that the comments and criticisms that are made of the enforcement system have a negative impact as far as the investment climate in this province is concerned.

I want the member to know that this is a matter of some concern to us. In fact, there is a securities ministers meeting

in Toronto or Ottawa in the middle of June. There are ongoing discussions, and we are very much alive to what's taking place.

The chair of the B.C. Securities Commission, Mr. Hyndman, in 2005-2006 received $323,939 in salary — $151,238 for performance, it's called; and $70,000 for travel expenses. Can the minister advise the Legislature what criteria were used to arrive at the $151,000 figure for performance? Is he prepared to table those documents in the Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: The salaries are set by outside commissioners, by a policy that was established in 1998 by the then government. It was at that time that the salaries got to where they did.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that this committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

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.