Hansard — Wednesday, March 12, 2008 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		10481

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10481
	Homelessness
	D. Chudnovsky
	Holi Festival
	J. Nuraney
	Upper Pitt River watershed
	M. Sather
	Provincial high school curling championship
	K. Whittred
	Proposal for Upper Pitt River power project
	S. Simpson
	South Peace Secondary curling teams
	B. Lekstrom

Oral Questions		10483
	Government response to actions of Ken Dobell and Jessica McDonald
	C. James
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Lobbyists registration legislation
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Government response to actions of Ken Dobell
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. W. Oppal
	D. Thorne
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Government response to actions of Ken Dobell and Jessica McDonald
	R. Fleming
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. Kwan

Petitions		10488
	C. Evans
	S. Fraser

Second Reading of Bills		10488
	Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 12)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	S. Fraser
	Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House		10493
	Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 7) (continued)
	C. Wyse
	Hon. I. Chong
	G. Robertson

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10507
	Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 7)

Committee of the Whole House		10508
	Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act (Bill 6)
	B. Ralston
	Hon. W. Oppal
	J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10511
	Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services (continued)
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. O. Ilich
	K. Conroy
	B. Ralston

Hon. W. Oppal: In the precinct today are five people who are part of the Attorney General's articling program and the continuing legal education students. They are Jody Leon, Cory Bargen, Anne Silsbe, Kate Hamm and Rumon Carter. They're accompanied by staff legislative counsel Dawn Leroy. Let's make them welcome.

M. Sather: There are a number of people joining us in the gallery today, who are here to talk to MLAs about independent power production. Some of them are here particularly to talk about the Upper Pitt.

I want to introduce Gwen Barlee from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee; Elaine Golds from the Burke Mountain Naturalists; Dan Gerak, who's the owner of the Pitt River Lodge in the Upper Pitt; and Denise Reinhardt from Malaspina Communities for Public Power. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: Hon. Members, on behalf of the Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated in the gallery today. They are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. The workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Simons: I'd like to echo the words of my friend from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in welcoming Denise Reinhardt, a resident of Powell River and a strong advocate for all the good things. I'd like to welcome Mike Bruce, who is also in the House and a strong protector of our rivers and the public interest that they serve.

May I also beg your indulgence to introduce to the world my new nephew — I figured this would happen; someone should have told me not to do it — who was born to my sister Anne, a graduate of the University of British Columbia with a master's in music. He was born Christopher Jan James, 10 pounds, 6 ounces. Welcome to the world.

B. Lekstrom: It's my honour today and a privilege to introduce two very special guests to the House here this afternoon. The first is His Worship Mayor Calvin Kruk from the city of Dawson Creek. Please make him welcome.

As well, a very special guest, a person I don't get to introduce very often in this House, is my wife Vicki. Please make her very welcome today.

S. Simpson: I want to join my friend from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in welcoming some of the people who are here to talk about private power projects and particularly the Pitt River. Again, Mike Bruce, who's joined by Sage Aaron. They're both here from COPE 378. Lee-Ann Unger is from the West Kootenay EcoSociety, and Joe Foy is from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Please make them welcome.

G. Gentner: It is indeed a pleasure to introduce to the House members of Delview Secondary School. There are 99 students visiting here with us today, and they're taking shifts. There's a few here in the gallery, and others are going to join us later this afternoon.

Delview has the distinction of probably, without question, conducting the largest food blitz in the province. They go out there, and they do their best in one day and gather enough cans in order to look after the Surrey Food Bank. Could the House please give them a warm welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: Yesterday in Metro Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and a number of other centres, hundreds of volunteers counted people who are homeless in our communities. I was privileged to be one of those volunteers.

There are two reasons why the homeless count is a vital exercise. First, we need to know the breadth and depth of the crisis so that we can develop appropriate policies and legislation to improve the situation. Second, we owe it to every one of the thousands of people in our province who are homeless to notice them — to acknowledge them, to tell them that in at least this small way they matter — and to remind everyone that the homeless people of B.C. are not an alien species from another planet. They are our sons and our daughters, our brothers and sisters. They are us.

The preliminary results will be available in a few weeks, but there are already indications the numbers will be dramatically higher than three years ago when the last counts were done.

I want to thank the volunteers who took the time to meet, speak with and count their neighbours who are homeless. I want to thank the caregivers and service providers who every day do their best to provide hope and support in a circumstance that is at present very bleak.

Most of all, I want to thank those thousands of British Columbians who are homeless for their courage, for their resilience and especially for their patience in the face of a crisis which every day challenges them and shames and demeans the rest of us.

I ask every MLA to commit today and every day to the eradication of homelessness in British Columbia. It's a crisis we can solve. It's a crisis we must solve.

J. Nuraney: Holi is a festival celebrated by members of the Hindu community across the world. It is essentially the celebration of various mythologies and legends.

One of the legends is a story of Prahlad and Hiranyakashipu, the powerful king who considered himself god and wanted everybody to worship him. His son Prahlad did not follow his wishes and worshipped Lord Vishnu instead. The king's plan to kill his son did not prevail, and Prahlad was miraculously saved.

The festival, therefore, celebrates the victory of good over evil and also the triumph of devotion. In Holi, people follow good conduct in their lives and believe in the virtue of being truthful. This is extremely important in the modern society when we see so many people resort to evil practices for small gains and torture the ones who tell the truth.

Devotees celebrate this festival by playing with colour meant for pure enjoyment. Shree Mahalakshmi Temple in Vancouver celebrates this festival each year by bringing together members of all communities and makes it a celebration of diversity.

I offer my congratulations to the members of the Hindu community and say: let the colours shower joy.

M. Sather: The Upper Pitt River watershed is a spectacularly wild area at the north end of Pitt Lake. When one drives up the Pitt on a clear day, with beautiful Pitt Lake ahead of one, surrounded by Pinecone Burke Provincial Park to the west, Golden Ears Provincial Park to the east and the massive snowfields and glaciers of Garibaldi Provincial Park to the north, it's got to be one of the very best places on earth.

The Upper Pitt hosts the most diverse salmon fishery in the entire lower Fraser Valley, with all five species of Pacific salmon — sockeye, chinook, coho, pink and chum — spawning in the watershed. Some species, like the sockeye and pinks, spawn in the river itself as well as in the tributary creeks. These creeks are the salmon breadbasket of the Upper Pitt.

The Pitt River comes right off the glaciers and is too cold to be highly productive in terms of the aquatic invertebrates, the bugs, on which the salmon and trout feed. The lower reaches of the tributary creeks are where the production occurs.

The Upper Pitt is also rich in wildlife. A threatened population of grizzly bears roams the area and depends on a variety of habitats, including the wetlands along Pinecone and Steve creeks. Roosevelt elk were recently introduced to the Upper Pitt and are apparently doing well. It seems that this has encouraged a magnificent pack of wolves to establish themselves in the Upper Pitt.

Although not easily accessible, the Upper Pitt is just 50 kilometres from Vancouver. With such a magnificent jewel so close to where so many British Columbians live, let's all work together to ensure that it remains wild.

K. Whittred: Last week my community had the honour of hosting some 80 talented and eager young athletes, who were competing in the provincial high school curling championships at the North Shore Winter Club. These athletes came from every corner of the province. Each team was already a zone champion now competing to be provincial champ.

It was my pleasure to participate in the awards ceremony, and an outstanding ceremony it was. The zone champions were introduced and received handsome awards. Impressive trophies for the champion, second and third place were presented by Rio Tinto Alcan for both the girls and boys divisions.

Next year B.C. will host the junior world championships at Hillcrest Park, a 100,000-square-foot ice curling facility which seats 6,000. This major international competition will be held at the new curling venue for the Olympics, and it is but one of many international sporting events being hosted in our community as a preview to 2010.

I would like to thank all those who share in making a major provincial event such as this possible — the parents who support and drive their children to and from the rink; the high school and community coaches who volunteer their time; B.C. School Sports, who assists with the funding; B.C. high school curling; especially my old friend from my own high school curling days, Mo Williams, who organized the event each year; and Rio Tinto Alcan, who has sponsored this event since 1964.

Most of all, I want to thank the skilled athletes who were model ambassadors for their schools and communities. Congratulations to all.

S. Simpson: British Columbia has many beautiful and important rivers across our province — rivers like the Upper Pitt and the Ashlu — that are valued by anglers, kayakers, environmentalists and others, who appreciate their elegance and value to all British Columbians. There is now a growing awareness of another relatively new activity around our rivers involving small hydroelectric power projects, known as run-of-the-river projects.

British Columbians, as we all know, both inside and outside this chamber hold strong views on these initiatives. British Columbians are weighing whether this is green power. Questions are asked about the role these projects play in the future of B.C. Hydro and around the economics and self-sufficiency.

This is an important discussion for British Columbians, particularly as they become more aware of the issues surrounding run-of-the-river projects — largely because of the application, I believe, on the Upper Pitt. The Upper Pitt River project, because of its proximity to the lower mainland, its current activities on the river around the fishery and habitat protection as well as the proposal around transmission lines in the park, has generated great interest.

We have seen this significant interest in this application reflected in public meetings on the project — 500 people at a meeting in Pitt Meadows, 300 more in Mission. We now hear that the proponent and the environmental assessment office are planning a further meeting in Pitt Meadows, likely for March 25.

My point on this is that since this meeting is occurring during our break from the Legislature, I look forward to being able to attend and to learn more about the project and about the public's views. I would invite the Minister of Environment and all MLAs here on both sides to join me so that we can all learn more by our attendance and demonstrate our interest in this matter of important public policy for all British Columbians.

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure today to rise and speak on an issue that my colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale raised in her speech earlier, and that is on the B.C. high school provincial curling championships. I rise today to speak on this issue because we are certainly very proud of the young men that came from South Peace Secondary School in Dawson Creek not only to participate in this provincial championship but to win it. We're very proud of them.

They were led by their coach, Miss Betty Hanston from Dawson Creek. Their skip was Bruce Frederickson, who is a grade 12 student. The third was Travis Jones from grade 11. The second was Jordan Stanke, who is in grade 10. The lead was Tanner Clouthier, who is also in grade 10.

We have a proud history of curling in the Peace country and in Dawson Creek, and it's nice today to be able to give this talk while His Worship Mayor Calvin Kruk is here from Dawson Creek. He didn't come down just to hear me give this two-minute speech, but it's nice that we could do it on the same day he's here.

I do want to add that not only our boys participated, but our girls from South Peace Secondary School as well. They were led by their coach, Don Bourassa. The skip was Laine Bourassa, followed by team members Sydney Mcleod, Melissa Lees, Richelle Wards and Brooklyn Lindstrom. Although they didn't win the championship this year, I know that they give it their all and their best. I do want to point out that the girls team won the provincial championship last year, so we do have a proud tradition.

On behalf of the people I represent in Peace River South and, I'm sure, on behalf of all of my colleagues here in the House and all British Columbians, we want to congratulate them all for their activities and their efforts not only on the ice but off the ice as well. They are true sportsmen, all of the participants that took part.

C. James: Earlier today Ken Dobell, the Premier's closest adviser and friend, pled guilty to violating B.C.'s lobbyist laws, but the Premier refuses to hold anyone accountable. The Premier and his office have been tainted by this very serious ethical breach — an ethical breach that the Premier himself condoned. What is the Premier's response? To bury his head in the sand and pretend that nothing is wrong.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Will she denounce Ken Dobell's actions, cut all ties with him and fire the Premier's deputy minister who signed off on a scheme that the special prosecutor called influence-peddling?

Hon. W. Oppal: Both the Crown and the defence made their arguments before the Hon. Judge Galati this morning. The judge has reserved his decision. The principle becomes even more important — that is, the principle of the rule of law — and we'll let the judge make the decision.

C. James: I'd like to remind the Attorney General that Ken Dobell, the Premier's closest friend and adviser, just pled guilty. He pled guilty today. It's time for some real answers. I don't know how many more delays this government can find and how many more excuses they can come up with.

The question isn't how this happened. We know that already. Ken Dobell ignored the law. The Premier's Deputy Minister Jessica McDonald signed off on a scheme that the special prosecutor is calling influence-peddling. The real question is why the Premier won't hold anyone accountable.

Mr. Dobell isn't the only one to blame. It was the Premier that actually approved this scheme. My question, again, to the Deputy Premier: will she today fire the Premier's deputy minister and finally restore integrity to the tainted office of the Premier?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's unfortunate that the opposition leader has absolutely no respect for the rule of law or for the independence of our courts. Judge Galati doesn't need any advice from that opposition leader as to what is a proper….

C. James: What the Attorney General is closing his ears to is that this is advice for the government. This is

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

This is about government accountability. This is about the Premier's accountability directly. Ken Dobell today pled guilty, but the Premier continues to say: "It's just fine; not to worry. We're going to keep working with him. We've got ministers all over government who are going to keep working with him."

Perhaps the Attorney General doesn't like to listen to this side of the House, but perhaps he'll listen to Ken Dobell's own words. He said today: "This is not an issue to be taken lightly." Perhaps the government will listen to his own words.

My question again to the Deputy Premier: will she finally take action, will she hold herself and her government accountable, and will she cut all ties with Ken Dobell today?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, this is the classic difference of the solemn environment and the atmosphere of a courtroom and the bombast and the nonsensical arguments that you hear in this chamber.

Hon. W. Oppal: We have, on the one hand, two officers of the court, the Crown counsel and the defence lawyer, both submitting their arguments in an objective manner before a judge. The judge said that he will consider the arguments on both sides, and he will impose a sentence under the law under the Lobbyists Registration Act. We'll wait for that decision.

M. Karagianis: Well, maybe we have something that the Attorney General actually can take responsibility for, for a change. Yesterday the Attorney General said that he didn't know of any legislation that prevents people convicted under lobbyist laws from continuing to lobby. Clearly, the Attorney General has not done his homework. Under the federal act, a lobbyist convicted like Ken Dobell would be suspended for two years.

To the Attorney General. Here's a question he can answer because it's his responsibility. Will he commit today to bring B.C.'s lobbyist registry laws up to standards, the standards of the federal law, so that people like Ken Dobell will be suspended when they break the rules?

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to convey a news flash to that member. It's not the federal act. It's the provincial act. There's a difference.

I'm pleased that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin got up to speak, because I want to….

Hon. W. Oppal: This is what she said earlier this year: "I'm asking the Crown to proceed in this matter so that Mr. Dobell's actions can be properly judged in a court of law."

M. Karagianis: Aren't we glad that's exactly what's happened here in the province of British Columbia?

M. Karagianis: Frankly, the Attorney General missed completely the point of the last question, because I am talking about the provincial lobbyist registry act. The Attorney General has told reporters that he doesn't think it's a priority — the lobbyist laws here in British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: Well, I guess the Attorney General hasn't noticed the huge ethical breach that's occurring within the government on his side of the House.

M. Karagianis: Well, I would say apparently the Attorney General has not noticed that there is a huge ethical breach taking place on this side of the House with his own government. He has been in denial about this for absolutely months and is not recognizing the problem.

But you know what? Let's move on from that, because the Attorney General seems unable to answer our questions. You know what? Let's talk to the Minister of Transportation. Mr. Dobell is lobbying him right now on behalf of Cubic Transportation Systems. Mr.

Dobell has just pled guilty to violations of the lobbyist law. Will you sever all ties and all future meetings with Mr. Dobell?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's fairly clear to me that that member has absolutely no understanding of the law — none at all. Six years ago the lobbyist act was passed unanimously with the endorsement of the opposition. They supported a clear set of remedies that are set out in the act. The judge is aware….

Hon. W. Oppal: The judge is aware of the act and what the act stands for as far as penalties are concerned. The opposition seems to be concerned about any future conduct of Mr. Dobell. Surely the judge is capable of deciding that. It's not up to us to decide that. It's up to a judge to decide that. That's called the rule of law.

D. Thorne: It is stunning that on the very day he pleads guilty, the B.C. Liberals still refuse to fire Ken Dobell. Not only is he lobbying the Minister of Transportation, I understand he's set up to lobby the Minister for Housing.

Given Mr. Dobell's guilty plea and conviction, will the Minister for Housing do what the Premier is unwilling to do and cut all ties with Mr. Dobell?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure the judge will make the appropriate decision as to what will happen to Mr. Dobell.

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't think that Judge Galati needs the advice from any members of the opposition or anyone else in determining what the proper course of conduct is in this case.

D. Thorne: Ken Dobell did indeed plead guilty. It's wonderful that the Attorney General is willing to acknowledge that here in this House. I'm sure the Attorney General would also agree with me that if Mr. Dobell was in Ottawa, he would be suspended from lobbying for two years.

I'm asking, again, to the Minister for Housing: will he suspend all lobbying activities with Ken Dobell and stop protecting the Premier's convicted friend?

Hon. W. Oppal: In a courtroom, that would be called an irrelevant question because we're not….

Hon. W. Oppal: We're not in Ottawa. We in this province abide by the provincial legislation. I don't know why that's so difficult for the members opposite to understand. It's a provincial law that's applicable. The federal law is not any more applicable than the law of Argentina.

N. Macdonald: Let's be clear here. We are talking about political decisions. This has nothing to do with the courts. The Premier has refused to cut ties with his convicted friend, his convicted chief adviser.

N. Macdonald: It is a political decision that the Premier has made — to not cut those ties. It speaks to the integrity of this government. Let's be clear on that. It sets those standards.

The Minister of Transportation. He will not tell this House that he is going to refuse to meet with Ken Dobell. He will continue to meet with somebody convicted of lobbying infractions. That is a political decision, and it speaks to the standards of this government.

The Minister for Housing refuses to do the right thing, so let's go to the Minister of Tourism. Given that Mr. Dobell is convicted, will the Minister of Tourism stand up now and tell the people of British Columbia that there is some level of integrity in this government and that he will refuse to meet with Mr. Dobell — refuse to be lobbied by a convicted friend of this government?

Hon. W. Oppal: The judge will apply the law, and the judge will impose the sentence according to the law set out by the Lobbyists Registration Act. That's the course of conduct that will take place. That's what happens in a courtroom. I would expect that's what will happen here when Judge Galati renders his decision.

N. Macdonald: We are talking about a clear lack of integrity at the heart of this government. That's what this is about — a clear lack of integrity.

Ken Dobell broke the law. He broke the law. For the rest of society, there is a host of consequences that comes with that.

N. Macdonald: Those consequences should apply to a close friend of the Premier as well. The question I have is: will this government at this time remove Ken Dobell as chair of the finance committee of VANOC? Will they do that immediately?

Hon. M. de Jong: This principle apparently is not an important one for members of the opposition. But there are members in this chamber who will recall that not that long ago, when attempts were made to interfere in a fundamental facet of our judicial system — that is, sentencing — politicians were severely criticized, as well they should.

So the member, with impunity and for political advantage, at a time when the judge is seized of the matter and on the verge of making a decision, seeks to invite….

Hon. M. de Jong: He seeks to interfere and invite interference from the executive branch of government. They will. We won't. We respect the rule of law. That — it has become abundantly clear — is a feature that divides this side of the House from that side of the House.

R. Fleming: That member has just talked about political advantage, respect for the rule of law. I could swear that's the same member who was accused and had to settle with Mr. Dhaliwal for political vandalism and reprehensible behaviour. He knows it well.

Today Mr. Dobell is guilty. But to this Attorney General, it's just another day. The man of many hats — it's just another day. There are more billable hours to come. Nothing has changed. You know what? British Columbians aren't going to stand for that.

My question to the Attorney General: will he ask the Premier to hold himself and his deputy minister accountable for signing off on this illegal arrangement that has now led to a conviction?

Hon. M. de Jong: So we have returned — the opposition has — to a theme of yesterday — actually, a theme of the last number of months in this chamber.

Members know that in April of last year the deputy to the Premier, in a thoughtful, dutiful and careful way…

Hon. M. de Jong: …sought to canvass the issue of conflict, perceived conflict or apparent conflict. In so doing, she sought the advice of the deputy for the Public Service Agency, and she sought the advice of the Deputy Attorney General. On the basis of that advice, she rendered an opinion.

Nothing has been said, nothing has been found to contradict the advice that she provided on the basis of having consulted with those two senior public sector servants. The fact that those members opposite don't seem to understand that or, more particularly, don't want to understand it shows the blatant disregard and the maliciousness of the attack they have purported to launch on a senior public servant, a dutiful public servant — that is, the deputy to the Premier.

R. Fleming: What an eloquent description for the arrangement that has unravelled now in court — a story of insiders and entitlement. Let's go over it for one minute and then ask the question.

The former Deputy Minister to the Premier, until 2005, leaves the job. But before he goes, he handpicks the current deputy minister as a successor. No sooner is he out the door than he negotiates a desk in the Premier's office with his chosen successor. That's who he negotiates it with. He calls himself a content consultant. He's an unregistered lobbyist with a growing practice — very cozy. Then he gets caught, and today he's convicted.

She failed the test. Yes, she did conduct a review. She failed the test. She was in gross error. Our question is: when will she be held accountable for her poor judgment and conduct?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is hard to listen and not quickly come to the conclusion that they see the entire justice system as woefully redundant. Why have it, when the opposition is apparently so eminently capable of deciding what the issues are, coming to their own conclusions, making their own findings and being judge, jury and executioner all on their own?

The deputy to the Premier consulted with, amongst others, the Deputy Attorney General. This opposition has in the last seven days already been chastened, already been chastised for casting aspersions on the Deputy Attorney General, and today we see it again. They seem to think that they've got the training. They seem to think that they can replace their opinions for those of the courts, the Deputy Attorney General. They're wrong, and again they reveal that they have no regard for the rule of law in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: On April 27, 2007, here's what Jessica McDonald said: "Does this matter bring the B.C. public service into disrepute? No. I'm not aware of any evidence that Mr. Dobell's conduct as Deputy Minister to the Premier was in any way contrary to the standards of conduct required of public officials."

Last I checked, the public officials ought to be abiding by the laws that this government sets. Ken Dobell just entered a guilty plea in violation of the lobbyist registration. Jessica McDonald, Ken Dobell's protégé, just happened to overlook Ken Dobell's violation of this government's own laws. Jessica McDonald cooked up and approved a scheme that the Crown prosecutor called influence-peddling.

J. Kwan: Under these circumstances, how could this government possibly have confidence in Jessica McDonald? Will this government — will anybody from that side of the bench — stand up and do the right thing and call for Jessica McDonald to resign today?

Hon. M. de Jong: I predict that we have just heard commentary in this House that won't be repeated outside.

Hon. M. de Jong: The difference between this hon. member and some of her colleagues is that while she chooses to quote selectively from the document, some of her colleagues choose to create documents.

In the document that the member just quoted from, I would remind her of the following passage: "In completing this memorandum to you, I have requested and incorporated the views of both the Deputy Premier of the Public Service Agency and the Deputy Attorney General."

Ms. McDonald sought out advice from the most senior public servants whose reputation, except in the eyes of this opposition, is beyond reproach. This hon. member, I regret to say today, has launched a malicious, unscrupulous, scurrilous and reprehensible attack on a senior public servant. It is without warrant, and she should apologize.

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

In Ken Dobell's little essay to the Crown, he wrote: "Pay attention and read the legislation." It turns out the Premier's special adviser failed to observe the laws that this government brought in, but he was not the only one. Jessica McDonald, the deputy to the Premier, also failed to pay attention and read the legislation. Surely this is not acceptable to even this government, whose primary defence for everything is that it's before the courts.

Let us be clear. Ignorance is no defence. Will the Deputy Premier stand up today and restore integrity in the Premier's office and fire Jessica McDonald?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am saddened by what I hear here today. A moment ago it was an allegation of some deliberate attempt to try and subvert the law. Then a moment later it was a different story.

This opposition, in their desperate attempt to achieve some kind of political advantage or political victory, chooses to malign the character maliciously of individuals who have chosen to serve this province.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member and her colleagues do not simply impugn the motives, abilities or honour of the deputy to the Premier. In the very document that the member quoted from, it is made abundantly clear that the opinion she rendered with respect to the issue of conflict, apparent conflict, appearance of conflict…. She enjoyed the benefit of having consulted with two deputy ministers, including the deputy minister to the Attorney General.

Though we already know from these opposition benches that they care not a whit nor have any regard for the honour of those senior public servants, we do, Ms. McDonald does, and the government does. And we will stand by them even in the face of the unscrupulous attacks we've heard today.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, you'll remember that last year I presented a petition against the paving of Formosa blueberry farm when TransLink proposed to put a road through the middle of the farm. TransLink now desires to put a second road across the farm.

C. Evans: …of 5,000 people asking the Crown to intervene to stop this farm from being divided again.

S. Fraser: I present a petition from another thousand residents of British Columbia asking this government to act on protecting animals from dangerous antifreeze.

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. In this chamber, second reading of Bill 12, the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act.

It really is a delight and an honour to rise in the House and move second reading of the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act. In technical terms, this is the legislation that enables the government to meet some of the commitments contained in the agreement that we signed with the Musqueam just over 24 hours ago.

It was a tremendous event. When the legislation was tabled yesterday, we had some of the leadership and members of the Musqueam First Nation here. I can tell you that there was a feeling of pride, satisfaction and a reflective nature on the part of many of the people there.

We use the term "historic," and this is another case where I believe it's appropriate. It's appropriate given the nature of the relationship that has existed between the province of British Columbia, the Crown, and the Musqueam for many, many years — many decades, in fact. As I'll point out in the course of my remarks, we see an important cycle of litigation, I believe, breaking with this agreement.

The bill will vest ownership of the University golf course and two parcels of land in Pacific Spirit Regional Park to the Musqueam. The legislation also amends zoning on one of those parcels and addresses issues of compensation.

The agreement — and this legislation, which gives it life — gives us collectively an opportunity to write a new chapter in the history of the relations between the province and the Musqueam. It moves us, I believe, beyond the era of litigation to a new era of reconciliation — indeed, a new relationship with the Musqueam Indian band.

There are, I am advised by Chief Campbell and others, just over 1,200 members of the Musqueam First Nation. They are a Coast Salish people. I am told that the word actually means people of the river grass. Just as the river grass has ebbed and flowed and flourished and declined, so too has that been the case for the Musqueam, particularly over the past 150 years.

They have never wavered in terms of their commitment and attachment to the land that they have called home for so many generations. The main community is in the Point Grey area of Vancouver, and at only 190 acres, it is truly one of the smallest reserves in Canada. Because of that, a great many of the Musqueam are obliged to live off reserve.

Fully 60 percent of the homes that are on the existing reserve are in need of major repairs. The Musqueam band and band council, I am advised, have in excess of 200 individuals on their housing list looking for a place to live within the community. That need isn't going to diminish.

The population of the Musqueam is growing at a rate of 6 percent per year. Not unlike many aboriginal communities, we find that at a time when our overall demographic in Canada is growing older, amongst first nations like the Musqueam there is, happily, an influx of youth that continues.

There hasn't been much in the way of new community facilities built over the last 25 years, and most of the existing facilities are in need of upgrade. For the men and women who live within the Musqueam community, we talk about that socioeconomic gap. Once again, it reveals itself in a significant gap in terms of earnings between Musqueam and non-aboriginal British Columbians. Truly, for years the Musqueam have been struggling to gain a measure of control over resources and to develop a capacity that would allow them to build a more promising future for their citizens, for their families.

I don't think I have to tell anyone in this chamber that over the past century the Musqueam's traditional territory has undergone tremendous change. It really has been engulfed by the city of Vancouver. That has operated in a profound way to alter, obviously, the lives of people that live in Vancouver but most particularly the Musqueam themselves. They have seen that development occur, have been close enough to touch it yet been separated from it and not been a part of it and not enjoyed the benefits that should have flowed from it.

That has, in more recent times, given rise to a spate of litigation and a number of cases, some of them very prominent in terms of the jurisprudence that has grown up around aboriginal law in British Columbia. Some of those cases lie at the root of the agreement that we are discussing today and the legislation that gives it effect — litigation involving the university golf course lands; the Bridgepoint lands in Richmond; and the Celtic Shipyards, which relates to a slightly different issue before the courts involving contamination and liability for the cleanup of the contaminated site.

The breakthrough — and I think it is appropriate to speak of the breakthrough — occurred when we were able to sit down in good faith and say: "Now, how do we solve this?" Not just the litigation, but how do we place our relationship at a different level? It has been a relationship characterized by an adversarialism, a resort to the courts. How are we going to change that? And how are we, at the same time, going to ensure that there is a foundation built upon which the Musqueam as a community can move forward? That's what lies at the heart of the agreement and this bill that flows from that.

After 2005, with truly some specific encouragement from the courts, the parties were able to come together and achieve an agreement. I just want to take a moment to relate to the House some of the specifics around that agreement.

When the agreement takes effect, it will provide for Musqueam ownership of four parcels of land and a cash payment of $20.3 million to the Musqueam. They will acquire 59 hectares of land currently owned by UBC, subject to a restrictive covenant that that land continue to be used for golf course purposes until the year 2083 — long after, I think, most of us will be reaching into our bag for a nine-iron, but maybe not.

With respect to the Bridgepoint Casino property, which is seven hectares, that will be acquired by the Musqueam, but along with it is a requirement that the existing leases be honoured. Then finally, two parcels of land presently within Pacific Spirit Regional Park will be transferred to the Musqueam, and that amount totals 22.3 hectares.

I just want to talk about the land for a moment, because it is a key feature of the agreement and goes to the heart of what in many ways was the Musqueam interest.

In coming to this agreement, we also recognized the significance of the lands, particularly around the UBC golf course, to the area residents. Although some land is coming out of Pacific Spirit Park, I want to ensure that the House is aware that 7.3 hectares of what are presently the UBC golf course lands and 1.2 hectares of the land that is being removed from Pacific Spirit Park will actually be converted into parkland.

In many ways, for people that know the area, or don't know the area but have seen the photographs or had an opportunity to see the area, this is a land transfer that makes a lot of sense. The land that is being converted into formal parkland is actually used as a park, whereas some of the other lands that are coming out of the Pacific Spirit Park don't have any of the attributes of what we would usually attribute to a park.

That's a good thing. I think that makes sense. And as people have come to know what is taking place there, a lot of the commentary that I've heard has been favourable, recognizing that people cherish parkland and recognizing as well that in this part of British Columbia, this part of the lower mainland is the most developed, and land is increasingly in short supply. But that doesn't eliminate the obligation we have with respect to first nations and with respect to the Musqueam First Nation in particular.

I do want to make this point, because in the public discussion that has taken place, sometimes this has gotten lost. The Pacific Spirit Regional Park was created almost 20 years ago. At the time, the Musqueam First Nation raised some concerns. I want to say this. I wasn't part of the public discourse or public discussion, but that is not to say that the Musqueam were hostile to the notion of creating a park to the benefit of all

people. But their commentary at the time did reflect the concern they had that their ability to pursue claims that had been unresolved on their part would not be compromised.

The Musqueam, in fact, took those concerns to the court and obtained a restraining order from the B.C. Court of Appeal in February of 1989 to prevent the transfer of the lands to the GVRD. That restriction or that obstacle to the creation of the park was lifted by the court in April of '89, when the GVRD — we now know it as Metro — signed an affidavit agreeing to accept title to those parklands without prejudice to the Musqueam's claim to aboriginal title to that land.

That affidavit remains an instrument. I think it's important that people understand, even today as they express opinions around this agreement, that when the park was created in the first place, it was done in full contemplation of the fact that the Musqueam had an interest in the area that was yet to be defined, that was yet to be resolved.

I would submit and suggest to the House that this agreement and the legislation that flows from it is consistent with the efforts we are trying to make to resolve those issues.

I was at a meeting of the First Nations Summit last Friday, where lots of interesting suggestions and ideas came forth. There was a statement made by one of the chiefs, one of the band representatives, that I think will stick with me. It was profound for its simplicity. She said: "Reconciliation is not an event."

That is certainly true. Reconciliation is not an event. It is a series of events, a series of interactions. It is about a relationship. It is about building trust. It is about establishing good faith. It is about a feeling that exists between us as people that has been absent for too long. We are beginning to see real signs that it is becoming a reality and is why, when we talk of a new relationship, we do so with a sense of hope and with a sense of confidence, because there is much to point to, to demonstrate that it is becoming a reality.

I think this agreement is tangible evidence of the efforts the parties have gone to, to embrace the notion of a new relationship. I believe that this agreement will meet with the approval of people who believe in the importance of finding a genuine place in British Columbia for the Musqueam, a genuine economic foundation upon which they can develop and provide hope and promise for their people and for their families.

It's a testament to the leadership, the vision and the courage of Chief Ernie Campbell and his councillors. We introduced them to the chamber yesterday. They went through a rigorous community review exercise and ratification exercise. When they arrived yesterday, that ratification had happened about 14 hours previously.

They had an overwhelming mandate, not just by virtue of the percentage of the vote, which was 98 percent, but the turnout was healthier than I think we experience in most of the elections that take place elsewhere in British Columbia or Canada — so a healthy turnout, an even healthier mandate and a strong expression of the will of the Musqueam that this is something they want to do, that they believe this is fair and equitable, that they believe this is a fair resolution of not just the litigation outstanding but a fair and laudable attempt to create that economic foundation and that basis for moving forward.

I hope and I urge members of the House to reciprocate by offering an equally robust expression of support and endorsement not just for the agreement but for the legislation that gives life to that agreement. With that, I commend this legislation to the House on second reading.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that chat on second reading. He'll have to excuse my voice. My voice is coming and going here.

I find myself in a bit of an unusual situation, as critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, in agreeing, to a large extent, with the minister on this particular bill. I applaud Chief Ernie Campbell, and I applaud the Musqueam people in their hard work and perseverance on this issue.

In part, at least, the heart of this issue is about land. Of course, the bulk of the traditional territory of the Musqueam people has been appropriated in the past, and land is integral to first nations reconciliation. I understand that this is with some controversy. The nature and use of the land are important to all. With that in mind, we also must be mindful and respect the millennia of known past history of the Musqueam people on these lands.

We cannot — and the minister touched on this — forget the huge socioeconomic gap that exists between the Musqueam people and the surrounding neighbourhoods and, indeed, first nations across the province, aboriginal people across Canada and aboriginal people around the world. Indigenous people throughout the world face a huge socioeconomic challenge, and it certainly is not something to be proud of historically — how that came about. Again, I see this as a good step.

I don't know if I agree with the title of the bill, and I don't mean to nitpick. But 2008 Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement…. Well, reconciliation — that word is thrown about a lot, and I just want to touch on the press release that was released by the Musqueam on March 7, 2005.

Reconciliation should not be confused with litigation, forced litigation — with being forced to utilize the courts to establish not reconciliation but establish basic recognition. It was only in 2003 that these lands were removed and provided to UBC with no meaningful consultation. So there was no attempt at reconciliation in 2003. There was no recognition that the Musqueam even existed, and 2003 is not that long ago.

I note that this bill got — and I applaud Chief Ernie Campbell and the Musqueam people on this — a 98 percent vote just on March 10 of this year, just a few days ago. That's a huge endorsement for the bill. The bill is a product of a court decision.

The Musqueam people, the last time I looked, have in good faith been engaged in the B.C. treaty process. I believe they're at level 4, so they're well on their way on this process. Yet there was no recognition that they even existed in 2003, when this government authorized the removal of land and the transferring of it to UBC without any consultation, without any recognition that the Musqueam even existed. I applaud the Musqueam people in taking the government to task on that, on going through the arduous task of a court case, which took two years.

Forced litigation is certainly not a new thing. It's probably the worst of what I call the old relationship. I guess I'll ask this as a question in estimates, so a heads-up to the minister and his staff. I wonder how many court cases are happening today. I know I've heard that the Pacheedaht are potentially taking the government to court over land removals — again, land removals.

That follows the Hupacasath case, where the government, the Crown, dishonoured itself. The court said that in the Hupacasath case about land removal without meaningful consultation — again, not even the basic recognition that the Hupacasath or the Tseshaht First Nation deserved consultation.

That was a clear case. It was a clear decision of the court. And here we've seen another case with the Pacheedaht, with the 28,000 hectares recently removed on Vancouver Island. Again, land was removed without consultation with numerous first nations — the Kwakiutl, north Island.

We've seen a selective forcing to the table by the court for this government to effect some meaningful consultation — as ordered by the courts, not freely but basically kicking and screaming. So this bill should not be construed as reconciliation. Reconciliation should be about respect and recognition — recognition of identity and respect for the history, in this case, of the Musqueam people. But that was forced by the courts.

The history. In March 2005 the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the province had failed to adequately consult with the Musqueam when the government approved the 2003 sale of the UBC golf course lands to the University of British Columbia. The court suspended the provincial order-in-council and authorized the sale for two years, to allow the Crown and the Musqueam Indian band to discuss consultation and accommodation and to reach an agreement on the sale.

There was a deadline placed on that. That was extended earlier in 2007 because, I guess, that consultation process that was mandated by the courts, ordered by the courts, had not yet completed. Again, I applaud the Musqueam people and Chief Ernie Campbell on sticking this one out and keeping the government's feet to the fire on this.

The later deadline — I guess we're pretty much on time with that, and that is a good thing. But this is two years later than it should have been.

I will be supporting this. We as the opposition will be supporting this bill. But I want to make it clear about the history of this bill. If the minister is suggesting that this is the pattern for reconciliation, I find that fraught with problems.

The Auditor General referred to the problem I'm going to be addressing right now. First of all, this settlement was court-driven. On the part of the Crown, I find, that's not a very good-faith position to be in — to be forced by the courts to actually acknowledge and consult with first nations.

The Auditor General stated, in his last report about the ministry and about the treaty process, that deals that are done outside of the treaty process are certainly confusing and are potentially harmful to the treaty process. It begs the question. If there was good-faith consultation by this government, wouldn't this have naturally occurred through a treaty process that the Musqueam have been engaged in for a number of years — a lot longer, certainly, than the history of this court case–driven decision and bill?

Where does that leave the treaty process for the Musqueam? The Musqueam are in the fourth stage — that is, the latter stages — of the treaty process. But it begs the question for other first nations who are in the treaty process. Where is the consistency? This bill, which is the right thing to do — maybe for the wrong reasons, but it's the right thing to do for the Musqueam people — is outside of the treaty process. We on this side of the House have raised this issue a number of times.

The dealings of the ministry and this government in treaty are confusing at best. If this is the example of the new era of reconciliation, the fact is that that doesn't bode well for this government's handling of the treaty process. This accommodation, which is well overdue for the Musqueam people, was not achieved through the treaty process, even though they are involved in the treaty process and probably have debt incurred through that process. They had to go to the courts to address reconciliation, if that's the appropriate term.

If this is indeed the new era of reconciliation, at least a piece of this involves the very worst part of the old relationship — being forced to negotiate; being forced to accommodate; being forced to consult by the courts; and worse, having a first nation have to go through that process to get government to come to the table and develop Bill 12.

If the court decision had not occurred and if the Musqueam people had not the resources, for instance, to take this government to court, I wonder where we'd be today. I wonder if reconciliation would have been achieved. I wonder if this bill would be here. I don't think so.

That being said, we in the opposition will be supporting this bill. I would hope that the people of British Columbia would also be supporting this bill. We can no longer live as we have in the past. We must recognize that the great socioeconomic gap between first nations and non–first nations in this province must be closed.

The minister touched on this. There are many parts of reconciliation, and land is an important part. Land is integral to self-governance. These issues are all laid out clearly in the articles of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people that just in September was ratified resoundingly in the world. So 144 votes yes and four no votes — a huge majority of progressive minds.

Canada was integral in building that UN declaration. The articles speak specifically about reconciliation, about treaties, about land and about self-governance. This government has not supported the UN declaration. Neither has the government of Canada, one of four national governments in the world to vote no — very shameful.

I believe it's going to change to be 145 to 3, because I think we're going to see Australia in the process of changing their no vote to a yes vote. I believe that in part that precipitated a change of government — the previous government of Australia not supporting the UN declaration.

Reconciliation — the minister is right — is not a single event. It is a continuum. The government and the minister should heed those words. The continuum of reconciliation isn't just one bill that this government forced, kicking and screaming, to be made through the courts. It is about many things. It is about recognition and respect for the rights of indigenous people all over this world. In this province? Yes. In this country? Absolutely. But everywhere. There are hundreds of millions of indigenous peoples throughout the world who demand the respect of non-indigenous governments.

I am going to take the opportunity, if I may, to again urge this government to formally support and adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It would be consistent with the words of the minister in his promotion of this bill, which we support. But the bill should not be considered reconciliation if it's done in isolation.

With that in mind, perhaps the minister will reconsider and actually support the UN declaration, which, as I stated in the articles of the UN declaration, would support such a bill, because it is about reconciliation of certainly one question — of land, which there is precious little of for many urban first nations. That's a tricky reality. Most of us on both sides of the House would certainly hope that that could be dealt with progressively through the B.C. treaty process, but that didn't happen here. This was a court-forced negotiation.

Again, to Chief Ernie Campbell and the Musqueam people, we on this side of the House offer our congratulations and our thanks for standing up for what is right not just for the Musqueam people but for all first nations.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the hon. member for his remarks and for the assurance of support. I know that it means a lot to the Musqueam people that this House, it would seem, will be in a position to speak strongly in favour of this agreement.

I should take this opportunity to do a couple of things. Firstly, lest I forget, I do want to thank and pay tribute to the teams of negotiators that participated in these discussions. As I think all members can imagine, something of this magnitude doesn't happen all by itself.

To the teams that assembled for the Musqueam, for the province and those that assisted those teams, I say thank you. Job well done. We are the beneficiaries. British Columbians, including the Musqueam and descendants, will benefit from the work that they have performed, which is reflected in both the agreement and the legislation that we have before us today.

I should also…. He is not here to speak these words for himself, but I know from discussions with Chief Ernie Campbell that there is one individual he has repeatedly paid tribute to — and I will do so on his behalf — and that is the MLA for the area most directly involved.

There are two. One is the MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena. The other, of course, is the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey, who we generally refer to as the Premier of the province. There are two Chief Campbells referred to, but Chief Campbell of the Musqueam yesterday and in the lead-up to yesterday has repeatedly paid tribute to the level of engagement, interest and leadership displayed by the Premier.

It's true that when one is trying to make a breakthrough in any endeavour worth tackling, it does take a level of focus and concentration and attention, and that was certainly present and part and parcel of what took place. I would like to relay to the House those comments, and of course, I share them and am the beneficiary of that leadership on a day-to-day basis as a member of the executive council.

The member spent a little bit of time providing observations around the UN declaration. I don't know if I'm taking the wind out of his sails or not, and it may be that I have not been as clear about this, but because he raised it, I will respond.

I think Canada should sign on. I think Canada should support it. I have said that before, and I'll say it again. I think there is a way to do this that is not inconsistent with our constitutional framework. I think it is of huge importance to aboriginal peoples right across Canada, and I think it is a mistake, quite frankly — a mistake that can be rectified. I have made those views clear to the federal officials and will continue to do so.

So I thank the member for raising the issue, and hopefully, having my response on the record will relieve him of any concerns he may have about what my position is with respect to the issue that he raised. As the official at the First Nations Summit, the Chief said that reconciliation is not an event but one fateful and important step along that path.

I am grateful for the expression of support that the member has provided on behalf of the official opposition, and I know that as this legislation moves forward — and I'm hopeful and now optimistic that it will rather quickly — we will get on with the task of working with the Musqueam in developing a future for their community, their families and their children that all British Columbians can be proud of.

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

Bill 12, Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate of Bill 7, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

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

C. Wyse: I would like to clarify with the minister whether there is any limit to the amount that is allowed to be spent on a local government election campaign.

C. Wyse: Therefore, I would move this amendment to this section by adding the following, section 17.1:

Hon. I. Chong: I understand the effort he is attempting to make here and the comments made by other members of the House opposite who have indicated that they would like to make amendments additionally to Bill 7 that deal with spending limits and the types of expenditures in that area.

As I indicated at second reading as well as on other sections that we debated, the intent of this legislation was to reflect targeted specific changes that were in agreement as a result of some consultation with UBCM, as well as with some input from the broader local government community and local government election officials. With that regard, the area of election expense limits was not an area that was proposed to be brought forward at this time.

I also indicated to the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, who has over the last number of years raised issues with me, that while we both would agree that this is an area that could solicit more public input, it might be well served by a broader public consultation. As I say, I agree to that, and that should take place probably, and most likely, after the 2008 civic elections.

With that, I know the member will expect that I would not be supporting his amendment.

C. Wyse: Always most respectful of my colleague, with absolutely no reservations, but the legislation begs the actual issue, and the issue is whether there are unlimited sums of money that may be spent in local elections.

As a matter of fact, as we go through the legislation that exists, we will come across other points that are contained here within the legislation that even question my possible ability to stand here and use the information that I'm now going to put in front of the House. I want to use information that, in actual fact, demonstrates literally the thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars that are spent in local elections in order to influence the outcomes that take place.

In actual fact, that isn't necessarily limited to just exclusively the larger communities here within the lower mainland. That is why the amendment is being made upon this particular part so that it applies across the entire province.

Later in the legislation, in other sections, I will make reference to requests that have been made to the

minister for similar types of amendments around the Vancouver Charter. My information would suggest that they have been in front of her ministry for a number of years. This is not a new request. Because the minister, in actual fact, has chosen not to move on the item does not preclude the use of this particular opportunity to bring forward an item that requires resolution.

Now, in the debate that was made, we had colleagues around here who pointed out that in the Coquitlam area, we were talking literally about tens of thousands of dollars that were used in elections. I know of small communities in the interior, one in particular, a very small community by the standards that we're talking about here in the lower mainland, that literally tens of thousands of dollars were spent by the various candidates upon running for one office, that being the mayor in the community. Within Vancouver we know that in 2005 millions of dollars were spent between three parties that were running in order to determine the outcome of elections.

Provincial and federal laws set these limits in place in order that elections are not unduly influenced by those who have funds versus those who may have fewer funds available to them. This is a principle that has been established by the senior levels of government, including this one here.

When we talk about local governments, we are talking about the child of this level of government. Why this level of government would not extend the same regulations that apply to them to this other level of government, which equally deals with items of importance, equally deals with items that potentially have financial gains for individuals or organizations — decisions that are important to certain organizations or parts of the society that do not necessarily reflect the broader views across the whole area….

So the sums of money able to influence the decision-making composition is an important principle that is here and, therefore, begs this particular amendment.

These are the reasons why this House should be considering this particular amendment, should be voting for it at this point in time and passing it so that it will be in effect for the upcoming election in 2008, rather than continuing to postpone the consideration of this item election year to election year to election year.

Therefore, I call upon this House to consider this rationale and vote for the amendment that is here.

C. Wyse: I wondered whether the minister could give a brief clarification on what is meant with the additional requirements that are included under section 18, as compared to what would have previously existed.

Hon. I. Chong: Section 18 does require additional information in the campaign financing disclosure forms related to having a campaign account and support given by or referred from an electoral organization or campaign organizer. So it will require candidates' electoral organizations to have more transparency in terms of what other campaigns they may also be involved with.

As well, because we are requiring this of candidates and electoral organizations, it will also extend now to the new campaign organizer definition. So all persons would be required to fulfil this new obligation.

C. Wyse: On section 19. Again, to the minister. I would ask her to clarify who will actually make the declaration that is referred to in (b)(iii).

Hon. I. Chong: There has not been any change. But for the benefit of the member, the declaration must in each case be made by the financial agent who is filing the disclosure statement; or in the case of a disclosure statement for a candidate, him or herself; and for

elected organizations, the person who is designated as the chief financial agent or officer, as well, or for the campaign organizer who they designate as their financial agent or official agent.

C. Wyse: Again, to the minister. I would ask her to provide a brief outline of what the effect of section 22 is.

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of section 22 is to apply the same penalties for failure to file campaign financing disclosure statements to elector organizations and campaign organizers — which is, again, to ensure that we capture that new category — and also to create a new penalty that prohibits an elector organization or a campaign organizer from engaging in campaign financing or spending after failing to file a campaign financial disclosure statement.

C. Wyse: I would also seek some clarification on the extent of the penalty, so that I would understand the limits on when this group or individuals are restricted from being able to be involved in future elections as a result of improprieties under this section of the act.

Hon. I. Chong: To the member. I think he will recall that currently there is a requirement to file your disclosure statements in March. There also is a provision for people to late-file, as he knows — I think within 30 days after that. But if there is a total failure to file a campaign financial disclosure document, this is where the new penalty will now apply.

That will disqualify a campaign organizer or an elector organization from endorsing a candidate until after the next election or any other by-election subsequent to that. In addition, it prohibits the elector organization or campaign organizer from accepting campaign contributions or incurring election expenses relative to those future elections until after the next general election.

B. Bennett: I'd like to introduce seven students from Yahk Elementary School, which is located in the great little community of Yahk right against the Alberta border, not too far north of Idaho. There are seven students here out of a 19-student school. It has to be one of the smallest schools in the province, and they've come all the way down here to see how we practise democracy here. I told them they were going to be on TV. So smile, kids. Welcome to the House.

C. Wyse: Once more, to the minister. In her answer, if I followed her accurately…. And I can make no guarantees that I did that — my limits; not hers, by any means.

To give an example, if we use the election of 2008, the next local election would be in 2011. Suppose there happened to be a by-election between '08 and '11 and the organization is disqualified from being involved in the by-election. Does that mean they would be eligible to be involved in the local election of 2011?

Hon. I. Chong: When I indicated by-elections, I wanted it to be clear that the campaign organizers and elector organizations would not be entitled to, as I say, endorse a candidate or accept campaign contributions or incur election expenses in relation to the by-elections or, as well, until after the next general election. It would go after November 2011, so it would be a by-election between 2011 and 2014 or the general election in 2014.

C. Wyse: Section 24, I believe, includes an additional penalty that is involved in here. Once more I would ask the minister to briefly outline what the additional penalty is and where the addition comes into play.

Hon. I. Chong: This is similar to the previous section. In the previous section it referred to persons and organizations that fail to file. In this particular case, it's those who file a false or incomplete disclosure document.

C. Wyse: To try and give the minister a direction of where my questions will be coming from…. Specifically, it's under 93(3) — the portion that's contained in here.

My question to the minister is — if she could briefly outline for the House here: what in actual fact are the limitations that are defined in (3) for the use of that information?

Hon. I. Chong: This section makes it clearer that the purpose of using information and reports, disclosure statements in particular…. They are to be used for election purposes and are also to be used for conflict-of-interest situations, for purposes of looking at potential disqualification — again, to use it specifically for those purposes — and, of course, with the Vancouver Charter. This provides parallel sections so that everyone falls under the same requirements.

C. Wyse: Would the minister agree with me that the use of the information…? Is it very narrowly allowed to be used for, if I counted correctly, two distinct sets of circumstances?

C. Wyse: I appreciate the minister's great ability of being so succinct in helping me understand this area.

I wish to move an amendment to section 25. I have, again, copies of the amendment for the minister as well as for the Table. The amendment would be:

C. Wyse: As the minister has pointed out, individuals can go in and access this information. They can look at it. Then once they have that information, the use of it becomes exceptionally narrowly defined.

If we look at the provincial or the federal information and when you look at the financial disclosures, it allows for people to determine whether the moneys were being used to influence the elections — set up the people that are making the decisions. Therefore, if you're able to establish the group that is of your persuasion, of your particular point of view, and you've done it under the anonymity of knowing that these donations are able to be made, that information can only be used in order to develop the case for decisions that may be made over the upcoming term of office. It becomes very narrow for the use of that information, in our judgment.

In actual fact, the other levels of government look at it and leave it up to the public's ability to determine how that information is used in developing their case and understanding all the different influences that may come into play by the decision-makers on the items that they're dealing with over the upcoming year.

It is becoming increasingly more important for that knowledge to be able to be used at the discretion of the public. When we have a look at the decisions that local governments do make, we often have a tendency to concentrate upon the financial aspects of it. That's a component that jumps out to many people — not necessarily all people, but many people — when they look upon decisions that are being made by local government, particularly when we're dealing with land usage or we're looking at usage in changing of zonings, changes of building bylaws or building codes and things of that nature, where those changes may in actual fact have a profound effect upon financial returns.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that people would have the ability to use that information in saying that group A or individual B had donated X sums of dollars towards a particular campaign.

That isn't necessarily just restricted to financial items. Of course, there are other issues that come up in front of local government and that are also of importance to the community. By continuing to narrowly restrict the use of information to the points that the minister has made is, in our judgment, contradictory to the general intention that we've heard on a couple of occasions from the minister…. The intent of the bill is to improve on the openness, accountability and transparency of what goes on at local government.

Continuing to walk by the more important…. I possibly may want to take out my adjective because they're all important, and I realize that inadvertently I was downplaying the significance of some other issues that have been introduced here. I did that inadvertently. Important items that are not included in this legislation that we know affect all local government decisions….

Also, when we get into the Vancouver Charter, I will be referring directly to requests in this area — which, again, have been in front of the minister's office for a number of years — and the continued argument to say that they weren't included in a polling of independent electoral officers from around the province of local governments, including regional districts, of course…. Then to be saying that these important items are going to continue to be extended through 2008, when there is an opportunity here, with a very, very simple amendment, to make that change….

I know that where I'm from, up in the Cariboo, they are going to be absolutely astonished that with about ten words, I'm able to effect this very significant opening up to the public for their ability to use information that has been solemnly declared — to be able to have insights into the direct influence-making that takes place upon governmental bodies and who is elected.

We have seen earlier attempts at putting limits on total amounts of contributions of an anonymous nature be defeated. We have seen attempts to put in a limit, a cap, on the amount of money on elections in total being defeated.

All of that having been said, this simple amendment at least allows the information that is there to be used throughout the term of office of the government that is elected by members of the public — to have and be able to use that information around decisions that are being made by their local government. So in the general spirit of this amendment act, this amendment would be passed.

Hon. I. Chong: I listened very closely to the member. I needed to really understand where his purpose was. Section 93(2) of the Local Government Act does specify that the public inspection of campaign finance disclosure statements may only occur for purposes of the Election Act. Then it also goes on to regular business hours and things such as that.

The change that we have brought in under section 93(3) would in fact extend to not just elections for the purposes of that part, but it was indeed opening up the possibility, as he's actually speaking of, where we would be able to use that disclosure statement informa-

tion to take a look at possible conflicts of interest. That was not previously in the section.

So perhaps the original question he asked — if it was limiting…. I said it was limiting insofar as those are the two specific purposes. Perhaps he was not aware that there was only one purpose before, which is strictly for the purposes of elections. As I say, this does open it up for issues of conflict of interest. As I was listening to him, this is where he appeared to be going. So this subsection does provide for that.

In supporting his amendment, we would completely eliminate that, which would then allow for no limitations. It would mean that the disclosure document could be used for things such as marketing, for solicitations of donations from various non-profit groups — a variety of purposes. It would be completely open, and I don't think that was the intent of the amendment. I would hope not, because even in our provincial legislation there are limits as to what you can use the disclosure document for.

I'm hoping that, with that, the member understands why the amendment would not be supportable. It would certainly allow for potential abuses, and I don't think that is what his purpose or intent is. So of course, with that, I would be voting against the amendment.

C. Wyse: I would ask the minister for, underneath subsection (c)(5.2), an explanation of the last phraseology: "…is not entitled to obtain a copy of those materials." I would like an explanation of what the effect of that statement is.

Hon. I. Chong: This would be in reference to items and paperwork that are generated at polling stations on election day — for example, poll books or any kind of solemn declarations that electors or individuals make on behalf of persons who are voting. These are very much issues of privacy.

C. Wyse: We now switch to a section that, if I understand it correctly, is going to apply to the School Act. In doing such, I would ask of the minister what the general intent of sections 35, 36 and 37 is, whether the intent of these is to bring the School Act and its appropriate parts into line with what our previous amendments have been doing underneath this act. I require some clarity in my mind about what those three sections are meant to do.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, the intent is to ensure that these provisions mirror the others with regards to the changes made for the voting.

C. Wyse: Specifically, then, with the School Act, that would include just simply assigning, expanding the definitions to the broader groups and organizations and items of that nature?

C. Wyse: In order to assist the minister, I believe that we will have a series of sections that come up immediately dealing with the Vancouver Charter. My question to the minister is that we're now moving into a number of amendments which are simply meant to reflect what had taken place underneath the general part of the acts that cover the rest of the province and the local government.

C. Wyse: Again, to try and assist the minister, in discussions that we have had here in the House over yesterday and today, I have given the minister, I hope,

ample indication that our understanding is that her ministry has been receiving correspondence around the items we have been moving amendments for. Assuredly, I will be up pushing for those same points, given that her ministry, to my understanding, has been requested by Vancouver council, by resolution, as well as community groups here…. The charter itself is meant to specifically and only apply to this part of the province. Therefore, there is actually additional documentation that will add on a point or two.

Just so the minister is aware, I will be, in essence, posing the same type of questions to her around the mirroring amendments to the Vancouver Charter that we have talked about over the last little while.

C. Wyse: On section 39. I believe that this is meant to mirror making it easier, as a non-resident who holds property inside of the city boundaries of Vancouver, to be able to vote in the Vancouver municipal elections. I wish to have that clarified, please.

Hon. I. Chong: It's not about making it easier. What it is, is eliminating a duplication that currently exists. There will still be a requirement for eligibility for non-resident property electors to provide proof of eligibility. What is currently occurring is that they are required, prior to being entitled to vote and also on the same day as voting day, to bring the same documentation forward. Once they've proven they are eligible to vote, then they should be eligible to vote.

We are, I guess, for ease of streamlining, ensuring that that does not create a problem on voting day. Proof of eligibility would remain the same, so it's not about making it easier in that regard, if that helps the member.

C. Wyse: Again, most respectfully, I do accept the point that is being made, but without this amendment the non-resident property owner was also required to have done another process before election day. The point that I was attempting to make properly — maybe a little shoddily with the English language — is that now, by having that removed, it does become easier to become a qualified voter. You can do it all in one day rather than it being required to be done ahead of time.

Hon. I. Chong: It's not about making it easier. There is only one document that can be obtained. If a person chose to wait till election day and provided their proof of eligibility and obtained their certificate to allow them to vote on voting day, they could do so. But we're saying that if they chose to do it in advance, they can do so now.

If the member is suggesting to not be able to do it in advance and wait till voting day, it certainly does require additional confusion and additional documentation on voting day when there is so much activity taking place.

Here we're allowing that those who choose to provide proof of eligibility so that they can vote on voting day can do so well in advance of voting day and then show up on voting day to exercise their right.

C. Wyse: The Vancouver Electoral Reform Commission makes the recommendation that for the Vancouver elections, the non-resident voter would be removed completely from being allowed to vote. So we do have reservations with No. 39, but we'd be now prepared to move on with the vote on No. 39.

C. Wyse: Again, if the minister would clarify the intent of section 43 and why it is being introduced into the amendment bylaw — the purpose behind it for such a large community as Vancouver.

Hon. I. Chong: This is similar to section 6 that was passed yesterday, which dealt with all other candidates making a declaration of intent to take office if elected, which was applying to all local governments. So section 43 will just provide that same criteria through the Vancouver Charter.

C. Wyse: Again, just to ensure that I've been tracking the plurality of the two sections, I would ask the minister if she could explain what the intent of 46 is.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to assure the member that sections 46, 47 and 48 are paralleling or mirroring sections 9, 10 and 11, which we did pass yesterday. I just want to give him that assurance.

C. Wyse: I want to thank the minister for that clarification. It did give me the assurances that I was seeking.

On section 49, if the minister could explain to me what is meant in 57.01(2) by "reasonably possible." It seems to be a relatively vague phrase to me, so I would like to have some idea of what is meant by those two terms.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would refer the member to section 12, where we used the same phrase and which we passed yesterday. Perhaps we did not have the opportunity to canvass "reasonably possible," but it really means as soon as is possible.

If an elector organization determines that it is an elector organization and wants to make that notification, and they are not there at the office when it closes at 4:30, then as soon as possible, we would hope, would be the next day or the day after that. So I guess in legal terms "reasonably possible" means, really, as soon as it can.

C. Wyse: We would not necessarily be concerned with section 51 itself. But at the same time, as the minister has explained, we have some parallel legislation between the charter and what we dealt with for the rest of the province.

I had indicated yesterday, through an amendment, that we would be looking for a narrowing of the total amount of anonymous contributions that may be donated as well as the different types of organizations from which the donations could be accepted.

So I would, then, move an amendment to section 51. Once more, I do have copies for yourself, hon. Chair, as well as the minister.

C. Wyse: In November of this year there was something that not very often happens at the council of the city of Vancouver, in which unanimously there was a motion passed from…. All three of the political parties at city council voted in favour of a motion to ask the Minister of Community Services for an update on the city's three-year-old request for electoral financial reform measures, which included, amongst other things, restrictions on campaign contributions, restrictions on campaign spending, tax credits for municipal campaigns or political contributions, reporting of all contributions regardless of when the contributions are received, and financial reporting requirements similar to those for federal and provincial parties.

Earlier I had talked about the total sums of money that had been used in various campaigns. In actual fact, when we look at the United States presidential election of 2004, it turns out that $2.71 was the sum of money that was spent per eligible voter in that particular election. When we come to the 2005 election in Vancouver, when you look at the money spent by the three main political parties, it turns out to be $9.71 per eligible voter — approximately three times the sum of money spent in the United States election.

When we look at section 51 — where it sits by itself, it is commendable. But it doesn't go far enough, in our opinion on this side of the bench. In actual fact, with the similar general intent of other sections in the act, at least as we read it, there looks to be very specific legislation to restrict the total number of contributions that an individual can make in any campaign. But there isn't a total overall effect — the total sums of money that are collected by a candidate or slate of candidates that are running for office.

What this particular amendment attempts to do is to set a limit on the total sum of anonymous donations that may be collected, and in doing such, follows along with the general intent of providing for openness, transparency and accountability.

At the same time, this amendment also restricts from whom the bodies may receive their donations. It removes a couple of organizations, unions and corporations from making donations towards municipal campaigns in Vancouver. By doing such, it then leaves the financial aspect of these campaigns up to living human beings that are defined along a biological aspect of it.

I've had people in other conversations tell me that in certain legal sets of situations, corporations are defined as though they are alive, well and breathing and, in that aspect, are assigned the same rights as you and I. On this side of the House we do not believe that in today's age, elections, whether they be at the municipal level or other levels, should continue to be receiving donations from these types of broad organizations.

Very much within the intent of what Vancouver has been requesting, in our opinion, for quite a number of years now, we have moved this amendment, and we will move subsequent amendments to achieve what Vancouver has been requesting. Not only has the city council been requesting this, but so have community groups here within Vancouver been doing the same. It is our understanding that those community groups, likewise, have been advising the ministry of similar types of requests.

On this side of the House we do not find it acceptable that, at such close proximity to an election here in Vancouver, we would not take the opportunity to pass amendments of this nature which, in actual fact, gives what Vancouver and the community groups here within Vancouver have been requesting for a period of time. Previously, when we debated this amendment earlier in the section of the act, the minister had argued that given the vastness of the geography of the province, it may create some type of a disparity.

However, we are now in the part of the act which is very specific, in which the local government that is responsible for it, with very diverse political groups of

individuals sitting at council, unanimously is behind requests of this nature, and the community groups that are within Vancouver, likewise, are in support of these types of amendments.

On this side of the House we believe that arguments which have been used by the minister to deal with the rest of the province do not stand up to the same scrutiny, given the situation that applies here.

It is with that that we would at least assume that the minister would be able to support this amendment and subsequent ones, with it applying simply here to Vancouver and in its charter.

Hon. I. Chong: Certainly, I do appreciate the member's persistence and perseverance when it comes to making amendments. As noted, this is a similar amendment to that made on section 14 yesterday by the member for Vancouver-Fairview. As I indicated at that time, these changes, which may well be changes that local governments want, do require broader local government and public consultation because they are substantial and important amendments.

The local elections legislation has been the same for all local governments across British Columbia, including the city of Vancouver, since 1993. The previous administration and the members opposite who were previously Municipal Affairs minister would know that it was their government that brought in changes to ensure that local government elections across British Columbia were parallel and that they were, in fact, consistent.

To make a change specifically for the Vancouver Charter would go against exactly what the NDP government of the day proposed to do. I want to, first of all, state that.

Secondly, to again speak about these changes that the Vancouver council brings forward — and certainly, I can appreciate that they want to be viewed somewhat differently and to have some of their own sections in the act — would again defy what we are trying to do by ensuring that all persons in British Columbia, no matter what municipality they reside in, know that local government elections, and the rules which they must abide by, are held in the same way.

I note, too, that there had been conversations, perhaps in 2004 just prior to the 2005 civic elections, and that there had been these changes that had been requested. Then after 2005, if in fact Vancouver city council and the elected persons there felt this was so important, I would have expected that they would have engaged UBCM and the broader public in 2006 and 2007 to ensure that the broader consultation would take place so that people in the rural and remote areas of our province — whether it's in the interior, in the Kootenays, in the north, on Vancouver Island — all would have had an opportunity to participate in this debate. As I say, they are significant enough that it would warrant the broader public debate to take place.

However, Vancouver did not initiate that public consultation. They should have, as I said, if it was that important but waited until last fall, just a year prior to this upcoming election, before they indicated that this was of some concern. With the greatest respect to the Vancouver councillors and the council themselves, if this is of such significance, I would hope that after the November 2008 civic elections they do in fact engage the public and the broader local government community so that this matter can be dealt with.

My understanding, though, was that in 1999 these were items that were also brought forward and initiated by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who at that time thought it was of such significance that there would be broader support, as well, to make these changes. My understanding was that at that time it was initiated by the minister — and the ministry, I suppose. The conclusion was that there was indifference across the province and certainly no consensus.

So the attempt was made there. I acknowledge that it's some ten years later. At the same time, I think that the attempt should be made once again, with the broader public, as opposed to the minister, wanting to initiate those changes, as was done in 1999 — because clearly it was not supported in 1999.

To sum up, this is an amendment that we did not support in section 14. So by that token, we would not be supporting this amendment to section 51.

C. Wyse: The last time I looked at this bill, the bill belonged here in this Legislature and, therefore, is the responsibility of this Legislature and would be the responsibility of the minister. If that's a false assumption on my part, I apologize.

I'd ask of the Chair whether Vancouver city council had been advised that it was their responsibility to canvass the public to see what their opinion was on this particular request for amendment that had come from the city council three years ago.

C. Wyse: I asked a question, through you, to the minister. May I rephrase my question, please?

The Chair: Would you repeat the question, please, Member. I don't think it was fully heard at this end of the House.

Was the city council of Vancouver advised by the ministry that it was their responsibility to have canvassed the public here in Vancouver about what their feeling is towards the proposed amendments that they had requested?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, Vancouver is a member of UBCM, and they know that UBCM is the general

vehicle for which broader local government support is required when there are changes that are being made, specifically changes that affect all local governments. I would expect that Vancouver would know that they needed to engage with UBCM and to get support from their member municipalities if they wanted to make changes to the Local Government Act that affect all local government elections.

C. Wyse: It may be an assumption that isn't necessarily that solid. Part of the reason for not moving upon this amendment was that city council of Vancouver had not done something.

To me, it seems to be quite reasonable to write to the minister to look at doing something that is clearly, here, within that jurisdiction and, if further hoops were going to be required for amendments or changes, that the ministry would have advised what those hoops or other actions that were requested had been passed on to the group, rather than simply allowing the clock to tick along….

I'm assuming — and the minister will have another opportunity to correct my assumption if it is inaccurate — that those types of requests had not been made of Vancouver. Therefore, to be asking at this point in time or to be using it as a reason for not moving on the request I find somewhat disconcerting.

I would have another question to the minister. Does the Vancouver Charter mirror the legislation exactly that applies to every other part here in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member on his last question: yes, on elections it does.

I just want to clarify, lest there be any doubt, that when any local government is seeking changes to the Local Government Act or changes that would apply to all local governments, it is a general practice of our ministry to advise that council, whoever they may be, that they need to get support from their member municipalities. After all, we don't have 160 separate charters for every particular municipality.

It is a practice of the ministry that we do advise that, if there are changes that are requested or wanted, they not be dealt with in isolation; that member municipalities are engaged; and that, if they wish to lead on that, they can do so.

It's not about not moving on an initiative. It is certainly an area that Vancouver is well aware of. But with all due respect, if they think that they can just wait until six months or a year before the civic elections and believe that changes can be made which will affect all local government elections, then I'm sorry. They have made their own assumption — certainly not one that I've made for them.

Just to be clear, we take a look at all changes that are requested from local governments. Certainly, we advise them that if they are significant enough — and I would believe that local government elections are — they need to engage in consultation with their member municipalities. UBCM is usually the first place and the easiest place to start that dialogue.

If it's not undertaken, then we can only expect that perhaps their minds have changed on the matter or that they don't think it is worth pursuing. I don't know what is the case, but I do know that there was not that consultation process that took place in 2006, nor in 2007.

C. Wyse: As usual, I appreciate the response from the minister. The error may be mine, but I think I missed the answer to the question that I proposed. I'm going to propose it again. Does the Vancouver Charter mirror exactly this legislation that governs all other local governments here in British Columbia?

C. Wyse: Well, I need to go through the charter section by section. My question once more: are there differences in how the Vancouver Charter applies to how the city of Vancouver operates, as compared to how the provincial statutes apply to the rest of the municipalities here within British Columbia? Are there differences in the two acts?

Hon. I. Chong: What we are dealing with in Bill 7 are changes to the Local Government Act, and to ensure that we are dealing with local government elections…. So I would say again, in relation to local government elections, they do parallel. The member, I think, is aware of that.

That is what we are proposing for changes currently in this piece of legislation. I would ask the member to…. If he wishes to speak to that, I will continue to provide him with responses to that effect. If he would like to vote on the amendment, then we're certainly prepared to do so.

G. Robertson: I rise to speak, first of all, strongly in favour of this amendment. As we have raised a number of issues that we raised in section 14 and the amendment to section 14, which the government chose to vote down, that are absolutely critical in terms of campaign finance reform for the city of Vancouver….

Now that we're dealing specifically with the Vancouver Charter, which is a dedicated piece of legislation to the city of Vancouver, it only stands to reason that these same strong points for campaign finance reform should apply.

The minister's logic here is wonky. If she contends that the same rules should apply to every municipality across B.C., then it should make sense that the same stringent campaign finance rules that apply to the federal and provincial governments should also apply to municipal governments. You can't have it both ways.

The minister is contending here that there need to be generic campaign finance laws across all municipalities in B.C. but that that's not the case for the municipalities, the province and the country. We can have completely contradictory campaign finance laws, depending on municipality, province or country.

Can the minister defend her logic in that municipalities must have the same rules, whereas the municipalities themselves can have completely different campaign finance laws than the province or the country?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I'm sorry to disappoint the member, but each province establishes its own rules. The federal government, too, has its own rules in the way elections are held.

But the Community Charter, as well as the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter, is the legislative framework that we, the province, establish — the legislative framework for which our local governments are allowed to carry on. Included in that and in those acts are, in fact, the local government elections. So it is logical that because we provide the legislative framework for our local governments, we have that consistently applied for our local governments.

I know the member is…. It's clear that he would like to seek election in Vancouver at the civic elections. Fair enough, but this is not just about Vancouver. The local government elections will also affect Richmond and Surrey and Abbotsford and Trail and Ucluelet and Tofino and Port Alberni. It's all our local governments. So it is important that there is consistency applied.

Again, it was in 1993 that that attempt was made by the NDP government of the day. It was in 1993 that the local elections legislation was made the same, and has been the same, for all local governments across British Columbia, including the city of Vancouver.

I think the NDP government of the day thought that was important. They obviously moved that forward. I would agree that it is important that local government right across British Columbia can depend upon local government elections to take place in the same manner.

For that reason, again, I would not be supporting the amendment that would specifically change that approach.

G. Robertson: I'd just, with all due respect, remind the minister that we're talking about 2008. We're talking about several municipal elections that have happened since some of these statutes were put in place. Significant changes have occurred in the municipal arena, particularly in the city of Vancouver, with regard to outrageous sums of money being contributed to local election campaigns.

In terms of the amendments that have been proposed and specifically the amendment we're dealing with here today, the absurdity of the scale of campaign contributions that's taking place in Vancouver, particularly in the last 2005 election, should trigger a response in terms of campaign finance reform. Clearly, the elected officials, unanimously in Vancouver, have requested that changes be made, and it's backed up by several community organizations that had extensive process within the community.

Does the minister feel that the scale of campaign contributions that took place in 2005 was within the norm for municipalities in B.C. and that nothing really needs to be done because Vancouver's the same as everywhere else?

Hon. I. Chong: I know that this is a very passionate issue for this particular member from Vancouver-Fairview because of his potential future. However, I have to remind him and other members again that it is fair that all local governments be engaged in this initiative or this potential change. To suggest that other local governments — large cities not unlike Vancouver and larger cities, whether in the Okanagan or here on Vancouver Island…. They, too, should be allowed to engage in this. It goes back to the nature of the issue.

This was not an item that other local governments felt should be brought forward. Or if they did, it was not brought forward to my attention or through to UBCM, which is one of the reasons why it did not bring about debate at any of their conventions. Certainly, we all read the papers.

We all know that Vancouver goes through its contentious, I guess, and rather hotly contested campaigns. I acknowledge that they are experiencing some problems or concerns about this. If they felt and do feel that this is an area that warrants support, they need to ensure that their member municipalities can provide that support to them.

We went to the situation where, in 1993, local governments across British Columbia were all treated in the same way, when the NDP of the day decided that that was important. I need to understand why it's not so important now. What makes it so different in 2008 versus 1993? Is it because this member is wanting to become the mayor? I don't know. If that's the only difference, then I'm sorry. That's not the reason why we should make this amendment.

G. Robertson: I'm curious as to why the minister is so obsessed with other members' private affairs and potential interest in municipal politics. Perhaps the member opposite has some personal interest herself in pursuing municipal office and a robust fundraising effort to support that.

We're talking about amending the Vancouver Charter here. The member for Cariboo South has proposed an amendment to the Vancouver Charter. Vancouver is dealing with a significant aberration in terms of campaign finance and has made very clear and compelling arguments to this minister for the need to see changes in the Vancouver Charter regarding campaign finance reform.

Does the minister contend, then, that any changes or amendments to the Vancouver Charter should have the support of the UBCM and all other municipalities around the province? Or is Vancouver capable of initiating changes to its own charter with the province of B.C.?

Hon. I. Chong: I think we're venturing into other areas, so I will just offer this very brief comment on that. Changes to the Vancouver Charter that affect the local government system as a whole are not made in isolation. Changes to the Vancouver Charter that are

specific to the Vancouver Charter can in fact be initiated by the Vancouver city council. But where there are changes to the charter that affect all other local governments and the local government system, there is a requirement that we do so in consultation with our member municipalities so that there is consistency applied.

With the greatest of respect, I think I've offered and said everything I possibly can on the substance of this amendment. I think it's appropriate for us to take a vote on it.

C. Wyse: I can understand that there may be some haste to move along with this particular amendment. Before we do that, I think it's important to remind this House that the request for these amendments occurred long before the year 2008, long before incidents that are taking place here in the present.

I have been dealing with the past. If I was talking with a young child and we were talking about the amount of time that has passed in here, a young child would look upon this and say that it's the distant past. Three or four years ago is a long time for a request to be in front of here.

It didn't come exclusively from city council. It also came from a commission, the Berger electoral commission. It also came from citizen groups here within Vancouver. Many, many members of this House stood up yesterday and pointed out the importance and significance of this particular amendment as it applied to other parts of the province.

The debate…. To narrow it down to the immediate present as a rationale to move along on this item and be dismissive takes away from the significance and importance of openness, accountability and transparency that, to this moment in time, we have been spending our focus upon.

This House, in my humble opinion, has been distracted by recent comments that have been made in the debate from the significance of this amendment. I'm hoping that in the future, with the subsequent amendments that are going to be introduced on similar aspects of it, we can stay focused upon the intent of the motion that arises from the distant past.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would be in concurrence with the minister that when you are ready to call for the vote, we would be looking for this to be a division.

The Chair: Members, the vote is on amendment to Bill 7, which is placed by the member for Cariboo South. It amends section 51.

C. Wyse: Part of being up here was just to allow the staff to get back in and the transition to also take place.

Section 53 mirrors, again, what I believe happened previously in the earlier part of the legislation and just having that clarified in 53.

The Chair: Members, Members. There is conversation that is interrupting the ability of the Chair and the minister to hear.

C. Wyse: I doubt I could verbatim, but I will attempt to at least encapsulate the flavour of it. Just confirmation that 53 mirrors the same effect that happened with provincewide, which we dealt with earlier.

C. Wyse: On section 54, again, if the minister can give me an indication, maybe we can narrow it down in here, because we have amendments that parallel discussions that we had earlier.

There are no limits within the Vancouver Charter that apply to the total sums of money that are paid upon the municipal election here in the city of Vancouver. There is not a part of the act that I may have missed. I'm just looking for confirmation from the minister.

C. Wyse: With that, then I would propose the amendment to 54.1 by adding the following sections. Again, I have copies of the proposed amendment.

The Chair: Member, your amendment is in order, but your amendment is actually adding a new section. I wonder if we could deal with section 54 first and then entertain your amendment, so I'm going to put the question.

C. Wyse: Chair, with your guidance, I'm assuming now that the amendment is on the floor for me to speak to.

C. Wyse: My apologies to everyone for moving faster than the paper could be moved around at the Legislature.

As has been mentioned on a number of occasions, there is no overall limit set on the total sums of money spent on municipal elections. Municipal elections do deal with very important items that affect the citizen and that fall within the areas of local government. Allowing unlimited sums of money to be used in campaigns to influence the election without any limit being set on them, in today's standards, is simply not acceptable.

This particular amendment attempts to address that inadequacy by putting a limit on the actual total sums of money that may be used in the campaign here in Vancouver. Earlier in debate I made the point that in the last civic election here in Vancouver, triple — that's three times — the sum of money that was spent on an eligible voter occurred as compared with what was spent on the election for the President of the United States in 2004 — three times the sum of money. In actual fact, more than that.

That shows the urgency of the need for this type of legislation to be in place. It shows the urgency that has come from the community that is affected by the lack of such rules and regulations that fall into play. It begs the arguments we have heard to date on the rationale for not moving on these items in a fashion that's timely, given how long this item has been in front of us here in the province — how there has been a move in the feelings towards this particular item by community groups and by local government that looks after Vancouver, that an amendment of this nature at this point in time should proceed. I would be hopeful that the House would see the wisdom for this amendment.

Hon. I. Chong: This amendment does mirror the amendment that was attempted in section 17. So I think all the comments that I made in respect of that amendment are still valid. I'm sure those who wish to check the Hansard can see what they are. The substance of the debate will not change in that regard, so I just want to let the member know that I would not be supporting this amendment.

I'll just add this, further to some of the comments he made. In 2006 and 2007 the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, the opposition House Leader, did in fact raise issues regarding local government elections. The ones he raised — and he was persistent in raising them; I will grant him that — dealt with the issue of campaign organizers. As you can see, we have brought that into this Local Government Statutes Amendment Act.

I can say that we have heard not only from the broader community in terms of the survey results, but we also did listen to the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. But I do not recall — and I've checked my records — if this issue were as pressing and important as this member, as the critic, implies….

I had not been asked during estimates in 2006 or in 2007 or even during question period regarding this matter in a persistent way as the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain did when he pursued the area of campaign organizers.

Again, I would say that while I understand the passion with which some of these amendments are being brought forward, particularly because of the situation that is occurring and perhaps some of the personal interests that members may have with what is happening in Vancouver, the comments I made relevant to

section 17 and the amendment that was proposed then will still validate what my views are in terms of this amendment. So I would be happy to call for the vote on the amendment.

C. Wyse: Just for the record, I would remind the House that again I have been approached by representatives of community groups in Vancouver. I've been approached by individuals from outside of Vancouver raising these issues with me. That has occurred relatively recently, and it has occurred in the context that as 2008 and the election comes forward, people have been reminded of situations that occurred in the previous elections at the municipal level in 2005, I believe it was.

As a consequence, I have brought forward and picked up where my understanding here is with the minister. Surely, the importance of these particular items doesn't detract from the amendments and this House considering the amendments. It adds a spotlight on the inadequacies that exist in municipal government and the regulations that govern how local elections occur. It puts a spotlight on the need for a revision and look at these particular items.

The concerns that have been brought forward by me may have not been articulated well, and they may have been articulated from an emotional aspect, but intellectually they stand clearly showing the need for why this House must debate when the opportunity presents itself. The minister has indicated that until the equivalent of a figurative fire is lit underneath such an issue, it will sit in an office somewhere, and it doesn't go anywhere.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to assure the member that it is not a matter of an initiative like this, as he has brought forward, sitting anywhere without due regard. He has already indicated in his comments that it is a significant change; it is substantive. The fact that it is — and I would agree with him, as I did agree with the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain yesterday — would indeed require more, broader public input not just from one area of the province but from the entire parts of the province where people would like to engage in this.

While I appreciate, as I say, that the member has been asked by particular groups, organizations or what have you to bring it forward — and that is his right to do so — I would hope that he also understands that you do not make changes of this substantive nature, this large policy change, without ensuring that other communities have also had the benefit of this discussion of this initiative.

So again, while I appreciate that he has brought forward the amendments because he has been requested to do so, I am not averse to seeing those changes take place in a future piece of legislation. It's just that the discussion that needs to take place on this has not occurred and must occur.

With that, I just did not want to leave it in anyone's mind that necessarily someone has to light a fire, but someone does need to initiate the broader discussion. If no one chooses to do so, we see that it goes back to what occurred some ten years ago, where there was no consensus and there was some indifference, and we may find that takes place. We may not want to see that, but we may find that.

In any event, I would encourage those who are paying attention to what is occurring today in these debates that after the 2008 civic elections, there be that opportunity and that some organization, group or whoever bring it forward so that all can engage in a very important debate.

C. Wyse: If I can ask a broader question of the minister…. I'm just looking for confirmation that sections 55 through 61 mirror what we've already done earlier, either yesterday or today.

C. Wyse: Section 62, I believe, will likewise mirror what we have done earlier already. Madam Chair, with section 62, and looking for your assistance…. I would direct again to section 65(3). I'm going to move an amendment, Chair, if this is the appropriate time to do such, and I look for your guidance.

C. Wyse: This is an item that I believe we have debated a very short period of time ago. I would speak in favour of this particular amendment because it would open up the availability and use of the information that is declared.

I've heard the minister make her point — that it does expand and define it to be in a conflict of interest. However, in looking for even a broader usage of this information so that the community at large, and individuals specifically, are left with the availability to look at such information that had been filed and then determine whether that information, in having influenced election results, may have an effect upon the elected body in making their decisions down the road….

Having made those points and having debated them back and forth, the same amendment here is on the floor with the same rationale behind it as what we discussed relatively earlier.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, this amendment mirrors the other amendment to section 25 that the member previously proposed, but again, it is a bit disconcerting, I have to say. The changes we're making here do provide for exactly the kinds of things he has indicated that he would like. It does provide for use of this information for election purposes. It provides for the disclosure information to be used for purposes of conflict of interest and those matters.

His amendment to strike the entire section would therefore allow entirely no restrictions on how this disclosure information is used. As I said, it could easily be subject to abuse. It means marketers could use the list of names for whatever purpose. It means solicitations for donations and organizations could occur for whatever purpose.

I really don't think that this is what the member had intended. I don't want to speak for what his intent is, but I just want to be clear that the changes we are making in the legislation, I think, do adequately provide for the use of information in the manner in which he is already describing. To support his amendment completely throws the door wide open and says that there should be no restrictions whatsoever.

As I indicated previously, even the provincial legislation has limited use as to what this disclosure information can be used for. So, as I say, he's certainly welcome to bring forward this amendment. I think it perhaps was not as well thought out as it could have been. Perhaps the benefit of a more detailed briefing would have given him assurance that the kinds of changes he would like to see, in fact, are being contemplated in our changes.

For whatever reason, he would like this supported. I would say that I cannot support the amendment. I think it would lead to an abuse of the information that is made available. I would hope that we can vote on the amendment, and perhaps the member would consider voting on it on division.

C. Wyse: Later I was going to acknowledge the courtesy that the minister, through her staff, had extended to me with a briefing. The briefing by her staff was not only well done and very professional, but it was very accommodating. In actual fact, I would also like to acknowledge that her staff had extended an offer, should any questions come up, that I could pursue with her staff.

That having been said in defence of her staff — so that they're not held accountable for any misunderstandings that I may have had or what I may have formed with the intent of the legislation was — I stand here attempting to convince the House of the need for opening up the act in the area of the principles of openness, transparency and accountability.

Given that aspect, the intent of the resolutions and the amendments have been made to do such. I believe I've been very clear in stating that from the beginning of this legislation. Likewise, if I haven't done already, I believe I've acknowledged the overall general act as being supportable and have indicated to the minister that I would be looking for an expansion upon some principles that were contained within it.

It is with that that in defence I have explained why these resolutions are here, and it has nothing to do with her staff. They could have sat with me for a very long period of time. The conclusion that I have made over here on this side of the bench remains unchanged.

C. Wyse: It's here at sections 73 and 74 that we change the act. I'm wondering whether the minister could take a moment and explain what sections 73 and 74 are meant to achieve? We've now left the charter.

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of section 73 is to amend the Community Charter section 137(1) to clarify that the power to amend or to repeal a bylaw is subject to the same requirements that would apply to the adoption of a new bylaw. It is a streamlining step that we're taking.

C. Wyse: Once more, I believe we are changing intent in the legislation. I would look for a brief explanation for sections 75 through 79 from the minister.

Hon. I. Chong: For section 75, the purpose of this is to consequentially add the definition of the appointed position of surveyor of taxes to the Local Government Act.

For section 76, the purpose of this is to amend Local Government Act section 746 to authorize improvement districts to establish reserve funds for capital purposes by bylaw.

For section 77, the purpose is to amend Local Government Act section 747 to enable the minister to make regulations that exempt some improvement district bylaws from provincial registration requirements, subject to terms and conditions specified by the minister or the inspector of municipalities.

For section 78, the purpose is to amend Local Government Act section 751 to ensure a variety of items dealing with improvement districts in terms of establishing reserve funds, how they raise funds for the renewal of their works, how funds are held in the applicable reserve fund, and moneys in those funds — how they can be used for the purpose of how the funds were established.

For section 79, the purpose is to consequentially amend Local Government Act section 758 to eliminate the provision that it is the registration of tax bylaws that triggers the requirement for improvement district trustees to send tax notices to every applicable landowner.

I would note that sections 75 to 79 are all administrative streamlining matters that are supportable by the local governments.

C. Wyse: The next number of sections…. If the minister could just confirm that my interpretation is correct, I think we can move through a number of sections quite quickly. The upcoming sections simply are streamlining and allowing smaller local improvements to move without requiring a more cumbersome process, such as expensive referendums and items of that nature.

C. Wyse: Actually, my question…. I can get them all in underneath 92, but I think they include 90, 91 and 92. Again, I believe we've changed here…. This enables the sharing of taxation revenues over in the Elk Valley area that has involved the industry affected as well as the communities. This simply is enabling that to take place.

C. Wyse: This is a question that has more to do with my newness at dealing with all of these items. If I understand things correctly, section 96 simply determines when certain sections of this act are put into place. When I look at the table that's at the back, on page 36, would I understand correctly, underneath number 2, that sections 1 through 72 were already put into place on the first day that the reading in the Legislature was tabled?

Hon. I. Chong: In essence, that is correct. All the sections, 1 to 72, do take place after first reading, so section 96 is really transitional provision rules. They enable the effective transition from the existing obligations regarding the public inspection of disclosure statements and the application of campaign financing rules to the proposed new ones, so it is transitional.

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

Bill 7, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, could we maybe just take a brief recess while we await the attendance of the Attorney General.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate of Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; S. Hammell in the chair.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise if any of the definitions in section 1 have changed from the definitions which governed the referendum which was last conducted in 2005?

Hon. W. Oppal: This legislation, as opposed to the last, defines "financial agent," as well as "the opponent group" and "the proponent group," which are not in the last act.

B. Ralston: What's the source or model for the two definitions of opponent group and proponent group, if there is one?

B. Ralston: There are two definitions here, (1) "opponent group" and (2) "proponent group." My question to the minister is this: what was the source of these definitions, or were they created uniquely by the drafters in the Ministry of Attorney General here in British Columbia?

B. Ralston: Dealing with section 2(2), which reads as follows: "The question that will be put to the electorate at the referendum must be set out in an order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council." The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the legal term for the cabinet. Why, in this particular piece of legislation, is the question going to be framed by the cabinet rather than being included in the legislation at this point?

Hon. W. Oppal: Referendum questions are always done in this particular fashion, and this merely followed the old act. It was done that way then, and that's the reason it's done. It's always the practice.

B. Ralston: Well, just because it's always been done one way doesn't mean that it couldn't be done another way and that it might not be a better way. Other than that, is there any reason for framing this subsection in this way?

B. Ralston: The minister said in his comments at second reading that the proposed question would be put to the Legislature for its comment. Is the minister prepared to explain the relationship between that representation, which the minister made here in the Legislature, and this section? Will the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council follow the direction of the Legislature, or is it simply an airing of proposed referenda questions?

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, the Attorney General is, then, confirming that the proposed question will be put to the Legislature. Or is he confirming that several prospective questions will be put to the Legislature? Maybe my question was a bit unclear. I'm interested in whether there's going to be one question or, in the alternative, more than one question put to the Legislature.

Hon. W. Oppal: The throne speech from 2005 was contemplating putting one question, and it is contemplated to be consistent with that practice from 2005. There'll be one question, not any alternatives.

B. Ralston: Again, just so we're clear. One question will be brought to the Legislature for discussion. Is that what I'm hearing the minister say?

B. Ralston: Can the minister briefly advise what his thinking is on how the question will be phrased? Is he in a position to do that at this point, in general terms, or is that something that he'd rather defer for another day?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's not a part of the bill, and I would defer that to cabinet. I think it's appropriate that cabinet discuss that.

B. Ralston: Is the minister familiar with the form of the question that was put in Ontario in the recent election?

Hon. W. Oppal: I am generally familiar with the Ontario model. I can't say at this stage what cabinet will do.

J. Horgan: I'd like to pick up on section 2(2). The Attorney General just said that he, or government, would be bringing the question to the Legislature once it's created by the executive council or the cabinet. I'm wondering, if that's the case, why we wouldn't wait for the question to be prepared before debating this legislation. Or can we anticipate a second piece of legislation when we look at the question?

Hon. W. Oppal: The question would come to the Legislature in a motion, not a bill, and the debate here would be on the bill.

J. Horgan: Well, I'm curious. If the executive council contemplates creating a question, and we have legislation here, why wouldn't we enshrine that question in the legislation? Why would we have a second step? Why would we have a motion to be debated at some time in the future?

Hon. W. Oppal: Subsection (2) follows the exact wording of the Referendum Act. So we're simply following the act here.

J. Horgan: So when we do see a question — it'll be in the form of a motion before this House — will it be accompanied by maps? One of the challenges in 2005 was that voters were not certain what they were voting for in terms of a geographic area — the size of the electoral boundaries at that time.

I'm just wondering, with all of the time we've had to contemplate this act and the time we've had with the Electoral Boundaries Commission in the field collecting information and producing materials, why we would come forward with a piece of legislation that doesn't answer those questions but instead lays the groundwork for future debate in this Legislature? Why not do it all at once?

Hon. W. Oppal: Electoral boundaries is a separate, distinct issue altogether. The first step would be to determine what the vote would be on the STV before you get on to the electoral boundaries. That question comes after this.

J. Horgan: Well, as I understand it, when we sent the commission off with its orders by a piece of legislation in this place, it was with the express direction to create STV maps so that the electorate would have some basis by which to make decisions and choices when the referendum legislation came before this House.

We have, albeit a botched process because of interference from executive council and particularly the Premier in the independence of the electoral boundaries process…. Nonetheless, they have given us a report. I'm assuming we'll be debating that report soon, and a component of that report was directed explicitly at the referendum, which is before us now.

I'm curious. Why wouldn't we wait until we've got some certainty on the report of the commissioners so that we can incorporate and advise voters what exactly they're going to be voting on?

Hon. W. Oppal: The information is already out there. There will be more information out there, but we can't create boundaries in this bill. This is the STV bill itself to create the referendum, but it doesn't create boundaries.

J. Horgan: I understand that. What I'm trying to get, what I'm trying to understand, is why we would bring forward this legislation, without a question and without a clear understanding of what the boundaries are that would be the basis of those questions.

Instead, we have a document that's outlining a commitment that was made by the government three years ago and that could easily be incorporated in legislation in the fall, with a full understanding of what this Legislature has said with respect to electoral boundaries, so that we could have a question in the House, as part of this legislation, to have a fuller and more open discussion.

I don't understand why it's a two-part process. If there's a good reason for that, I'd like to hear it. It strikes me that we've got the attention of the public on this issue. We're going to put in place the framework by which we hold a referendum. Why wouldn't we have the question here before the Legislature today?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know if I can explain it any better than I already have, except to say that the legislation dealing with electoral boundaries and its related maps would be done in separate legislation. This merely deals with the referendum. If the referendum is passed, then we would deal with the electoral boundaries. It's that simple.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that the Attorney General can't bind the cabinet as to when they might want to bring the question before the Legislature, but in the minister's mind, does he anticipate bringing the motion before the Legislature in the fall, or does he anticipate waiting until the spring?

Hon. W. Oppal: The intention at this time is to have the debate during this session in the spring.

B. Ralston: Before we rise at the end of May, then, the minister anticipates that the cabinet will bring forward its proposed referendum question before the Legislature — just so that I'm clear.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not in a position to give commitments as to when it will be done. The House Leader decides those questions. The intention is to have the debate this spring.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. My intention is not to ask him to bind the cabinet. I understand he can't do that, and I understand that the House Leader and the cabinet would make that decision, but I appreciate his answer.

Hon. W. Oppal: This section is put in there for convenience so as to create a better understanding of the legislation. It might be confusing and difficult to be jumping from one act to another. For that reason the intent here is to have one self-contained piece of legislation. Hopefully, it will be less confusing than creating a bill that would extensively modify some sections of the old act and leave others intact.

J. Horgan: For those who don't have the act in front of them, this is the section: "Funding for opponent and proponent groups." I may well have been better advised to ask this question in "Definitions," but I'm not clear how many proponent or opponent groups there could possibly be. Is it a limitless number? What is the quantum of the funding for those groups?

Hon. W. Oppal: We're unable to say how many groups there would be on one side or the other. That will have to be determined by the regulations and by the Chief Electoral Officer.

The intent is to have a total of a million dollars available for funding — $500,000 for each side. In addition to that, there would be another $500,000 for the operation of the office itself. So it would be $1.5 million in total.

J. Horgan: The extra $500,000 is interesting. I'm on the Finance Committee, and we deal with the budget for the Chief Electoral Officer. We did discuss the potential costs of a referendum. We discussed the costs of redrawing the internal boundaries within constituencies, whether they be STV boundaries or first-past-the-post boundaries. I don't recall him saying that he needed an additional half a million dollars, but I'll certainly go back and check that out.

I am interested, though…. The legislation in this section says: "…one or more opponent or proponent groups." That strikes me as without limit then. "More than one" would be any number greater than one. At what point would we see regulations…?

Maybe the minister will take an opportunity to speculate on what type of language he might want to use to restrict the number of groups that are proposing this or opposing it.

Hon. W. Oppal: I should have clarified. The member is quite correct about being on the Finance Committee and not being aware of the $500,000 that I alluded to.

The $500,000 is not in the act. It's a commitment by the government to fund the office in the amount of $500,000. It would be similar to the office that was funded during the last referendum. As far as the number of participants on either side of the question, that will be determined by regulation.

J. Horgan: I heard a bit of a clang there, so I'm going to pursue this a little bit. The minister referenced the office that was in place for the previous referendum. I don't remember that office, so I'm interested to hear a little bit more about that. But was it the budget at that time, of $500,000, that led to us concluding that this time they would need $500,000? Or is there some other formula that's led us to that number?

Hon. W. Oppal: In fact, there was a government-operated office during the last referendum. They expended $700,000 on that. It is contemplated that this time around they would have one neutral office, and the budget for that would be $500,000. It would not be operated by the Chief Electoral Officer.

J. Horgan: Well, that's informative, and I thank the minister for that response. If it's not being operated by the Chief Electoral Officer, who will be operating it, and whose budget will it come from? Will it be from the Attorney's budget? Will it be from the CRF? Will it be from Elections B.C.? Where is that money going to be allocated to?

Hon. W. Oppal: In 2005 the office reported directly to the Deputy Attorney General. In 2009 the $500,000 will come out of the Attorney General's budget.

J. Horgan: With respect to proponent and opponent groups, will it be the Deputy Attorney General that will determine…? It says up above that it will be the Chief Electoral Officer who will be determining where those payments go. I'm just curious, if that individual is apportioning funds that are held by another entity, how that's going to work out.

Hon. W. Oppal: Maybe I didn't make it clear. There are two separate offices. The government-operated office will be operated with funds from the Attorney General's office. That's a neutral office. The other office will be operated by the Chief Electoral Officer, and that office will have budgets of $500,000 for each of the two groups, the pros and the cons.

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

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

C. Puchmayr: We'll continue on from yesterday. Is it the same staff that was here? Maybe we could just get it on the record again of who's representing the minister today and if there are other members in the gallery that are representing the minister on Labour files as well.

The Chair: If I could remind the member to direct all questions through the Chair.

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, I have today with me Paul Straszak, the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour; Jim Soles, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour; and John Blakely, the executive director of labour policy and legislation. Terry Bogyo is here from WorkSafe B.C. Donna Freeman is here from WorkSafe B.C. — and Tara Faganello, the executive financial officer. They're all with me today.

C. Puchmayr: We left off yesterday on, I believe, farmworker safety. My question to the minister is with regards to the recommendations that were made by us, also recommendations that were made by the families, and recommendations that were made by labour organizations as well.

Could the minister please instruct us as to the progress with regards to the recommendations made and which of those recommendations the ministry will not act on?

Hon. O. Ilich: We announced a package of initiatives in May of last year, and with the exception of the legislation which we announced that we would be introducing, we have completed all of the things that we said we were going to do.

I think that the member opposite should keep in mind that we got recommendations not only from the B.C. Federation of Labour but also from our own staff, WorkSafe B.C., from the employment standards branch people and also from the agricultural community itself. We did formulate a response. We've acted on that response, and I'm happy to go through what we have done.

The very first thing we did was make sure that absolutely everybody that was in a passenger van had a seatbelt. That was one of the first things we did, so we would make sure that nobody was without a seatbelt.

We established the interagency committee, which includes the employment standards branch, the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch, WorkSafe B.C., the superintendent of motor vehicles, the RCMP in Abbotsford and the Delta police in Delta. They are coordinating enforcement, prevention and education with respect to farmworkers.

We beefed up the employment standards complement of people dedicated to the agricultural sector to six people. I understand from WorkSafe that there are seven people now from WorkSafe also dedicated just to agriculture.

One of the things, I saw in a report, that the B.C. Federation of Labour says we did not act on was where…. They suggested that if somebody was pulled over or if a van was pulled over and was declared unsafe, then we should take the people that were in the van home and pay them eight hours of wages.

What we have decided to do instead is to transport them safely to their workplace so that they can in fact work the eight hours. We believe that is better for the farmer and for the economy. We have a farmer sitting there waiting to have people come to work, and that's where they are headed, so that's what we've done. The B.C. Federation of Labour says that's not done, and we believe that we have come up with a better alternative.

As I said, we took a lot of information from them. We took information from all of our other agencies, including the police and the farm community. The package of incentives and initiatives that we have is almost complete, with the exception of the legislation which we announced in the throne speech that we would be introducing this session.

C. Puchmayr: The item that you just spoke of was with respect to…. If the van is condemned on the roadside, there will be arrangements made to deliver those

workers to the farmer or the grower that has asked for them. What about returning them back to their homes?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, that's also included. They'll be picked up and returned home.

C. Puchmayr: I'm sorry. Could the member repeat that? I'm sorry about that. I wasn't listening.

C. Puchmayr: I want to just explore a bit the issue of 15-passenger vans in general. I would like to have some comments on record with respect to what, in the service plan….

Are there any moneys allocated towards doing an analysis with respect to the safety of the 15-passenger van, in view of the fact that some states in the United States have banned the 15-passenger vans? Some schools, I know, across Canada are now outlawing the use of the 15-passenger vans. We saw, through the inspection report, some of the concerns, certainly, when there's a blowout or a flat tire in one of those vans and the instability that's caused.

Does the service plan include some analysis of the use of the 15-passenger van, up to and possibly including putting further restrictions on or maybe even outlawing their use in British Columbia?

Hon. O. Ilich: The issues relating to the vehicle stability of a 15-passenger van come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation and the commercial vehicle inspection branch. There is a current review taking place through the Ministry of Transportation. They're also looking at the process in place for certification and monitoring of inspection facilities right now.

That is happening, but it's happening through a different ministry. At WorkSafe and the employment standards branch we're obviously not qualified to look at vehicles.

C. Puchmayr: Yes, and I understand that. I certainly understand that that mechanical component isn't part of the qualification. But I also understand that when there is a consistency with certain defects of machinery identified by WorkSafe, then it is advanced to another stage to deal with the potential modification or elimination of that machinery. So I will leave that question and probably try to canvass that with the Ministry of Transportation when their estimates arrive in this House.

The compliance teams that are now set up…. I think the figure that was given…. Maybe correct me. The numbers of roadside checks that were engaged in last year…. How many vehicles were found to be defective? How many actually weren't able to leave those sites? Were all of those employees at that time transferred to their work and then home after work?

In recognition of the limited time we have, maybe give the numbers again of how many farm contractors would be in the business of transporting workers from pickups to drop-offs in British Columbia.

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to just report on what the enforcement team has been doing. There is some interagency reporting. It's available on our website. The enforcement subcommittee continues to meet, and they have met as recently as February.

They are doing cross-training right now. They're doing some pre-season inspections, which are scheduled for April 9 and 10 and May 12 to 14 in Abbotsford and for April 7 and 8 and May 14 and 15 in Delta. They're trying to be proactive this year.

However, roadside inspections will continue at random. Last year there were 522 roadside inspections over the course of the season. Most of those were in the July to September, January to March and April to June areas. I don't have this aggregated, but it looks like there were over $125,000 worth of fines.

Out of those inspections, 224 WorkSafe orders were written. There were, it looks like, about 59 employment standards branch compliance orders written out. On top of that, WorkSafe also did inspections at farms, and there were 799 inspection reports, and 1,388 orders were written as a result of that initiative.

C. Puchmayr: I think the minister is giving me an aggregate of many different inspections. The employment standards branch doesn't directly inspect vehicles. What I asked is: how many actual vehicles were inspected on the roadside? How many of those vehicles were deemed unsafe, and how many were actually pulled from the road?

Then the other question was: the ones that were pulled from the road — were all those employees…? Maybe she can explain the system. How does this method work? Where employees are now out of a vehicle and can't get to the site, what is the mechanism that takes them to the site and then takes them back home? And did that happen with all of the vehicles that were condemned at the roadside?

Hon. O. Ilich: I apologize for not giving you the information you were asking for earlier. There were 522 inspections, and of those, there were 367 vehicles inspected. Obviously, some of them were inspected twice or pulled over twice. Vehicles not passing inspection: 155 of those. Number of violation tickets issued by the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch: 228. That resulted in $46,000 worth of tickets issued.

The commercial vehicle safety enforcement people actually rent a van, and on the days that they are doing random checks, they will take those people in the van to their place of work.

C. Puchmayr: There were 367 vehicles inspected; 155 of them were violations. Are the 155 vehicles that were condemned from the road…? That's the figure that I want to know. How many of the overall vehicles that were inspected were actually condemned? Maybe

to expedite this a little bit, my next question…. Actually, let's just deal with that one and see if we can't get it cleared up, and then I'll give you my next….

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, we know that 155 vehicles did not pass inspection. We don't know how many of those are then condemned. That is information that is kept by the commercial vehicle inspection people.

We can get you that information if you want, but all of the information I'm giving you, with the exception of the stuff that I'm saying is kept by other people, is available on our website. We are reporting quarterly on the website, so it is now available there. We're going to continue to do inspections, as I said, and we're going to continue to make sure that farmworkers are safely transported.

C. Puchmayr: Just to clarify some of the information that you gave with respect to inspections last year. This is the compliance team. You said January to March, and then you said April to June. Does that mean that those were the only months of inspection? Could you maybe clarify that? That was your information — January to March, April to June.

Hon. O. Ilich: What I said was that the inspections were carried on all year long. However, the emphasis was on the growing season and the season when people would be going to farms. So most of them were in the January-to-March period and April-to-June period. There were 150 inspections done January to March. These are roadside inspections — 150 in January to March. April to June, there were 156; July to September, 47; and October to December, 14.

C. Puchmayr: During the actual peak hand-harvest, which would probably be July until the end of September, can you…? It shows me that there has been quite a reduction in inspections — like for the July month.

Are we led to believe that you are not sending as many inspectors in during the hand-harvest time? This is the concern I raised yesterday with the interministerial memo, where the Labour Minister was being asked by the Agriculture Minister not to inspect during the harvest time. It is my opinion that the time when you need to inspect the hand-harvest sector is during the hand-harvest time.

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm sorry. I seem to have misinformed you. I was giving you the vehicles passing inspection. Those are the numbers of vehicles passing inspection, not the total number of vehicles inspected. I was reading the wrong line.

In the January-to-March period there were 221 inspections totally. The vehicles passing inspection: 150. In April to June there were 229 vehicles inspected. The vehicles passing inspection: 156. In July to September there were 52 vehicles inspected, and 47 passed. In October to December, 20, and 14 passed.

I think we have to keep in mind that that's not the total number of vehicles that were inspected. You're asking about roadside inspections. What we were beginning to see was a change in pattern, where more people were in fact passing inspections. The emphasis brought on it…. I think we were seeing that more people were being brought into line so that tickets issued and numbers failing were heavier at the beginning and not so heavy when people started coming into compliance.

C. Puchmayr: Just to clarify, then. With the actual inspections of farms, the compliance team would go on the farms, meaning that employment standards and WorkSafe B.C. would actually attend on the farms as well? Could you give me a breakdown of how many farm visits you had during the year last year on the farms? Break it down into months.

Hon. O. Ilich: We, in fact, started doing more inspections on the farms. That was the employment standards branch and also WorkSafe together. So that escalated, and there were 21 inspections April to June; 70 site inspections where they interviewed 2,162 employees; in the previous period, 769 employees; and then nine in the October-to-December period. As they stopped doing as many roadside inspections, they started inspecting it on farms.

I would prefer that if you're going to be talking to the commercial vehicle inspection branch, perhaps you deal with the Ministry of Transportation, which has more of those numbers. We can stick to the WorkSafe and the other things, but the commercial vehicle safety branch is actually the Ministry of Transportation.

C. Puchmayr: I'm sorry, but my last question was with respect to actual farm visits, not vehicle visits.

Hon. O. Ilich: I think I answered that question. Total number of site visits in the April-to-June period: 21, talking to 769 employees. July to September: 70 visits, 2,162 employees. In October to December: nine site visits conducted and 123 employees talked to.

C. Puchmayr: I just want to clarify. You did the unusual thing and asked me a question yesterday, and I went through the statistics. I think you were questioning about where we got our statistics from with respect to wage loss, with loss-of-earning pensions awarded in 2006. Our number was 39. Your number was significantly higher.

The figures come from your document. What you've done…. I quickly crunched the numbers, and the number that you reach…. I was speaking about how, once the changes were implemented, wage-loss pensions are calculated and how some of the pensions were eliminated. If you factor in the actual ones that fall under the new rules, it is 39. It's in your own document.

What you responded to was…. You took loss-of-earnings pensions that were still accrued under the old rules, and you factored them over and counted them. My question was clearly a breakdown of before you changed the legislation in the act and after.

My numbers are: 39 awarded in 2006. That comes from your document, and it's under the new rules that were implemented by your government.

Hon. O. Ilich: It's been explained to me that the numbers are like that because it takes a while for the new provisions to kick in. Over time you're going to see those numbers that are under the new rules go up. We're not comparing apples with apples, I guess. We're looking at two different kinds of things.

C. Puchmayr: My question was specific to what has happened since the change in the legislation. It's very clear that there has been a significant change. My question, I believe, to the minister yesterday was: are they aware of the hardship that is causing people that now receive…? In 2002, loss-of-earnings pensions, zero; 2003, zero; 2004, three; 2005, 11; 2006, 39. The dollars that were budgeted and the actual moneys that were spent…. There's such a drastic change.

That's the clarification, and I don't think the numbers will change. This is clear. This is in your document. This shows, under the new rules, how many people actually receive that pension. You can't factor in the old days and say that things are good today.

My question was clearly: under the new rules, under the new legislation, what is the impact on people? And the impact is daunting.

Hon. O. Ilich: The member opposite has to realize that the loss-of-earnings pension was for loss of earnings. It's a wage replacement scheme, not something that is a pension for life. At 65, or whenever the employee would normally be retiring, they are given a payout, and they go on a pension that is supplied by the federal government or some other pension. But it's not a pension that goes on forever.

Those are things that were recommended by the royal commission and also by the core review. It's helped to also make sure that people who are capable of going back to work…. There's more money being spent on rehabilitation, and employees are going back to work earlier.

C. Puchmayr: To the member for Kelowna–Lake Country: it's good to see you recovering and back in the House. I hope you're doing well.

We're aware of the core review, and we're certainly aware of the impacts. What's a little bit odd here is that somebody at 65, now that the law is changed where you can work beyond 65…. Someone at 65 that's totally disabled from work and suddenly has that pension cut, had they been disabled and on disability for years prior to that, may not have a lot of pension accrued.

It's a double hardship on them: (a) they're disabled, and they can't go out and find meaningful employment, even if they have to; and (b) they're losing their pension. It's very difficult on somebody at that age suddenly having their income cut for a cash pension or for a small settlement. The numbers show, if you look at before and after, that it's extremely drastic. The minister, knowing the figures, must agree with that.

Hon. O. Ilich: The member is talking about people who are post-retirement, and there are other schemes to help people with retirement. The Workers Compensation Act is to cover people who are otherwise working, who are injured and cannot work. If somebody is past their retirement age and they can collect another kind of Canada Pension Plan or something, then they should be doing that.

No other jurisdiction provides a special benefit to people that are post-retirement. We've brought our jurisdiction into line with others. When, previously, workers were compensated for loss of earnings for life, it did not take into consideration that people, clearly, usually retired sometime around age 65 and would not have employment income. What that was doing was impacting the long-term viability of the workers compensation system, where you would have people on forever, for the rest of their lives. I don't think that's realistic.

C. Puchmayr: I thought that's why it was called compensation. People injure themselves in the line of work, and compensation, which is self-funding — the employers' premiums are funding it — is an insurance policy. It's to ensure that workers are protected when injured on the job. We certainly have seen significant reduction in that, and it is causing hardships to families.

I'd like to move to some of the inquests that we have had in the province. I know that in the estimates there's some ongoing work that is being done to look at the results of those inquests.

I have some questions with respect to progress on those. I'd like to ask the minister, first of all, about the forestry faller inquest — the Ted Gramlich inquest — what the status of that is. And is the ministry also factoring in the latest Auditor General's scathing report on safety in the forests?

Hon. O. Ilich: There have been a number of initiatives relating to forest safety, some of the recommendations coming out of the Gramlich coroner's inquest, for instance. WorkSafe also has announced changes to part 26 of the occupational health and safety regulations. We also asked the Auditor General to do a complete review to see what we were doing that could help with improving forest safety.

Specifically with respect to the Gramlich coroner's inquest, the jury put through 23 recommendations, of which 17 were directed to the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, WorkSafe B.C. or the Forest Safety Council.

All seven of the recommendations directed at WorkSafe B.C. have been implemented, and the B.C. Forest Safety Council has committed to or is acting on eight of the recommendations addressed to it. The other two recommendations are being addressed

through our response to the Auditor General's report, which I can tell you we are also acting upon.

We continue to take forest safety very seriously, and we continue to put a lot of resources behind that to make sure that workers are safe.

C. Puchmayr: One of the issues that came out of the Gramlich inquiry was the fact that the B.C. Forest Safety Council, which was sort of a…. To me, it's sort of a growing wing of applying safety in the forests. There had been numerous faller deaths, and we had been asking for a forestry coroner. We are pleased that there finally is a forestry coroner.

One of the recommendations that was made to the B.C. Safety Council a year before Ted Gramlich's death was…. The confusion that existed in the forests with the deregulation and all the contracting-out that happened…. People that were falling the trees really didn't understand the chain of command for safety. There was a very basic approach to what was required for a safety program. It was basically a written safety program.

There was also concern about the pressures in the forest with respect to private contractors trying to ensure that they received more contracts, so there was this competition with all these private contractors trying to be more productive, maybe, than focusing on safety. There was some discussion about ensuring that a safety component was part of that.

Can the minister tell us if, when somebody bids on a falling job as a faller, there is in fact a safety component that becomes a part of that bid in the forests?

Hon. O. Ilich: Amendments went to public hearing in 2007 relating to your question and were approved by the board of directors in December 2007. Coming into law as of May 1, there are now new requirements for prime contractors, who must be qualified and have necessary authority to fulfil their responsibilities.

They have to do planning. Forestry operations must be planned and conducted in a manner consistent with safe work practices. They have to identify the hazard areas and safe work areas. New requirements will deal with worker-machine interface and control worker–machine interaction. It sets out new regulations for falling supervisors and new regulations for log-hauling.

Those are the key changes to part 26 of the occupational health and safety regulations that will be brought into force and effect on May 1.

C. Puchmayr: I understand the process for adding new regulations. Notice is served, and it goes out to stakeholders. There are public hearings. I think I attended about four of them, with the working-alone and the gas station pay-in-advance hearings that travelled the province.

Can the minister explain to me what they engage in when regulations are eliminated?

Hon. O. Ilich: Any regulations that are eliminated have to follow the same process. There is a public hearing as to what changes will be made, and it goes to the board of directors.

C. Puchmayr: In the construction industry we're seeing quite a shocking increase in serious injuries and fatalities, and this increase is inconsistent. The minister may want to say that it's because more people are working in construction, but that certainly isn't the case in the volume of the fatalities and serious injuries.

In 2001 there were 7,000 construction injuries. From 2001 to 2006 it jumped to 20,700, a 300 percent increase over that period of time. The workforce grew by 60 percent, and we see a 300 percent increase.

Can the minister explain to me if, in the service plan, there is some analysis being done of that to identify what the issue is? Is it a training issue? Is there a breakdown in the safety committees on the jobsites? What is causing a 300 percent increase in deaths and serious injuries when there has in fact only been a 60 percent increase in the volume of people working in that field?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm told that the injury rate actually is flat and has been flat over this number of years. There are more people working. When there are fatalities, many of them are, as we talked about yesterday, because of exposure to asbestos that happened many, many years ago. I'm taking a look at the fatalities from last year and the year before, and I'd say that 50 percent of them are occupational diseases that have had a long latency.

C. Puchmayr: So the minister is saying that between 2001 and 2006 there hasn't been an increase in fatalities and injuries in the construction industry. I'm talking about new construction; I'm not talking about overall. I'm talking about the construction industry itself, which is not an asbestos-laden industry. It's an industry of new construction.

The Chair: A division vote has been called in the big House, so we will take a recess until the vote has been taken.

Hon. O. Ilich: The question that you had was about construction increases and fatalities and injuries. Taking a look at the information supplied, the rate has stayed the same from 2002 to 2006, pretty well at 7 percent — 7 percent in 2002, 6 percent in 2003 and 7 percent in each of those years thereafter. So there has not in fact been an increase in the rate of injury.

The other thing that I can tell you is that construction, obviously, is a high-risk industry, and WorkSafe

B.C. is focusing its enforcement resources on construction and often high-risk industries, like forestry. In 2007 WorkSafe conducted a targeted inspection initiative in the construction industry, and they work closely with this industry on safety initiatives. WorkSafe B.C. funds two construction industry safety associations.

C. Puchmayr: Those numbers actually fall into that window of my concern, which was 2001 to 2006, which is where it showed a huge increase in injuries and fatalities. It does show a continued increase in '02 and '06.

All heavy industries are industries where people are exposed to risk. It's up to the employer and up to WorkSafe B.C. to work with the employees, with the unions, with the workers, with the companies to make sure that those risks are eliminated. That is my concern right now — that we're not really seeing that trend. We're seeing a trend of more injuries rather than fewer injuries. That certainly is concerning, especially with the amount of young people that are working in construction right now. It certainly concerns me that we're exposing people to risks, and I'm hoping that WorkSafe B.C. has a good look at and works towards mitigating or eliminating those risks.

When we go into the forestry file, a lot of the regulations that were depleted — changing first aid from a prescriptive regulation to a guideline — caused some serious issues in the workplace. One other significant change in the regulation was…. At one time, contravention of a regulation by even a worker was deemed to be a contravention of a regulation by an employer. The reason for that was that it ensured that the employers gave a lot of credibility and put a lot of onus on ensuring that workers didn't violate regulations. Taking that out of the regulations basically puts a lot less pressure on the owners, on the employers and on the people that own the tree farm licence, the people that own the cutblocks and are responsible for the cutblocks.

We need to get back into the culture where the responsibility of health and safety cascades up to the owner of that site or the owner of that plot or the prime contractor on that plot and does not cascade down to what in some cases is a single-company private contractor with a chainsaw and a pickup truck. Some of those fatalities are that single private contractor with a chainsaw and a pickup truck. That is, in my opinion, heading in the wrong direction.

I know that with respect to the forest industry, there is some initiative to put some of those responsibilities back. I would like to see it put back with such strength that the owner of that cutblock is actually responsible, up to and including criminal charges under Bill C-45. A breach of health and safety on that site is something that the owner needs to be aware of and put more emphasis and energy into.

I'm asking the minister that if the regulations go that far, they restore what I believe was section 824, where the onus of health and safety cascades up to the CEO and not down to the smallest denominator, which could be a private contractor.

Hon. O. Ilich: With respect, I'm taking a look at the injury rate, the number of claims per hundred person-years of employment, for all sectors here. I'm looking at construction — general construction, heavy construction and road construction. It's broken out, and there has been no increase in the rate.

As far as fatalities, I can read you the numbers from 2001 to 2006. In 2001 there were 32. In 2002 there were 27. In 2003 there were 44. In 2004 there were 29. In 2005 there were 38. In 2006 there were 38, and in 2007 there were 30. So it's remained fairly constant — the number of fatalities. The actual injury rate has stayed constant as well.

Of the people who died in the construction industry, there were quite a few, as we talked about earlier, that were as a result of exposure to asbestos, primarily in plumbing and heating. That is where there was asbestos used.

Just turning to your comments on forestry, the changes that come into effect on May 1, 2008, after the consultation a year ago, do deal with prime contractors and who is a prime contractor. It does deal with planning. Forestry operations must be planned and conducted in a manner consistent with safe work practices.

It does deal with the identification of hazard areas and safe work areas. New requirements deal with worker-machine interface and control worker-machine interaction. It does set out new responsibilities for falling supervisors and new provisions regarding speed, impairment by fatigue and other causes, and operator logbooks for log-hauling.

Those changes were necessary to update and improve the regulatory structure in the industry. That does take effect in May 1, and it is the result of the consultation between contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors that happened last year. WorkSafe is taking a similar proactive response to the changes that may be happening in the construction industry.

C. Puchmayr: Again, all those figures that you gave me on construction are in the window of concern that I expressed. You're corroborating what I'm saying — that those statistics are high. They should be going down and not up.

I will move to the forestry part, to your comments with respect to forestry. Some of these regulations are regulations that existed and that were stripped — in my opinion, recklessly deregulated. Now we've seen the impacts of that in the forest sector. Now we're putting regulations back that were taken out, and it's really sad to see the impact on families, on workers of something that was, in my opinion, an absolutely reckless deregulation of WorkSafe regulations. Now, suddenly there's a realization that the government has gone too far, and now some of those are being implemented back.

I would hate to think that this is just something that's short term, and I would hate to see that we head back into those areas. We need to continue to improve health and safety. A lot of the regulations are written…. I think there's an old saying that regulations are

written in blood. Somebody consistently has a certain injury or dies from a certain exposure on the job. People say, "We need to do something about this," and that's when regulations are developed. That's when regulations are introduced.

To take regulations that are written because of a history of problems in a specific sector or a specific injury and eliminate them for a short-term gain…. I don't know what the short-term gain would be. I know we have the lowest employer premiums in Canada now, and we're paying out the least amount of money.

What we need to do is ensure that we continue to progress, to go forward and continue to make the workplace safer and not be at the mercy of sudden changes in policy that cause a weakening of safety regulations. I'm certainly optimistic, with some of the consultation that was had. I did attend a couple of the sessions, one in Richmond and one that I was invited to with the steelworkers.

There's certainly a lot to look at and a lot of things that need to be reinstituted. The first-aid regulation is one of them. That has to be prescriptive. It can't be just a loose first-aid plan. It has to be specific. It has to be prescriptive, so if someone is in violation of that, there's a penalty to be had.

The other one is with regards to Forestry roads. We started getting calls right after we were elected about the dangers in the forests with Forestry roads. I did meet with some employees of upper management at WorkSafe quite a few years ago up in Prince George. One of the concerns was…. They understand that these roads are unsafe. They understand that the grades are too steep. Some of the logging trucks were being pulled up by cable to a cutblock area so that they could load them, and they were riding this dangerous ride down a very steep slope.

WorkSafe couldn't do anything about it because the engineered standard provision in the forestry revitalization agreement…. They eliminated the engineered standard of that road. Something as small as that created the ability for an employer to build any road they wished, and there would be no penalty for it.

It said, "Build a road that's functional, and try to be safe," so it was very loose. It wasn't prescriptive, and we've seen the impacts. We've seen the increases in the number of logging truck fatalities. We have seen problems with cycling with logging trucks — too many trucks on certain cutblocks going in and out. That's all part of the direction this government took.

We need to bring that back in. We need to have something that WorkSafe can go out and survey and say: "That road fails, and this is why it fails. Fix it, or pay the penalty."

I'd like to know if the ministry is looking at bringing back in the engineered standards of Forestry roads so that again, there can be a prescriptive application to the standard of Forestry roads in British Columbia, which no longer exists.

Hon. O. Ilich: WorkSafe is very concerned about fatalities and injuries in the forestry sector. I'm just going to read you some things that they have been doing. In fact, there were no faller fatalities in 2006 and 2007, although sadly there have been two in 2008 to date.

Of the 22 forestry fatalities in 2007, nine were from occupational disease, five were from motorcycle vehicle accidents and eight were traumatic. WorkSafe B.C. conducted 685 inspections of forestry worksites in 2007 compared to 506 in 2006, which is an increase of 35 percent. Forty-nine percent of all prevention orders cited in all industries in 2007 were cited in forestry operations. WorkSafe B.C. wrote 19 percent more orders against the forest industry in 2007 compared to 2006. In 2007 there were 1,170 orders written and 985 in 2006.

We take it very, very seriously. The B.C. Forest Safety Council is also up and running, and it also takes it seriously, because we do think that safety is everybody's responsibility. There are more WorkSafe B.C. inspectors. There's a dedicated forest coroner. There's an appointed forest ombudsman.

The safety council is running programs in Forestry TruckSafe, faller certification, supervisory training, SAFE silviculture and SAFE companies. As a matter of fact, 2,960 forest companies have registered with the B.C. Forest Safety Council for their SAFE-certified companies program; 1,700 small employer representatives trained in basic occupational health and safety as part of the SAFE companies program; 3,600 experienced fallers were certified under the council's faller certification program, and 105 new fallers were trained and certified by the council; and 400-plus forest supervisors were trained by the council.

A lot of resources are going to forest safety, and it is having its effect. It is bringing down the injury rate in the forest sector.

C. Puchmayr: It certainly shows that when we looked at the reduction prior to this…. We looked at the reduction from '01 in worksite inspections, and there was a drastic reduction. There was a reduction in penalties; there was a reduction in orders. Just prior to the Gramlich inquiry, there was an increase in…. There were some spot forestry checks done, and there was a team that was put out into the field. This was evidenced at the Gramlich inquiry.

I believe that out of the 300 inspections they did in the spot inspections, they averaged two violations per inspection. That shows me, and it shows the people of British Columbia quite clearly, that industry — and certainly, this industry — is not capable of regulating itself. They need to know that there are eyes on them. They need to know that WorkSafe is there to ensure that there is safety in the field.

Now the figures of increased inspection are showing some dividends. They're showing that increasing inspections is actually having an impact. So again, the reckless cuts to inspections and written orders and then, suddenly, we show that prior to the inquiry there

was an increase. Now we show that all of last year there was an increase, and it's paying dividends.

Let's hope that we continue to head in that direction and that this isn't just a short-term initiative that is going to maybe last for another year or so. This is something that needs to be sustainable and needs to be ongoing. We're certainly seeing the results of it.

I have a question with regards to inspections or disclosures of fatalities in industries. I remember that at one time it was very easy for anyone from the public to access the person — you know, not the name of the person but who died on the job. What did they die from? What is the ongoing investigation? What are the initial findings? To me, that's a way of highlighting to people early that there is a hazard in a certain sector and it needs to be addressed.

Now I get the e-mails that have a back injury warning — right? — and two days prior, somebody died on the job, and it's not communicated. So I'm wanting to ask the minister what the provision is, other than us contacting the RCMP in the area. How can the public find out, immediately, what an employee died from so that the other members of the public, that maybe are working in a similar industry, are able to understand that there may be a hazard out there that they need to protect themselves from?

The Chair: Committee will recess for the division. We'll restart in a few minutes.

Hon. O. Ilich: WorkSafe B.C. is the only workers compensation system in North America, and probably the world, that proactively releases investigations. The publication that is put out at the end of the year with the statistics actually gives you absolutely every single fatality description of what the occupation was, the age, what happened and what sector it was. There's quite a bit of work in that or information that is released, and I think that there are also advisories put out from time to time.

C. Puchmayr: I'm aware of the report that comes out at the end of the year. My concern is that WorkSafe, or the Workers Compensation Board, at one time would release…. There would be a quicker release of that information on fatalities.

Now it seems that if it makes the nightly news, there's discussion of it. But often — for instance, last year 106 fatalities — those fatalities aren't always communicated. In my opinion, the idea would be that when there's a fatality in the workplace, that information should get out fairly quickly so that people know that they may be working in the same type of environment and that they may be at risk as well.

I find it more difficult today to get information on fatalities in the workplace. I did explore it with the Solicitor General last year, and I received a whole bunch of privacy concerns. Every family I've spoken to that has lost someone in the workplace wants that information out there so that we can prevent other people from experiencing those hazards in the workplace.

Hon. O. Ilich: I think I know what the member opposite is talking about, and I would agree that families of people that have been injured or, in fact, killed in a workplace incident want to ensure that that doesn't happen again, and we do respond to that. You saw us respond to that with Grant De Patie, and we responded to that. We worked with the parents to bring in some new legislation on that, and we saw the same sort of thing with the Sullivan mine disaster. I think those are things that we understand, and we do make sure that we address those concerns.

When there is an accident, if it's something like someone falling off a roof, I don't think that's something that we then have to take to the rest of the industry and say: "Someone fell off a roof. It's unsafe." We have protection in place to make sure that people don't fall off roofs, and there are regulations for that.

Those are the kinds of things that we take a look at. But if it is something that is industry-specific and we know that there are other people, perhaps, in an industry who are doing things in an unsafe manner because it's been highlighted by somebody, then in fact WorkSafe does attempt to make sure that that information gets out.

C. Puchmayr: I understand what…. I've been working with the De Patie family for some time, and it actually wasn't a quick response by the government on the De Patie, on the working alone. As a matter of fact, there was another incident in Delta where there was a weapon used in a gas-and-dash. We brought it up in the House in question period to the former Labour Minister, asking for regulation. I believe his answer was that at that time there wasn't a need to impose any regulation.

I'm not talking about the culmination or the end result of an incident that happened two years ago or more. I'm speaking about an incident that happens today on a worksite in British Columbia that should be communicated to people. If anyone, if my children are working in that type of a working environment…. If my son was a roofer and I found out that another roofer plunged to his death on a worksite, I would want to know the preliminary of that incident. I would want to know, and I would want to be able to talk to my son or daughter and say: "Do you know that somebody else died on a roof today?" I don't know why the minister would discount that as not being that important.

It's how we communicate to people, how we communicate to our young people that they're working in a

dangerous job and that here's another example of why it's dangerous: someone else just died in that job. It's becoming more difficult for the public to get information from WorkSafe B.C. on fatalities in the workplace.

Hon. O. Ilich: We do hazard campaigns. We provide Web slide shows. We do videos. Sector by sector there are awareness campaigns, such as roadside safety for flag people. There's continuous work on this, and information is continually going out. If something is brought to the attention of WorkSafe, they do their best to make sure that others know about it so that they won't also be injured.

C. Puchmayr: That really doesn't answer the question. I'll make the question very specific, then. How can someone access today a website of WorkSafe B.C. where we can get a tracking of how many people died not just of industrial disease but including industrial disease and fatalities on the job? Where is the website where that is readily available on a daily basis?

C. Puchmayr: I'd like to ask: what purpose does it serve to not immediately warn the public of a fatality in the workplace? You know, I get messages from WorkSafe about certain hazard warnings, maybe a fall hazard — not one that actually resulted in a death but one that resulted in claims.

Wouldn't it be even more so prudent of WorkSafe B.C. to communicate instantly that somebody has become a fatality in an industry so that it can be looked at, so that other people working in that industry can be notified by their employers, by their unions, by their community that a hazard exists and that people need to take more care?

Why is it so difficult to get that information readily, where at one time it was always accessible?

Hon. O. Ilich: If there is a death in an industry, the information does go out to those in the industry.

As far as the public goes, there are thousands of media interviews a year done with WorkSafe, but in a lot of cases we have to let the investigation run its course. It's a matter of due process as to whether the worker was in fact injured on the job or whether it was of a natural cause, such as a heart attack. There are privacy concerns. At the conclusion of the investigation, the material is gathered together, and it's published once a year.

In the meantime, within an industry there are industry alerts, and others are notified of any specific dangers.

C. Puchmayr: If a worker dies in a work-related accident in Metro Vancouver, it seems that the media get a hold of it fairly quickly, and then it's in the public. Then people can discuss and take precautions, and they can deal with the issue.

The motivation of an investigation isn't to lay blame; it's to prevent this from ever happening again. No one's saying that there's an attempt to do a witch-hunt. All it is, is: why can't that information be made public immediately so that people working in those industries or people that have children working in those industries can talk to them about another fatality in a similar industry that they're working in? Wouldn't that be a prudent direction for WorkSafe B.C. to go, or to revert back to?

Hon. O. Ilich: Of the accidents that happened, there were 1,600 media interviews that were done last year by WorkSafe, and those were related to serious injuries. The very high-profile cases are reported by the media. Some of the other ones — for instance, motor vehicle accidents, occupational diseases, and things like that — are not reported as quickly. In a lot of cases it takes time to investigate incidents before you can get out the information.

If there is something that is going on that is unsafe and that WorkSafe knows others are doing, they do put out an alert and make sure that people are aware.

C. Puchmayr: I would suggest that any fatality in the workplace should be of a high profile. It saddens me that the direction that WorkSafe has taken is not one of wanting to disclose that as readily as they did at one time.

The minister talks about investigations. I remember reading the Gramlich investigation. There's quite a significant change in the Gramlich investigation that I read with respect to what is eliminated under section 22 of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. Then I go to one that is the Murrin Construction report on the blaster that was killed on the jobsite. The blaster was trying to set off a blast on the Carmanah Valley road on the Olympic project, trying to do so using a flashlight battery and then a truck battery because there was no blasting kit around. It appears they were using old blasting wire that they had recovered from a previous blast site.

What concerns me about the actual report…. The minister talks about this disclosure that happens after the investigation. I was absolutely shocked at how much of this report is eliminated, and it's not just people's names. There are eliminations that talk about experience of a driller. There are parts about communications that were had between the blaster and the driller. There were sections that talk about the questionable splices and using a 12-volt battery in a light to check the conductivity of that line. I don't see that here in the Murrin report. It says, "The driller is also a blaster and has held a certificate for" — and the next three lines are deleted.

I'm puzzled. I've also asked the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner to review why so much of this report has been deleted. I'm concerned that there is information that the public should have about possible hazards on the jobsite, what the experience of the driller was, what the experience of the

helper was, what the experience of the supervisor on that jobsite at the time was and why all of those things are deleted.

How can you now have an objective look at what WorkSafe B.C. did with respect to investigating this serious tragic accident? By eliminating all of these components, how can anyone get a clear picture of whether or not there was a huge breakdown of the supervisory chain of command on that site? We won't know that because of the massive whiteouts in this report.

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to advise the member that the Murrin situation resulted in one of the largest fines that WorkSafe has ever put out — a $216,000 fine. The severing of the document at the moment is done under the rules of the Freedom of Information Act as they are right now. If the member takes exception with that or feels that it's not being done in accordance with those rules and regulations, we have a process in place where you can take that to the commissioner, who will take a look at it.

The information that was gained from the investigation of the Murrin incident certainly means that WorkSafe is going out there to make sure that that doesn't ever happen again. The fact that they're not, for privacy reasons, putting it out to the public doesn't mean that they didn't learn a lesson from that, which they are disseminating to others that are in the same business.

C. Puchmayr: Well, it's great that WorkSafe B.C. believes they learned a lesson in this. I'm talking about communicating this to other blasters, to the public. Not that there was a significant fine paid, but what are the details in this report? A blaster could read this report and say…. For instance, if the labour on the site had virtually no experience, is that the reason all that is in a whiteout position? A blaster would read this report and say, "My god, how could this have happened," and come to a conclusion. You can't come to a conclusion by reading this report.

Yes, we are pursuing it. I believe our 30-day time limit to get information is probably about two or three months past. We are trying to get this report clarified so that the severed parts, other than persons' names or things that would meet that test of FOI, remain severed. We want to know what exactly happened in this case.

The minister talks about Sullivan mines as well. After the Sullivan mines incident the mines inspector — the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — imposed no penalty, no fine on Teck Cominco, yet there were three major breaches of violations of the mine safety and reclamation code.

This was going to end just like that — no penalties, four people dead. It was this side that started a communication with the Solicitor General and with the coroner's office, making a case for a coroner's inquest into the fatalities, and we were finally successful in getting a coroner's inquest.

The coroner's inquest revealed things that certainly weren't revealed in any of the other reports. The inquest showed that there were major breaches that dominoed down to the effects that happened on that site. The inquest also showed that there was an ambiguity because of the fact that you're having two different safety codes trying to apply health and safety on that site. You have the Mines Act, mine safety and reclamation code, and then for the paramedics and the firefighters you have WorkSafe B.C. so there's a confusion.

It also showed that the confined space language in WorkSafe B.C. is stronger than the confined space language in the mine safety and reclamation code. It wasn't this great work of the Mines Minister or WorkSafe B.C. that helped the families start the next battle, which is trying to prevent this from happening; it was the fact that there was finally a coroner's inquest that revealed all the shortcomings.

Having said that and in response to what the minister said earlier about the families being able to put things to rest, would the minister — and I have canvassed that with her before, and I'd like an update on it — look towards changing the mine safety and reclamation code and moving that over as an addendum to WorkSafe B.C. so that you have one governance for safety in British Columbia?

I think we're one of the few provinces that still have separate health and safety governance for mines and non-mine sectors in the province. Will the minister comment as to whether she has looked at doing what most of Canada has done in taking the responsibility of mine safety and moving it as an addendum over to WorkSafe B.C.?

Hon. O. Ilich: We have talked to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and looked at that. In fact, their safety record is one of the strongest in North America, if not the world.

They believe that their inspectors are trained specifically in mine operation, and they believe that they are, as I said, one of the safest jurisdictions. They don't want to lose the fact that they have specialists there.

We, in fact, did have some responsibility there at Sullivan mine. What I was trying to say to the member is I fully understand that family members who have lost loved ones will look to make sure that nothing like that happens ever again. Certainly, we've taken some action. There was a large fine imposed by WorkSafe, and we are continuing to make sure that anytime there is an accident of any sort, we learn a lesson from it to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

C. Puchmayr: This is news to me. There was an actual fine levied against Teck Cominco for the Sullivan mine accident?

Hon. O. Ilich: There was a $75,000 fine levied against EHS, not against Teck Cominco. It was against the other company.

C. Puchmayr: Well, you know, we talked about one of the largest fines in the fatality of the blaster, and we had four fatalities at Sullivan mine, so I wouldn't consider that as a large fine.

If the fine was levied against the environmental company that was on that site, was that environmental company then governed under the protection of WorkSafe B.C., or were they under the jurisdiction of the mine safety and reclamation code?

Hon. O. Ilich: EHS is the emergency health services. Two of the people there were there under our jurisdiction. Those were the people who provided the ambulance services.

C. Puchmayr: So the fine went to the provider of the paramedic service, to the government? The government fined itself but didn't fine Teck Cominco. That's odd.

Teck Cominco — a huge contributor to the Liberal Party last year. The year that the fatalities happened, I think they were No. 1, but maybe they were No. 2. They're under a governance that's different from WorkSafe B.C. They were in breach of some significant violations of their own code, and they didn't receive one penalty.

In view of the fact that you're saying Murrin Construction received a huge fine…. I know EnCana is appealing a large fine on the Filiathro fatality, the young man who was blown to pieces in the snubbing operation. I know there was a significant fine paid in New Westminster when Lyle Hewer died on the job in an industrial accident.

WorkSafe B.C. is on record by virtue of showing that there are some significant fines being levied in some of the more high profile cases. Yet Teck Cominco…. The mines inspector felt there was no need to impose a fine on Teck Cominco that led to the fatalities of four people.

Doesn't that make the argument that maybe someone who is promoting mining should not also be regulating health and safety in mining? Those are actual words that were quoted by the Premier of Nova Scotia when they went away from a separate governance for mine inspection. The Premier of Nova Scotia said that there is no way that anyone that is in the business of promoting mines should also be in the business of promoting mine safety. There's a conflict there. There's a bit of a conflict of interest there.

In view of what has transpired, in view that Teck Cominco didn't receive a penalty, in view that all the other provinces are going to a different governance or protection model, wouldn't the minister agree, then, that it would be to everyone's best interests to move mine safety into WorkSafe B.C.?

Hon. O. Ilich: If an accident takes place on a mining site, it is the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The current system has produced a safety record that is the highest in North America, so government does not believe that there's a cause to transfer the mine safety responsibilities to WorkSafe B.C. Their inspectors are, in fact, trained inspectors in the mining industry. They're specialists, and we believe that's where it should stay.

If there are specific questions, for instance on Sullivan mine, that you have, you go and talk to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum when they're up for their estimates.

C. Puchmayr: I was merely responding to the comments you began with on Sullivan mines. That's why we headed in that direction. Certainly, if time allows, I will be asking some questions of that ministry as well.

I have just some closing comments that I would like to make and then turn it over to my colleague on the Citizens' Services part.

First of all, I want to thank the staff of the minister for their engagement with the minister. I want to just make a few comments with regards to where we're heading with health and safety and with labour in this province. We are seeing increases in fatalities in workplace. We're seeing increases in young people dying in the workplace, and I think that we need to take those issues seriously.

The issues that I brought forward today with respect to the disclosure of serious injuries and fatalities in the workplace…. The ministry needs to go back to a system where that is at people's fingertips so that we can monitor and have a look. It shouldn't have to be that we have to FOI and wait for months for a report that we will get regardless. I mean, that's something that should be forthcoming. If everyone feels the same way, that will benefit….

We're going towards eliminating accidents in the workplace and reducing accidents in the workplace. The regulations that are going back, that are being reinstituted…. It saddens me that there had to be such a reckless deregulation in the first place and that suddenly now there's a realization that it has gone too far.

I'm pleased that some of the groups that are involved in the consultation and certainly the groups that attended on the working-alone legislation consultation…. I did not hear a lot. I think there was one person opposed to the working-alone legislation. Everyone else at all the hearings I attended were supportive and in favour. I think the public was very instrumental in ensuring that we had some good regulations with respect to that.

Having said that, you can have all the regulations in the world, but if you don't enforce them or if you don't send the message to the industry that there's going to be enforcement, you're going to have some issues.

Much of the industry that I've worked in has been very responsible and very proactive and has worked very closely with the workers, with a genuine desire to make the workplace safe. Unfortunately, all industries aren't like that. All businesses aren't like that.

Where there's a shortcoming, where there isn't the will from the employer to work with the employees on making the workplace a safer place, that's where we need regulation. That's where we need WorkSafe to be proactive and to go into those job sites to ensure that those employers understand the rules.

We were getting to a point where the chances of ever being inspected were becoming very slim. We need to get back to sending the message that inspection is part of doing business. It's the safety valve that is going to go there to protect our workers, our children and their children, to ensure that they are able to prosper and do so safely.

I'm certainly not optimistic about any changes to the way pensions and wage losses are being administered. It saddens me to see the suffering that has been created out there. A lot of people are losing good-paying jobs and basically being forced back out into minimum-wage jobs to survive. I think that's too great a sacrifice to be made for an injury on the job that may be an accident that had no bearing on the worker.

We have a long way to go to bring back some accountability by WorkSafe B.C. and by the employers that fund WorkSafe B.C., to ensure that working people in British Columbia are treated fairly and with dignity and that workers compensation is just that. It's an insurance premium that protects workers when they sustain a serious injury on the worksite.

There's one thing that I will give the minister credit for. That was our in-depth discussion on asbestos yesterday. Asbestos is a disease that is killing many people. Some of the statistics show that 300 people a year are going to be dying from asbestos, even though WorkSafe statistics aren't showing that that many people are actually being diagnosed with that fatality as work-related asbestos.

I was optimistic to hear the minister's comments that her ministry would look at the impacts of asbestos use across Canada and what other jurisdictions are doing and keep us informed as to what the government will do on that.

I would like to see a complete ban of asbestos use in British Columbia, an eradication of the asbestos that exists. I think it's something that the first ministers can discuss on a national scale, with the end result being that we eliminate this hazard from the workplace once and for all.

With those comments, I will close the Labour part of the estimates. If the minister wishes to respond, I will certainly listen, and then I will turn it over to my colleague for the Citizens' Services part.

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to thank the member opposite for his comments. I think that we have answered the questions. I think there's still some information out there that perhaps we can get to the member so that we can clarify some of the discussion that we've had in the past, and we'll attempt to do that.

K. Conroy: I'm just wondering if we should have a few moments so that we can switch staff.

K. Conroy: We're going to start with some general budget questions from the budget that was presented. We wanted to know, on Service B.C., the on-line channel, if you could talk about what the 36.9 percent increase is going to be used for.

Hon. O. Ilich: While the capable officials that are with me look for that information, I just thought that I would introduce the staff.

Lori Wanamaker is with me. She's the deputy minister. Dave Nikolejsin is here. He is the government chief information officer. Tara Faganello is here. You've been looking at her. Well, you guys haven't, but she has been here the whole time. Jim Weir is here. He is the director of budgets. We will, perhaps, have other staff coming along.

Sharon Plater has just joined us, and she's the information and privacy person that works for us on that. John Bethel is right behind me. He is in charge of the alternative service delivery programs.

I can tell the member opposite that the increased funding includes $3.7 million related to the creation of a provincewide 211 service; $800,000 for systems funding transferred from within the ministry to support the on-line services, such as call centre and Web presence; $0.31 million for increased lease costs for government agents' offices; and $250,000 for the impact of the 2.5 percent wage increase effective April 1, '08.

K. Conroy: Just in response to that — the 211 service — when is it going to be implemented, and is it going to be implemented across the entire province? I think the question is: is the United Way of the Lower Mainland going to be the only United Way involved, or is it going to be United Ways across the province? To that effect, there aren't United Ways in the entire province. Parts of rural B.C. don't have United Ways, so how is the program going to be implemented across the entire province?

Hon. O. Ilich: It is the intention that the 211 service be provincewide. There will be some test sites that will initially be built in order to test the systems and the software. We are working with the United Way on where those test sites will be, but it will be a provincewide system when we get it up and running.

K. Conroy: When is it planned to be up and running? That was the other question.

Hon. O. Ilich: We plan to test the effectiveness within the next 18 months, and then it will be as we can roll it out, as quickly as possible.

B. Ralston: The minister mentioned the increase in lease costs for government agent offices. Will the minister be prepared to personally disclose a list of all leases renewed in the last fiscal year and the expiry

dates for all government leases over the next five years — and, with that list, include the name of the landlord with whom the leases were renewed in the last fiscal year and the names of the landlords of the leases that are to expire over the next five years?

Hon. O. Ilich: Could you please clarify that? Are you looking for government agents, or are you looking for all government leases?

B. Ralston: Perhaps I wasn't clear. I understood the minister to say that there was an increase of $3.1 million in leases for government agent offices. What I'm interested in is the leases that were renewed in the last fiscal year and the name of the company or landlord. Typically, it would be a company. Since leases are typically for five or ten years and there's an expiry date, obviously, I'm interested in a list by year, over the next five years, of all the leases that expire and the landlord with whom those leases are held.

Hon. O. Ilich: It's actually $310,000. I think what you heard me say was $0.31 million. That's actually $310,000 for increased lease costs for government agent offices. While we don't have that information with us at the moment, we'll be happy to supply that to you.

B. Ralston: Just so I can confirm, then, what the minister is offering or agreeing to offer, is the minister agreeing to offer all those leases renewed in the last fiscal year and a list of those that will expire over the next five fiscal years?

B. Ralston: Just for greater clarity — and this is no reflection on the minister, of course — would the minister agree that that information would be provided within the next 30 calendar days?

K. Conroy: One of the other budget questions we had was on Service B.C. solutions and what the planning there is for the 27 percent increase.

Hon. O. Ilich: Service B.C. service solutions and planning. The increased funding of $3.7 million relates to the creation of BC 211, a not-for-profit entity to lead and operate a telephone service across the province, and $0.3 million — that'd be $30,000, I guess — for the impact of the 2.5 percent wage increase for April 1, '08 — so just one month.

K. Conroy: In the first question I asked about, you said that the increase was around the 211 program — to implement it. Now this one is to ensure there's operating funding. Is that…?

Hon. O. Ilich: The reason it's the same is because at first you asked and I answered a question about a subvote, and this is now a sub-subvote in the same area.

K. Conroy: Then I just want to know about corporate services — a 27 percent increase in corporate services. What does that entail?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer to the question was that the increase relates to approvals for corporate programs. It's $2 million associated with testing major systems applications to ensure compatibility with the new Vista operating system.

It's $480,000 for the ASD secretariat IM/IT capital standard implementation; $630,000 for green procurement initiatives; $320,000 for GreenBC website development.

Then $440,000 relates to repatriation of Shared Services funding from other ministries, and $300,000 is for the impact of the 2.5 percent wage increase for both the thousand dollar vote programs and the executive and support services.

Hon. O. Ilich: It's corporate programs. It's about a $4 million increase — right? A $4.81 million increase. So $2 million is associated with testing major systems applications to ensure compatibility with the new Vista operating system; $400,000 for the ASD secretariat IM/IT capital standard implementation; $630,000 for green procurement initiatives; $320,000 for the GreenBC website development; $440,000 relates to repatriation of Shared Services funding from other ministries; and $310,000 is for the impact of the 2.5 percent wage increase for both the thousand dollar vote programs and executive and support services.

K. Conroy: So the new line item was for the corporate planning secretariat. Can you explain exactly what that is going to be for?

Hon. O. Ilich: So $480,000 is for the ASD secretariat IM/IT capital standard implementation. Is that the one you're asking for?

K. Conroy: It's a brand-new line item. The minister raised it in the last amount of dollars, when you said the ASD….

I think you might be asking about the capital planning secretariat. That's a new line item that we have that's changed from last year. Is that what you're looking for?

It would be the capital planning secretariat, and that is…. We have added a new associate deputy minister. We're going to improve the capital planning practices of the government and so we have the corporate.… It's now going to be corporate planning in our ministry, the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, and they're responsible for the development of new planning framework and assessment criteria in an enterprise-wide capital plan based on the key priorities of the government.

They're going to be looking at all government capital requests, whether it be for computers or whether it be for bridges and highways or whether it be for hospitals. We're going to consolidate those capital requests and expenditure information in one area.

It's going to provide a priority-setting framework and reduce duplication and redundancies across the entity. We're going to facilitate timely decision-making, and we're going to enable government to communicate the capital priorities in a more coordinated and comprehensive fashion. What we're trying to do is make sure that we're fiscally responsible so that we don't have everybody doing different things. We want to coordinate that and make sure it's all done in one area and in one planning framework.

B. Ralston: Then can I take it from the minister's answer that the capital planning secretariat will remove from the ministry the discretion to develop their own capital plans and that all capital planning across all ministries will be consolidated in this secretariat?

I'll leave the minister to answer that question, and then I may have some follow-up questions.

Hon. O. Ilich: No, I think the intent is to make sure that we can prioritize them. For instance, we are not going to be making a decision for the Ministry of Transportation as to whether or not they need a new bridge or a new highway. We're not going to be doing that for the Ministry of Advanced Education as far as making sure that…. We're not going to look at their capital needs for universities, but we are going to coordinate the requests. We're going to take a look at them corporately so that we don't have all of these different requests having different standards, and going then to Treasury Board. That's what the intent is — to try and coordinate it all in one spot.

B. Ralston: Then can I take it from the minister's answer that although, for example, the Ministry of Transportation would engage in its own capital plan, it will be required to submit that capital plan to this capital planning secretariat for the prioritization that the minister speaks of? Is that the process that's going to be undertaken?

Hon. O. Ilich: As a matter of fact, that's what we're going to be doing. We're going to be taking a look at…. They're all going to be submitted to this ministry. We will take a look at them, prioritize them and make sure that all of that is a part of an inventory. Then a corporate capital plan from the government will be created.

B. Ralston: Are there any documents or are there any written criteria by which these priorities will be assessed? If not, I'm wondering: is there a plan to develop them or is it a simple inventory?

Obviously, if one is hiring an associate deputy minister — a highly skilled and well-paid individual, presumably, although I'm sure that there are those on the other side who might quibble with that — one would expect that there would be some intellectual effort brought to bear on the process. I'm wondering what the process is, if it's been reduced to writing, and if it is reduced to writing, will the minister provide that to the opposition?

Hon. O. Ilich: Provision was made in the budget to start the planning, so an associate deputy minister has been added. She is in the process of staffing right now and will start the planning processes as to how this is going to happen. We're at the very early stages. Initially what she's trying to do is try to figure out what it is that she's supposed to do and how she's supposed to have the resources in order to do that. By next year I think that she should be fully operational, and we will try to make sure that we do our corporate planning in a more enterprise-wide way.

B. Ralston: Well, I understand what's being said about a general direction, but was there some internal document that set out the need for these positions and the creation of this secretariat? If there is, and the minister is aware of it, is the minister prepared to release and reveal it to the opposition?

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, the deputy responsible right now is creating that. I think it has occurred to government that the capital planning could be done in a more comprehensive way, and that's really why she's been charged with that. She's only been on the job for probably less than three weeks, and at the moment, she doesn't have any documents. I think she's found her desk, and that's about it. The intent is that we're going to be doing the planning of capital allocation in a more comprehensive way.

B. Ralston: If I might press the point. In a larger organization, such as government, a decision to create positions and to create a secretariat would hardly be

done on the basis of an inclination that this is a good idea and it should be done. Surely there was some decision-making process, a submission to Treasury Board, part of the budget process….

My question, if I can recapitulate, is simply on the creation of the capital planning secretariat. I very much doubt it came to the government out of the blue. I'm wondering what documentary requirements or documents are available to support the creation of this secretariat. Typically, as I understand it, there would be a submission to Treasury Board calling for the creation of this position.

Can the minister confirm that that process of requesting the additional spending that's necessary to create this secretariat was done? Once, I take it, that is confirmed, is the minister prepared to reveal those documents and provide them to the opposition? If she's not, is she prepared to state the rationale, in a more detailed fashion, justifying this expenditure?

Hon. O. Ilich: The expenditure is there, and we didn't need to go to Treasury Board because it's part of the budget. It's part of our budget in our ministry.

Every large organization has a corporate capital plan. It helps with cash flow, and it helps with budgeting. It's something that was looked at and decided — that we could do a better job of making sure that the requests that do go to Treasury Board have been cleared through a secretariat, initially, which would coordinate and assemble the information that was being requested to make sure that they fit within a comprehensive corporate capital plan. It's done in every large organization, and as I said, it helps with budgeting. It helps with cash flow. It helps with debt management.

That's what was decided by government. We added a new associate deputy, and she's recently embarked on the process and will probably be producing paper as she goes along. At the moment there really isn't very much, other than the intention to create this. She's arrived on the job. She's only been there a few weeks, and she's doing her planning right now as to how this is going to happen.

B. Ralston: With respect, I understand the general position that's being taken by the minister, but it seems to me that more justification is required to create a separate secretariat and hire an associate deputy minister than simply saying that they're going to help in ordering the priorities and that they're going to funnel all the requests.

That seems to me to be an explanation that's very deficient in any convincing detail. So what is the justification for creating this, beyond the generalities that have been offered so far?

Hon. O. Ilich: We're trying to do government services in a more comprehensive way, so we're trying to do better planning. The secretariat was formed to allow government to focus capital spending on its key strategic priorities. The consolidation of capital requests and expenditure information will provide a priority-setting framework, reduce duplication and redundancies across the entity, facilitate timely decision-making and also enable government to communicate its capital priorities in a more coordinated and comprehensive fashion.

Perhaps I can give an example and say that there's really nothing nefarious in this. We have the chief information officer here. It occurred to some of us that when we were looking at the capital plans of various ministries, every single ministry had something in the ministry budget for upgrading computers and perhaps upgrading hardware or dealing with software.

One of the things that we said — especially in Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, where we actually have the chief information officer, whose job it is to take a look at this — was that the different ministries shouldn't be doing that all separately. It should be coordinated. That's part of the capital planning process.

We thought it would be a good idea to do things the way they are done in large corporations all over the place — that is, to have a consolidated capital plan that could be looked at and the discussion around what would be a priority. Perhaps it's more important to have new computers in the Ministry of Attorney General's area this year than to have it in the Solicitor General's so that they can print different drivers' licences, or something.

That's really all it is. There's an attempt to provide government services better, in a more coordinated and comprehensive manner, so that we can do a better job of dealing with the people's tax dollars.

B. Ralston: I understand the example. I guess I don't understand what savings or better coordination is going to be achieved. Presumably, all these purchases had to be approved. It's hardly news that different ministries submit different proposals through the Treasury Board. Presumably, there's some central control on spending now, as it is. So I'm not clear what additional ingredient this capital planning secretariat is going to add to the operation of government, beyond burdening it with the additional cost of running a secretariat.

Hon. O. Ilich: What we're trying to do is the corporate planning for capital planning in a more efficient way.

We're trying to make sure that things are prioritized — that everything comes to the secretariat and that we look at them in a comprehensive manner. Perhaps one ministry's needs are greater than another ministry's right at that time. We also want to avoid duplication and make sure that ministries are not planning to purchase things or do things separately where they could be done in a more comprehensive way.

That's all we're trying to do. It's a much more businesslike way to do things, and I think that the expenditure will save us money over the years.

B. Ralston: Just so that we're clear, could the minister set out exactly what the expenditure for this secretariat will be, including the total number of staff, total staff cost and any other annual operating costs that are going to go forward into the future?

Hon. O. Ilich: We have budgeted a million dollars for this year for that secretariat. That's for approximately ten FTEs, or full-time employees or equivalents. We haven't got to that so far. We've got one associate deputy with two assistants right now. As they begin to work on the plan, there will be more, but that's how many we anticipate will be there.

B. Ralston: Can the minister tell me what the salary range for the associate deputy minister is?

B. Ralston: Of the million dollars, is that a million dollars' annual operating cost? Just so I'm clear, how much of that million dollars' operating cost is salaries? Then after that is answered, can the minister explain briefly what the other portion of the annual expenditure on this new secretariat would be?

Hon. O. Ilich: Of that million dollars, $681,000 is for salaries and benefits; $215,000 is for professional contracts, should that be required; and $60,000 is for IT.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise what is envisaged to be the relationship between this capital planning secretariat and Partnerships B.C.?

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, there is no relationship between Partnerships B.C. and this new secretariat. Partnerships B.C. delivers a project, but the decision on whether or not a project will be delivered will be analyzed through…. The secretariat will be part of whether or not we're going to build a bridge or whether we're going to build a road, but how it's delivered is not related to this.

B. Ralston: Then perhaps I misunderstood the role of the secretariat, because as I understood it, it was coordination and priority assessment. Is there now some analytical component where the secretariat will be assessing the quality of the submission? I understood the minister was talking about assessing each individual submission in the secretariat. Is that a correct understanding, or have I misunderstood?

Hon. O. Ilich: The secretariat is purely going to be doing coordination and planning, as far as making sure that the information that we have is done in a corporate manner. Every big organization that I've ever dealt with does corporate capital planning so that they know how much money has to go out every single year. This is just an attempt to coordinate, across ministries, how much money is being spent on capital. But how a project might be delivered is a different decision.

B. Ralston: I suppose the proposition that I think is being implicitly advanced is that there was no coordination of capital planning before that, thus necessitating the creation of this secretariat. I'm sure it can hardly be accurate. Again, I don't understand the rationale, but I'm going to move on.

I want to talk about the alternative service delivery secretariat, which is a different secretariat in this ministry. Can the minister give a brief description of the role of that secretariat, the number of staff assigned, its annual budget? Then I'll have some follow-up questions on that.

Hon. O. Ilich: I wouldn't want the member opposite to think that we didn't do corporate capital planning. What we're trying to do is to do it better, and that's the reason why we've decided to centralize that and put it in the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services.

You were asking about the ASD secretariat, and I thought that I'd let you know what they do. They expedite and coordinate new initiatives that fit the ASD criteria. They identify and resolve cross-ministry and governmentwide issues that stand in the way of achieving that mandate. They provide enterprise-level resources, including specialized skills, processes and methodologies that are not readily available in government; and they monitor the ASD initiatives pre- and post-contract to measure and communicate results.

They provide an ongoing governance role for signed ASD contracts to ensure that they achieve intended results over the term of their agreement. They institutionalize ASD capacity within the public service, and they review all major IT initiatives for ASD business model relevance. That's what they do.

They've also got the Project Management Centre of Excellence in the ASD secretariat. That's designed to reduce government's overreliance on external project resources and also to enhance government's project management maturity and increase the B.C. public service's internal project management capacity.

B. Ralston: How many staff are engaged at the secretariat, and what's the annual budget for salaries?

Hon. O. Ilich: There are 32 staff members there. The gross expenditures are $5.09 million, but we recover $5.089 million of that from other ministries, so it's one of our $1,000 vote items.

B. Ralston: In what's been provided to me, and this is from the Minister of Finance contractual obligations, under "General government" I have several major contracts that I understand are administered by this secretariat — the IBM global service contract, the data network and voice telecom services contract and what is called administration operating contracts. There are three. The first one's projected value is $207 million; the second one, $302 million; and the third one, administration operating contracts, $969 million over the life of the contracts.

First, are those contracts that are being administered or that fall under the jurisdiction of this secretariat? Then I have some follow-up questions.

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, we don't administer contracts that…. The ones that you're talking about we do through the ASD secretariat. We assist other ministries in setting up deals, and we host four of the deals that are ASD. So we have the human resource management system, which was formerly payroll operations and information management, and that's what we do with Telus. We do the workplace technology services, which was formerly workplace support services. We do NetWork B.C., and we do Service B.C. Those are hosted in our ministry.

Others of those, the ones that you mentioned, are not ours. They would be the Ministry of Finance, I guess.

K. Conroy: We're going to jump to freedom of information — okay? From listening to some of the issues in the budget…. I noticed in the budget that there was an increase in FTEs of 119 FTEs. It's my understanding that none of that is going to go towards freedom-of-information FTEs.

Hon. O. Ilich: We did increase our FTEs in this ministry by 119. The increase in FTEs reflects client demand for services such as the accommodation of real estate services, where there are 38 new positions to assist the Ministry of Education and school districts with upgrades and the SUCH sector in building retrofits related to the climate action initiative. The SUCH sector would be schools, universities, colleges, etc.

There were 27 positions created to reduce government reliance on the use of contractors through the creation of the Project Management Centre of Excellence, which we talked about previously in the ASD secretariat, and to support work done on behalf of ministries related to alternative service delivery projects and review of major systems projects.

The government chief information office added 39 positions to assist in the coordination of major systems development in government and to strengthen both security systems and development of policy framework for IT in both government and the broader public sector.

Ten new positions were added for what we just talked about, the newly created capital planning secretariat. Not all of those people, obviously, are there yet, but those are people that have been budgeted for as part of what we believe we're going to be doing in the next year.

K. Conroy: To clarify, none of those FTEs would be specifically for anything involved with freedom of information.

Hon. O. Ilich: No. What I can tell the member is that we have 11 people in our FOI shop. Every ministry has their own FOI officers, but there are 11 in ours.

K. Conroy: I think there are some issues, then, with the freedom of information, in that members or people who are trying to access freedom of information aren't being able to access it.

I just want, for the record, to put some quotes here that the Premier was said to say. "We think openness beats hiddenness every time, and we want to be sure that people can see what's taking place." "B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada."

What we're seeing, in fact, is that it's getting more and more difficult to access the freedom-of-information system. Many different people are having issues with it.

It's my understanding that since 2001 the government has passed 16 amendments that have in fact made it more difficult to access freedom of information — difficult with the whole process. It has made it longer to access information; it has made it more expensive. The actual budget has been slashed, and some of it has come back, but it's not near the level of what it was. In fact, the province of Alberta has more money going into freedom of information than the province of B.C.

Now we also have a situation where cabinet secrecy has been expanded even further. I think that the climate action committee is an example of a committee that has been exempt from freedom of information.

I can't, for the life of me, understand what would be so secretive about the climate action team. It's a goal that everyone believes in. We should all be looking towards issues around climate action, so we can't quite understand why that body would be deemed to be excluded from freedom of information. I think that it was also the first time that the actual freedom-of-information commissioner wasn't even consulted on the secretariat not being included, or being excluded, from freedom of information.

Just for starters, I want to ask the minister why it was deemed so important that the climate action

Hon. O. Ilich: We administer the act. The act is administered in our ministry, but we don't actually do the processing of the freedom-of-information requests. Those are done separately through all of the different government agencies that are covered by the act. For instance, we cover more than 2,000 public bodies, whether it's our own government or municipalities or police boards or school boards. The only thing that we do is administer the act.

We also track information. We can provide you with the information on how fast FOI requests are being done. As a matter of fact, I believe we post that to the Web. We do post that information to the Web.

The other thing that I can tell you is that fees have not increased, since the act was first introduced, for the information. There has been no increase in the fees. In some cases there are more requests being made, but the actual specific amount of money that is being charged has not gone up.

Also, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner's budget has gone up. In 2001-02 it was $2.362 million, and this year it's $3.6 million. That's a 50 percent increase. He's got a lot more money to deal with when he needs to react to complaints, but I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding as to what we actually do. We look after and administer the act.

K. Conroy: I just want to clarify, though, that the ultimate accountability and responsibility for the freedom of information rests within this ministry. I just want to clarify that.

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, it rests with each public body that is covered under the act. The response would be from that particular public body. We have the legislation, and we're responsible for changes to the legislation. If they choose not to respond in the time that they're supposed to respond, then perhaps there's an issue for complaint to the commissioner. But we don't sanction them. We don't have the ability to do that.

K. Conroy: But the ministry is responsible for the legislation, and it's my understanding that there have been a number of reports done on the Freedom of Information Act. There was a special legislative committee that was conducted in 2004, with a number of recommendations that were made.

I also understand that there was a highly secretive review of the FOI in 2005, where there was nothing documented in writing — that it was verbal. If that's incorrect, I'd like that to be confirmed or not — that people actually couldn't report out on the documentation of that and that there was an attempt to bring forward legislation. But it's not anywhere in the fore that I can see.

If in fact the minister is going to bring forward legislation, is that something that's going to happen in this legislative session? It would be interesting to hear. I understand there are a number of groups that have asked for that. I know that the freedom-of-information commissioner himself has asked for legislation. I know the member for Peace River North has asked for that, as he sat on and chaired that committee.

There are a number of other groups in the province that have asked for the legislation to be looked at so that we can move forward from the issues that are being raised on freedom of information around secrecy and the time frame and the cost. Although you raised the cost, I'll go into that in further questions. I'll leave that for now.

Hon. O. Ilich: I think you're talking about the status of Bill 25, which I introduced last session. It died on the order paper. We don't really talk about legislation that we might be introducing in the future, but we do remain committed to ensuring that B.C. has strong freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation.

As I said, it was our intention to see Bill 25 through the last session. However, we spent so much time doing other things that it did die. So I can't really speak to the intention of what we might be doing.

You talked about fees a few minutes ago. Fees have not changed since 1993. The average fee has in fact decreased from $2,610 to $1,702. The total amount of assessed fees decreased from $610,000 to $353,000. So fees have gone down. With that, I'll wait for your next question.

K. Conroy: I think I might disagree on "the fees might not have gone up," as such. I think that people who are routinely putting in freedom-of-information requests are being levied with higher and higher fees to the point of, I think, $173,000 that was levied against Sierra legal fund for data on polluters.

It was quite unreasonable, and there are a number of others that were quite high. A quote that was attributed to the minister was that the fees were intended to address nuisance requests, and if you pay a fee sometimes, you'll be a little more thoughtful about asking for information.

I think $173,000 is a bit steep for a nuisance request. It's quite a lengthy, detailed process, and I don't think anybody does it because they want to be called a nuisance. I think it's quite unfair — the fees that are being charged. To try to stop people from doing it just doesn't seem right.

When you say that the ministry is responsible, but different ministries are responsible…. There have been issues with different ministries, and it's my understanding that this ministry has the overall responsibility.

I think what has happened with the freedom of information around the environmental groups that put the recent report in…. They actually used a case. They filed their complaint. There were three different ministries that were involved, and they said that there was a systemwide pattern of routine delays, excessive and unreasonable fees, frequent and unjustifiable denials of fee waivers in response to freedom-of-information requests.

This complaint that was filed also said there was a systemwide pattern of acting to frustrate environmental groups that seek public information. I know that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner looked through this complaint, and they pointed out that there are in fact systemic problems in various ministries, primarily the B.C. Ministry of Environment when it is responding to requests from various groups.

I think it's important to note that the complaint was filed by the University of Victoria environmental law clinic on behalf of the Dogwood Initiative, Ecojustice, Raincoast Conservation Society, Shawnigan Lake Watershed Watch, T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, West Coast Environmental Law, West Kootenay EcoSociety and the Wilderness Committee — all groups that are very reputable in this province and well respected and would not even consider putting in a freedom-of-information request thinking that it would be considered a nuisance.

I think that when the commissioner's office says that there appears to be significant problems with the processing of the requests and that there's a basis for the allegation of a systemic problem…. The commissioner also found environmental groups faced extraordinarily long average processing times and were charged fees almost twice the average rate. What is this ministry doing with the various ministries who are putting up these roadblocks for groups?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think there might be some misunderstanding as to what our role actually is. We actually have the conduct of the act. So we set the rules, and we say: "These are the rules; this is the law."

When people — other ministries or the number of different agencies that we have — don't follow those rules, the recourse is to go to the office of the freedom-of-information commissioner.

In the case of the one that you're talking about, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner released an investigative report in January examining the complaints set forward by UVic's environmental law clinic on behalf of those eight environmental organizations.

Through OIPC mediation, the Ministry of Environment and complainants met, and they developed a complaint resolution plan to better streamline the FOI request process at the Ministry of Environment.

We don't have any authority to go and smack them or slap them on the wrist or anything, because we have developed the law. So it's the commissioner that has the recourse to do that. But what they've done is, through the mediation process, restructured the Ministry of Environment — the job functions — to better focus on FOI request processes, to improve their tracking technology to monitor request processes and response times, and better communication with applicants. They've done that, and they're in the process of implementing that.

What we're doing, in order that people will understand that law a little bit better, is providing training sessions. We're making sure there's an understanding of what they are supposed to do and what the times are that are required. That's our role in that.

K. Conroy: It's my understanding that this ministry is responsible for ensuring the training of the FOI staff in the various ministries. I think, ultimately, the accountability of the Freedom of Information Act rests with government, but it does rest with this ministry. So I'm surprised that this ministry….

It must be frustrating to be responsible for an act but have no teeth with which to force the other ministries, across the government, to actually implement the act in a timely and efficient manner.

When you're taking over, the average was over 74 business days that was found in this one report for the Ministry of Environment to respond to various requests, which is extremely frustrating for the environmental groups, as we know it has been for other people.

I think it must be frustrating for this ministry not to have the ability to say to the various ministries, which are contravening the act itself by not providing the information in a timely manner — to not be able to have some legislation or teeth to be able to say to them — that they need to ensure that they are going to undertake this in a much more efficient manner.

Is it my understanding that we are to go to every ministry and ask them specifically what kind of FTEs they have increased to ensure that they are meeting the FOI Act in an appropriate manner? Especially with the Ministry of Environment, that has issues, of course, with other…. It's been proven to have issues. It's been proven here by the commissioner. Is it up to each individual ministry to determine that they need more staff in this department?

Hon. O. Ilich: The act is actually very clear, and it says that the head of the public body is responsible for the administration of the act in their particular agency, ministry or public body. So that is their job. If there's a complaint, it goes, as I have already said, to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

With respect to the Ministry of Environment, he has been involved. They've been in mediation. He has stated in a news release lately that he's pleased that the parties collaborated for an effective resolution of these issues without further intervention from his office.

I think your understanding is correct. We have the conduct of the act, but we don't in fact have the ability, other than providing training on how the act is supposed to work — and I think we gather information on that, and we do release information on how the act is working — to issue penalties or enforce compliance.

K. Conroy: Then again I say that it must be incredibly frustrating for a ministry not to have the ability to ensure that an act that they are responsible for — that they don't have the ability to ensure that it does…. It's not just the Ministry of Environment. There are other ministries that have also been found to be at odds with the actual freedom of information.

Our opposition has applied for numerous freedom-of-information requests. When you get a request on a freedom of information from the child care subsidy system, for instance, and the entire document is blank and it says it's related to section 13, which is around business issues, it just doesn't make sense that the ministries would continue to carry on with providing what amounts to little or no information.

Again, I just think it's frustrating for the minister that there's not the ability to ensure that it's been undertaken in a much more expedient manner across the ministries. We will, of course, be taking those questions to the various ministries and making sure that all of them have put the necessary staff into place to meet the training that this ministry will be providing to them. I'm assuming that in order to be able to do it, they're going to need some more staff.

Noting the time, I've been told that I need to move that the committee rise, report progress and seek 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.


	YEAS — 29

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	Cubberley	Hammell
Thorne	Simons	Puchmayr
Gentner	Routley	Horgan
Dix	Trevena	Robertson
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Sather	Macdonald
Fraser		Conroy

	NAYS — 39

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Jarvis	Nuraney
Horning	Cantelon	Thorpe
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Bond	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Bennett	Lekstrom
Mayencourt	Polak	Hawes
Yap	Bloy	MacKay
Black	McIntyre	Rustad


	YEAS — 28

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Puchmayr	Gentner
Routley	Fraser	Horgan
Dix	Trevena	Robertson
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Sather	Macdonald
	Conroy

	NAYS — 39

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Cantelon	Thorpe
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Bond	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Bennett	Lekstrom
Mayencourt	Polak	Hawes
Yap	Bloy	MacKay
Black	McIntyre	Rustad


	YEAS — 29

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	Hammell	Coons
Thorne	Simons	Puchmayr
Gentner	Routley	Fraser
Horgan	Dix	Trevena
Robertson	Karagianis	Evans
Krog	Austin	Chudnovsky
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy

	NAYS — 38

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Jarvis	Nuraney
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Bond
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Bennett	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad


	YEAS — 29

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	Hammell	Coons
Thorne	Simons	Puchmayr
Gentner	Routley	Fraser
Horgan	Dix	Trevena
Robertson	Karagianis	Evans
Krog	Austin	Chudnovsky
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy

	NAYS — 38

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Jarvis	Nuraney
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Bond
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Bennett	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad