2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 5

[ Page 13109 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008

           The House met at 1:34 p.m.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

           Hon. L. Reid: Today I had the very great pleasure, along with many of my MLA colleagues, of announcing the recipients of B.C.'s first Child Care Awards of Excellence. These outstanding professionals demonstrated excellence in four key areas: child development; diversity; involving parents, family and community; and commitment to leadership in the sector.

           As a former teacher and now a parent, I recognize the importance of early childhood education and development and of building that system as we go forward. This amazing group of providers has more than proven their commitment to quality service for children in this province, and they well deserve our acknowledgment and thanks.

[1335]

           Joining us in the gallery today: Catriona Brown from Nightingale Preschool, a junior kindergarten in Victoria; Shannie Harvey from V'la l'bon vent Preschool in Vancouver; Kirsi Pereda from Whistler Children's Centre in Whistler; Rhonda Sylven from Lambrick Park Preschool in Victoria; Anne Wright of the Kitselas Nation Head Start in Terrace; Cynthia Gosnell of the New Aiyansh Nation aboriginal supported child care program in Prince George.

           In the family child care provider category: Feneda Ha Au Yeung from Another Happy Home Day Care in Vancouver, Elisabeth Mueller from Little Raven's Nest in West Vancouver, Tara Pipke from Kidz on 6 in Richmond, Vicky Tutanes from Klarissa's Learning Centre in East Vancouver.

           In the promising new early childhood educator category: Monica Neratini from Cape Mudge Nation and Head Start program on Quadra Island and Grace Tampi from Canyon Springs Montessori School in Coquitlam.

           In the lifetime achievement category, those who have spent more than 20 years delivering fabulous child care: Raye Pinder from Majestic Cedars Child Care Centre in Cobble Hill, Donna Archibald from Harrison Hot Springs Preschool in Harrison Hot Springs and Patti Pernitsky from Kamloops United Preschool in Kamloops.

           I would ask all of us to join together and extend the warmest welcome possible to British Columbia's 2008 Child Care Awards of Excellence.

           C. James: I have one of my staff sitting in the gallery today to watch question period, and he's not anyone new to question period. He sat for many years watching question period in the office, assisting with question period.

           He began his career as an intern here in the Legislature and then came to work for the New Democrat caucus in 2002. He survived the dark years, as we called them, but more importantly, our two members of the Legislature survived those years because of the support of people like this individual.

           He's moving on to a new adventure, so I wanted to make sure that we've all wished him well. We're really going to miss his skills, his abilities, his talent and his energy. Most importantly, we're going to lose our music critic in our office, and we're going to lose our fashion police for our office.

           Would the House please give a warm welcome to Rich Overgaard.

           Hon. S. Bond: This is certainly the time of year that we have lots of school children visiting us here in Victoria and in the precinct. We're delighted today to be joined by a group of visitors from Henry Hudson Elementary School. On behalf of the Premier, we want to pay a very special welcome to them today. They come from the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey. They're travelling today with their teacher Ms. Edwards, and I know they have a number of parents with them.

           We want to wish you a wonderful learning experience here in Victoria. I want to ask all of my colleagues here to wish you a very warm welcome as you watch question period this afternoon. We're glad you're here.

           N. Macdonald: I have two introductions to make. First, I would like to introduce Tracey Janes. She is one of our researchers. She is part of a staff that do a tremendous job for supporting our work here in the Legislature each and every day. She is tremendously important, and I want to assure her that she is very, very much appreciated for all of the work she does. Would the Legislature join me in making her feel welcome.

           Second, I would like to introduce Brad Scott. He is a teacher of grade 11 social studies at Selkirk Secondary School in Kimberley. He's a longtime resident there. He is here to study government. Would the House please join me in making him welcome as well.

Tributes

MOHAMEDALI NURANEY

           J. Nuraney: As we approach the end of our legislative session, I would like to take this opportunity to make an announcement. In the next few weeks my brothers Badru and Salim and my sisters Gulshirin and Rozy, with our extended family, will be celebrating my father Mohamedali Nuraney's 100th birthday.

           He has been a very good provider and mentor and is a person with very high principles. He's very well respected in our community as being a true gentleman.

[1340]

           I know that he's watching this announcement today. I want to tell him how very proud we are of him and what a great father he has been to us all these years. We truly love him.

           We as a family look forward to celebrating your centennial birthday.

[ Page 13110 ]

Introductions by Members

           R. Austin: I have a couple of introductions to make today. As the Minister of State for Childcare has alluded to, we have Anne Wright, who has come here to receive a child care award. Congratulations to her. She's also been accompanied down here from Terrace by her 17-year-old daughter, Geneva Erickson. This is her first visit to Victoria. She was very excited about coming here, and it was also her first time on an airplane yesterday. That also brought great excitement. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them both.

           Secondly, hon. Speaker, we have Angela Miranda in the House today. She is the legislative assistant who works for me along with the members for Nelson-Creston, North Coast and Vancouver-Kensington. Angela has done superb work for us in the last few months and will be leaving us shortly as she is due to have a baby in September. Congratulations to her, and I hope everything goes well.

           J. Yap: I would like to welcome to the House a group visiting from the Canadian Chinese Business Development Association. The CCBDA has been in existence since 1984 serving the Canadian Chinese business community. Its mandate is to advance the socioeconomic position of Canadian Chinese, foster a spirit of cooperation and mutual help among its members, establish trade connections with foreign businesses, and enhance the economic, social, cultural, artistic, scientific and educational exchanges and cooperation between Canada and other countries.

           With us today in the gallery for the first time in the Legislature are president Amy Huang, vice-president K.F. Kam and members of the executive Cathy Ju, Sam Lee, Lily Au, Yuen Lee, May Zhou and Lily Liu. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to these visitors.

           K. Conroy: I have a couple of introductions to make, but first I also want to introduce a staff member. Amber Nash is sitting in the gallery today. She is the legislative assistant to not only me, the opposition Whip, but the House Leader for the opposition. You can imagine the job she has to do. People are very upset when she takes days off, which have been rare and few and far between. I want to acknowledge the work that Amber does. She's done an incredible job for us this session, and I want to thank her for that.

           Today I was really pleased to accept the Torch of Life from Victoria High School students on the steps of the Legislature with a number of my colleagues. The Torch of Life was brought to Victoria by George Marcello, who since 1998 has been running across Canada with the torch to raise awareness of organ donation.

           The students were running today in memory of Alexa Middlear, whose family made the most difficult and generous decision parents can make in their grief at the losing of their daughter Alexa. They chose to donate her organs. I ask that all members of the House join me in acknowledging the work of the students, the Middlear family and George in their ongoing efforts to remind us of the importance of organ donation.

           D. Hayer: We have 30 students from grade 5 visiting our Legislative Assembly today. They're from Woodland Park Elementary School. They're here with their two teachers, Lara Campbell and Sandy Carlon, along with seven volunteer parents. Would the House please make them very welcome.

           D. Chudnovsky: It was a treat for me to participate with other colleagues at noon today in the child care awards, and I want to introduce three people who are here visiting with us today. Vicky Tutanes is one of the award winners. She's here with her daughter Clarissa and her friend Ranette Sanchez. They are not only all three award winners, and they are not only constituents, but they are dear friends. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[1345]

           R. Hawes: In the gallery today is communications officer extraordinaire Sandra Steilo, who is on our communications team. With her is her mother Carol Steilo, who is visiting from Edmonton, my old hometown. Could the House please make both of them very welcome.

           S. Fraser: I have two sets of introductions to make today. We are graced with two members from the Port Alberni Tall Ships Society, who are destined to put on the best Tall Ships Challenge in the world. Today with us is a good friend Michael Kuruliak and also a good friend Councillor Kenn Whiteman from Port Alberni. Please make them feel very welcome.

           My second introduction. Today is the aboriginal National Day of Action, and there was a large rally on the steps of the Legislature. I'd like to especially thank Willard Gallic from Tseshaht First Nation in the Alberni Valley. He was the main coordinator and organizer for that event. Joining him in the gallery today are respected first nations leaders Laverne Good, Dan Smith and Gary Albany. Please help me make them feel very welcome today.

           Hon. K. Falcon: Today I'm pleased to be joined in the gallery by a very prominent businessman from British Columbia. He is the founder of a chain of produce stores called Fruiticana. Tony Singh is also a member of the provincial Small Business Roundtable and has been a great contributor to that effort to make sure that we continue to have a thriving small business climate.

           Tony Singh is joined by another special guest, Sunil Gupta. Sunil is visiting from Delhi, India. He's also a successful businessman from India. I want to welcome both of them to the House with us today.

           C. Trevena: I, too, have a number of introductions. I'd first like to introduce Rod Sherrell, chair of the Mount Waddington regional district, and Greg Fletcher, the administrator for the Mount Waddington regional district, who have been down in Victoria for meetings. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

           I would like to join the Minister of State for Childcare in welcoming and acknowledging the hard work and dedication of all the child care workers across the

[ Page 13111 ]

province, particularly those who have won the first annual awards for child care. They do a very good job.

           I would particularly like to make note of Monica Neratini, who won one of the promising early childhood educator awards. She lives in Campbell River but works on We Wai Kai Daycare on Quadra Island. She's down here in the gallery with her mother Barbara. I hope the House will make them very welcome too.

           Dan Smith from the Campbell River band is also in the gallery. I'm very pleased to see him here, and he has been recognized earlier on. I would like to recognize him.

           If I might indulge the House, yesterday Stephen Frame was here from Campbell River. He is the president of the Trial Lawyers Association. He was talking to our caucus about the severe restrictions that could be impacting our justice systems. He had a very healthy meeting with our caucus, and I know he's looking forward, with the Trial Lawyers Association, to meet the government caucus soon.

           J. Horgan: I also have two introductions I'd like to make. Firstly, I echo the comments of the Minister of State for Childcare. I would like to introduce Raye Pinder, who received a lifetime achievement award at Majestic Cedars in Cobble Hill. I can't think of a more noble vocational undertaking than to shape young minds and care for the children of the Cowichan Valley. So my hat is certainly tipped to Raye Pinder.

           I would also like to introduce in the gallery…. Hon. Speaker, as you're aware, I'm the most thoroughly briefed and well-prepared member in the House. I can't do that without Danielle Dalzell, who helps us in the opposition caucus.

           Interjection.

           J. Horgan: I'm getting mixed reviews from the Minister of Forests.

           Danielle has been helping us in the opposition caucus, particularly me, for the past number of months. In the evening, she's taking environmental studies and communications course in the heart of the Malahatians and "John" de Fucans at Royal Roads University. Would the House please make Danielle Dalzell very, very welcome.

           Hon. T. Christensen: I would like the House to join me in acknowledging Charmaine Wylie and her length of service and contribution to many in this building. Charmaine is currently my administrative coordinator until tomorrow, after which she will be moving on to actually take a position within the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1350]

           Charmaine has served me very capably, keeping me organized and on track and getting to the right place at the right time for the most part. She did that previously for the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, as well as Christy Clark when she was Minister of Education. I suspect Charmaine's term of service may even stretch back to when members opposite filled some of the ministers' offices.

           Charmaine has provided exemplary service. I am certainly very sorry to be losing her and would ask that all members of the House please join me in acknowledging and thanking her for her excellent service to the people of British Columbia.

           D. Routley: I have two introductions to make, both of them heroes of mine. The first would be Chief Lisa Shaver of the Penelakut Nation on Kuper Island. She's joined us for the Aboriginal Day of Action. Chief Lisa Shaver is a regional representative to the AFN for the women's council. She just returned from the AFN environmental conference in Mexico on Chiapas territory.

           I'd have to say that Lisa is a very inspirational young woman, a single mother of three who has taken on the role of Chief for the Penelakut. If people know about the Penelakut circumstances on Kuper Island, it's a great, great struggle. But great people are waging that struggle, and Lisa is chief among them. She has goals, and she has determination. I think of her as an absolute hero. So can we please welcome Lisa.

           Then another Cowichan hero, Rick Doman, joins us. Rick was the CEO of Western Forest Products. His father Herb Doman is a legend in British Columbia known to all of us, but to those of us in Cowichan Valley and in Duncan, he's an absolute treasure, hero and figurehead of our community.

           He came from India, as people know, and started his great company with one truck. He is an example to all of us of what British Columbia can be for immigrants, for all the people of the world who have chosen British Columbia as their home. Herb Doman stands as a statue to what we aspire to.

           My father and I used to walk along the tracks in Duncan to go fishing, and he would tell me that that fleet of trucks was representative of everything that British Columbia could be — a great community, commitment, a tradition that Rick continues with great honour. Can you please help me welcome him.

           J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Am Johal, who is my constituency assistant in my office. Am is, in his own right, a politician. He is an activist. He is an advocate for the community, and he is a strong believer in social and economic justice for folks in not just the Downtown Eastside but all across the province of British Columbia.

           This will be the last session in which Am will be with my office. He's going to be venturing into new paths in July with Unite Here, a full-time position there. I would like the House to please make Am very welcome. Perhaps one day we'll see him down here as a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

           H. Bains: I'd also like to join the Minister of Transportation in welcoming my good friend Tony Singh, who is not only a very good, successful businessman in our community — his office is located in my constituency — but also a very respected member of the community and serves as a very good role model for our youngsters. Please help me welcome him.

[ Page 13112 ]

           N. Simons: I would like to introduce the entire west gallery. I know them by name, and they are as follows… No.

           It's my pleasure to introduce Adam Friesen, who has worked with our caucus this entire session and has done an admirable job as gatekeeper and as a welcomer. Some refer to him as the new guy, but those are the ones among us who think more slowly. Will the House please make him welcome.

[1355]

           H. Lali: Seeing as how three-quarters of the members present today have made introductions, and not to be outdone, I'm going to join the ranks and join the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in welcoming Am Johal, who is sitting up in the galleries here today. In the 1990s he served as my ministerial assistant for about a year before he moved on to other pastures. I am absolutely certain that one day you're going to see him as an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly on this side of the House.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           H. Lali: Will the House please make Am Johal welcome.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, they say that the Table and those that sit at the table are silent and invisible, but that is not true for those that support those people.

           Louise MacMinn is here today to see what her husband does when he goes to work in the morning, and so is a very good friend of our Clerks, Jerry Sauder. I hope the House will make both of those individuals very welcome — and two friends of mine from Abbotsford, David and Lee Holmberg. I hope the House will make them welcome as well.

Speaker's Statement

RULES FOR PUBLIC BILLS
IN THE HANDS OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I've had the opportunity to review Bill M220, Accountability Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Nanaimo. The bill would require expenditure of public funds contrary to Standing Order 67 and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

           Hon. Members, I have had the opportunity to also review Bill M222, Home Inspection Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. The bill would require an expenditure of public funds contrary to Standing Order 67 and therefore is out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

           Hon. Members, I have had the opportunity to review Bill M219, Funding Stability for Boards of Education Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Saanich South This bill would impose an obligation on the Crown and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

           Hon. Members, I have had the opportunity to review Bill M218, Farm Workers Fairness Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for New Westminster. The bill would create an impost and therefore is out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 2008

           S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Wildlife Protection Act, 2008.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Continue, Member.

           S. Simpson: I move introduction of the Wildlife Protection Act for first reading.

           Motion approved.

           S. Simpson: I'm pleased to introduce the Wildlife Protection Act, 2008. The purpose of this legislation is to finally bring to British Columbia true species-at-risk legislation that is based on protection of habitat.

           This is a law that is long overdue in our province, as British Columbia is one of only two jurisdictions in Canada without some form of species legislation. This bill would rectify that serious oversight in our laws.

           The Wildlife Protection Act provides for species at risk to be designated as extirpated, endangered, threatened or of special concern. These designations would be determined through rigorous science conducted through a revitalized and strengthened species-at-risk coordinating office, an office that would have its staff selected based on their science background or their understanding of aboriginal traditional knowledge.

           This bill would require that management or recovery plans be put in place for those species identified as at risk. This legislation would also ensure that necessary habitat is protected. It requires that this all occur in an open and transparent manner, something that we do not see today with species.

           The legislation also recognizes the role for stewardship and allows for those plans to be put in place. It also gives the minister latitude through permits to allow other uses to be put in place for social and economic reasons including resource activities. What would occur in those instances is that the permitting would need to be done in an open and transparent manner and with public debate.

[1400]

[ Page 13113 ]

           The conservation data centre has identified over 1,300 species in B.C. that are at some level of risk. This government provides little protection for those species, with only a handful that are actually getting attention. With the exception of the mountain caribou, none of those protection strategies are linked to habitat.

           The Wildlife Protection Act, 2008, I am sure, will not pass this Legislative Assembly as it should. But I would encourage the government to do the right thing — take this bill away, make it your own if you need to and bring it back with your name on it in the fall session. We can finally get the protection for biodiversity and species that this government has consistently failed…

           Mr. Speaker: Could the member put the question, please.

           S. Simpson: …for more than seven years.

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

           Bill M223, Wildlife Protection Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

GAMING CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

           H. Lali presented a bill intituled Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2008.

           H. Lali: Since the government has been rejecting bills, surely they will not reject this one. I introduce Bill M224, Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2008, for first reading.

           Motion approved.

           H. Lali: The Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2008. Section 2 of the Gaming Control Act, SBC 2002, chapter 14, is amended by adding the following subsection to section 7: "The minister assigned with responsibility for the British Columbia Lottery Corporation must not be simultaneously assigned with responsibility for the gaming policy and enforcement branch."

           The Gaming Control Amendment Act ensures that the responsibility for monitoring and enforcement of gaming in British Columbia is not held by the same minister as the one responsible for the marketing and revenue collection associated with gaming activities. This amendment will eliminate the conflict of interest that exists when a single minister is responsible for both the promotion and the regulation of gaming activities in British Columbia.

           Policing actually should be independent of any third-party intervention. The gaming policy and enforcement branch cannot be compromised and must be separated from the revenue agenda of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Policing must do its job effectively, and the only way to do that is if there's a separation of ministers responsible for these two elements.

           What we've seen is scandal after scandal with record profits every year for British Columbia Lottery Corporation. As you also know, hon. Speaker, about a year and a half or two years back, when the issue was surfacing that retailers were in effect stealing profits that other folks had in terms of winning tickets, that could have been actually prevented had there been two different ministers responsible for the BCLC and the GPEB. This would eliminate all that.

           I'm looking forward to….

           Mr. Speaker: Could the member put the question, please.

           H. Lali: I would like to move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading after today.

           Bill M224, Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE POTATO

           V. Roddick: The United Nations–designated International Year of the Potato is just one more reason for British Columbia to celebrate agriculture. All the gold and silver shipped by Spain from South America in the 1500s and 1600s, which in today's dollars would be worth hundreds of millions, is only a fraction of the value of the biggest jewel of them all, brought from Peru to Britain by Sir Walter Raleigh — the potato.

           B.C. is fortunate to have one of the earliest potato harvests in the country, providing a great reason to launch the Year of the Potato at the front of the Legislature on Tuesday by Lower Mainland vegetable distributors BCfresh, and teachers, parents and students from Khowhemun Elementary School in Duncan. The children were brilliant — great fun, fabulous agriculture in the classrooms, Spuds in Tubs program display.

[1405]

           There is nothing more delicious than fresh new potatoes steamed and slathered in butter — simply divine.

           The students also helped unveil the Stanley Cup of agriculture. The incredible, magnificent Stillwell Cup, presented for the best potatoes grown on the North American continent, was won by British Columbia at Madison Square Garden, New York City, on November 4, 1911.

           World potato production is expanding strongly in the developing countries, which now counts for more than half of the global harvest — a remarkable achievement. It is absolutely imperative that the awareness and the education efforts focus on the new

[ Page 13114 ]

generation of British Columbians, because we all still have to eat to live.

PORT ALBERNI TALL SHIPS CHALLENGE

           S. Fraser: No doubt the noble potato arrived on a tall ship, so let's talk tall ships. I'm talking world-class tall ships, the best tall ships show on earth. Why do I say the best? Because once again, the Tall Ships Challenge will grace Port Alberni Harbour, providing a spectacular backdrop and an intimacy simply not possible in other locations.

           I mean this with no disrespect to the city of Victoria, who are also putting on their own tall ship event. But there's no contest. The reason for this is that the best tall ship event on earth is going to be put on in Port Alberni. The Port Alberni Tall Ships Society is involved, the city of Port Alberni is involved, and the port authority is involved — the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district and the Port Alberni Spirit of B.C., along with hundreds of volunteers that will make this a welcoming experience par excellence.

           This I heard loudly from the visitors to the last Tall Ships Challenge and also from the captains and crews of the various ships. I would like to quote from Capt. Nikolai Isivchenko. He said it best: "I wish on behalf of my officers, crew and cadets to express our sincere thanks for your warm hospitality and flawless organization behind Tall Ships Port Alberni. We were truly impressed by the friendliness of your community. You made us feel at home."

           Again, mark on your calendars these dates: July 11, beginning at noon, and July 12, closing at 9 p.m. Plan on viewing an amazing array of historical international nautical wonders. But also grab the No. 7 Baldwin steam train for an exciting round trip from the harbour to the historic McLean mill, the only actual operating steam mill in Canada.

           So July 11 and 12 in Port Alberni — for the experience of your lifetime.

CANADA LINE TO RICHMOND

           J. Yap: In about a year Richmond will see the completion of the most significant infrastructure project in our city's recent history. That is the construction of the Canada line. But this is also a project that should be increasingly meaningful to residents of all of Metro Vancouver, indeed all British Columbians, as the Canada line works both ways.

           Not only will the residents of Richmond be able to commute to Vancouver in a greener, more efficient manner, but residents of Vancouver will be able to hop on a train and zip out to Richmond to experience all we have to offer. Starting in 2009 when the Canada line is up and running, residents of Vancouver will be able to travel to Richmond in less than 30 minutes while never having to jump in a car, struggle with traffic or look for parking.

           There is so much to do, see and experience in Richmond. Come and walk the scenic dikes of the Fraser River. Watch the seaplanes take off or, for that matter, the big jets at YVR. Or enjoy the UBC rowing sculls along the waters. Farther along, you will be at the new Spirit Square by the Richmond oval, on track to be opened in 2009, which is itself a true British Columbia showcase in ingenuity in both its design and its construction.

           Or take a stroll through the Golden Village, a unique district of Richmond that features a wide array of ethnic shops and Asian dining, including Korean, Thai, Japanese, South Asian and Chinese to name a few. If you want a unique treat, buy one of the world-famous Japanese cream puffs made at Aberdeen Centre. You'll be hooked with one bite.

[1410]

           A short bus ride will take you to my favourite community, Steveston, a picturesque working fishing village that has the distinction of being at one time the busiest fishing port in the world. Come and stop by the Gulf of Georgia Cannery national historic site or the Britannia Heritage Shipyard to get a sense of Steveston's past.

           Richmond truly is a special place that everyone should visit. I welcome one and all — and members of this House when we leave this place — to take the opportunity to do so.

WORLD NO TOBACCO DAY

           L. Krog: May 31 is World No Tobacco Day. It was created by the member states of the World Health Organization in 1987. It also happens to be my birthday, and I'm slightly older than World No Tobacco Day.

           It is observed each year on May 31 to draw attention to the global epidemic of tobacco and to preventable disease and the deaths it causes. It is an occasion to inform the public about the dangers of smoking. It aims to reduce the 3.5 million yearly deaths from tobacco-related health problems.

           Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the world. It is the only legal consumer product that kills one-third to one-half of those who use it as it is intended by the manufacturers, with its victims dying, on average, 15 years prematurely.

           This year the theme for World No Tobacco Day is "A tobacco-free youth." What we know about the tobacco industry is that it works heavily through advertising and promotion, using all sorts of events. Most people start smoking before the age of 18 and a quarter of those before the age of ten. Many of those are in Third World countries. Nicotine is highly addictive. Child and adolescent experimentation can easily lead to a lifetime of dependence.

           There is a strong link between advertising and smoking. The tobacco industry spends billions worldwide advertising its products. It accesses youth through movies, the Internet, fashion magazines, music concerts and sporting events. It uses these increasingly creative tactics to boost the sale of its products, including adverts on billboards, magazines and others.

           Hon. Speaker, this year as we have spent so much of this session debating health bills, I ask all British Columbians, in particular the members of this assem-

[ Page 13115 ]

bly, to do what they can to ensure that we come to a time when no generation will be hooked on the use of tobacco.

DOUG PARKINSON

           R. Hawes: Doug Parkinson is one of my heroes. In every community there are volunteers who give tirelessly of their time whenever there's a need. Doug is one of those volunteers. He has selflessly given of his time and expertise for years, making life in my community better for all of us. Although he has never sought recognition, Doug has fittingly been made a Freeman of the district of Mission, which is the highest honour a municipality can bestow.

           I had the honour of serving on Mission council and at the Fraser Valley regional district from 1993 to 2001 with Doug. He was always the hardest-working and the best-prepared and dedicated of councillors. His deep caring for all of the citizens in my community and his love of the community were obvious in every task he undertook.

           Doug has been my golfing buddy for almost 20 years. We've holidayed together, and Doug's wife Sharen has been one of my constituency assistants for the past seven years. I think of him as a brother.

           A few years ago tragedy struck when Doug's kidneys failed, and a transplant donated by one of his daughters also failed. Heart and circulatory problems followed. Now a bone infection in a foot won't heal, and because of circulatory problems, there's no medical fix for this problem. A few days ago the decision was made to stop dialysis, and Doug has been moved into hospice care.

           Doug is in every sense a great British Columbian. This quiet, unassuming man has spent his lifetime making our community better.

           Rest now, my friend. Your work is done, and I won't forget our friendship and what you've done.

[1415]

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

           C. Evans: I want to talk today about the practice of passing laws without serious debate — the process that we call closure, which will occur this evening in this room. I will do so through the medium of metaphor, lest anyone hear any partisan comment in my story.

           Most citizens don't want to work here, but they don't like secrets either. So they want us to stand in for them and publicly consider the laws that will govern their lives. In that respect, this place is a little bit like a criminal court, because citizens hope to never go there either. Yet they want to believe that the rule of law will be there for them at need. Therein lies my metaphor.

           Hon. Speaker, my dad worked in prisons and courtrooms as a public defender. Then one day my father found himself at the prison not to visit his client but to visit his child, my brother Andy. For the first time, instead of passing through the gates as a lawyer in a suit and recognized by the guards as part of their system, he waited in the visitors line with the wives and mothers of his clients, whose personal experience he had never shared.

           When he got to the front of the line, my father was shocked to hear that he couldn't visit his son because the boy was in solitary confinement for the crime of singing at dinner and was denied access to his family. At that moment my dad realized that maybe he hadn't been doing the work of the angels all his life. Maybe, instead of guaranteeing people access to justice, he had been an actor in a play staged to create the illusion of justice that those in charge could then withdraw at whim. That experience in the lineup outside Santa Rita prison broke my father's faith, and he left his job and his country.

           Metaphorically speaking, I'm wondering if we, in the passing of laws this afternoon without due process, are not turning our profession, too, into a kind of theatre intended to create the illusion of parliamentary democracy in substitute for its fact. If that be true, I wonder who will do this work in future.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Standing Order 35

RECOGNITION OF E. GEORGE MacMINN'S
SERVICE TO LEGISLATURE

           Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35. Members will know that Standing Order 35 is the mechanism by which the House may adjourn its usual business to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. The threshold that we have to meet, of course, to satisfy the test under Standing Order 35 is very, very high before we can embark upon such a discussion.

           I've discussed the matter with the Opposition House Leader, and he shares my view that for the reasons I'll lay out very briefly, that test has been met. We agree that this matter demands action by this House, for the story that concerns us today began a long time ago, 50 years ago — in fact, just over 50 years ago — in 1957, when a young Clerk Assistant named George MacMinn entered this chamber for the very first time.

           A mere juridical seedling, he took his place at the table amidst a forest of political giants — the Bennetts, the Gaglardis, the Willistons. But he was of sturdy stock, and his legal training served him well. For the next 50 years he would serve not governments but this institution.

           In the 1980s he was appointed Queen's Counsel. He served at Westminster Parliament in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. In 1993 he was appointed Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, a position he holds today. In 2005 he was awarded the Order of British Columbia. He is now the longest-serving Table Officer in the entire Commonwealth. [Applause.]

[1420]

[ Page 13116 ]

           Earlier this year he received the personal congratulations of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. He has been recognized by virtually every parliamentary agency or association that we know of. I have detected in my research no evidence whatsoever of any bias or favouritism — with the noted exception of a certain lawn tennis tournament that he holds religiously once a year.

           With Louise, their seven children and their 12 grandchildren, he has served this province and this institution with distinction. He is the don, the dean, the Godfather of Clerks and Table Officers. He stands like a colossus, armed with a pen in the place of a sword and, in place of a shield, a copy of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition.

           He has served with distinction, and I, seconded by the hon. Opposition House Leader, would move as follows:

[That the House congratulate Mr. E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on his 50th anniversary as a Table Officer; and recognize his outstanding service to this Legislature and his many contributions to parliaments and legislatures throughout the Commonwealth and the United States and thank him on behalf of all members and all British Columbians.]

           M. Farnworth: In rising to speak to this motion and to state why all members of this House should support this motion, it's my pleasure to pick up on some of the comments of the Government House Leader and to remind members of the House just how long the journey is that our esteemed Clerk has taken.

           The Government House Leader referred to a juridical stripling.

           Interjections.

           M. Farnworth: Seedling. Seedling. [Laughter.]

           That was because back then he had just learned and mastered the art of the quill pen. That is how long ago we are talking about — when cars had fins, hon. Speaker.

           Interjection.

           M. Farnworth: And Clerks had hair.

           Interjections.

           M. Farnworth: House Leaders too.

           It is a remarkable achievement that we are celebrating — 50 years of dedicated service to the members of this chamber, to the institution of parliament, through nine Premiers of this province. That is no mean feat, knowing the political landscape of British Columbia.

           To have been recognized by legislatures across this country and around the Commonwealth and to be recognized at last year's Global Commonwealth Conference, in the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster, by Her Majesty the Queen truly reflects the respect that our Clerk has — a global respect. That is something that we here in British Columbia truly should appreciate — and, as we celebrate our sesquicentennial of 150 years, that one-third of those years have been served by the Clerk of the House of the province of British Columbia.

           So I am happy, along with my colleagues, to second the motion and fully support it. [Applause.]

           Motion approved.

[1425]

           Hon. M. de Jong: I want to hear some Latin from the Clerk.

           Clerk of the House: Nemine contradicente. [Applause.]

           Hon. K. Krueger: Best Clerk on earth.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT
ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

           C. James: In December 2003 the ER chief at Royal Columbian warned the Minister of Health that his emergency room was the worst in Canada. Let's move forward to March 2008 and a letter from Royal Columbian surgeon Dr. Granger to health officials. He said in that letter: "At present we are truly in a crisis."

           For five years this government and this Minister of Health have ignored and denied the crisis at Royal Columbian. For five years this minister did absolutely nothing. Now, after years of denial, I'd like to ask: is the Minister of Health proud that his much-belated response to the crisis is parking lot medicine?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to advise the member, first of all, that both government and the Fraser Health Authority have identified Royal Columbian Hospital as a priority for redevelopment. Fraser Health is working on the master site plan for Royal Columbian, and they will also be producing a detailed development plan.

           There is an existing development plan. It's from 1992, but it does require some upgrading. Unfortunately, none of the 12 NDP Health Ministers of the 1990s would give a moment's time to Royal Columbian Hospital to deal with their issues.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

           C. James: The response from that Health Minister, from that government, was to tear down a hospital that addressed the problems that are now at Royal Columbian. This minister was told over and over again what kind of a problem was going on. In April 2006 the ER doctors issued a public letter warning of a severe bed shortage.

           Two years after that the fire marshal had to be brought in to deal with overcrowding. And what did the Minister of Health say? He said that everyone was

[ Page 13117 ]

alarmist — that the doctors were alarmists in saying there was a problem.

           My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he stop denying the problem, stop attacking the health care professionals at Royal Columbian and actually fix the crisis today?

           Hon. G. Abbott: Interestingly, in the Vision for the '90s and Beyond, the document from March 1992, there was certainly no disparagement…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. G. Abbott: …by the NDP Health Ministers of the day. What they did was ignore them, just as they ignored Abbotsford for a decade. They ignored Royal Columbian; they ignored Surrey Memorial Hospital. They are a group that talks. When it comes to action, they are incapable. Our government acts; their opposition talks.

           Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

           C. James: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that it's very clear to everyone in British Columbia that this minister talks, doesn't listen and denies and ignores that health care is in a crisis because of his direction and his government.

[1430]

           I'd like to read another letter. In February 2007 all 24 emergency room doctors at Royal Columbian Hospital sent a letter directly to the minister. They wrote: "We have to declare a complete lack of confidence in Royal Columbian Hospital's ability to provide safe, timely and caring emergency room treatment at all times." That's from emergency room doctors, who care deeply about their patients and about providing safe care, and they felt they had to write to the Minister of Health to try and get action.

           Three months after that the chief of surgery called the crisis a disaster situation. And what did the minister do? He attacked the health care professionals. He accused those people of fearmongering. He denied there was any problem at all with hallway medicine, no problem whatsoever, and his response now is parking lot medicine.

           When is the Minister of Health going to admit, after years of denial, that patients at Royal Columbian have been at risk because of his government?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I know what we often will hear from the opposition is more beds, more beds — notwithstanding the fact that during the 1990s they closed some 3,300 hospital beds in the province of British Columbia. But a bed is a steel frame and a mattress, unless there's a health professional to take care of the patient in the bed.

           One of the biggest challenges at Royal Columbian and right across the province of British Columbia is that during the 1990s the NDP not only failed to reinvest; they actually cut the number of nursing spaces in colleges and universities across this province. In 1993, 839 nurses graduate. In 1999, 574 graduate — a reduction of 32 percent in the number of nurses being educated in B.C.

           I'd like to hear the Leader of the Opposition get up and apologize on behalf of that former NDP government for cutting nursing resources at a time when we most needed it in this province.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           C. Puchmayr: I think it's this Health Minister that needs to apologize to the people in the Fraser Health region and the people of British Columbia and all the doctors and nurses that he continues to attack.

           Royal Columbian Hospital has gone from hallway medicine to parking lot medicine under the reckless mismanagement of this government and this Health Minister. To put portables in a parking lot to address shortages of acute care beds will further affect the acuity of patients that need emergency treatment in this very busy regional trauma centre.

           When will the minister admit that the B.C. Liberal decision to demolish St. Mary's Hospital and its acute care capacity has thrown the Fraser Health Authority into a code chaos?

           Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the major challenge facing Royal Columbian Hospital is nursing vacancies. If the members opposite need to understand why that has occurred, they need only look in the mirror — a cut of 32 percent in the number of nurses that we were educating in the 1990s, when that government knew full well that we were going to be facing a demographic crisis both in health human resources and in the general population in this decade.

           They did nothing. Worse than nothing, they actually cut resources to British Columbia's universities and colleges and graduated fewer nurses than had been the case for decades. They believed that they could control health care costs by limiting health human resources. They were wrong.

           I want to hear this member…. The Leader of the Opposition wouldn't apologize. Let's hear this member apologize on behalf of that former government.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           The member has a supplemental.

           C. Puchmayr: Deny, deny, deny — that's all we get from this minister. He talks about nurses. He talks about extra nurses and colleges. They can't retain those nurses.

[1435]

           We have met with the nurses. They cannot be retained because of the trauma and what they're exposed to…

[ Page 13118 ]

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           C. Puchmayr: …in those emergency rooms today.

           Here's how respectful he is to those nurses and doctors, who are so overworked. When they speak out, he calls them alarmist. When the patients speak out, he says: "Get used to it."

           When will the minister extract his head from the sand and come up with a concrete solution for Royal Columbian Hospital and eliminate the parking lot medicine that he is creating throughout this province?

           Hon. G. Abbott: Imagine that rhetoric from that opposition, which was prepared to hang out Penticton Regional Hospital's emergency department without any kind of opportunity for them to get the record straight.

           One of the members asked: "What have you done?" Well, I'll tell you what we've done.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Minister, sit down.

           Members.

           Continue, Minister.

           Hon. G. Abbott: A 93 percent increase in the number of nursing spaces in B.C. colleges and universities — 93 percent. Close to 4,000 incremental nursing spaces in B.C.'s colleges and universities, and further, we have doubled — a 100 percent increase — the number of physicians that we are educating in the province of British Columbia.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           A. Dix: I think the people in British Columbia know that a Minister of Health is nothing but an empty suit and a paycheque unless he's willing to stand up for public health care in British Columbia.

           No one agrees with the minister's position that it was the right decision to close St. Mary's. No one agrees with him — not the chair of the Fraser Health Authority, not the former chair of the Fraser Health Authority, not the patients sitting in hallways, not the patients waiting in emergency so they can go and be in hallways. Nobody agrees with the minister, hon. Speaker.

           When will this minister, after years of denial and disrespect, acknowledge that resorting to parking lot medicine is not the right response? When will he take the action necessary to resolve the acute care crisis in the Fraser Health Authority?

           Hon. G. Abbott: For just a moment there I thought perhaps the opposition Health critic was going to offer us up that apology on behalf of the former government that he was chief adviser for. But I guess not even on a belated or retroactive or backdated basis are we going to get that apology, even from the opposition Health critic.

           Earlier I heard the opposition Health critic going on about the Fraser Health Authority and about MRIs at Fraser Health Authority, and I just thought the House should be aware of this.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. G. Abbott: In 2001 there was one MRI in Fraser Health Authority, one MRI serving that entire health authority at Royal Columbian Hospital. Today there are two at Royal Columbian Hospital, there are three in Fraser Health Authority, and in August in that facility, which the residents of Abbotsford and region waited ten years for when that NDP government was in office, the Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre, a fourth MRI.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Member has a supplemental.

           A. Dix: Well, the members opposite….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           A. Dix: The members opposite talk about swinging again. They swung and swung and swung and tore St. Mary's down. They tore it down. There's a shortage of acute care beds, and they tore a hospital down.

[1440]

           When will that minister apologize for that outrageous decision — 71 acute care beds? Everyone told them not to — the people of New Westminster told them not to; the doctors told them not to; the nurses told them not to — and he and his colleague the Minister for Economic Development swung the axe. They got rid of St. Mary's Hospital. When will he apologize for that outrageous decision that's damaged health care in the Fraser Health Authority?

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. G. Abbott: The member appears to be suffering from a form of political amnesia. Perhaps he will remember the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital under the former NDP government. Maybe he will remember the closure of the Armstrong hospital. Maybe he'll remember the closure of Enderby Hospital. Maybe he'll remember the 3,000 other hospital beds that they closed across the province of British Columbia in the 1990s. They talk a good game; they talk a great game.

           The fact of the matter is that the operating rooms at St. Mary's are now open at Eagle Ridge, and they have been since the closure of St. Mary's. We also know that

[ Page 13119 ]

St. Mary's did not have an emergency department. This opposition suffers from selective vision, selective memory and collective amnesia when it comes to their record of the 1990s.

FUNDING FOR L'ARCHE FOUNDATION
IN BURNABY

           R. Chouhan: I'm afraid, I think, the Minister of Health has sprained his neck for answering those questions or not answering those questions, but he can relax. It's not for him.

           For 34 years L'Arche home in Burnaby has been home to adults with developmental disabilities. During funding negotiations, CLBC has admitted that L'Arche is chronically underfunded. The needs of the aging population that L'Arche is serving have put additional cost pressures on the organization. These needs cannot be met with the current funding level.

           With no wage increase for eight years, it is difficult to retain staff. Unless L'Arche receives the necessary funding, it will no longer be able to continue to provide this current high level of quality service and care for 24 adults with disabilities who rely on it.

           So my question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Will the minister promise to provide the equitable funding, in comparison with other agencies, to keep L'Arche open?

           Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's question. L'Arche has been a service provider in the Burnaby community for a number of years. They have done a very able job of providing services to persons with developmental disabilities. They have approached CLBC, seeking, I believe, a 75 percent increase in their funding, by virtue of a change in how they are wishing to deliver service.

           CLBC continues to work with L'Arche to look at how it is that they can continue to ably serve the many people that are residing at L'Arche in a way, on a go-forward basis. CLBC is doing that work with them today. I think most members would recognize that a 75 percent increase in terms of the contract price is something that will be difficult to deal with, but CLBC is committing to continue to work with L'Arche.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

           S. Fraser: The Canadian government has now voted to support the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, even though the Harper government, shamefully, voted no. Aboriginal leaders across the country are asking all provincial and territorial governments to adopt motions of support for the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. We on the opposition side have been in support of the declaration all along. It's a human rights issue.

[1445]

           On this day of action across the country, will the minister finally agree to endorse and support the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising the issue on a day when we should all pause and reflect upon the circumstances confronted by so many aboriginal peoples right across Canada.

           The member and I have had this discussion relating to the UN declaration before. He knows our view. He knows my view — that we did call upon the government of Canada to endorse the principles. We understand the importance to endorse the declaration. So I fear that the member may be trying to manufacture a division or a difference of opinion that does not exist.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Continue, Minister.

           Hon. M. de Jong: So the member is aware of our support for the declaration. If he isn't, I hope he is now. And on this day when aboriginal peoples are gathering, I hope that all members and all British Columbians will reflect on the fact that, despite all of the progress that we have made with respect to the establishment of a new relationship, bridging that socioeconomic gap and meeting the needs of aboriginal people and communities is a work-in-progress and there is much work to be done.

PROPOSED POWER PROJECT
FOR KLINAKLINI RIVER

           S. Simpson: Klina power currently has a private power project application on the Klinaklini River. While there are two conservancies in that area, they're separated by the river, and that's where this application is being considered.

           This is of great concern for a number of reasons, including the historic and cultural importance of this river to first nations. The Klinaklini is one of British Columbia's key rivers for the oolichan, a small fish which is integral to first nations culture and food. We know that in the Lower Mainland we had extensive consultation, including a series of public meetings related to the Pitt River project. In the case of this project, 30 days to respond to a website. That's totally unacceptable.

           Will the government commit today to real consultation with communities and first nations before this project is allowed to proceed?

           Hon. B. Penner: As the member should know, the environmental process does call for public consultation and public meetings. That's exactly what took place with respect to another project that received attention earlier this year. But I'm very concerned, particularly given the last question from the member for Port Alberni, that the opposition continues to denigrate efforts by first nations and others to see economic opportunities in their homelands.

           Specifically, I'm referring to an article in the Campbell River Mirror from April 30. The headline is "Chief Sees Red Over 'Green Power' Criticism," and there the chief of the Klahoose is quoted as saying that the NDP…

[ Page 13120 ]

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. B. Penner: …who hosted a meeting in Campbell River perpetuated more myths. "It was appalling, and there was no reference to first nations," he told the Mirror on Friday. "Ultimately, they — NDP — are trying to compromise our economic opportunities."

           When will the opposition realize that we need sustainable energy in British Columbia, and first nations should not be held back because of their ideological hostility to green power projects?

           Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

           S. Simpson: Some 30 days to respond to a website. That's this minister and this government's notion of what consultation is. They know nothing about consultation.

           What do the first nations say about this? Well, they got a few responses on their website, and what did they say? "Failure to adequately consult with those affected by this project is a slap in the face to the Kwakiutl people, stewards of this area from time immemorial, and raises doubts about the government of B.C.'s sincerity in dealings with first nations people."

           That's what the first nations think about this government. This minister, this government, is concerned only about filling the pockets of their friends who own those private power projects with no concern for first nations.

[1450]

           What will it take for this government to quit ignoring the first nations in British Columbia?

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           S. Simpson: What will it take for this government to quit ignoring communities, stop hiding behind this inadequate process and actually talk to people about this — talk to the first nations, respect the first nations?

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           Hon. B. Penner: We can see now why major environmental leaders like Dr. David Suzuki went on a CTV national program last weekend to say that he was shocked at the NDP's opposition to carbon tax and other environmental policies.

           It's not just environmental leaders who are concerned; it's first nations leaders. Chief Judith Sayers had this to say about the China Creek project, which the NDP are opposed to: "These projects are not only bringing revenue but pride, capacity and hope to a community that had absolutely nothing ten years ago."

           There were other projects too that first nations are partnering in, in terms of run-of-river projects, such as the Ashlu project, supported by the Squamish First Nation, which the NDP is steadfastly opposed to; Kwalsa Energy has got a project; the Upper Stave; and near my constituency, the upper Harrison is now going to be receiving clean energy for the Douglas band at the top end of Harrison Lake.

           The NDP would have those people deprived — those first nations deprived — not only of the jobs and economic activity, where today 280 people are working, but of clean, renewable electricity that the rest of us take for granted. That's a shame.

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS
IN REVELSTOKE AREA

           N. Macdonald: On Tuesday the Minister of Forests…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           N. Macdonald: …had a supposed consultation in Revelstoke on the sale of the Pope and Talbot section A lands. No official notice to the MLA was given, no official notice to the city, no official notice to the Community Forest Corp., no official notice to Downie Mill — all, coincidentally, opposed to the sale and clearly so.

           The consultation process has all the appearance of another B.C. Liberal farce. So that there can be no misunderstanding in this House, Revelstoke rejects completely the sale of the TFL section 8…. Rejects it completely. Will the minister reflect and respect Revelstoke's wishes, or is the land already sold and the backroom deal already done?

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           Hon. R. Coleman: The public meeting in Revelstoke was advertised in the Revelstoke Times Review. I would assume the member has a constituency assistant who actually reads a newspaper and the actual mayor and council can look at their newspaper when a meeting is called in the community. It was held six days later, so there was six days' notice for the meeting. We think that was sufficient, because people did show up, and they did form an opinion.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
FOR FOREST WORKERS

           C. Evans: This has been going on for a year. I was standing here a year ago, and I was asking the Minister of Forests to stop the sale of British Columbia lands until we paid the British Columbia workers, until the loggers were paid the two million bucks they were owed and given back their security deposit.

           The minister said at the time: "Oh, you're just a socialist. We Liberals believe in private land rights. So that means Wells Fargo bank can do anything it wants,

[ Page 13121 ]

Pope and Talbot can do anything it wants, and you British Columbians can go suck eggs."

           Let me make a prophecy.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           C. Evans: Let me make a prophecy for those folks. I'll bet you that the following question is the last question the gentleman that sits right over there ever answers as Minister of Forests.

[1455]

           Never again. The people up there know. His own party knows. You know. They know. Everybody knows that's the first Minister of Forests in the history of British Columbia to sell out British Columbians.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           C. Evans: My question to the minister is: when you're gone, will your government go back to standing up for British Columbians and see to it that we get paid and the land is respected? Or is selling this place in the interest of American banks now Liberal policy forever?

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Minister.

           Hon. R. Coleman: Let's remind the member opposite of all the great things that this government has done for forestry in the province of British Columbia.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Minister, continue.

           Hon. R. Coleman: We didn't blow $500 million on a failed pulp mill. We invested $642 million in mountain pine beetle. While you people ignored an epidemic in the Interior of the province of British Columbia, we put money on the ground to fix it. We, this government, solved the softwood lumber deal, something they couldn't do for ten years. We do more.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           One more comment, Minister.

           Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, 150 first nation communities have had over 33 million cubic metres and $200 million in timber from this government.

           And there's one other thing. Next year at this time we'll be sitting here as government, and they'll be sitting there as the opposition.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           [End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

           Hon. K. Falcon: In accordance with section 18 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I have the honour to present the British Columbia Railway Co.'s annual report for 2007 and the audited financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2007.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.

[1500]

Petitions

           B. Ralston: I rise to present a petition signed by 1,123 citizens asking that transit fares be made more affordable for working families in the Lower Mainland.

           C. Evans: I ask leave to table a petition.

           Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

           C. Evans: I have a petition here from ranchers in the Quesnel area asking the government to please assist them to get affordable abattoirs in place before they are made criminals for the sale of their meat.

           Mr. Speaker: The member has another petition.

           C. Evans: I would like to table a petition from citizens and truckers of the Creston area asking for a truck stop with bathrooms at the Creston side of the Salmo-Creston pass so that truckers can pull off the road in a safe manner.

           S. Hammell: I rise to submit a petition from 1,038 people who signed the petition requesting affordable, accessible public transportation and to make transit fares more affordable.

           D. Thorne: I, too, wish to table a petition to make transit fares more affordable for working families from 350 people in my constituency.

           I. Black: I seek leave to make an introduction.

           Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

           I. Black: Mr. Speaker, it is my son's birthday today.

           Happy birthday, Jordy. I'll be home for dinner. Save me some cake.

[ Page 13122 ]

Petitions

           G. Robertson: I rise to table a petition with over 1,500 people calling for strong regulation of toxins in B.C., including right-to-know labelling and, most importantly, protecting our children from the toxins that are poisoning them.

           Mr. Speaker: You have another petition.

           G. Robertson: I have another petition here from several hundred people in Vancouver calling for fair compensation to the small business owners devastatingly impacted by construction along the Canada line corridor from downtown through Cambie village and out to Richmond.

           J. McIntyre: I also ask leave to make an introduction.

           Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

           J. McIntyre: Coincidentally enough, it is my daughter's birthday today too. Unfortunately, I won't see her tonight for cake because she's in London, England. I wish her the best and hope the House wishes her the best too.

Petitions

           G. Coons: I table a petition with 146 signatures from Prince Rupert expressing their concern, in conjunction with the local school board, that the Minister of Education is not funding labour settlements outside the total aggregate funding amount and that school districts be funded to 99 percent of the previous year's funding.

           N. Simons: I present a petition from residents of Gabriola, Galiano, Bowen, Courtenay and Victoria who are concerned about the rising cost of the ferry system and call for its return to reflect the public interest.

           As well, I have a number of residents in the Sechelt–Sunshine Coast–Gibsons area also expressing concern about the loss of the ferry system from the public highway system.

           J. Kwan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

           Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

           J. Kwan: Visiting us in the precincts today are 27 grade 7 students from St. Joseph's School, along with their teacher and five adults. They were meant to be here and for me to greet them outside on the front steps at about 2:30. Of course, that was when question period was just underway, and I was unable to do that.

           With that, I'd like to welcome them. They are here to learn about the history of the Parliament Buildings, the work of MLAs and, of course, the importance of democracy in British Columbia. I ask all members of the House to please make them feel welcome.

           A. Dix: I seek leave to make an introduction.

           Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

           A. Dix: I would like to welcome to the precincts 40 grade 5 students and ten parents and teachers from Vancouver Christian School in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. They're here to learn about what we do here in the Legislature and to tour all the great sites in Victoria. On behalf of everyone here, I wish to give them the fondest welcome.

[1505]

Motions without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE FOR
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT
A POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

           Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the following:

[That Mr. Harry Bloy be substituted for Mr. Dennis MacKay as a Member of the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner.]

           Leave granted.

           Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

           Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, and in Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of the Whole House

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 26; K. Whittred in the chair.

           The committee met at 3:07 p.m.

           On section 1.

           A. Dix: This amendment, as I understand it, changes some of the approval procedures. I just want to be clear. It grants the approval procedure for the purchase of real property by the commission and the appointment of executive officers of the commission to the minister, another minister — presumably the acting minister or something — and then the deputy or associate deputy to the minister.

[ Page 13123 ]

           What's the present situation, and what's being remedied here? Is it the case, as we've seen in some previous statute amendments this week, that there was some delay or problem with going through…? I'm not even sure if it ordinarily goes through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council now. Is that the change? Is it simply to streamline what has become a cumbersome regulatory process?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of the amendment is to be consistent with other processes and acts. As an example, members of the commission would be appointed by ministerial appointment. Hence, other processes or actions consistently would be done by the minister as well.

           A. Dix: I apologize to the minister. But what is the status quo? What is being changed here? I understand it's being made consistent with other arrangements. What's being changed here?

           Hon. G. Abbott: Currently it is an order-in-council, or a decision by cabinet versus a decision by minister.

[1510]

           Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

           On section 4.

           A. Dix: My understanding of this section of the act is that it allows for the power to waive ambulance fees, essentially. I'm wondering if the minister can point to this. I just have a couple of detailed questions.

           What is the approximate cost of this process to the taxpayers? I presume what's happening here is that, really, we're just saving the regulatory process. In the case of premium assistance clients, by being able to waive the fee, you're actually saving a bureaucratic process.

           How many premium assistance clients pay or have to deal with ambulance fees now? What's the scope of the problem that the government is trying to address? Presumably, there aren't actually any cost implications of this, but maybe the minister could speak to that.

           Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have the number with us, but it would be all of those, I think, who have premium assistance available to them. The effect of this amendment is to relieve them of the obligation to apply for remission. We were finding that there were cases when individuals who qualified either weren't aware that they could apply for remission or they applied for remission too late. There were all kinds of ongoing processes with that group. So this change will do away with the necessity to apply for remission.

           A. Dix: It's obviously a very good change. I understand that the minister doesn't know how many cases. Presumably, if it's the case that sometimes people don't apply for remittance, even the estimates of the ministry, in fact, wouldn't be there. How would they actually be identified? Can you just briefly take me through the process? Presumably, they would be identified in the billing process under the Emergency and Health Services Act. So how would they be identified once this system is put into place?

           Hon. G. Abbott: In the process of annually distributing MSP premium notices, individuals who fall below the income threshold for MSP premium assistance will make application for that assistance. That would form part of the record in terms of their membership in MSP. If they were then to use an ambulance at some point during that year, the system would flag that, in the sense that a bill would not go out to that individual because they were within the system as a premium assistance client.

[1515]

           A. Dix: So the system currently has the capacity to identify all of these cases. Does it have the capacity to identify those cases retroactively to see who has missed receiving, essentially, a rebate or not? Or is this a new aspect of the system?

           What I mean is, if you've got the capacity now to do this, and what we're asking now is the legal…. We're authorizing it, and we're providing the legal framework here, but if the minister has the capacity to do it now, based on the system that's in place, for the people who are eligible and receive the premium assistance, would we be able to go back and see who didn't apply, who didn't get the remittance?

           It seems to me that if there are a number of those people, it would be a good thing to do. There may be some people…. All of these people would be below the income threshold, so presumably, all of these people would need the money. Is it possible to go back and see if there are a number of these cases where people maybe have paid and could be rebated from the past year or so? Would that be possible from a system perspective?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try this. Up until the passage of this bill and an OIC a few months earlier that made it possible not to bill those on premium assistance…. Prior to that, people would have to self-identify as being candidates for remission of the ambulance bill. They would have to make application for that remission. They will not have to do that in the future.

[1520]

           Anyone, though, who has an apprehension that they may have paid inappropriately should identify that to the B.C. Ambulance Service or to the Ministry of Health, and we will make sure that we take a look at their application for remission. If they have missed a benefit that they might have got, then we can advise them of that.

           A. Dix: I understand what the law is and what the law will be. I guess my question is…. If we have the means, from a systems perspective, to identify the people eligible for premium assistance, who have paid fees that they could have been rebated for, essentially…. So we have the process, and this is what the bill is improving. The process is: you pay the fee; then you get reimbursed.

[ Page 13124 ]

           Now the process is that we identify you as on premium assistance, and the fee is waived. So what I'm wondering is that if we have the capacity…. Has there been a systems change in addition to a legislative change that's required?

           It seems to me that if the ministry…. I mean, I appreciate that it's if someone self-identifies, but presumably, if they were self-identifying, they would have self-identified already. If there were a number of people, be it tens or hundreds of people, who are on premium assistance who would benefit from a ministry audit of ambulance fees to get the reimbursement that they should in fact get, would the minister consider doing that in order to ensure that people who paid the fees — who ultimately shouldn't have paid the fees or should have got a rebate for the fees — get their rebate?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is no. B.C. Ambulance Service is in the process of moving from a paper-based billing system to an electronic billing system, and it is not possible to go back through an interface of BCAS electronic system and MSP billing system and identify those who might be candidates because, as I say, BCAS is currently making that transition between those.

           However, as I said in my earlier answer, anyone who used ambulance services and who has premium assistance for their MSP should contact either B.C. Ambulance Service or the Ministry of Health or health information B.C. — any one of those organizations — and we could process an application for remission.

           I also could note, in response to the earlier question, that an estimated 68,000 individuals and families of low and modest income should benefit from this policy.

           A. Dix: I don't want to dwell on the point too much. But I guess that was the question I was asking, really. Is there a systems change that needs to be in place? I guess I wanted to ask when that systems change will be in place, because the minister talked about moving from a paper-based system to an electronic-based system — which is necessary to do. Otherwise, it would be highly labour-intensive.

           When is that change going to be in place and fully implemented? Presumably, that would accompany the bringing into force of the legislation. That's the first question.

           Secondly, has the Ambulance Service ever done any kind of audit to find out how many people have fallen through the cracks? Would it be worthwhile, in fact, even with a small audit, to provide some estimate of the extent of the problem to see if there are, in fact, a lot of people who might be eligible for a rebate and who didn't get one?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I think some of the questions are beginning to go beyond the scope of the bill here. We don't have B.C. Ambulance Service officials here, as we would in an estimates process, to handle those kinds of questions.

[1525]

           It's our understanding that there has never been an audit of that character by BCAS. We're certainly not aware of it. I guess in terms of what this bill does, from this point forward — and, in fact, from the point of the OIC, which made provision for this — we are systematically ensuring that anyone on premium assistance doesn't have those bills processed.

           It would be difficult to go back in time and be able to identify everyone who could potentially have benefited from this in the past. Again, the best we can do is say that if anyone had that apprehension, they should advise us, and we would process an application for remission.

           Section 4 approved.

           On section 5.

           A. Dix: The subsequent several sections, essentially, I think, repeal what are called "spent provisions." They are provisions that were addressed in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of June 8, 2007, with respect to the case of Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. I don't want to dwell on this too much.

           This section to do with bumping, I think, as I understand it…. The court ruled in the case of bumping provisions. This captures it here: "Viewing the act's interference with these essential rights in the context of the case as a whole, we conclude that its interference with collective bargaining over matters pertaining to contracting out, layoff conditions and bumping constitutes substantial interference with the section 2(d) right of freedom of association."

           These provisions we're dealing with, so that we understand — section 5 and subsequently sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 — will have to do with implementing that Supreme Court decision.

           In terms of the repealing of the definition of bumping, just very briefly, can the minister explain what the effect of this particular provision is — essentially, the Supreme Court decision that we are bringing the legislation up to date with, which said that this provision violated the freedom-of-association rights of members of the Facilities Bargaining Association?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The Supreme Court of Canada, as the member knows, found section 9 of Bill 29 unconstitutional. This section on bumping as well as two others were the impugned sections of Bill 29. Section 9 regulated the bumping process, but was in fact sunsetted as of December 31, 2005.

           At that time the government had the opportunity to extend the provision but chose not to. Hence, this section is no longer relevant in any event for any purpose in the act. It should be noted that the parties in January 2008 negotiated bumping provisions in a new collective agreement.

           Section 5 approved.

           On section 6.

[ Page 13125 ]

           A. Dix: In this case, again, this is subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that ruled that certain provisions of what was known as Bill 29 — at least in that year — the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act — are repealed.

           This particular section, as I understand it, repeals the prohibition against provisions in the health sector collective agreements which restrict, limit or regulate the contracting out of non-clinical services, and it repeals a subsection that voids provision and collective agreements which require consultation with trade unions prior to contracting out those non-clinical services.

           We'll just go through these sections fairly quickly. I wanted to ask the minister again what the effect of this section would be on the current health and social services delivery in British Columbia.

[1530]

           Hon. G. Abbott: The member's understanding of section 6 is correct. To his question, "What of the current agreements?" new arrangements are in place in the current collective agreements.

           Section 6 approved.

           On section 7.

           A. Dix: Really, it's just the same question here. This is a spent provision, and this is an amendment to a different act, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. Perhaps the minister can explain, because this is a 2003 amendment, what's being repealed here and why.

           Hon. G. Abbott: Section 7 applies to the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. It repeals a spent provision, but of the HSSDIA.

           A. Dix: Yes, I was looking at section 8. My apologies to the minister.

           Can the minister tell us, though, what the provision did?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The original section 9 of the HSSDIA pertained to layoff and bumping, and it said:

           "For the period ending December 31, 2005, a collective agreement must not contain a provision that (a) restricts or limits a health sector employer from laying off an employee, (b) subject to paragraph (c), requires a health sector employer to meet conditions before giving layoff notice, (c) requires a health sector employer to provide more than 60 days' notice of layoff to an employee directly or indirectly affected and to the trade union representing the employee, or (d) provides an employee with bumping options other than the bumping options set out in the regulations."

           A. Dix: These are the sections that essentially gave rights to the employer and took away rights from workers, and they were all presumably dealt with and are spent due to the Supreme Court decision. It isn't the case, as it was with the bumping provisions earlier, that they were already spent. These were in force until the Supreme Court intervened to overturn the government's decision to restrict the freedom-of-association rights or — let's take that out of it — the rights of workers.

           Hon. G. Abbott: As noted earlier, these were provisions that were spent, as per the provisions of this section, as of December 31, 2005.

           Section 7 approved.

[1535]

           On section 8.

           A. Dix: Just briefly, then, on this section. What was it, and what is it? Is this a provision that was dealt with by the Supreme Court or a provision that was dealt with because the particular provision was sunsetted?

           Hon. G. Abbott: Section 8 is a consequential amendment, because the statutory basis for this provision no longer exists.

           A. Dix: Well, it's interesting. The statutory basis no longer exists, and it's consequential, but that doesn't explain what it is. So just very briefly, what was it?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The original section 5 set time limitations and other parameters for bumping.

           Section 8 approved.

           On section 9.

           A. Dix: This particular amendment has to do with the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, which is a different act, but it is, I think, tied up in some of the same decisions.

           It repeals "the prohibitions against provisions in designated private sector partners' collective agreements and contractors' collective agreements which restrict, limit or regulate the contracting out of non-clinical services provided at or for designated health care facilities under the Act, and repeals subsections that void provisions in those collective agreements which require consultation with trade unions prior to contracting out those non-clinical services."

           [S. Hammell in the chair.]

           Essentially, one of the things it's voiding, as I understand it here…. The subsection voided the right of trade unions or workers in a particular workplace to receive their rights to consult, in fact. This was presumably further to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which said amongst other things that this represented a virtual denial of the section 2(d) right to a process of good-faith bargaining and consultation.

           Am I correct in this instance that this decision is a consequence of the Supreme Court of Canada deci-

[ Page 13126 ]

sion, or is it a decision further to other decisions by government?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure what document the member is quoting from in the latter portions of his comments. I can advise the member that while the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act was not mentioned in the Supreme Court of Canada decision, nevertheless this Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act does contain a couple of similar provisions or sections to those in Bill 29 that were impugned by the Supreme Court. Hence, out of an abundance of caution, the government has chosen to repeal these two sections as well.

           A. Dix: It'll be clear in Hansard that I was quoting from the Supreme Court of Canada decision, but this is not Bill 29. It's Bill 92. Is that right — from a subsequent year? Okay.

           Hon. G. Abbott: Bill 94.

           Section 9 approved.

           On section 10.

           A. Dix: Section 10 is an amendment to the Health Statutes Amendment Act. As I understand it, we're going into a somewhat different area from where we've been. We've got three areas to go in this bill. I think the more substantive debate will take place over the enacting of section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act. But can the minister tell us what this change to the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 — or this amendment — does?

[1540]

           This presumably repeals one set of decisions, and I'm just trying to follow through my acts this morning and didn't quite get to it. Maybe the minister could tell us what it is.

           Hon. G. Abbott: The impact of section 10 is that it repeals or corrects an error. This repeal corrects an error in the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, which inadvertently disallowed the disclosure of health-related information to law enforcement agencies when authorized by other statutes such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Medicare Protection Act.

           A. Dix: Just as a matter of interest, because I clearly completely misread the intent of the section.... Presumably, it was a mistake. Has the mistake had any effect, or is this just part of a general cleanup of legislation?

           Hon. G. Abbott: More on the general cleanup side of things. This section has never been brought into force, so this cleans it up.

           Section 10 approved.

           On section 11.

           The Chair: Minister, you have an amendment.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I'll move the amendment standing in my name to section 11.

[SECTION 11, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

11 Section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 286, is repealed and the following substituted:

Duty to keep information confidential

49 (1) In this section, "person engaged in the administration of this Act" includes the following persons:

(a) each member or former member of the commission;

(b) each former member of the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board;

(c) each employee or former employee of the ministry employed in the administration of this Act;

(d) each inspector or former inspector appointed under this Act;

(e) each member or former member of an advisory committee;

(f) any person engaged or previously engaged in the administration of this Act.

    (2) A person engaged in the administration of this Act must keep confidential matters respecting an individual beneficiary or practitioner that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her employment or duties, and must not communicate any of those matters except as follows:

(a) in the course of the administration of this Act or another Act or program administered by the minister;

(b) to communicate prescribed information to a person who

(i) is a beneficiary and is, or whose personal information is, identified in a hearing under section 15 or 37,

(ii) provides information to the commission that leads to an audit or inspection under section 36, or to a determination that no audit or inspection is required under that section, or

(iii) provides information to the commission that leads to an application for an injunction under section 45.1, or to a determination that no injunction is required under that section;

(c) to communicate prescribed information to one or more persons if a person is the subject of

(i) a notice of hearing under section 15 or 37,

(ii) an audit or inspection under section 36, or

(iii) an application for an injunction under section 45.1, and if, in the opinion of the minister or the chair, there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of that information;

(d) in accordance with section 33.2 (i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

(ed) for a purpose listed in section 5 or 18 of the E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act.]

[ Page 13127 ]

           On the amendment.

           A. Dix: We're speaking on the amendment, and perhaps the minister can just assist us by explaining the purpose of the amendment. Then we can perhaps vote on that and get through to the main discussion on this section.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that this amendment corrects a drafting error.

           A. Dix: Just to understand what the drafting error was. I think what it does is substitute the E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Just to understand what it does, I wanted to ask the minister, because that strikes me….

           It may well be a drafting error, though you're substituting one act for the other. I just want to make sure I understand what the effect of the amendment is.

[1545]

           Hon. G. Abbott: There's a fascinating level of complexity to this. So to satisfy the first question or the most prominent question posed by the member — is the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the old section (d) being substituted for the Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy Act? — that is not a substitution, and I'll explain why.

           The old (d) — which reads: "in accordance with subsection 33.2(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act" — is a section which has been removed on the advice of the commissioner because that section related to the sharing of information with law enforcement officials.

           The member would have to refer back to 49(2)(a) to read "in the course of the administration of this Act or another Act or program administered by the minister." The advice from the commissioner, as I understand it, is that the law enforcement officials can access that information for purposes of the administration of this act. So once that (d) was removed at the request of the commissioner, the new (d), which was the former (e), is a drafting error being corrected.

[1550]

           Amendment approved.

           On section 11 as amended.

           A. Dix: It does make one wonder whether you should just accept the answer "drafting error," really. Anyway, thank you to the minister for that answer. I'm quite impressed with his ability to get it out.

           This section as amended obviously is a significant section of the amendment bill the minister is putting forward. We can mention, I guess, the Copeman case, but it deals with a number of really high-profile cases where the commission has recently been making decisions around extra billing.

           I think it's fair to say, just reading the commission's report and speaking to people at the commission, that really these investigations into billing practices and their investigations into the billing practices of clinics are fairly new. The case of the decision on the Copeman clinic was one of these moments of absurdity that one sometimes comes up with.

           Often, even though everyone knew it was the Copeman clinic, the minutes and the annual reports and so on — be it Copeman or False Creek — don't reflect the fact that the clinics that everyone knows you're talking about are in fact those clinics.

           What he's establishing here is a public interest test. Can the minister tell us, first of all…? You can't make these things retroactive. But would the minister contemplate using the provisions of the new section 49 to let the public know the reasons for the decision in the Copeman case? But more to the point of the legislation, what is the compelling public interest test as far as he and the ministry are concerned — the compelling public interest test that will guide either the chair of the commission or the minister in future to release information about cases?

           As the minister will know, I know a number of people who have written letters complaining about extra billing to the commission. As I understand it, under the present policy they're not even allowed to know the disposition of their cases. I guess my question is: what is the standard that the minister intends to use? And would he use the existence of the new legislation, the new openness provided by these amendments to section 49…? Would he use those provisions to allow the public to understand the Copeman decision?

           I think it's important to do because, of course, there are a number of other clinics around British Columbia which are thinking of operating under similar business models to the Copeman model, where you apply a membership fee and get access to both MSP-insured and presumably MSP non-insured services. The argument is that the fee is all about the non-insured services.

           I think it would probably be useful in a sense, if only as guidance to the public — there's a lot of public interest in that particular case — but also as guidance in all these other cases, for the public and the profession to understand what the reasons for decision were in the Copeman case.

           I guess my first question is: is there an intention ever to publish the reasons for the Copeman decision? Second, and more directly to the point of this legislation: what does the minister see as the compelling public interest?

[1555]

           Hon. G. Abbott: First, it's important to note that these amendments are not retroactive. The member references as an example the Copeman clinic and the issues around that. The MSP drew its conclusions some months ago on the Copeman clinic. It was a matter of considerable media interest.

           I suspect a shrewd lawyer reviewing my comments at that time would have said that I went well beyond the parameters of the then existing section 49 in my

[ Page 13128 ]

comments, because I was quite transparent in relaying the reasons for the MSC decision on Copeman at that time.

           But because the Copeman decision precedes this change to section 49, I don't believe there would be publication of any materials beyond what is available in the public record from my comments and perhaps from the comments of the chair of the Medical Services Commission at the time. In fact, I know he made some comments on the record as well. So that would form the record in terms of the Copeman clinic decision.

           We will in the weeks ahead be developing the regulations, which will describe the parameters for releasing information. At that point we'll be able to decide which cases meet the test of a compelling public interest to release that information.

           A. Dix: So would extra-billing cases — there are presumably a number of extra-billing cases before the commission — or cases that deal with what you would call the protection of medicare principles in the broad sense, which is in the act…? Would those cases, in all cases, represent a compelling public interest in the view of the minister?

[1600]

           Hon. G. Abbott: With the passage of this bill in the form currently contained, the changes to section 49 would provide for disclosure in every case to the complainant, disclosure to the beneficiary and disclosure to those who may have provided information to the commission on the issue but who may not have been the complainant. It would also provide disclosure of prescribed information, prescribed by regulation consistent with a public interest test.

           A. Dix: So disclosure to the complainant is prescribed. Would it be the case, then…? Presumably, there would be no constraints on a complainant in releasing information about a particular case. Is that right? Essentially, there wouldn't be any kind of signed agreement between a complainant and the commission with respect to information.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I may have lost the member's question here. The information that would be provided to the complainant would be: was there a basis for investigation; does it remain under investigation; and if the investigation has been concluded with findings, what those findings were.

[1605]

           A. Dix: In terms of what the minister views as the public interest test, then, and what the ministry would…. We had a little discussion in second reading debate. Although it's always good to relive these discussions, I don't think this is the right moment for it. We were discussing the novelty of extra-billing cases. I talked about it a little at second reading, and the minister did. Really, it's the commission that has said, particularly in the Copeman case…. In fact, one of the reasons why they said it took so long in the Copeman case….

           As the minister will know, there was a special meeting of the commission on March 14, 2006, with the Ministry of Health, where they made a presentation regarding the Copeman case. The decision and that issue have been, of course, before the Ministry of Health. There's a lengthy correspondence between Mr. Craig Knight and Mr. Copeman in the nine months preceding the referral, but there was this meeting with the Ministry of Health.

           One of the reasons the commission said it took this long in this kind of extra-billing case was that it was kind of a new thing for them. Just reading the annual report, this is further buttressed in 2006-2007: "The…commission has made the pursuit of extra-billing cases its primary strategic goal for 2006-2007 and has developed protocols, including a flow chart and ongoing status report, for dealing with cases that come to its knowledge where extra billing appears to have taken place." In fact, the commission has confirmed that it's a new priority in '06-07.

           Further, in terms of strategic planning for the 2007-2008 year, the commission talks about "a primary focus on the development of a comprehensive integrated strategy regarding extra billing to ensure full compliance." This is particularly important since there will be, presumably, cases that parallel the Copeman case, so the reasons and the background of these decisions would be important and in the public interest.

           I guess I'm asking the minister: since the complainant will receive some answers as to what happened but surely not a comprehensive answer as to what happened in a particular case, does the minister agree with me that, especially in the initial stages, some of these extra-billing cases and what the ministry or what the commission decides is extra billing will be important in guiding lots of people in British Columbia? Does he agree with me that that class of cases seems to, in his view, meet the public interest test as contained in the new section 49 and in section 11 of this bill?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The member stated during his discourse something along the lines of extra billing being new in relation to the Copeman clinic issue. Extra billing certainly is not new. Extra-billing issues go back at least until the time of the creation of the Medical Services Commission. I'm sure that pretty much since the advent of medicare there have been issues around extra billing, which at least in more recent times have been dealt with by the Medical Services Commission. So they're nothing new in extra billing. That existed in the 21st century, it existed in the 1990s, and it existed in the 1980s.

           What was new with the Copeman clinic was both its corporate and service delivery structure. The member referenced the exchange of information between Mr. Knight, Assistant Deputy Minister of Health responsible for this area, and Mr. Copeman. Much of that correspondence was related to trying to understand how that corporate and service delivery structure existed and whether it existed within the bounds of the

[ Page 13129 ]

Medicare Protection Act. So that's all quite straightforward.

[1610]

           We had a long period in which I think the Medical Services Commission focused on audit and on attempting to understand the corporate and service structure of the Copeman clinic. At the time, I said that I wished I could be more fulsome in the information that I could provide but was constrained by section 49. After the decision was produced, I gave as fulsome a description as I could, notwithstanding the constraints that existed with respect to the then section 49.

           What the member should really contrast this bill with is the very limiting character of the section 49 disclosure provisions that were put in place by the government in 1995 and were reconfirmed in the Medicare Protection Act amendments of 1996. The final extent to which information will be released will be defined in those regulations.

           We didn't go to the trouble of undertaking this legislation so that we could say less. I believe we should say more. I believe that the section 49 disclosure of 1995 is inconsistent with the expectations around transparency in the 21st century, and that's why we will be moving to the more expansive release of information embodied in this regulation.

           A. Dix: What we're on is section 11 here, just to zero in. The minister talked about the Copeman process, and indeed, the matter was referred to the commission in March 2006, subsequent to a lengthy exchange between Mr. Copeman and Mr. Knight — on behalf of the government of British Columbia, of course, not in his own regard.

           What Mr. Knight concluded — and he sent a letter to Mr. Copeman — was that he should cease and desist the practice. Mr. Copeman didn't cease and desist the practice. The case was referred. It took 18 months. As I understand — and I'm sure the minister will correct me if he disagrees — the case was prolonged somewhat, I guess in a good way, by the proclamation of provisions of Bill 92 following the False Creek urgent emergency room fiasco of December of that same year.

           Some provisions of Bill 92 were enacted, and that enabled the commission, in fact, to act on that. I guess what I'm asking the minister, though, in a very straightforward way — because public interest exists here; it's the key test in terms of the minister's release of information or the commission's release of information — is whether he can provide the Legislature with any guidance with respect to what that means. That's the question.

           He said that there should be more, but does he think, especially in the short term, that extra-billing cases as a group of cases should be the reasons for decision and that those cases should be released? That seems to me to meet a public interest test. Really, that's what I'm asking the minister. Does he agree with that? I'm trying to explore with him, because it's the key element of the provision, how he would define the public interest test.

           Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of this bill is to provide additional transparency in all cases, not just extra-billing cases.

           A. Dix: I agree. What the provision of this bill sets out in section 49(2)(c) is: "…if, in the opinion of the minister or the chair, there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of that information." That's one of the provisions of the act.

           I guess we should try again just to say…. Does the minister agree with extra-billing cases meeting that public interest test, and how would he describe the "compelling public interest" test?

           He's the minister now. There will be other ministers who will, presumably, as these things are, be guided by his actions and his government's actions as minister, once this bill comes into force.

[1615]

           Obviously, Mr. Vincent is chair of the commission now, and others will be guided by his definition of what it is. But often in this Legislature we provide guidance to people as to what that public interest is or what a definition means during the course of committee stage debate.

           I'm asking a very straightforward question. If the minister doesn't want to answer it in the context of extra billing — which is, I guess, fair enough — can he give us a little bit more information on how he sees that public interest test?

           Hon. G. Abbott: Again, as we are going to be working through regulation here and as we attempt to describe the parameters for releasing information — we'll be putting regulations in place that will describe the parameters for releasing information — we will be working through that process to decide which cases meet the test of compelling public interest and to release that information.

           Beyond that, it is difficult to add a lot more here. What I think we attempt to do, through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and related statutes, is always to strike a careful balance between what should be disclosed to the public through the freedom-of-information side of that equation and what should be protected in the legitimate interests of personal privacy in relation to any given matter.

           I've said previously that this bill doesn't just apply to extra-billing cases. It will apply to all cases, and the aim is to have enhanced transparency around these cases. It is difficult to prejudge what we will see in any specific case, but obviously, it is our intent with this bill to add transparency in every case.

           I could have simply said: "I'm entirely happy living with the section 49 of 1995, which really severely limits my opportunity to say anything, because I don't have to say anything." But I wasn't happy with that, so I asked staff to work through a process that ultimately came to statutory life in this bill. The aim here is to add that additional transparency — again, based on all of what we have discussed earlier.

           A. Dix: Not to be too circular here, but is it the minister's intent, then, to provide the public with guidance

[ Page 13130 ]

through the regulation on a definition or a framework for compelling public interest? Or in fact, is all we're going to know is that that's the test the chair and the minister will provide?

           Really, this is what we're exploring. It's an opportunity for the minister to tell us what compelling public interest is and what it isn't. But if he says we should wait for the regulations, then I just want to ask him whether the public might reasonably expect to get more guidance on what compelling public interest is when the regulations come?

[1620]

           Hon. G. Abbott: Our aim in this legislation is to make it possible to release as much information as possible — always again subject to the privacy constraints that exist in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Policy will be developed, along with the regulations, to guide both the minister and the ministry in respect of what can be released and why, and also as a guide to the chair of the Medical Services Commission in terms of the appropriate degree of transparency under this act.

           Section 11 as amended approved.

           On section 12.

           A. Dix: Just very briefly. To the minister on section 12: does the minister have any time frame in terms of the bringing into force of section 11 of this bill — the changes to section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act?

           Hon. G. Abbott: These regulations will have to be developed to bring these provisions into effect, and it will be a high priority for the ministry to develop those.

           Section 12 approved.

           Title approved.

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

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 4:24 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

           Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete with amendment.

           Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?

           Hon. G. Abbott: Now, Mr. Speaker.

           Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

           Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 41, the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act.

Committee of the Whole House

PATIENT CARE QUALITY
REVIEW BOARD ACT

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 41; S. Hammell in the chair.

           The committee met at 4:25 p.m.

           The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

           The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

           [S. Hammell in the chair.]

           Section 1 approved.

           On section 2.

           A. Dix: All of the health authorities have complaint processes in place now. Some of them are a little bit different, but this will essentially, I would guess, set them up in the same standard.

           Is it the sense of the minister that these new patient care quality offices set up by the health authorities…? We're not talking about the review side of it but the complaint side of it.

           Is it his sense that there will be new staff required and that essentially what will happen is that there will be a new framework but that they'll be largely the same staff who are currently dealing with these issues? Is it the expectation of health authorities that there are cost implications to the legislation that will mean this part of the complaint process will be more robust?

           Hon. G. Abbott: We think the difference in staffing between the existing care quality offices and the patient care quality offices anticipated in this legislation will be modest. There will probably be some additional staffing, though, required around the administration of the patient care quality review boards.

           A. Dix: I would guess that as the boards need to be in place by October under the legislation, it would be unlikely that a significant change would happen. Is it the sense that the establishment of this process…? Is it the minister's belief…? I guess it's not the minister's belief, if there's a view that there won't be too much incremental cost. This process will in fact initially

[ Page 13131 ]

increase the number of complaints, especially if the process is better advertised.

           I think sometimes today it's fair to say that these are very large bureaucracies in the health authorities and that people sometimes feel discouraged about putting complaints forward, which is presumably one of the purposes of establishing this process. As they transform their current offices to receive public complaints, will it be the intent of the health authorities to promote these new structures?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct that one of the things we hope to do through this bill and in conjunction with this bill is enhance education and awareness of the public of their opportunity to not only file complaints but bring forward suggestions with respect to patient care.

[1635]

           Every year hundreds of thousands of British Columbians experience care. In some cases, at least, they have advice to provide on how they think that care might be enhanced. So we will want to — through, I'm sure, things like signage and brochures and other information — make the public aware of their opportunity to do that.

           Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

           On section 5.

           A. Dix: Maybe the minister can just describe what this reporting process will look like. Presumably, we're talking about an annual reporting, or we might not be. We could be talking about a regular reporting.

           In terms of care and quality combined, one of the things that strikes you…. We frequently receive complaints of these kinds in MLA offices and the minister's office, as in mine, as in all members. There are two kinds of complaints, really. There are specific complaints about specific levels of care that are given, mistakes that might be made or not made, in the opinion of the people making the complaint. Then there are more systemic complaints — for example, people complaining that a long wait time for an MRI, or whatever it might be, was unacceptable. That complaint is a broader public policy complaint, I think.

           In terms of the process of complaint, one set of complaints — given that the complaint is legitimate or viewed as legitimate in the end — might inform improved individual treatment of patients. The other type of complaint would presumably inform the minister as to changes in the health care system. It might well not be a complaint with the health authority at all but a complaint about the policy of a given government — the government of the day.

           So if the minister can just describe this reporting process. What is his expectation? We're talking about the number of complaints of a particular nature. We're going to deal with this in some places elsewhere. How does he see this reporting process going?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The expectation is that it will be an annual report which would include things like the nature, number and resolution of issues that had come to the attention of the complaint office. But it might also involve a special report on a specific issue that had come to the attention of the office or the ministry or some other body.

           [K. Whittred in the chair.]

           A. Dix: A health authority might…. If it had a series of complaints about contracted cleaning or whatever the issue was in a particular hospital or set of hospitals or set of facilities, that might also be the subject of a special report?

           Hon. G. Abbott: Hypothetically, if it was requested by the minister of the day.

           Section 5 approved.

           On section 6.

           A. Dix: This process of direction referred to here is actually going to take place fairly quickly, I think, in the case of this legislation. Presumably, this legislation will be brought into force in October, even though it's being brought into force by regulation. At least that's the public commitment by the government, and it seems like that's when it's going to come into force.

           Can the minister give us some sense of what the public process will be to develop this direction and whether he'll be consulting with the health authorities on it?

[1640]

           Hon. G. Abbott: There has been some consultation with the health authorities, and that consultation will continue.

           Section 6 approved.

           On section 7.

           A. Dix: This section has to do with the review by the complaint office. My question is related to 7(2). It says that the contract…. It deals with complaints or services that are provided by contracting agencies — the ones they delivered or failed to deliver, as the case may be. It says that "the complaint office may require the contracting agency to provide to the complaint office any available information…."

           It also says: "the contracting agency must, despite any contrary provisions in any contract between the health authority and the contracting agency, promptly provide to the complaint office that information and those records…."

           I just want to ask the minister whether this is in fact a change to the status quo or whether that obligation exists under the present circumstance.

           Hon. G. Abbott: This legislation does enhance our ability to secure information from contractors.

[ Page 13132 ]

           A. Dix: Is this correcting a problem? In other words, have contractors been reluctant to provide information in the case of care complaints in the past?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised this hasn't been a particular problem. Normally, within the contractual provisions, there's an obligation to provide information. This will just provide some further legislative assurance of that.

           Sections 7 and 8 approved.

           On section 9.

           A. Dix: On section 9. It's the intention of the government to appoint the first review board for each health authority and for the PHSA on or before October 15. Is it the intention, therefore — are we to understand from that — that the act will be brought into force on or before October 15? I know that's at the end of the bill, but it seems to me that's the case.

           Secondly, as with other similar provisions, we talk here about who can't be a member of a board. Perhaps the minister can talk a little bit…. As he knows, there are some extraordinary patient advocates, for example, out there in all kinds of ways — extraordinary self-advocates out there. They may, because of their past interactions with the health care system, be good people to have on such boards. Obviously, people who are retired doctors, retired nurses or retired health care workers might well be excellent people to have on patient quality care review boards.

[1645]

           Maybe the minister might want to just describe a little bit what he's looking for in terms of these boards and in terms of the membership of these boards and whether he thinks it should just be people with experience — direct experience as providers of health care — or whether he sees these boards as a balance between providers and consumers of health care.

           Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's first question is yes. The intention is to bring this into force prior to October 15, when the review boards will have been proposed.

           As I think the member was intimating or suggesting, there is a prohibition on membership on the review board of members of the board of directors of a health authority, its executive, employees or contractors. None of those can be appointed to the review board within their respective authorities.

           Obviously, one of the things we'll be doing in the weeks and months ahead is assessing the talents, knowledge, skills, and so on, of prospective board members. I think the member's suggestion that retired physicians and nurses, and so on, may be appropriate kinds of candidates for these boards is a good one, and I'm sure that we will be seeing many of those kinds of candidates coming forward.

           A. Dix: Would it be the case, because it's not prohibited here…? I live about four blocks from the border between the Fraser Health Authority and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. So as a consumer of health care, I would most likely go to Burnaby Hospital, for example, before I'd go to any other hospital because of where I live, even though I live in Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.

           Is the minister expecting that he might appoint people who…? At least in the Lower Mainland, there are lots of people who live in one health authority and work in another health authority. Is it the intention to have employees of health authorities be on the review boards for other health authorities, or is that prohibitive?

           I may be misreading the act, but I think the act prohibits within that health authority. As the minister knows, these are only geographic limits in terms of the organization of health care. People live all over the place.

           Hon. G. Abbott: It is our intention not to appoint active directors, executives and employees of any health authority on any review board at all. That would not be appropriate, even in the case of the Lower Mainland where Boundary Road means remarkably little in terms of the provision of health care.

           A. Dix: I'm going to let it pass here after that. It's on to the next one.

           Section 9 approved.

           On section 10.

           A. Dix: A question to the minister on section 10. In terms of the range of the general directives of Treasury Board, what would the minister think could be the appropriate remuneration here? What's the expectation in terms of remuneration for board members?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that our intention is to have the review board members remunerated consistent with remuneration to board members of the Medical Services Commission and other health-related boards.

           A. Dix: If it's consistent with that, what would that be?

           Get back to me. It's okay.

           Sections 10 and 11 approved.

           On section 12.

[1650]

           A. Dix: Just in terms of the size of these organizations, to give us a sense of what is envisioned here, are these…? In terms of staff, the Medical Services Commission, which actually is getting quite a bit more work, doesn't have a big staff. What's the sense in terms of staffing of these review boards and the role of staff vis-à-vis the board members?

           Hon. G. Abbott: The expectation would be only a few full-time staff with respect to each review board.

[ Page 13133 ]

           Section 12 approved.

           On section 13.

           A. Dix: So this process allows the minister, presumably because…. The minister is also quite a — I don't know what the right expression is — magnet for complaint, or the minister's office is a magnet for complaint. I get copied on lots of his complaints, but I suspect I don't get copied on all of them.

           What this presumably allows, though, the minister to do…. I just want to ask him about that, because I think it's pretty important. There is at times, anyway, a reluctance in people to complain to health authorities. Sometimes there's a reluctance in people to complain because they're getting service from that health authority, and they may rightly or wrongly believe that the complaint itself will affect their level of service in future. Whether that's legitimate or not, they'll feel that.

           This allows the minister to take complaints that he's received and make referrals. Is it the sense of the minister, because the minister gets a lot of complaints and reads a lot of complaints, that he would be using this provision to in fact move complaints from his office to the review boards?

           Hon. G. Abbott: I don't believe I've ever been accused of having a magnetic personality. Nevertheless, the member's description of being a magnet for complaints might on occasion be true. What we typically do when we receive a complaint in the ministry's office…. We receive literally tens of thousands of letters annually — not all of complaint, obviously. Where we receive a complaint, we try to understand the nature of it. Typically, under the current circumstance today, we would go to the health authority and have them look into it and try to get us the information related to it.

           With this new process in place, I think probably in many instances we would go to the complaint office and ask them to look into the matter. If we were dissatisfied with what we had heard or if the complainant was dissatisfied with what we had heard, the potential to ask the review board to look at it certainly would exist.

[1655]

           One of the things we really want to build with this model is a sense among the public that we are always open to suggestions for the improvement of the health care delivery system. I think most people think they have a pretty good health care system in British Columbia. I think most people often also would appreciate that in a $14.4 billion or $14.8 billion health care system, there's going to be lots of room for improvement. One of the ways that we hope we can build a culture of welcoming those kinds of suggestions is the processes that are set out in this bill.

           A. Dix: I won't ask the minister to report annually on the number of complaints vis-à-vis the number of positive comments any of us get. I don't think any of us would want that complaint report made public.

           What the minister sees — and this presumably is what happens now, in effect — is that this is a different part of the process. This is not the case of someone with a concern about care in Tofino that comes to the minister's attention, and the minister's office responds by saying: "Oh, this looks serious. I'm going to talk to the health authority." This is a case of a referral of a decision to a review board.

           I'm just seeking the minister's guidance in terms of the use of the review board provision, whether he would see that as being used quite often. It seems that the former would be used a lot more often than the latter, but this would have to presumably be a fairly striking case for the minister to send it to the review board.

           Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question is very good. The aim of the process is not to displace the complaint offices. The aim is to ensure that when we have a situation where a complainant is dissatisfied — or even potentially, I suppose, the minister's office is dissatisfied — with how an issue has been managed, we do have the alternative of going on to, hopefully, this very wise and experienced group called the review board.

           They will be able to kind of take a systems look at what's occurred. If there is advice that needs to be tendered around improving the health care delivery system, they would be able to provide that.

           A. Dix: I think there's growing anticipation for the vote on section 13, so I'll be brief.

           It's not, then, a displacement of the existing processes. This is for extraordinary circumstances.

           Actually, hon. Chair, I do have one last comment on section 25, and then I think we'll move on to other matters.

           Sections 13 to 24 inclusive approved.

           On section 25.

           A. Dix: Just to thank the deputy minister and the minister and the staff on legislation. They've provided us with some very good briefings, particularly on Bill 23, because we've been through a several-week process in here now. We express our appreciation of them for their work and say that Bill 41 is a bill that the opposition supports and will be voting for here at committee stage and at third reading.

           With that, I'll finish my comments on section 25.

           Section 25 approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his comments, and I wish to extend my appreciation to staff for their hard work around this bill as well.

           With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved.

[ Page 13134 ]

           The committee rose at 5 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

PATIENT CARE QUALITY
REVIEW BOARD ACT

           Bill 41, Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, pursuant to order of the House adopted May 6, 2008, all necessary questions for disposal of the various stages of Bills 20, 21, 24, 32, 37, 42, 43, together with any government amendments thereto, will now be put.

           The committee Chair on committee stage of Bill 20, Oil and Gas Activities Act.

Committee of the Whole House

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES ACT

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; K. Whittred in the chair.

           The committee met at 5:01 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 207 inclusive approved on division.

           Title approved.

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

           Motion approved on division.

           The committee rose at 5:02 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1705]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES ACT

           Bill 20, Oil and Gas Activities Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

           J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

           Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

           J. Horgan: In the gallery joining us is our good friend, intern Neddy "4.0" DeBeck, who has been working with me on many things, one of which would have been the oil and gas act. Neddy put a great deal of work into preparing for third reading. Unfortunately, we weren't able to do that.

           But to Ned DeBeck: welcome to the Legislature. I hope all members will welcome him.

           Mr. Speaker: I call committee stage of Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008.

Committee of the Whole House

MEDICARE PROTECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

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

           The committee met at 5:09 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved on division.

           Title approved on division.

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

[ Page 13135 ]

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 5:10 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

MEDICARE PROTECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

           Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[1715]

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is second reading of Bill 24.

Second Reading of Bills

E-HEALTH (PERSONAL HEALTH
INFORMATION ACCESS AND
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY) ACT
(continued)

           Second reading of Bill 24 approved on the following division:

           Mr. Speaker: I call committee stage of Bill 24.

Committee of the Whole House

E-HEALTH (PERSONAL HEALTH
INFORMATION ACCESS AND
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY) ACT

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24; K. Whittred in the chair.

           The committee met at 5:17 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 7 approved on division.

           On section 8.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 8 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 8, by renumbering the proposed section 8 as section 8 (1), deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Authorization of disclosure directives

8 (1) Subject to subsection (3), tThe minister may must in a designation order

(a) authorize a person whose personal health information is contained in the health

[ Page 13136 ]

           information bank that is the subject of the designation order to make a disclosure directive in respect of.

   (2) An authorization under subsection (1) may limit the making of disclosure directives to

(ia) one or more types of personal health information, as identified in the designation order under section 3 (2) (a) [establishment or designation of health information banks], contained in the health information bank,

(iib) one or more purposes, as identified in the designation order under section 3 (2) (d), for which personal health information may be disclosed from the health information bank, and

(iiic) one or more persons or classes of persons, as identified in the designation order under section 3 (2) (g), and.

(b) put conditions on the making of disclosure directives.

   (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a health information bank if the data stewardship committee recommends to the minister that disclosure directives should not be made in respect of the health information bank.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 8 as amended approved on division.

           On section 9.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 9.

[SECTION 9, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(2) A person who makes or revokes a disclosure directive must

(a) make the disclosure directive or revocation in writing,

(b) comply with any prescribed conditions set out in the designation order respecting the making or revoking of disclosure directives, and

(c) forward to a prescribed person the disclosure directive or revocation and, if applicable, the prescribed records.

           (5) If the minister amends a designation order in respect of the authority to make a disclosure directive, any part of a disclosure directive that is inconsistent with the amendment is deemed to have been revoked.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 9 as amended approved on division.

           On section 10.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper for section 10.

[SECTION 10, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Effect of disclosure directives

10 (1) A person who is otherwise permitted to collect, use or disclose personal health information from a health information bank must not do so in any manner that is inconsistent with a disclosure directive except as follows:

(a) to notify a person that a disclosure directive applies to personal health information that would otherwise be available to the person;

(b) for a purpose described in section 33.1 (1) (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

(c) with the express consent of the person who made the disclosure directive;

(d) if section 12 [exception – urgent or emergency health care] of the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act applies and a health care provider acting under that section reasonably believes that the personal health information may be required to provide health care in accordance with that section.;

(e) if prescribed circumstances apply.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 10 as amended approved on division.

[1720]

           On section 11.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 11 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 11, by renumbering the proposed section 11 as section 11 (1) and by adding the following subsection:

(2) In addition to the data stewardship committee's role under subsection (1), the data stewardship committee may make recommendations to the minister for the purposes of section 8 (3).]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 11 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved on division.

           On section 16.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 16.

[SECTION 16, by renumbering the proposed section 16 as section 16 (1) and by adding the following subsection:

           (2) After making a report under subsection (1), the data stewardship committee must promptly publish the report.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 16 as amended approved on division.

           On section 17.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 17, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

[ Page 13137 ]

One's own personal health information to be available

17 (1) Subject to this Act and the regulations made under it, an administrator must make available, without request, to a person

(a) that person's personal health information contained in the health information bank for which the administrator is responsible,

(b) a record of any disclosure directives made by the person that apply to the health information bank, and

(c) information respecting who has collected, used or disclosed that person''s personal health information.

     (2) Despite subsection (1), the administrator may deny, for any reason for which a person may be denied access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, access to information or records described in subsection (1).

    (2) An administrator may delete from the information that would otherwise be available, or from a record made available, under this section any information he or she would be entitled to refuse to disclose under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 17 as amended approved on division.

           On section 18.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 18.

[SECTION 18, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

Purposes for which disclosure always authorized

18 (1) An administrator may disclose personal health information inside Canada from a health information bank for one or more of the following purposes:

(a) a purpose described in section 33.2 (b), (c) or (f) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

(b) to investigate or discipline a person regulated by a governing body of a health profession that has authority, under an enactment, to investigate or discipline the person;

(c) to monitor, by a governing body of a health profession, the practice of a health profession that is, under an enactment, regulated by that body;

(d) a purpose for which the person who is the subject of the personal health information has expressly consented.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 18 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 19 to 25 inclusive approved on division.

           On section 26.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 26 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 26, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

     (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:

(a) defining "health services" and "health service provider" for the purposes of this Act;

(b) prescribing databases, by name or by class, that must not be designated as a health information bank under section 3 [establishment or designation of health information banks];

(c) limiting or prohibiting classes of persons from making disclosure directives;

(d) respecting

(i) the manner in which a disclosure directive must be made,

(ii) conditions that apply to the making or revocation of a disclosure directive,

(iii) to whom a disclosure directive must be provided, and

(iv) records that must accompany a disclosure directive;

(e) prescribing circumstances in which a person may collect, use or disclose personal health information despite a disclosure directive;

(fe) respecting conflicts of interest in relation to members of the data stewardship committee, including defining conflicts of interest and providing rules for the management of conflicts of interest;

(gf) for the purposes of section 17 [one's own personal health information to be available], including

(i) respecting the types of information that may, or must not, be made available,

(ii) respecting how personal health information is to be made available, including putting conditions on direct access to personal health information,

(iii) respecting information that must be removed from a record before the record is made available, and

(iv) respecting fees that may be charged by administrators for making available the information and records referred to in subsection (1) (c) of that section;

(hg) defining "bulk or regular" for the purposes of section 19 [information-sharing agreements required for disclosure];

(ih) for any other matter for which regulations are contemplated by this Act.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 26 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 27 to 38 inclusive approved on division.

           On section 39.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 39 standing in my name on the order paper.

[ Page 13138 ]

[SECTION 39, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

39 Section 38.1 of the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 363, is amended

(e) in subsection (2) by adding the following paragraph:

(d) respecting fees that may be charged for access to the information and records referred to in subsection (1.1) (c). , and

(f) by adding the following subsection:

(3) Despite subsection (1.1) and withoutWithout limiting a regulation made under subsection (2) (c), an employee in the ministry of the minister designated by the minister for this purpose may delete from the information that would otherwise be available, or a record made available, under subsection (1.1) any information he or she would be entitled to refuse to disclose under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. deny, for any reason for which a person may be denied access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, access to personal health information under subsection (1.1).]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 39 as amended approved on division.

           Section 40 approved on division.

           On section 41.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 41 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 41, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Making and revoking disclosure directives

39.3 (1) If by regulation the Lieutenant Governor in Council authorizes the making of disclosure directives, aSubject to the regulations, a person may, subject to the regulations,

(a) make a disclosure directive as authorized by the a regulation, and

(b) revoke a disclosure directive the person has made.

         (2) A person who makes or revokes a disclosure directive must

(a) make the disclosure directive or revocation in writing,

(b) comply with any prescribed conditions respecting the making or revoking of disclosure directives, and

(c) forward to a prescribed person the disclosure directive or revocation and, if applicable, the prescribed records.

       (3) Until the contrary is demonstrated, every person is presumed to be capable of understanding the nature of a disclosure directive and the consequences of making or revoking a disclosure directive.

       (4) A disclosure directive takes effect when activated in the PharmaNet system.

       (5) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council amends a regulation in respect of the authority to make a disclosure directive, any part of a disclosure directive that is inconsistent with the amendment is deemed to have been revoked.

Effect of disclosure directives

39.4 (1) A person who is otherwise permitted to collect, use or disclose personal health information from PharmaNet must not do so in any manner that is inconsistent with a disclosure directive except as follows:

(a) to notify a person that a disclosure directive applies to personal health information that would otherwise be available to the person;

(b) as required under this Act;

(c) for a purpose described in section 33.1 (1) (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

(d) with the express consent of the person who made the disclosure directive;

(e) if section 12 [exception – urgent or emergency health care] of the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act applies and a health care provider acting under that section reasonably believes that the personal health information may be required to provide health care in accordance with that section. ;

(f)  if prescribed circumstances apply.

Regulations in respect of this Part

39.6 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:

(a)  authorizing, with or without conditions, the making of disclosure directives;

(ba) limiting or prohibiting classes of persons from making disclosure directives;

(cb) limiting persons from the making of disclosure directives in respect ofto

(i) one or more types of personal health information contained in the PharmaNet system,

(ii) one or more purposes for which personal health information may be disclosed from the PharmaNet system, and

(iii) one or more persons or classes of persons to whom personal health information from the PharmaNet system may be disclosed;

(dc) respecting

(i) the manner in which a disclosure directive must be made,

(ii) conditions that apply to the making or revocation of a disclosure directive,

(iii) to whom a disclosure directive must be provided, and

(iv) records that must accompany a disclosure directive.;

(e) prescribing circumstances in which a person may collect, use or disclose personal health information despite a disclosure directive.]

[1725]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 41 as amended approved on division.

           Section 42 approved on division.

[ Page 13139 ]

           On section 43.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 43 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 43, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

43 Section 15 of the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 77, is amended

 (e) in subsection (2) by adding the following paragraph:

(i) respecting fees that may be charged for access to the information and records referred to in subsection (1.1) (c). , and

 (f)  by adding the following subsection:

(7) Despite subsection (1.1) and wWithout limiting a regulation made under subsection (2) (c), an employee in the ministry of the minister designated by the minister for this purpose may delete from the information that would otherwise be available, or from a record made available, under subsection (1.1) any information he or she would be entitled to refuse to disclose under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.deny, for any reason for which a person may be denied access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, access to personal health information under subsection (1.1).]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 43 as amended approved on division.

           Section 44 approved on division.

           On section 45.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 45 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 45, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Making and revoking disclosure directives

16.3 (1)  If by regulation the Lieutenant Governor in Council authorizes the making of disclosure directives, aSubject to the regulations, a person may, subject to the regulations,

(a) make a disclosure directive as authorized by the a regulation, and

(b) revoke a disclosure directive the person has made.

(2) A person who makes or revokes a disclosure directive must

(a) make the disclosure directive or revocation in writing,

(b) comply with any prescribed conditions respecting the making or revoking of disclosure directives, and

(c) forward to a prescribed person the disclosure directive or revocation and, if applicable, the prescribed records.

 (3) Until the contrary is demonstrated, every person is presumed to be capable of understanding the nature of a disclosure directive and the consequences of making or revoking a disclosure directive.

 (4) A disclosure directive takes effect when activated in the PharmaNet system.

 (5) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council amends a regulation in respect of the authority to make a disclosure directive, any part of a disclosure directive that is inconsistent with the amendment is deemed to have been revoked.

Effect of disclosure directives

16.4 (1) A person who is otherwise permitted to collect, use or disclose personal health information from PharmaNet under this Act must not do so in any manner that is inconsistent with a disclosure directive except as follows:

(a) to notify a person that a disclosure directive applies to personal health information that would otherwise be available to the person;

(b) as required under this Act;

(c) for a purpose described in section 33.1 (1) (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

(d) with the express consent of the person who made the disclosure directive;

(e) if section 12 [exception – urgent or emergency health care] of the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act applies and a health care provider acting under that section reasonably believes that the personal health information may be required to provide health care in accordance with that section. ;

(f) if prescribed circumstances apply.

Regulations in respect of this Part

16.6 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:

(a) authorizing, with or without conditions, the making of disclosure directives;

(ba)  imiting or prohibiting classes of persons from making disclosure directives;

(cb) limiting persons fromthe making of disclosure directives in respect of to

(i) one or more types of personal health information contained in the PharmaNet system,

(ii) one or more purposes for which personal health information may be disclosed from the PharmaNet system, and

(iii) one or more persons or classes of persons to whom personal health information from the PharmaNet system may be disclosed;

(dc) respecting

(i) the manner in which a disclosure directive must be made,

(ii) conditions that apply to the making or revocation of a disclosure directive,

(iii) to whom a disclosure directive must be provided, and

(iv) records that must accompany a disclosure directive. ;

[ Page 13140 ]

(e) prescribing circumstances in which a person may collect, use or disclose personal health information despite a disclosure directive.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 45 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 46 and 47 approved on division.

           Title approved on division.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

           Motion approved on division.

           The committee rose at 5:29 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

E-HEALTH (PERSONAL HEALTH
INFORMATION ACCESS AND
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY) ACT

           Bill 24, E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

E-HEALTH (PERSONAL HEALTH
INFORMATION ACCESS AND
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY) ACT

           Bill 24, E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[1730]

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is second reading of Bill 32.

Second Reading of Bills

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND
LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION ACT
(continued)

           Second reading of Bill 32 approved on the following division:

           Mr. Speaker: I call committee stage of Bill 32.

[ Page 13141 ]

Committee of the Whole House

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND
LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION ACT

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 32; K. Whittred in the chair.

           The committee met at 5:34 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 49 inclusive approved on division.

           On section 50.

           Hon. C. Hansen: I move amendments to section 50 that are standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 50, by deleting the section and substituting the following:

50 Section 11 of the Employee Investment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 112, is repealed and the following substituted:

Permanent establishment

11 (1) In this section, "permanent establishment" has the same meaning as in the Income Tax Act.

      (2) An employee venture capital corporation must establish a permanent establishment in Canada within 30 days after being registered and must afterward maintain a permanent establishment in Canada.

      (3) An employee venture capital corporation

(a) may establish and maintain only one permanent establishment in Canada, and

(b) must not establish or maintain a permanent establishment outside of Canada.]

[1735]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 50 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 51 to 75 inclusive approved on division.

           On section 76.

           Hon. C. Hansen: I move amendments to section 76 that stand on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 76, by deleting the section and substituting the following:

Permanent establishment

76 Section 5 of the Small Business Venture Capital Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 429, is repealed and the following substituted:

5 (1) In this section, "permanent establishment" has the same meaning as in the Income Tax Act.

    (2) A venture capital corporation must establish a permanent establishment in Canada within 30 days after being registered and must afterward maintain a permanent establishment in Canada.

    (3) A venture capital corporation

(a) may establish and maintain only one permanent establishment in Canada, and

(b) must not establish or maintain a permanent establishment outside of Canada.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 76 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 77 to 80 inclusive approved on division.

           Title approved on division.

           Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

           Motion approved on division.

           The committee rose at 5:37 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND
LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION ACT

           Bill 32, Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act, reported complete with amendments.

           N. Macdonald: Permission to make an introduction.

           Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

           N. Macdonald: Since we're all here, I just wanted to take this time to introduce Iain Reeve. He is one of the people who are with us for the session. He joined me in my constituency over the week period in April that we were back in our ridings. He joined me at a series of public meetings that we held against private power, and we had over 500 people that came out to public meetings and demonstrated their opposition to those projects.

           I'd just like the House to join me in welcoming Iain to the House and to thank him for coming to the constituency. So I ask the House to join me.

Third Reading of Bills

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND
LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION ACT

           Bill 32, Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[1740]

[ Page 13142 ]

             Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is second reading of Bill 32.

Second Reading of Bills

CARBON TAX ACT
(continued)

           Second reading of Bill 37 approved on the following division:

           Mr. Speaker: I call committee stage on Bill 37.

Committee of the Whole House

CARBON TAX ACT

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 37; K. Whittred in the chair.

           The committee met at 5:43 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 157 inclusive approved on division.

           Schedules 1 and 2 approved on division.

           Title approved on division.

           Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved on division.

           The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

CARBON TAX ACT

           Bill 37, Carbon Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 13143 ]

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment to the second reading of Bill 42, Election Amendment Act, 2008, moved by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca: "That the motion for second reading of Bill 42 intituled Election Amendment Act, 2008 be amended by striking out 'now read a second time' and adding 'read a second time six months hence.'"

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008
(continued)

           On the amendment (continued).

           Amendment negatived on the following division:

           On the main motion.

           M. Farnworth: I rise on a point of order. The government has been reluctant in the past to invoke closure on bills that deal with the electoral process. This bill clearly does that. Therefore, I would ask, with leave of the House, that we reopen debate on second reading of Bill 42.

[1750]

           Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, your motion is out of order because only the Government House Leader can ask leave on government business.

           We go back to the question, second reading of Bill 42.

           Second reading of Bill 42 approved on the following division:

[ Page 13144 ]

           Mr. Speaker: I call committee stage on Bill 42.

Committee of the Whole House

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 42; K. Whittred in the chair.

           The committee met at 5:53 p.m.

           Section 1 approved on division.

           Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 1.1 standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 1.1, by adding the following section:

1.1 The following section is added to Part 1:

Act does not inhibit government or members

3.1 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act affects an officer, director, employee or agent of one of the following bodies in the doing of an act necessary for carrying out the proper function of the body:

(a) the government as reported through the consolidated revenue fund;

(b) a government corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act other than one that is a government corporation solely by reason of being, under an Act, an agent of the government;

(c) a corporation or organization that, under generally accepted accounting principles, is considered to be controlled by

(i) the government as reported through the consolidated revenue fund, or

(ii) a government corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act other than one that is a government corporation solely by reason of being, under an Act, an agent of the government.

      (2) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act affects a member of the Legislative Assembly in the doing of an act necessary for the performance of the member's duties.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Sections 2 to 41 inclusive approved on division.

           On section 42.

           Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 42 standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 42, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

42 Section 183 is amended

 (a)  in subsection (1) by striking out "during a campaign period" and substituting "within the period beginning 120 days 60 days before a campaign period and ending at the end of the campaign period", and

 (b) by repealing subsection (4) (c) and substituting the following:

(c) the cost of lodging, meals and incidental charges while travelling as referred to in paragraph (b);.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 42 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 43 to 49 inclusive approved on division.

           On section 50.

           Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 50 on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 50, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

50 Sections 198 and 199 are repealed and the following substituted:

Election expenses limit for registered political parties

198 (1) In respect of a general election conducted in accordance with section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act, the total value of election expenses incurred by a registered political party

(a) during the period beginning 120 days 60 days before the campaign period must not exceed $2.2 million $1.1 million, and

(b) during the campaign period must not exceed $4.4 million.

       (2) In respect of a general election conducted other than in accordance with section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act, the total value of election expenses incurred by a registered political party during the campaign period must not exceed $4.4 million.

       (3) In respect of a by-election, the total value of election expenses incurred by a registered political party during the campaign period must not exceed $70 000.

       (4) If a campaign period in an electoral district is extended under section 65 (2) as a result of the death of a candidate, the election expenses limit under subsection (1), (2) or (3) is increased by $70 000 in respect of the electoral district.

Election expenses limit for candidates

199 (1) In respect of a general election conducted in accordance with section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act, the total value of election expenses incurred by a candidate

(a) during the period beginning 120 days 60 days before the campaign period must not exceed $70 000, and

(b) during the campaign period must not exceed $70 000.

       (2) In respect of a general election conducted other than in accordance with section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act, the total value of election expenses incurred by a candidate during the campaign period must not exceed $70 000.

       (3) If a campaign period is extended under section 65 (2) as a result of the death of a candidate, the election expenses limit under subsection (1) or (2)

[ Page 13145 ]

(a) applies to a candidate who is nominated after the date the new election proceedings are started, and

(b) is $140 000 for a candidate who was nominated before the new election proceedings were started.]

[1755]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 50 as amended approved on division.

           Section 51 approved on division.

           On section 52.

           Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 52 standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 52, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

52 Section 204 (1) and (2) is repealed and the following substituted:

(2) In respect of each general election conducted in accordance with section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act that is called after January 1, 2010, the chief electoral officer must establish, 120 days 60 days before the campaign period, the applicable election expense limit amounts for the election by

(a) determining the ratio between the consumer price index at January 1, 2010 and the consumer price index 120 days 60 days before the campaign period, and

(b) applying the ratio to adjust the amounts under sections 198 (1) and 199 (1).

 (2.1) In respect of each general election conducted other than in accordance with section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act and each by-election that is called after January 1, 2010, the chief electoral officer must establish before the end of the nomination period the applicable election expense limit amounts for the election by

(a) determining the ratio between the consumer price index at January 1, 2010 and the consumer price index at the time the election is called, and

(b) applying the ratio to adjust the amounts under sections 198 (2) to (4) and 199 (2) and (3).]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 52 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 53 to 58 inclusive approved on division.

           On section 59.

           Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 59 standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 59, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

59 Section 228 is amended by repealing the definition of " election advertising " and substituting the following:

"election advertising" means the transmission to the public by any means, during the period beginning 120 days 60 days before a campaign period and ending at the end of the campaign period, of an advertising message that promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly, a registered political party or the election of a candidate, including an advertising message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated, but does not include

(a) the publication without charge of news, an editorial, an interview, a column, a letter, a debate, a speech or a commentary in a bona fide periodical publication or a radio or television program,

 (b) the distribution of a book, or the promotion of the sale of a book, for no less than its commercial value, if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there was to be an election,

 (c) the transmission of a document directly by a person or a group to their members, employees or shareholders, or

 (d) the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on the internet, or by telephone or text messaging, of his or her personal political views;.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 59 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 60 to 65 inclusive approved on division.

           On section 66.

           Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 66 on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 66, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

66 The following sections are added to Division 2:

Third party advertising limits

235.1 (1) In respect of a general election conducted in accordance with section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act, an individual or organization other than a candidate, registered political party or registered constituency association must not sponsor, directly or indirectly, election advertising during the period beginning 120 days 60 days before the campaign period and ending at the end of the campaign period

(a) such that the total value of that election advertising is greater than

(i) $3 000 in relation to a single electoral district, and

(ii) $150 000 overall, or

(b) in combination with one or more individuals or organizations, or both, such that the total value of the election advertising sponsored by those individuals and organizations is greater than

(i) $3 000 in relation to a single electoral district, and

(ii) $150 000 overall.

    (2)  In respect of a general election conducted other than in accordance with section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act, the limits under sub-

[ Page 13146 ]

section (1) do not apply to the period beginning 120 days 60 days before campaign period, but do apply to the campaign period.

     (3) In respect of a by-election, the limits under subsection (1) do not apply to the period beginning 120 days 60 days before campaign period, but the limits under subsection (1) (a) (i) and (b) (i) do apply to the campaign period.

     (4) Section 204 applies to adjust the amounts under this section.]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 66 as amended approved on division.

           Section 67 approved on division.

           On section 68.

           Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 68 on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 68, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

68 Section 244 (1) is amended by adding "or the period beginning 120 days 60 days before the campaign period" after "during a campaign period".]

           Amendment approved on division.

           Section 68 as amended approved on division.

           Sections 69 to 79 inclusive approved on division.

           Title approved on division.

           Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

           Interjections.

           The Chair: Members. Members.

           Motion approved on division.

           The committee rose at 5:59 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members.

           Members, please don't use your computers during votes.

Reporting of Bills

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

           Bill 42, Election Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete with amendments.

[1800]

Third Reading of Bills

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

           Bill 42, Election Amendment Act, 2008, read a third time and passed on the following division:

           Mr. Speaker: I call committee stage of Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2008

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 43; K. Whittred in the chair.

           The committee met at 6:02 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 31 inclusive approved on division.

           Section 32 negatived.

           Sections 33 to 147 inclusive approved on division.

[ Page 13147 ]

           Schedule approved on division.

           Title approved on division.

           Hon. W. Oppal: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

           Motion approved on division.

           The committee rose at 6:04 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2008

           Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2008

           Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[1805]

           The Committee of Supply (Section A) reported resolutions.

           Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I call consideration of a report of resolutions from Committee of Supply.

           Hon. C. Taylor: I move the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on March 11, 13, April 8, 10, 14, 17, 29, 30 and May 1, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 23, 27, 28, 29 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

           Motion approved.

           D. Routley: Goons.

           Mr. Speaker: Member. Member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, do you withdraw that?

           D. Routley: Withdrawn.

           Mr. Speaker: With an apology, please.

           D. Routley: With apology.

           Hon. C. Taylor: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $30,844,124,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2008, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of this province, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. C. Taylor: I also move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $1,689,871,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2008, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the capital, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009.

           Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2008-2009

           Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2008-2009.

[ Page 13148 ]

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

           Motion approved.

           Hon. C. Taylor: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by the Committee of Supply, after consideration of the main estimates.

           The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the report of resolutions from the Committee of Supply and, in addition, has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009. It is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being circulated.

[1810]

           In keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

           Bill 44, Supply Act, 2008-2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2008-2009

           Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be now referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

           Bill 44, Supply Act, 2008-2009, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT, 2008-2009

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 44; K. Whittred in the chair.

           The committee met at 6:13 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 3 approved.

           Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

           Preamble approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2008-2009

           Bill 44, Supply Act, 2008-2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the Administrator is in the building, and if you just stay in your seats, he should be arriving any moment.

[1815]

Royal Assent to Bills

           His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

           Clerk Assistant:

           Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008

           Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act

           Oil and Gas Activities Act

           Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008

           Health Care Costs Recovery Act

           Public Health Act

           E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act

           Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008

           Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

           Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

           Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

           Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

           Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act

           Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

           University Amendment Act, 2008

           Social Workers Act

           Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008

           Carbon Tax Act

           Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008

[ Page 13149 ]

           Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act

           Patient Care Quality Review Board Act

           Election Amendment Act, 2008

           Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008

           Bridge River Valley Flying Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008

           Lutheran Camp Concordia (1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008

           The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008

           In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

           Clerk of the House:

           Supply Act, 2008-2009

           In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this act.

           His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

           Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if before we go any further we might take a moment to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of the….

           An Hon. Member: Opposition. [Laughter.]

[1820]

           Hon. M. de Jong: Happily, I suspect the ability to make self-serving statements won't leave any of us between the time of today and when we come back.

           To all of the people that make this parliament run — the staff who will remind us all to clean out our desks; the people in the dining room; Hansard; the Sergeant-at-Arms staff who, of course, continue, as we all do, to suffer the loss of Tony Humphreys; to the Clerk's office; the folks that work in all of our offices…. We are all able to perform our duties because of the work that they do.

           On a day such as this one is tempted even to make favourable reference to the work of the people that sit silently in the seats above us.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. M. de Jong: We thank all of them and know that we are able to do our jobs because of the extraordinary manner in which they do their jobs.

           M. Farnworth: I, too, rise to thank all the extraordinary people — the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, the pages, the building staff, all the people who make this place run and make our jobs so much easier.

           I notice, though, that you referred to the member from Mount Pleasant as the members from Mount Pleasant. Does that mean she gets two votes?

           Before I conclude my remarks, I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the interns who served our caucus so ably, up in the gallery. They are Angela Chaisson, Ned DeBeck, Selina Mitchell, Travis Paterson and Iain Reeve. They did a superb job.

           With that, I just want to second what the Government House Leader said. We really do appreciate the work that is done by the staff of these precincts and those who are up in the gallery above.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I know that we all want to thank the staff because they have done an exceptional job. Since starting in February and ending now, it has certainly sometimes taken its toll on all of us as to what happens and what doesn't happen.

           Certainly, I know as we leave here that all of us are going back into our constituencies, and the work actually really just begins. A lot of people don't quite understand the amount of effort and work that takes place in the constituencies from now until the time we sit again. Certainly, I know that all members will look after all the people of British Columbia because that's something that I think that we all endear to.

           I want to thank the members personally, because I think that only one time in this session did I actually get to a point where it was a little above the line, but I think that by and large we've done ourselves well as Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

           I want to thank all the members. Travel safely back to your constituencies. I know that, as I said before, the work really begins, but we'll all be back together again soon enough, and we'll be right back at it.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I had the privilege a couple of weeks ago of enjoying a dinner with all of the legislative interns. I had that honour because I was a legislative intern myself back in the inaugural year of the program, 1976, and I think the class of 2008 were fascinated that someone that came into the buildings 32 years ago still hadn't found his way out of the buildings after that period of time.

           It was a delight to meet and to dine and to enjoy lively conversation with all of the interns. The legislative internship program has been a marvellous success since 1976, and that includes even the year 1989 when the Minister of Environment was an intern here.

[1825]

           The class of 2008, I must say, has provided excellent service and support to both sides of the House, and I'm sure that all members of the House will join in thanking Angela Chaisson, Ned DeBeck, Gordon Hunter, Rhea Laube, Grace Lore, Madeleine Lyons, Selina Mitchell, Travis Paterson, Iain Reeve and Danica Wong for the excellent service and support that they have provided to both sides of the House during the past session.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears

[ Page 13150 ]

to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the 38th parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that date and time. In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

           I wish all members safe travels. The work does not end, but it does, hopefully, take us closer to home, closer to the ones we love.

           Until we meet again, à la prochaine fois, bon voyage, see you soon.

           Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

           Motion approved.

           Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned.

           The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
(continued)

           The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

           The committee met at 3:11 p.m.

           On Vote 39: ministry operations, $617,580,000 (continued).

           G. Gentner: Just picking up from the last question relative to the laundering scandal. According to the actions underway on the letter here, presented on May 28, the B.C. Lottery Corporation has in many ways failed in its duties to come forward and identify information. Of course, action 1 suggests that the B.C. Lottery Corporation will continue to practise requiring casinos and providers to send section 86 reports on suspicious currency transactions directly to the GPEB with a copy to the BCLC.

           My question, again, is: why should the B.C. Lottery Corporation determine suspicious currency transactions when they have already failed to bring this forward in a timely manner?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: The explanation for action 1 is that suspicious currency transactions are a particular type of transaction defined under the federal legislation, the FINTRAC legislation, which is captured in the reporting systems that we have in place under the Gaming Control Act. Section 86 refers to the Gaming Control Act. That information has to be generated by the casino operators and goes directly to the gaming policy and enforcement branch, which is the provincial regulator, and it will also go to FINTRAC.

           G. Gentner: I get that part. I am just trying to ascertain why there isn't a more direct role of the gaming policy and enforcement branch. Why is the ministry relying on the B.C. Lottery Corporation to do the practice of monitoring the suspicious currency transactions?

[1515]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: If I could refer the member to No. 2 on that same page, B.C. Lottery Corporation will send all section 86 reports related to suspicious currency transactions from 2002 to the present to FINTRAC, and it will also send all section 86 reports received from service providers on suspicious currency transactions directly to FINTRAC.

           The obligation for producing the reports for suspicious currency transactions is on the people working in the casino operation. They have the obligation to generate a report for those particular types of transactions, along with many other reporting obligations that they have.

           The B.C. Lottery Corporation receives that information, consolidates it and forwards it to FINTRAC on a routine basis in an arrangement that is approved by FINTRAC and has been approved by FINTRAC for a number of years, and that same arrangement will be continued.

           G. Gentner: I have a last question here. The minister has suggested that the obligation is on the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Well, the real obligation should be with the policing. I mean, it's like the fox in the henhouse, monitoring its own revenue stream, so to speak. Those two entities have got to be separated. It's been getting us in nothing but trouble.

           I'll end my last question with the following: "The B.C. Lottery Corporation will determine how it can better exercise the disciplined remedies available under existing contracts and legislation to continually stress and strengthen the culture of compliance among all service providers."

           My question is: why wouldn't the gaming policy and enforcement branch be given that task? Does the minister not have confidence in the policing side of his ministry?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: This is a letter from the chairman of the board of directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation, and the item that the member raises deals with actions by the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

           I should add that there are many obligations at various levels. As I've tried to emphasize, casino operators and casino staff have significant legal obligations under the act. The B.C. Lottery Corporation has significant operational responsibilities under the act. They

[ Page 13151 ]

also work closely with the RCMP, as the member has referenced. They turn over any information, and any concerns that are appropriate to the RCMP they turn over to the RCMP. As I said, they have a role of forwarding specific information to FINTRAC under federal legislation.

[1520]

           The gaming policy and enforcement branch is not directly referenced in this letter. As I said, this is a letter from the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The gaming policy and enforcement branch is empowered, authorized and expected under the act to provide oversight, to provide independent, separate audits of the performance of not only B.C. Lottery Corporation, but also people working in the casinos.

           H. Lali: I want to thank the minister and the staff who are with him as we are actually, because of the time limitations, done with the B.C. Lottery Corporation. So I want to inform the minister that ICBC staff could have a changeover. Actually, my colleague the MLA for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain will start off with a couple of questions before I resume, so if you could do the changeover.

           Hon. J. van Dongen: Just to confirm, if I could ask my colleague: can I send the Lottery staff home, then, or back to work?

           H. Lali: Yes.

           Hon. J. van Dongen: Thanks very much. I will bring the ICBC staff in.

           Just to introduce staff, in addition to my deputy minister David Morhart, to my right is Geri Prior, president and CEO of Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Behind me is Donnie Wing, the chief financial officer of ICBC. Next to him on my right side is Anwar Chaudhri, the corporate controller for ICBC.

           M. Farnworth: I have a couple of topics before I turn it back over to my colleague from Yale-Lillooet. Just to let the minister know, after we're done with ICBC, then we'll be moving to the main body of the Solicitor General's ministry, and we'll be dealing primarily with policing issues.

           The first question I have is more of a constituent issue. The name of the individual in my riding is Mr. Henry Pridi. His questions are very much something that I hear from seniors throughout my community, and that is a concern in terms of seniors rates within the ICBC insurance rate structure. Many of them are on a fixed income, and they're finding it extremely difficult to keep their vehicles running with increasing premiums.

           So my question to the minister is: what is the government doing, what is ICBC doing, in ensuring that insurance remains affordable for seniors? Particularly because when they're on pensions, many of them are on fixed incomes and are not able to cope with increasing rate structures.

[1525]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: In the rate structure that ICBC has and that is approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission in the process our government put in place, the seniors — that is people over 65 years old — do get a 25 percent discount.

           M. Farnworth: Even with that, I know that many seniors find it difficult, particularly those on fixed incomes and low pensions. I would ask the minister to look at other measures, for ICBC to look at other ways of ensuring that seniors are not impacted by dramatic rate hikes. They want to continue being active, and if insurance rates are an impediment to being able to get out and about and to be active in their retirement years, I think that is not the thing we want to see. So I would urge the minister to look at other avenues to ensure that seniors are not being impacted by high rates.

           There is another issue that I would like to raise, and that is around electronic stability control. Again, that's another area that a number of constituents have been approaching me about. They've been wondering what ICBC is doing with regards to electronic stability control. It's being used in a number of other jurisdictions, both in the United States and in Australia. It has a proven record in terms of its ability to reduce accidents, many of them fatal. Some studies have indicated between 25 percent and 45 percent of accidents can be reduced by putting in place electronic stability control.

           I'd like to ask the minister: what steps is ICBC taking to bring ESC, electronic stability control, to British Columbia, whether it's in the general driving population or in the industrial commercial sector of vehicles?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: First off, I want to just confirm that in ICBC's experience, 80 percent of accidents are caused by driver performance, driver error, and 20 percent might be attributed in some fashion to the vehicle.

[1530]

           Electronic stability control is some new technology that, as I understand, could be added to a vehicle. ICBC does not get into prescribing equipment for vehicles or in any way endorsing one type of feature over another.

           [B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

           As I said, all of the data indicates that 80 percent of the accidents and claims that affect insurance rates are caused by drivers, particularly high-risk drivers, and all of the safety programs that ICBC puts in place are directed in that area.

           H. Lali: I don't dispute that 80 percent of the crashes are because of human error. Having electronic stability control is not something that would actually be a detriment to driver safety, even if it is driver error. It would be a benefit in terms of protecting the driver from, in some cases, even human error.

           I just want to read a bunch of facts on that into the record, as well, and then get the minister's opinion.

           On March 10, 2008, Transport Canada released a new video on vehicle safety benefits of electronic

[ Page 13152 ]

stability control. As part of the department's mandate to promote the safety of Canadians, it is promoting awareness of this important life-saving technology as it is related to transportation. So Transport Canada released this video footage that actually demonstrates the benefits of ESC, as it's called, on dry pavement, snow-covered pavement and also wet pavement.

           What it really is.… ESC is a new crash avoidance system which is found on many vehicles in the United States and in Europe. Unlike airbags, which only help you during a collision, ESC will help you to avoid a loss of control that actually could lead to a collision. ESC is also designed to help a driver stay in control of their vehicle during an emergency manoeuvre, such as when they need to swerve or brake suddenly to avoid some obstacle on the road. It could be a rock or a deer, a dog or some other animal or even another car that swerves into your lane.

           ESC actually monitors a driver's steering versus the direction of the vehicle. So when the two don't match, ESC will automatically actuate the brakes at one or more wheels for short periods of time, thus reducing engine power. If possible, ESC will also bring the vehicle back under the driver's control.

           ESC is automatically on whenever one starts a vehicle, but some vehicles have an ESC-off switch, and this switch is actually needed to disable ESC during certain situations — when they're stuck in snow or mud or something like that.

           I just wanted to get the minister's comment. I know the minister said that ICBC does not promote — I don't know if he used the word; I don't think that he did; I think it was another word — a particular type of feature on vehicles. This isn't actually a feature that one would pick up to add on to how the vehicle looks. It is a safety device that saves lives.

           Subsequent to this question, I will read some of the facts into the record for the minister. I just wanted to, again, get the minister's take on this. It's not a cost to the ministry or to ICBC. It's a cost that gets added on to the price of the vehicle.

           It saves lives. If it can prevent accidents, which it will, and prevent accidents that cause deaths or major injuries, at the end of the game it's actually a benefit to ICBC and to drivers, not only in that it prevents injuries and saves lives, but it also lowers the costs that are paid out by ICBC to injured drivers or death benefits as a result of crashes that take place. In the end, everyone benefits.

           I would like to hear the minister's comments regarding that.

[1535]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to give some additional information to the member on some of the earlier comments I made. I talked about 80 percent of crashes, accidents and claim costs being the result of driver error, driver decisions and high-risk drivers. The other 20 percent is broken up into being 15 percent road infrastructure, design of intersections — that kind of thing — and 5 percent the actual vehicle itself.

           ICBC has historically and even today not gotten involved in the design of vehicles. Modern vehicles have many new safety features. One of the things that develops over time with the application of technology in new vehicles is that there are many different kinds of safety features that are developed. Over time, as those safety features develop a performance record, then they can be reflected in insurance rates. But as I said, ICBC has not gotten involved in prescribing or endorsing particular safety features. It has left that to the manufacturers and secondary equipment market for vehicles to determine what those features might be.

           H. Lali: I understand the minister says that ICBC actually doesn't endorse. But there's icbc.com, the ICBC website, and in it there is an endorsation in terms of actually wanting to make this a standard feature on cars that are in British Columbia. So I'd like the minister to rethink this whole thing.

           No one is asking the minister to actually promote a particular aesthetic feature, like leather seats or chrome on cars or power windows, etc. — these kinds of things which are not really important for the safety of the driver. I think that anything that is promoted in terms of the safety of the travelling public and also folks that are near roads that are travelled…. Sometimes pedestrians and innocent people get killed as well. This is a feature that actually saves lives.

[1540]

           I would like to read into the record again what some of the benefits are for electronic stability control. ESC is actually particularly effective at reducing the risk of rollover. Now due to their large size and their high centre of gravity and often narrow track width, many sports utility vehicles, SUVs, as well as some vans and pickup trucks, may roll over or go out of control during sharp turns or abrupt manoeuvres, such as when avoiding a crash.

           In the U.S. electronic stability control is actually now a standard feature on most SUVs and other vehicles with a high risk of rollover. It's also optional on many other makes of vehicles. This is from the icbc.com website.

           According to a 2004 study, the U.S.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that in single-vehicle crash risks…. The results that were found showed that the ESC reduces fatal multiple-vehicle crash risks by 32 percent. This research actually confirms that ESC reduces the risk of all single-vehicle crashes by more than 40 percent, fatal ones by 56 percent. This is according to that study.

           Also, while both cars and SUVs benefit from electronic stability control, the reduction in the risk of single-vehicle crashes was significantly greater for SUVs, which was 49 percent versus 33 percent for cars. The reduction in fatal single-vehicle crashes wasn't significantly different for SUVs at 59 percent than for cars at 53 percent. So there are significant benefits for both.

           Many of the single-vehicle crashes, as I mentioned, involved rolling over. The electronic stability control effectiveness in preventing rollovers is even more dra-

[ Page 13153 ]

matic. It actually reduces the risk of fatal single-vehicle rollovers of SUVs by 80 percent and 77 percent for cars. So basically, ESC was found to reduce the risk of all kinds of fatal crashes by 43 percent.

           Again, I would reach out to the minister. Will the minister have ICBC, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, have a serious look into the benefits of electronic stability control and make it a mandatory feature of vehicles in British Columbia in the upcoming months or years?

[1545]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that the issue of electronic stability control and the possibility of mandating it within the vehicle design is something that is being considered by Transport Canada. The issue of vehicle design and any kind of equipment being specified within a vehicle is not within the mandate of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Rate structures for insuring vehicles in British Columbia and the rate structure design are approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

           I understand that there have been submissions made to the Utilities Commission with respect to electronic stability control being included as an element in auto insurance design. My understanding is that they did not include it in the most recent consideration when they looked at rate structures.

           So while I appreciate the member bringing that information to this forum, really the B.C. Utilities Commission would be the body that enables members of the public or anyone to come there and make a submission, as they have in this case, and have it considered for inclusion in rate design. That is not ultimately the Insurance Corporation's decision.

           H. Lali: I also want to point out to the minister that electronic stability control cannot actually override the vehicle's physical limits and that if a driver pushes the possibilities of the vehicle's handling a little too far, obviously the electronic stability control cannot prevent the crash. However, ESC is a tool to help drivers maintain control, not unlike anti-brakes.

           There's a huge body of evidence that speaks for itself in terms of the ESC's ability to reduce road accidents and death. Some of it I read into the record, The forest ombudsman here in British Columbia also states: "While ESC systems are not a cure-all, coupled with professional driving skills, they can provide a substantial improvement in safety of both truckers and the public that use our roads." This is from the B.C. forest safety ombudsman resource board's 2007-2008.

           So you've got ICBC that talks about electronic stability control on its website. You have the B.C. forest safety ombudsman as well. Now, the minister has said that it is not a mandate of ICBC and that the responsibility lies with Transport Canada. He's also mentioned the B.C. Utilities Commission as approving the rate structure. Actually, it didn't include the electronic stability control in there, but it was discussed in there.

           So will the minister commit, even though it's not a mandate of ICBC, because it doesn't have the powers to implement the change, if I understand the minister correctly…. Will he work with the B.C. Utilities Commission — and Transport Canada, if that's the body that is regulatory in terms of bringing it in — to actually help promote what ICBC and the B.C. forest ombudsman are recommending on the website and also in the report that was made by the forest ombudsman?

[1550]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: In answer to the member's question, again, I reiterate that it's our understanding that Transport Canada is looking at some kind of regulation in the future that would involve electronic stability control as a feature on certain classes of vehicles.

           ICBC's mandate is to deliver auto insurance to the people of British Columbia, and while ICBC's knowledge of the device indicates that it has potential to provide additional safety to motorists that have it on their vehicle, there is no data and experience within ICBC to warrant any inclusion at this point in any discussion about insurance rates.

           So on that basis, and ICBC confining its responsibility to providing insurance, it wouldn't be making a submission at this time, because we have no data on which to base that kind of representation.

           H. Lali: Well, the minister says that ICBC is responsible for setting ICBC rates and other responsibilities associated with that. Yet ICBC's own website contains this information on there. So there must be a reason why ICBC is actually putting that information on there, if it isn't to promote awareness or to actually promote it.

           Now, I understand that it's Transport Canada that has the jurisdiction to do this. What I'm asking is for the minister to actually work with Transport Canada, the B.C. Utilities Commission — and also put my name in there as well, as the critic for ICBC — for the future, to make sure that we can actually promote this and bring this in.

           The minister hasn't said yes, and he hasn't fully come out and said no. But accepting it's not at this.… So I just want to ask the Solicitor General: does he think it's actually problematic to ignore the recommendations of the forest safety ombudsman read into the record a few minutes ago? You've got a number of entities that are promoting electronic stability control. The minister says that ICBC doesn't have enough…. Yet they're promoting this on the website and making awareness.

           There's lots of information available out there from the United States and from Europe and from Transport Canada that says that this is a good thing. It saves lives. I'm not talking here about the opposition trying to poke their finger in the minister's eye or ICBC on this particular issue. This is something that'll benefit everybody.

           So really what I'm looking for is a commitment by the minister to have ICBC work with those entities that I've mentioned already on the record, to actually assist Transport Canada and bring about awareness and to make sure that this is actually brought in as something that is mandatory for vehicles in British Columbia and helps save lives.

[ Page 13154 ]

           That's the question. Now, who can be against that? Looking for a commitment from the minister, if he can't give an outright yes as an answer, to perhaps get ICBC to do a feasibility study on all of this. Get all of the information together and have an informed decision before dismissing it outright.

[1555]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want to introduce one staffer from the ministry, Steve Martin, the superintendent of motor vehicles, who has joined us for this discussion.

           Our ministry and ICBC will support any safety features on vehicles where there is demonstrated performance in terms of enhancing public safety on the road. My understanding is that Transport Canada does have some data that dates back to 2004 which leads them to believe that electronic stability control does enhance safety.

           Participating with Transport Canada on a range of safety issues, we do have representation through the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles and ICBC on that, working on national committees with Transport Canada on issues like this. We are involved with them, constantly evaluating a variety of safety features and possibilities.

           As I said, from a rate design perspective, there is not sufficient data to warrant something being put into the rate design at this point. Those submissions have been made. The opportunity for those submissions is there.

           I guess to sum up, again, we will work with Transport Canada to support any safety features where performance is demonstrated.

[1600]

           C. Puchmayr: First, just a very brief comment. More and more people are looking at motorcycles as a mode of transportation as fuel prices skyrocket, and some people own more than one motorcycle. They put storage insurance on them, but it's almost prohibitive to insure them all for the road.

           My question to the minister is: has ICBC done any work and are they looking towards bringing in policy regulation where you can have a transferable plate for the single owner of a motorcycle once that motorcycle is on the road so that people don't have to have full coverage on all motorcycles? They can have storage coverage on all of them and then allow them to use a transferable plate when they're utilizing that motorcycle on the road.

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to let the member know that I am aware that this idea certainly has been put forward by the motorcycle community — I think in particular the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists. In considering this issue, I would like to note that there are no jurisdictions in Canada that have a system of transferable plates for motorcycles or for any other vehicles other than in very limited circumstances. One is farm plates for farm vehicles that are used seasonally, and another is for auto dealers under limited circumstances.

           One of the concerns from the enforcement community, the police community, is that a system of transferable plates can lead to a lot of enforcement difficulty and confusion about which vehicle is the primary vehicle and which is the secondary vehicle.

           I think there's possibly a misperception about the potential savings in insurance costs, because certain kinds of coverages for vehicles such as theft or fire and that kind of thing would still have to be covered for both vehicles.

[1605]

           Having said everything that I have said, it is an issue that I intend to look at further. I have an outstanding commitment to a number of members to do that, and I will endeavour to do that in the near future.

           H. Lali: I want to thank the ICBC staff and the staff from motor vehicles that are here.

           We're going to move on.

           C. Trevena: While the minister's staff changes, I would like to thank the minister for meeting so promptly with representatives from the Mount Waddington regional district this lunchtime. It was very helpful.

           I have a couple of questions which I will ask together, in the interests of time, because I know that my colleague from Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain wants to move on with his questions. They are tied together. It's about violence against women issues.

           I understand that there is a victims assistance fund with approximately $35 million still in that fund. I wondered if the Solicitor General could tell me how much of this money is going to be allocated to programs that assist in dealing with violence against women.

           My second question, which is also dealing with that, is on the critical components report, which was published last month. There are a number of recommendations in it, about 60 recommendations. I wondered, from this ministry, whether work has started on implementing any of the recommendations that relate to this ministry and, if so, if the minister can give me an indication of which ones and, perhaps, through his staff, give me a progress report separately.

[1610]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: Just to introduce the staff that have joined me, on my right is Susanne Dahlin, the executive director of victim services. Then to my right is Kevin Begg. He's the assistant deputy minister of policing and community safety. Right behind me is Deborah Fayad, who is our financial officer. In the middle is Rod Seginson, who is the director of budgets. Those are the staff that have joined me.

           In answering the member's question, I'll try to respond in as focused a way as possible here. We did recently make a decision to allocate $17 million over three years to victim services programs, and those dollars are going to a variety of endeavours.

           We did initially announce $1½ million for domestic violence, and a significant part of those dollars would go to the development of domestic violence units in

[ Page 13155 ]

our communities, where we would partner a victim services worker with a member of the police who is interested in the issues around domestic violence.

           Certainly, experience has shown that where you have that kind of unit, that kind of partnership, it can be very effective from a couple of different perspectives. One is that it can be helpful in terms of, first of all, helping to assure the safety of the person involved by providing the appropriate combination of advice and support. I believe that it can also be helpful in assuring the victim that they can have confidence in the police and can work with the police to provide evidence.

           It can help provide support for the victim, provide confidence in providing testimony. One of the real difficulties that the police and our justice system have is providing the level of comfort and security to witnesses to testify. Good evidence is very important to getting appropriate charges both laid and sustained to deal with the issues of domestic violence.

           We just recently announced an additional $2.7 million in this fiscal year. That will go to a total of 156 both police-based and community-based victim services units. That will really help to strengthen their operations and support the work that they do on a very wide range of services that they provide to citizens — everything from support in serious accidents to sudden deaths, as well as domestic violence.

[1615]

           On the study that the member referenced, our ministry was involved in funding that study. We think it is a very critical area of work, and we are certainly engaged in the issues. We're working as a ministry with police partners and victim services workers throughout British Columbia to develop better ways to support women in domestic violence situations.

           The ministry is currently evaluating the advice in the report. We will also be looking forward to the outcomes of some of the coroners' investigations that are taking place, because we think that they can also provide useful information as we try and strengthen services to the public in this area.

           M. Farnworth: We don't have a huge amount of time, unfortunately. But I do want to spend the remaining time exploring the issue of policing and, in particular, the police contract with the RCMP that expires in 2012.

           Can the Solicitor General tell me if the government has initiated any recent studies or other consultations on the amalgamation of police services in Metro Vancouver and in the metropolitan Victoria area, and if so, who is doing the studies, and what are the terms of reference?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: If I could just ask the member if he is going to have any questions other than on police services, because then we can send staff back to work. But he's entitled to advise me as to any issues he might raise.

           M. Farnworth: Victim services is a possibility. Policing is, definitely. But other than that, I don't think we're going to be able to get to a myriad of other areas that I know I would love to explore at length with the minister.

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for the question. I am advised that there is a range of studies out there with different perspectives. Our ministry has not recently done any studies on the issue of regional policing, as I understand it.

           The focus of our ministry has really been on fostering good communications between various police forces — initiatives such as E-Comm, which was developed in collaboration with Vancouver and our ministry.

           The initiative known as PRIME, which is the police records information management system, is a very major project that is unprecedented in Canada. It brings together and puts all police forces in British Columbia on the same data management system, where police officers can enter and retrieve information on a live basis from the system.

[1620]

           The ministry is also focused on developing integrated units, particularly to fight organized crime and gang violence and those sorts of issues — illegal gambling. There are about 14 units that involve municipal, provincial and federal police forces in working on common objectives and working with integrated technology and integrated communications systems.

           I think the ministry has really tried to focus on bringing together the various police forces and developing systems that will operate regardless of where the police report to.

           M. Farnworth: So I get from that that the answer is no.

           Is government considering the creation of a single provincial police service when the RCMP contract expires in 2012?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I can advise the member that we are not contemplating a single B.C. police force. Staff are in the early phases of looking at the potential for a renewed contract in the near future when the current contract expires.

           M. Farnworth: How far advanced are negotiations on the new contract with the RCMP? What stage are they at?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: We're not involved in negotiations at the present time. We're just in a phase of information exchange and consideration of identifying potential issues in the contract, but we're not in actual negotiations.

           M. Farnworth: Has the government made any decision about the length of the contract? Is the government planning on another 20-year contract? Is that the position of the government at this time?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: The current contract is a 20-year contract, by agreement of the federal government and all of the provinces. I'm advised that that is what is

[ Page 13156 ]

being considered in the renewed contract by the federal government and all provinces.

           I would just point out that the contract does include a review, every five years, of a number of provisions in the contract — services, costing and that sort of thing.

[1625]

           M. Farnworth: Has the province recognized that this is a rather unique opportunity in terms of negotiating a new contract to deal with longstanding issues that evolve over the life of a contract and that this is the best opportunity to get those resolved and have them negotiated into a new contract? If so, have they identified what those issues are at this stage?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that staff do view this as an opportunity, this contract renewal in 2012. The ministry does view this as an opportunity to reconsider a whole range of issues. That is why they are currently in the issue identification phase and information exchange phase.

           I'm advised that all provinces are pursuing this endeavour together. They see it as a time to look at all of those issues that they may have experienced in the current contract and to look forward into the next 20 years to identify possible issues that may emerge that should be considered in the provisions of the contract.

           M. Farnworth: British Columbia is the largest component of that contract. The other provinces don't come close to the size of the contract here in B.C. Therefore, the clout that British Columbia should have at those negotiations should be considerable.

           My question to the minister is: will he make those issues public, which have been identified as an opportunity for us to either improve the contract or ensure that they are addressed?

           [H. Bloy in the chair.]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: The kinds of issues that British Columbia will be pursuing are and will be generally well known to people who are interested in these issues. We will not, in the interests of British Columbians, disclose specific negotiating strategies and objectives. Whenever you're in a federal-provincial negotiation, it is important to be strategic, and we will do that.

           British Columbia actually leads the process within the negotiating committee, and as the member has confirmed, we are the largest and most influential player in that process. I also cite the example of PRIME and other examples of innovation within police services in British Columbia, where we have led other provinces and the country in terms of some of the initiatives we've put in place.

[1630]

           M. Farnworth: The minister is not prepared, then, to share with British Columbians that this is an opportunity to have some key issues, which have been out in the public domain for quite some time, addressed at the time of the renegotiation of the contract.

           For example, one of those goals would be to see a strengthening and improving of the police complaints process so that we can deal with the issue where we have one process for independent forces and a completely different one for the RCMP in British Columbia. The renegotiation is an opportune time to try and address that issue because once that contract is signed, that's it. It's done for 20 years.

           My question is: is that one of the issues or objectives that's on the table for the government to get resolved?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue that the member raised is about…. The two separate police complaints processes is something that our ministry is working on, on an ongoing basis on behalf of British Columbia. It is actually not part of the police contract with the federal government.

           Some of the things we're doing…. We are trying to develop harmonized processes. That may involve some change in federal legislation, but certainly I agree with the sentiment of the member that what is required is good, credible, independent police complaint processes, whether it's independent police forces or whether it's RCMP. Our ministry is actively engaged in that issue as we speak.

           M. Farnworth: While not a part of the direct negotiations, it is an opportunity to link the two. The fact that the contract is up for negotiation does give us a lot of leverage that we would otherwise not have. As much as we or the province may want to see a contract, so does the federal government and the RCMP. There is definitely the ability to do linkage there, which I think the province needs to be aware of and take advantage of.

           Another important issue that is out in the public domain at this time…. I'd be interested to know the minister's and the government's views on it. Are they prepared to do a full, independent study on the issue of regionalization and amalgamation before they sign a new contract, once this one expires in 2012? The last time this issue was raised, the minister's predecessor was rather short and terse with the individual who raised that particular question, but the question is very much out there.

           My question is: is the government going to take a full, independent review on that issue before they sign a new contract in 2012?

[1635]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: In answering the member's question, I want to first of all advise and confirm that a lot of local communities, a lot of municipalities, are concerned that policing remain relevant to them — hence, community policing and a significant emphasis on community policing throughout the system.

           Our emphasis within the ministry and in offering leadership of police services in British Columbia has focused on integration of a variety of police units — including federal, provincial and local police services — into a seamless operation. Hence, there are initiatives, such as PRIME, which really provide the tools to

[ Page 13157 ]

bring together police forces at all levels of government into one effective unit.

           The province has also provided leadership, through our ministry, as I indicated earlier, on a range of special integrated units. That includes police from both independent municipal forces and the RCMP — basically, from both federal and provincial police forces. All are collaborating in a seamless police service in British Columbia.

           M. Farnworth: I understand that. That wasn't the question I asked. This is the question I asked. Before we sign a contract that commits us to a 20-year deal in 2012, an issue around regionalization — which has received considerable discussion in British Columbia, both in communities with RCMP and in communities without RCMP…. Regionalization has nothing to do with impacting on the ability to provide community policing or any other sort of integrated policing.

[1640]

           The question is really straightforward. Before we go into a 20-year contract, are we going to be able to tell the people of this province…? Is this government going to…? Will it have done an independent review on the merits — on the cost benefits, on the pros and the cons — of whether or not a regional policing direction is the way to go in British Columbia so that when we sign that contract, if we sign that contract in 2012, the public knows that we have looked at both possibilities — the status quo and the options around regionalization? Will we have done that work before we sign that contract?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: The issues around regionalization — the discussion of regionalization as an option — have been studied many times in different jurisdictions. It has certainly been studied in British Columbia. Policing in British Columbia is a partnership. Policing in this province is not delivered exclusively by the provincial government, by my ministry. It involves many local government partners. If I were to receive a strong indication from our local government partners that they would value a study like that, then as minister, I would consider it prior to the contract being renegotiated.

           The Chair: Member, and noting the time.

           M. Farnworth: Yes, I understand that, hon. Chair.

           One of the things that the minister has been mentioning is leadership. I would think that before we sign a 20-year contract, this would be, at the very least, one of the things that the province should be taking leadership on. So if the province chooses to make that decision to sign a 20-year contract, they can then tell local government and the public, "We're doing it. Here's why we're doing it. We've looked at those issues around regionalization, and we've had a study," and not base it on a study that was done in the early 1990s but on a study that's done to reflect the needs of today.

           My next question is around the $53 million coming from the federal government. The government has indicated that that is going to integrated units. Can the Solicitor General tell us if the government has done any evaluation on how effective the integrated units are?

[1645]

           Hon. J. van Dongen: The view of our police services division is both that there is a need and that there have been results from the integrated special police units.

           The activity of organized crime and gang violence is such that it crosses borders. It not only crosses borders within the province; it crosses international borders. This requires specialized teams. It requires police with many different perspectives working together. We feel that the $53 million over four years is best deployed to deal with this particular need in British Columbia today.

           When I consider community policing, I want to remind this House that our government is returning 100 percent of all traffic fine revenue to local communities. This provides them with very significant increased dollars for community policing — $58 million in this fiscal year and somewhere in the order of $240 million in the last five years.

           We feel that using these federal dollars for integrated police services, putting those dollars into the provincial police force, will also provide us with some additional dollars under our agreement. We believe that that is by far the most effective way to deploy those federal dollars.

           M. Farnworth: I don't disagree with the issue of providing additional dollars to the integrated forces. My question, really, was about if we are evaluating the effectiveness of those integrated forces. Again, I think that ties into my initial comments before — that we're going to sign a contract, potentially, yet we're not looking at the issues out there that people are talking about.

           What the minister is saying, and the answer I get from him, is: "No, there is not an evaluation on the effectiveness. Rather, we believe them to be effective." So my question was: are there evaluations done?

[1650]

           In the allocation of this $53 million, is it being done on the basis of…? Is it because we think the money should go here, or is it because there's an evaluation saying that if we put X amount of dollars here, it will achieve this and be able to do this, this and this — which we are not effectively being able to do right now? That's what I'm wondering, if those things are in place.

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I can assure the member that we are very aware of community concerns in British Columbia today in terms of policing needs, and we are actively evaluating the special police units on an ongoing basis.

           R. Austin: I just wanted to ask a question with regards to potential changes in the law with regards to motorcycle safety, particularly for young, new motorcyclists.

[ Page 13158 ]

           To give the minister a little bit of context here, I'm speaking really on behalf of a family, constituents of mine, who lost their son, Corey Lodge, at the age of 21 years old. He went out and bought himself a 1,000-cc motorcycle with apparently some kind of jet pack, some kind of turbo thruster, and then died on the Malahat the day after he bought the motorcycle. His family didn't even know he was buying a motorcycle and were informed that he had bought a motorcycle when they were phoned and told that he had died.

           My question to the minister is: what changes is the government planning to deal with the fact that we have no graduated scheme? A young person, a 21-year-old male, doesn't really have the insight to recognize that 1,000-cc motorcycle is perhaps beyond their capacity. There's no mandatory training. What kinds of changes are expected?

           Is it possible for this family, who are part of a group…? They have formed a group in memory of their son Corey, called COREY. The acronym stands for Coalition of Riders Educating Youth. What mechanism is there for families like this in British Columbia who have lost a loved one to have some input into whatever potential changes the government is planning on making?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm certainly open to receiving all the details from the member. I don't have the staff here that can advise me on that particular initiative, but I will look forward to speaking with him further and providing him both input and feedback after I've looked at that issue.

           Vote 39: ministry operations, $617,580,000 — approved.

           Vote 40: Emergency Program Act, $15,630,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

           Vote 1: legislation, $64,058,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:

OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

           Vote 2: Auditor General, $15,250,000 — approved.

           Vote 3: Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, $384,000 — approved.

           Vote 4: Elections B.C., $19,693,000 — approved.

           Vote 5: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $3,603,000 — approved.

           Vote 6: Merit Commissioner, $893,000 — approved.

[1655]

           Vote 7: Ombudsman, $4,671,000 — approved.

           Vote 8: Police Complaint Commissioner, $1,853,000 — approved.

           Vote 9: Representative for Children and Youth, $6,558,000 — approved.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report completion.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 4:56 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175