2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th 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)

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 3

[ Page 1357 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: I'm pleased today to have the opportunity to introduce my two constituency assistants who are here today, Rachel Garrick and Brenda Tombs. I really want to thank them for the remarkable work they do for me every day in Vancouver-Hastings. Without them, the work simply wouldn't get done.

I'd also like to introduce my wife, Cate Jones, who is visiting us here today. I hope everybody will make them welcome.

Hon. K. Heed: I'd ask the House to please join me in welcoming a number of guests here today. These people share my commitment to public safety and safer roads in British Columbia.

First of all, Dr. Brian Brody, president of the B.C. Medical Association; also Clayton Pecknold, vice-president of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and deputy chief of Central Saanich.

Also here today are Oak Bay Police Chief Ron Gaudet; Insp. Ted Smith, RCMP Island district traffic services; Staff Sgt. Andrew Isles, RCMP capital regional district integrated road safety; Trace Acres from the B.C. Automobile Association; Jane Dyson, executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities; Lindsay Olson and Serge Corbeil with the Insurance Bureau of Canada for Saskatchewan and Manitoba; and Nicolas Jimenez from ICBC.

Thank you all for taking the time to be here today.

N. Macdonald: A couple of introductions. First, Mr. Kendall Duce, who is a friend and a fellow teacher from Golden Secondary School. He's here attending the B.C. teachers institute — a great teacher, a great basketball coach. I'd like you to join me in making him welcome.

As well, I would like to introduce Ms. Joy Orr and Ms. Leslie Adams, who are constituency assistants attending the opposition's CA conference. I'd also like to ask you to make them welcome.

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, I'm pleased to welcome and introduce 14 teachers from across British Columbia who have been selected to participate in the ninth B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They will be with us for the remainder of this week, expanding their knowledge of the parliamentary and political systems. They are joined by three of their peers who are acting as facilitators: Ms. Ashley Bakker, Ms. Donna Dunn and Mr. Grant Frater.

I trust many of you will have the opportunity to meet with them during the institute and specifically at the reception this evening hosted by the hon. Minister of Education. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Black: I'm pleased to rise today and introduce the constituency assistant from my office in New Westminster, Jarrah Hodge. Jarrah is a young woman with a lot of energy and a very high intellect, and I am delighted to have her as my constituency assistant. Please make her welcome.

[1340]

D. Barnett: Today I have two of my constituents here with me who own Meadow Springs Ranch in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. They are ranchers, and they are also guest-ranchers — Kathy and Mark McMillan. I would like to say that Mark and Kathy are also very involved in the Cowboy Heritage Society, Mark as a vice-president and Kathy as secretary-treasurer. I ask the House to welcome them here today.

M. Mungall: It's my great pleasure to introduce my two constituency assistants, Laurie Langille and Della McLeod. They are both here all the way from Nelson-Creston, joining a wonderful conference where they're getting educated and learning as much as they can to be wonderful CAs, which they will be in the next four years. May the House make them very welcome.

P. Pimm: I have a couple of very special guests here today. My daughter Jennifer Pimm and her boyfriend, Karl Waugh, are here. They've come down from Fort St. John to be with us today. They wanted to join us for question period, and I'm sure we'll be very polite and thoughtful in question period today for them. Thank you very much, and help me welcome them to the House.

K. Corrigan: I'm very delighted to have here today two constituency assistants, one of whom I think is going to be introduced three times today because she is none other than the incomparable Cate Jones, who has been announced once already as Shane's wife. As well, David Pereira, who is a wonderful young man, has joined my staff. So we have a wonderful team, and I hope the House will make them both welcome.

M. Dalton: I would like to acknowledge the presence of a special guest today from Mission. Merlyn Horton is the founder of SOLOS, an acronym for Safe Online Outreach Society. She and her team have made
[ Page 1358 ]
over 500 presentations before tens of thousands of students.

She addresses social technology related to cyberbullying, sexting, luring and gang recruitment. For years she has worked as a social worker with youth on the streets. She wanted to be where they were. Today, increasingly, youth are on social networks with their hosts of potential dangers, and that's where she is to help.

We appreciate all that Merlyn and others like her are doing to make our children safer. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

L. Krog: I'm delighted today to ask the House to welcome my constituency assistant, Pauline Carroll, who served not only myself but previous members of this assembly and does a very good job in protecting me.

R. Chouhan: In the gallery today we have already two wonderful and very great CAs who, unlike yours….

An Hon. Member: They're on their way.

R. Chouhan: Oh, they're on their way. Okay.

Cate Jones and Laarni de los Reyes are here with us today, and they are going to be here all day, so please make them welcome.

N. Simons: It's with pleasure that I welcome to the House today my two constituency assistants: from the upper Sunshine Coast, the incomparable Maggie Hathaway, and from the lower Sunshine Coast, the other incomparable, Kim Tournat. Will the House please make them welcome.

R. Austin: It's my privilege to welcome my CAs from the northwest. From Kitimat, I have Roberta Walker here, and from Terrace, Denis Gagné and Arjunna Miyagawa. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

V. Huntington: I'm pleased to introduce a guest today from my riding of Delta South, Miss Kristen Bishop, who is a native of Tsawwassen, a graduate of South Delta Secondary School and BCIT and the sales manager of the Coast Tsawwassen Inn. She's also a director of the business improvement association of Tsawwassen.

Kristen is the daughter of Sylvia Bishop, also a constituent and good friend of mine, who is well known to the opposition members in this House for her activities within their party. Would the House make Kristen welcome.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to join my colleagues in welcoming my CAs today. I will not be introducing Cate Jones, because she actually doesn't work in my office. But I do have two amazing people, and they are Jayne Ducker and Dave Ferguson. I would like everyone to make them very welcome.

[1345]

J. Brar: We have two very, very special guests today — so special that the majority of the time I do whatever they ask me to do. They are Ruby Bhandal and Peter Leblanc. They are both constituency assistants at Surrey-Fleetwood. Please make them feel welcome.

M. Elmore: It's my pleasure and a great privilege to introduce my terrific team of constituency assistants from Vancouver-Kensington: Thomas Lou, Kelly Read, Steven Klein and Maita Santiago — terrific representatives. They are a great team. I ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

G. Gentner: It's a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House — and with all due respect to my colleagues — the two hardest-working CAs in the province of British Columbia. I'd like to introduce Sheryl Seale, who is unfortunately not in the gallery but in my office working as we speak, and my other CA, Lorinder Birak, who is here today in the gallery. I have to give her a quick plug. Lorinder, of course, is a former radio broadcaster, and she now has her own TV show — Cultural Connect, I believe. It's at 6:30 to 7:30 Tuesday or Thursday, something like that. Check it out on your channel 4 in Delta.

D. Routley: I'd like to join my colleagues in welcoming CAs to this building. Karlene Bara and Patty McNamara are great servants to our community. Our CAs provide excellent service to those people that we represent. They do it on a daily basis. They never seem to fail the people that we seek to represent, so we owe them our greatest and most sincere thanks.

S. Hammell: I'd also like to introduce my CA, Brett Barden. Brett joined me in January from CanWest, and my constituents and I have been very lucky with that decision he made to come with us. So would the House please make Brett welcome.

D. Donaldson: Somewhere up there in the rarefied air is a dream team, and there they are — Julie Maitland, Shelley Worthington and Michelle Larstone, constituency assistants for Stikine. Would the House make them welcome, please.

M. Sather: I, too, would like to welcome my constituency assistants to the House: Sidhartha Ramsoondar and Donann Kinar. This is Sid's first visit, and Donann has been here a number of times. I also wanted to wel-
[ Page 1359 ]
come Sheryl Seale, who was my CA before the member for Delta North stole her from me.

G. Coons: I also would like to echo the gratitude for having my two constituency assistants here, Pauline Woodrow and Erika Rolston, who serve the North Coast extremely well. Please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North.

B. Simpson: Thank you, Madam…. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My apologies.

Mr. Speaker: And I didn't even move you this time.

B. Simpson: I know.

I just would like to introduce two people — and it fits with my gaffe — who keep trying to make me look good against all the odds. My two CAs are in the House today, Adam Schaan and Angie Sandve. I ask you to make them feel welcome.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to introduce my CAs, Edena Brown and Elaine Whitehead. It's interesting that Edena and Elaine have been with me since 2005, but Elaine actually worked with my husband, Ed, for seven years before that. So she's been a CA for 12 years, which I think is one of the few that are that long.

I just want to take a personal moment and wish my husband a happy birthday. He's home watching QP on dialysis, and I'm sure it's one of the few dialysis units in B.C. that actually watch QP.

[1350]

Mr. Speaker: I think we'd all like to say hi to Ed and wish him a happy birthday.

S. Herbert: I would like to acknowledge my constituency assistant, Sian Madoc-Jones, who has joined us today. She serves the West End very well. Thank you very much for being here.

I would also like to acknowledge Daniel Royer, who is a teacher here today for the parliamentary democracy sessions. I'd like to thank him for doing the work he does with his students and welcome him to Victoria.

J. Kwan: I'm sure that members of the House have caught on that this is CA appreciation day for the NDP caucus. Like all my colleagues, I would like to welcome, of course, Stuart Alcock, who has been with our office for a long time now and manages to keep me on the straight and narrow. With Stuart is Lisa MacLeod, who has newly joined as a constituency assistant in our office and who will soon be cracking the whip to keep me on the straight and narrow. Would the House please welcome Lisa.

H. Lali: Mr. Speaker, just when you thought it was all over. I know everybody loves their constituency assistants, and I know some of the members opposite made some comments about their constituency assistants being the best, but I really am saving the best for last.

I know both my constituency assistants are here. One is actually sitting up in the gallery, and the other one is actually in the precinct somewhere. I don't see her. Shirley Rhodes is one of the constituency assistants who has been working with me. This is her fifth year now. Before that she was the constituency assistant to Member of Parliament Nelson Riis. My second constituency assistant is Kim Sekhon, who is sitting up in the galleries there with her husband, Sam. Sam is here for the first time in the Legislature.

I would like the House to make my constituency assistants and Sam welcome and give them a big round of applause, please.

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I don't have a constituency assistant to introduce today, but I would like to acknowledge and ask the House to once again welcome Oak Bay's finest, Oak Bay police chief Ron Gaudet, who joins us here today. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kootenay West, we already wished Ed a happy birthday.

K. Conroy: I just have one more acknowledgment I'd like to make. My other CA, Sheren Spilker, couldn't be with us this week because she's home with her sister, Sandy Korman. We had an acknowledgment of Sandy last night for the incredible work she's done as a CA for the past years in the '90s and again for Corky in the past five years. We just want to acknowledge her work again in the House here today.

Mr. Speaker: If you are a CA from the opposition benches, I'm sure that the members would have welcomed you if they had a chance.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. K. Heed presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. K. Heed: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
[ Page 1360 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Heed: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009. This bill contains amendments to address the problem of driver distraction caused by the use of cell phones and other electronic devices while driving. These amendments will mean safer roads by helping to ensure that drivers keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road.

This bill prohibits drivers from holding electronic devices, operating them, talking on hand-held cell phones and using them to send e-mails or text messages.

All drivers in British Columbia will be covered by these changes. However, new drivers in the graduated licensing program will be prohibited from using hand-held and hands-free devices while driving. Exceptions to these rules include police, fire and ambulance personnel while they are performing their job functions. The only other exceptions are when drivers need to call 911 to report an emergency or if they are safely parked off of the roadway.

[1355]

We have all seen near misses on the road because drivers were not paying attention, and some of us have seen the devastating consequences of driver distraction. At the end of the day, I believe the changes I am announcing will save lives in British Columbia.

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

Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009, 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)

Gerry Zimmerman

N. Letnick: I would like to make a special mention and thanks to someone who is well known in our province, and that is retired Kelowna Fire Chief Gerry Zimmerman.

In 2003 the Okanagan Mountain Park fires caused the evacuation of some 45,000 people and consumed 239 homes. Sixty fire departments, 1,400 Armed Forces troops and 1,000 forest fire fighters took part in controlling the fire but were largely helpless in stopping the disaster.

Gerry is a local and provincial hero for his leadership in fighting this fire. This is why he received his honorary doctor of laws degree from Okanagan University College in 2005.

Gerry, at age 60, retired as fire chief in early 2006 after 15 years of brave service. However, for the past six months Gerry has been fighting his own personal battle with acute pancreatitis. Two of those months were spent in an induced coma.

Five hundred people, including our Premier and his wife, attended a public prayer service in Gerry's honour early in his illness. The very next day he began to react positively to his treatment and started the slow road to recovery. I am pleased to report today that on October 9, Gerry was released from Kelowna General Hospital to be with his family.

During the fires Gerry said: "I thought we had lost people and there was nothing we could do — that tomorrow we were going to count the bodies." He also said during his battle with pancreatitis that there were many down days. However, in both battles he has shown incredible leadership, bravery and perseverance.

It was through the amazing support of friends, family, staff at Kelowna General Hospital and the community as a whole that he is home today. He has a way to go, including getting strong enough to hold his new grandchild — his granddaughter, who is six months old — but as always, he will achieve his goal.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing Gerry Zimmerman, one of our province's heroes, and give thanks for his recovery.

rent Banks

S. Hammell: There are three new banks opening soon, one in Surrey, Abbotsford and Prince George. Hopefully, a branch will open near you.

These new banks are modelled on a concept that has been running successfully in Ontario and Calgary. It's a rent bank, and its sole purpose is to prevent homelessness. At this bank small loans are made to people who are in danger of becoming homeless to shore up their ability to survive during a difficult period of time.

Today I'm pleased to share with the House this new local initiative from Newton Advocacy Group Society, also affectionately known to many of us in Surrey as NAGS. Last week NAGS received $60,000 from Surrey Homelessness and Housing Task Force to deliver this 24-month pilot project, the Surrey rent bank.

The project is a homelessness prevention initiative aimed at keeping a roof over the heads of renters at risk. The project will provide emergency loans for families and individuals to prevent residential evictions and avoid termination of utilities.

In the pilot period approximately 30 loans will be provided to pay for rental and utility arrears. Program participants will be expected to repay their loans within two years and participate in money management workshops focusing on such topics as budgeting, improving credit, asset-building and responsible consumerism.

For the past ten years the Calgary rent bank has proven to be a permanent and positive solution to prevent homelessness. The Newton Advocacy Group hopes
[ Page 1361 ]
to follow in Calgary's footsteps by bringing this successful rent bank initiative to Surrey.

[1400]

The Surrey rent bank will help low-income residents stay in their homes, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate NAGS.

LOCAL FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

R. Cantelon: We all returned this week after Thanksgiving break, and many of us came back with slightly tighter waistbands as we took full advantage and indulged — perhaps overindulged, I hope — in some of the fine, great locally grown and raised products from pumpkin pies to turkeys.

I bought my turkey from a man called Eric Bolton. He is a farmer on Gabriola Island. His farm is really the hub of agriculture. He's an integral part of the entire community, because not only does he raise excellent beef and poultry, but also the manure from his farm fertilizes and enriches all the tomato growers and vegetable farms throughout Gabriola Island. It's really an integrated farm system.

You can buy Eric's beef and poultry at Pipers Meat in Nanaimo. They rush off the shelves as soon as they hit it, because everybody knows how wonderful the food is, how nutritious and enriching it is. You eat healthy; you'll be healthier.

I called Eric up to thank him for the wonderful product that I and the family enjoyed. We didn't have a scrap left, which was unusual. Eric asked me for one thing on behalf of the farm industry, and I'm sure it's something that both sides of the House can endorse and apply. He wasn't asking for thanks, and he certainly wasn't asking for money. Eric said: "Farmers just want one thing. Farmers want encouragement."

I ask both sides of the House to join with me in encouraging farmers to continue to produce the excellent, fine B.C.-grown products that they do and thank them for all their hard work and commitment in raising these products for our tables.

HOMELESSNESS

J. Kwan: Last week was Homelessness Action Week. It is estimated that there are over 10,000 homeless people in our communities, of which 32 percent are aboriginal, and amongst women, 50 percent. A homeless person dies every 12 days in B.C. Last week the opposition leader and I met with representatives from the aboriginal transformative justice project, where they once again raised the desperate need for additional aboriginal-specific services, housing and homeless shelter.

We met with VanDo and the Carnegie action project. CAP recently finished a community visioning and mapping process that involved over 1,200 low-income residents in the Downtown Eastside. The mapping project identified at least ten community assets in the Downtown Eastside that residents want to preserve. They include acceptance, empathy, social justice, appreciation for community and cultural heritage, a strong sense of community.

People at all the mapping sessions stated the need for good-quality, affordable self-contained housing to be built in the community. As one woman said: "I could have a whole other life if I could just be in affordable housing. Living in an SRO limits my capability of being a grandmother. More social housing is desperately needed."

One person said of Mavis McMullen Housing: "When my life crashed and burned, I needed housing, and welfare was only $610. This housing saved my life, and life lost is harshness. It kept me from destitution."

Currently there are nearly 700 people homeless in the Downtown Eastside. Displacement is really happening. In 2009 CAP's hotel survey found an additional 800 hotel rooms between 2008 and 2009 lost to rent increases beyond what people under the low-income cutoff can afford.

Canada is the only G8 country without a national housing plan or poverty reduction strategy. I ask all members of the House to join me in renewing our resolve to end homelessness.

RICHMOND OLYMPIC OVAL

R. Howard: The run-up to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games has been given another boost. There's an increasing sense of confidence and a strong sense of pride in Richmond and, I think, the province.

The pride was felt again last Friday when the multiple award-winning and iconic Richmond Oval beat out a strong field of competitors, including Beijing's spectacular bird nest stadium and the Wimbledon centre court roof, to win the Institution of Structural Engineers top international award for sports or leisure structures.

In granting this prestigious prize, judges singled out the inventive use of trees killed by the pine beetle to construct the incredible wood wave roof.

[1405]

I would like to extend my congratulations to the company that conceived the design idea for the oval and resulted in this award, Fast + Epp structural engineers. This local firm was charged by the city of Richmond to design an innovative and distinctive landmark with a strong focus on sustainable building practices. I'm very proud to say that this outstanding firm not only met the vision set out by the city but exceeded it.

Congratulations are due, as well, to the city of Richmond staff who lived and breathed this building for
[ Page 1362 ]
many years now and, of course, to the architects, Cannon Design, to Fast + Epp structural engineers and all the others whose dedication and passion went into the planning, design and construction of this world-class facility. You can take great pride in this latest major award and in the legacy that the Richmond Olympic Oval will provide for many years to come. I ask that the House please join me in congratulating them all.

WOMEN'S EQUALITY and leadership

M. Elmore: In 1992 October was designated as Women's History Month to encourage greater appreciation of the notable contributions of women to Canadian history.

Women in Canada have accomplished many incredible achievements, often facing many obstacles such as those faced and conquered by the Famous Five who fought to have women legally recognized as persons in 1929. Women in Canada, however, still face serious obstacles to obtaining equality in this country. Women earn only 71 cents for every dollar earned by a Canadian male. Women continue to struggle with a lack of child care, and there's a need to create an universal early education and child care program and the need to invest in social infrastructure during this economic downturn.

These issues and the numerous other issues faced by Canadian women could be addressed most effectively by having more women in leadership within government. Women comprise 52 percent of the population in Canada, yet make up 22 percent of Members of Parliament, 21 percent across Canada at the provincial and municipal level, and in B.C. 29 percent of MLAs. There's a need to elect more women to government and apply a gender and race lens to government policy.

The value and contribution of women in leadership has been marked by the SFU Nancy McKinstry Award, which awarded B.C. Hydro for recognizing their leadership in women and diversity in their workforce and in their leadership. In B.C. Hydro six of the ten top positions in the company, one of the largest electric utilities in Canada, are held by women. They have one of the highest averages in the country.

The global corporate world is recognizing the impact of women as a powerful economic force and the value of diversity — women in leadership from diverse backgrounds and what they can bring to the corporate world — and that diversity is a key means for attracting talent.

So I would like you to please join me in congratulating B.C. Hydro to receive the first SFU Nancy McKinstry Award to recognize the importance of leadership in gender diversity.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF OLYMPIC
GAMES TICKETS AND HOSPITALITY SUITES

C. James: Documents obtained through a freedom-of-information request show that three days after the provincial election, the Olympic secretariat bought 2010 hospitality suites from VANOC. To the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport: can she tell the House what exactly the Olympic secretariat purchased and how many taxpayer dollars were spent?

Hon. M. McNeil: As the member opposite knows, FOIs are processed by the public service under the FOI Act, and there's an independent commissioner that they can talk to on this. Having said that, of the approximately 1.6 million tickets available, the British Columbian government has approximately 3,000 tickets.

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

C. James: I shouldn't be surprised at the response from the minister or the response from this government, who has tried to hide Olympic spending all along. It's very clear that they haven't been open and transparent, and you don't encourage support for the Olympics by hiding the truth from the public.

The public expects transparency on Olympic spending. Here's what the documents confirm: "Tickets will be provided to MLAs and cabinet ministers for the purposes of hosting business leaders and dignitaries during the 2010 Olympic Games."

[1410]

But the invoices were heavily severed. There's no way to tell exactly how much was spent. So again to the minister: will she stop stonewalling, and will she be upfront about exactly how many taxpayer dollars were spent by the Olympic secretariat?

Hon. M. McNeil: The provincial government has an opportunity to showcase British Columbia — our province, which we're proud of — to the entire world during the most incredible event. These are the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and we have the opportunity to invite high-profile dignitaries, business leaders from around the world, investors from around the world to meet with us and participate in the Olympic experience. Again, we have been allocated approximately 3,000 tickets out of 1.6 million tickets.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.
[ Page 1363 ]

C. James: What I heard from the minister is that she expects British Columbians to just trust this government with taxpayer dollars. Well, I'm sorry, but the people of British Columbia don't trust this government to be open and accountable with taxpayer dollars.

Let's remember that this was the government that also said the Olympic secretariat wasn't Olympic spending. I mean, remember that? Remember that quote?

So again to the minister. We're treating these tickets like they're a state secret. The public deserves to know exactly how many dollars were spent and who is going to get those tickets that the minister and the FOI say very clearly are for MLAs for hosting business leaders. Who makes that determination, and who is going to get the taxpayer tickets?

Hon. M. McNeil: In addition to inviting high-profile dignitaries, business leaders and investors, we have also, through GamesTown 2010, given tickets to communities all around the province because — as you know, Mr. Speaker — many in this province are thrilled that the 2010 Olympic Games are coming.

Of our tickets, we have given tickets to Campbell River. We have given tickets to Princeton. We have given tickets to the Chemainus First Nation and to Ladysmith. People in Saanich will be attending. People in Tofino will be attending. I could go on; the list is long. Many people are going to be enjoying these games.

K. Corrigan: Potentially hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent on buying hospitality suites for government guests, dignitaries and a select few. The Olympic secretariat paid for these tickets with taxpayer money, but the minister is saying that the public doesn't have the right to know how much was spent and how it was spent. When will the B.C. Liberals stop treating taxpayers like they don't matter, and when will they start being accountable for their money?

Hon. M. McNeil: I find this very regrettable — that during the same week that the Olympic torch is being lit the NDP is trying to pour water over such an incredible event.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd also like to advise the members opposite that these tickets and suites were offered to this province as a sponsoring body of the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games. In 114 days the games will begin in British Columbia, and most in this province are excited about these games — but obviously not those across the aisle.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: It's shameful the way this government treats the taxpayers. For years the B.C. Liberals have refused to admit that the Olympic secretariat has anything to do with the Olympics, never mind its name and never mind that it's now paying for B.C. Liberal ministers to host their 2010 guests.

To the minister: why is her government once again hiding behind the secretariat? Why are the B.C. Liberals refusing to reveal how they plan to entertain their Olympic guests and how much it will cost?

Hon. M. McNeil: These Olympics are the largest economic stimulus that this province could ask for at this time. Leaders around the world…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: …would welcome this opportunity, as was shown two weeks ago. These games are going to drive tourism, they're going to create jobs, and they're going to reinvigorate our economy at the very time this province needs it the most. I think these folks….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: I think it's lost on the members opposite what an incredible economic opportunity these are.

J. Kwan: Last month we learned that B.C. Hydro has spent $264,000 to buy luxury suites at GM Place. ICBC and BCLC have also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on 2010 tickets. Now we know that there was another purchase made on the taxpayers' dime, this time for the government's own MLAs and cabinet ministers.

So a simple question for the minister: just how much are these tickets costing taxpayers, and which MLAs and cabinet ministers will be attending the Olympics on the taxpayers' dime?

Interjections.
[ Page 1364 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: I find this quite shocking — that people are surprised that the province would be interested in buying tickets to the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. This government is proud to be the host province for these games. Apparently, it's a shock to the members opposite that we would actually want to attend the games that we are hosting.

Again, 250,000 people will be coming to this province for these games, and yes, this province is looking to see what we can do with respect to relationships with business leaders and investors from around the world.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: What is shocking is that this minister would not tell British Columbians just how much it is going to cost them to host government MLAs and cabinet ministers at the Olympics.

Last month we learned that $264,000 of taxpayers' money was spent by B.C. Hydro, over $400,000 by ICBC and nearly $390,000 by BCLC. But what about this government's MLAs and ministers? Well, we still don't know, and this minister won't come clean and tell British Columbians. Why is she hiding that number? Why is she not telling British Columbians how much it is going to cost them for them to buy tickets for government MLAs and government cabinet ministers for the Olympic Games?

Hon. M. McNeil: There is nothing to hide here. I think if the members opposite.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: To help them with the math, 3,000 tickets is approximately $900,000.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS
FOR GOVERNMENT MLAs

M. Farnworth: Well, Minister, that wasn't painful. You know, you just had to…. Why did it have to be severed? Why did it have to be severed?

So here's the next question. Ottawa has made it clear that no government MPs will be attending the Olympics on taxpayer-paid-for tickets. If they attend the Olympics, it'll be on their own dime.

My question to the minister responsible for the Olympics is quite straightforward. Will she assure this House that government MLAs will only be attending the Olympics on their own dime and not on taxpayer-subsidized freebies? This side of the House will be attending on our own dime. Will you be making the same commitment?

Hon. M. McNeil: As for the amount that the MLAs and the cabinet ministers will be paying, that has not yet been decided.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: This gets more interesting by the question. Whereas Ottawa has already made it clear that MPs will attend the Olympics on their own dime, that side of the House is clearly considering attending the Olympics at the taxpayers' expense.

Let me make it clear. We're not talking about the Premier or the minister responsible for the Olympics. But the public expects that government MLAs will attend the Olympics on their own dime, not the public's dime. Will the minister stand up and commit to doing that today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: When the decision has been made as to how many of the tickets we have been allocated we will be using, and how many guests we will be entertaining, we will then let you know how many will be used by the MLAs.

PROVISION OF TRAFFIC FINE REVENUES
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

V. Huntington: I think the other side could do that too, so it's a little less.…

My question isn't as exciting, but it's just as important. Municipalities across this province have been asking the government to institutionalize the traffic fine revenue-sharing program so that the municipalities can have some certainty in their long-range budget planning. To date the government hasn't provided them an answer.

Given that the Minister of Community and Rural Development is responsible for the delivery of the program, can he give the municipalities of B.C. and the members of this House an assurance that the traffic fine revenue-sharing program will extend beyond 2010 and
[ Page 1365 ]
become a guaranteed component of the municipal policing budgets?

[1425]

Hon. B. Bennett: If I understand the question from the hon. member, I think she is asking whether or not the traffic fine revenues will continue to be paid to local government. The government, I can tell the member, has absolutely no plans to change the good news that communities in this province receive 100 percent of traffic fine revenues.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I know the municipalities get 100 percent. The concern is that they won't be getting any after 2010.

At the UBCM, Delta council spoke with the Minister of Finance about this very issue. I wonder if he can give a commitment to this House that those revenues will be ongoing following July 2010.

Hon. B. Bennett: I would like to assure the member — and equally important, I would also like to assure local government in the province — that the province has no plans to change the program. The province will continue to pay 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to local government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member who asked the question is being very courteous, as is her style. I do hear some chirping from the other side, so…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: …perhaps it would be in order to just remind members who were here in the 1990s that when they were government, they actually reduced the money that was left with local government by $860 million. So in fact, the member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just sit down, Minister.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: In fact, I have a copy of a news release that was released, not by government, by UBCM. It inventories the provincial downloading and cumulative impacts by government of the day. In total, they downloaded $846.7 million to local government. In contrast to that, we have given local government 100 percent of traffic fine revenues, and we have doubled small community grants.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Hastings.

S. Simpson: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
GAMBLING AND ORGANIZED CRIME

S. Simpson: Fred Pinnock was a 29-year police officer and former commander of the RCMP's integrated illegal gaming enforcement team. He has raised serious concerns about what he calls the wilful blindness of the Liberal government on matters related to gaming and organized crime.

Mr. Pinnock stated that he had the impression the government was more concerned about the appearance of doing something rather than meaningful results. The government's response has been to shut the RCMP down seven months after Mr. Pinnock retired.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he tell this House why at this time, when we should be increasing pressures on organized crime, the government is shutting these resources down?

Hon. K. Heed: First of all, we are not shutting the RCMP down. I think the member made reference to that. We are absolutely not shutting them down.

When we're dealing with crimes here in British Columbia, we have the resources to deal with significant crimes. We have the resources to deal with crimes related to gaming, to organized crime, to gang organizations and members that are involved in this particular type of crime. That will continue.

We have enforcement officers with the gaming branch that are working with not only the RCMP, which we're keeping here in British Columbia, but with local law enforcement people that operate around the issue of gaming and organized crime and gang members that are involved in this type of activity. That will continue.

[1430]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Downloading this onto local governments isn't anybody's solution. When speaking of casinos, Mr. Pinnock stated that there's a ton of criminal activity
[ Page 1366 ]
being conducted in these places every day, including money laundering, loansharking and other enterprise crimes.

He went on to say: "It seems the way to remain in favour with this government was simply to maintain a statistical, check-the-box-type, radar gun level of enforcement and not meaningful targeting that would significantly disrupt criminal activity."

The government is aggressively increasing gaming in B.C. while slashing supports for problem gamblers. Now they're failing on enforcement protections. How can the Solicitor General abandon this aspect of the fight against organized crime and claim he's doing his job?

Hon. K. Heed: This government has added 1,100 police officers to the province of British Columbia since 2001. This government continues to commit to ensuring that we give back 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to local governments.

We are committed to deliver on our seven-point gang and organized crime strategy and deal with these groups that are involved in this type of activity in British Columbia, and we'll continue to deliver on that. We'll continue to ensure that we have comprehensive approaches to organized crime people in this province, and we will continue to deliver on that as we go forward.

STATUS OF INTEGRATED
ILLEGAL GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT TEAM

B. Ralston: My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he confirm that the unit that's being spoken of, the anti-gaming unit referenced by Mr. Pinnock, has been shut down?

Hon. K. Heed: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

FUNDING FOR CARBON REDUCTION
INITIATIVES IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

R. Austin: This government keeps piling costs onto school districts — the HST, increased medicare premiums, slashed PAC grants, funding for B.C. School Sports. Now we learn that cash-strapped schools are being forced to spend scarce education dollars on an expensive and unproven carbon-calculating computer program.

My question is to the Education Minister. If this government feels this program is so important, why isn't the ministry fully funding its purchase?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, our government is absolutely committed to tackling climate change. British Columbians are overwhelmingly concerned about this, and they're counting on us to make sure that we meet our targets.

Fully 100 percent of school districts signed on to the climate action charter — 100 percent. It was unanimous. They're all supportive of this, and they all knew that they would be required to use a tool to measure. To be clear, we're talking about 82 cents per student for the use of this tool. This is at a time when core funding for education is at an all-time high of $8,300 per student — an increase of $84 million this year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: The government is asking schools to take money out of the classroom to buy an unproven computer program, yet the annual facilities grant provided funding for schools to make badly needed upgrades — things like replacing single-pane windows with dual-pane windows. This government eliminated that grant, scuttling projects across the province that would have reduced emissions.

Again to the Education Minister: if this government is concerned about reducing emissions, then why did they eliminate the annual facilities grant?

[1435]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member is well aware that this year, we are under unusual financial pressure and that school districts were asked to use the almost $100 million they had on reserve at the end of the last fiscal year to do the work for the annual facilities grant.

But just to be clear, here are some of the investments that we have made. We're investing more than $1 billion into 40 new and replacement schools that will meet LEED gold standards.

I think what would really be illustrative for all of us would be to go into a school today and ask one of our students: should we be investing this 82 cents in this tool? Should we be meeting our climate…?

Let me just tell you what a student from Abbotsford Middle School said yesterday about some of the climate change projects that are happening in her school. This is what she said — Tega Wall, age 11: "Being involved with this project is the chance of a lifetime. I enjoy being able to be part and make a difference that will change the world forever."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: I'm glad the minister finished with the example of Abbotsford, because let me read a quote from the same article from the Abbotsford school district's coordinator of school infrastructure, Mr. Rick Walker. He says, in light of the budget situation that is
[ Page 1367 ]
this government's fault: "If this project was to happen now" — the greening of the school computer labs project — "today we wouldn't have the money to do it." That's the reality for every other school.

My question for the minister is: given the downloaded costs this year that school districts are struggling to pay for — MSP, a $50 million wage step that is unfunded for teachers, $110 million of cuts to facility grants….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: Given all of that and given the fact that government owns this software — the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services developed it — can't they in this instance give school districts and kids….? This money will come out of the classroom for our kids. Can't they give them a break, help with the costs, give them the software for free that we own, help with the implementation? Will she do that today? That's what school district leaders are asking for across B.C. Will the minister do it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I will again remind the members opposite about the record investment in education that we have made this year, an additional $84 million on a budget of $4.5 billion.

When school districts, all of them, agreed with the climate action charter, they were aware that they would be using this tool. It was clear to them from the outset, as well…. When they signed on for this agreement, they also knew that they would be receiving rebates on their carbon tax. This will be, by 2011, over $7 million.

We've also set aside $10 million which school districts can apply for to upgrade heating and cooling systems. We're supporting school districts in a multitude of ways.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

N. Letnick: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

N. Letnick: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The member is making a report.

Continue, Member.

[1440]

Law Clerk:

October 21, 2009

Mr. Speaker:

Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

(1) that the preamble to Bill Pr401, intituled Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009, has been proved, and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to second reading;

(2) that the preamble to Bill Pr402, intituled Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009, has been proved, and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to second reading;

(3) that the preamble to Bill Pr403, intituled Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, has been proved, and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to second reading.

All of which is respectfully submitted,
Norm Letnick, Chairman.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

N. Letnick: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of the motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

N. Letnick: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Bills Pr401, Pr402 and Pr403 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. In this chamber, committee stage debate of Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 13 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; L. Reid in the chair.
[ Page 1368 ]

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On section 1.

L. Krog: With respect to both sections 1 and 2, I take it that these are exactly what they appear to be. We're simply adding "Treaty First Nation Taxation Act" so that it will extend to manufactured homes and there will be no issue around that. Is there anything else the minister wishes to explain on that section?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has read it correctly.

[1445]

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Krog: Just to clarify. Section 3, I take it, will apply — the exemption will apply — to manufactured homes that are not located on treaty first nations lands. It will, in fact, apply to manufactured homes located off of treaty taxation lands. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised, further to the member's question, that this provision will ensure that the property tax exemption that is currently available for manufactured homes owned by governments or municipalities and occupied by or on behalf of the governments or municipalities is also available to the taxing first nations.

L. Krog: What I understand the minister to say is that, in fact, these will be subject to taxation.

Hon. G. Abbott: In fact, the act does not apply to manufactured homes owned by a taxing treaty first nation.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Krog: Just so the minister can perhaps explain this to me so that I understand…. I gather what this means is that if it's a tourist accommodation on lands covered by a treaty, in fact, that accommodation or improvement will receive the benefit of the reduction provided for under the act in terms of its assessment.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

L. Krog: Just to clarify. As I understand it, this section exempts — from treaty first nation taxation — improvements that are owned by the treaty taxing first nation or jointly with some other regional district or level of government. I take it that this is to encourage cooperation between various levels of government. Is that the intent of this section — and the purpose?

Hon. G. Abbott: The intent is that this provision will parallel the current exemption for municipalities under the Community Charter.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

L. Krog: As we appear to have sorted out who is going to be responsible, I am delighted to have the Minister of Aboriginal Relations continue in this matter.

With reference to the College and Institute Act, which this will regulate, I take it that this section is in direct response to the British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Barbour v. the University of British Columbia. Is that correct?

[1450]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'll just take a moment, please, to introduce my staff and then ask you to repeat the question. This is Tony Loughran and Deb Hull.

L. Krog: Now that we've sorted out where the answers are going to come from….

With respect to section 7 of this bill, I take it that this is in fact a response to the decision in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia, the Supreme Court decision of Justice Goepel. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Prior to the court decision, the ministry believed that the post-secondary institutions had the necessary authority under their governing legislation to regulate parking on their property, including fines. The recent decision of Barbour v. UBC simply highlighted the information to us that the act was not doing as it was intended.

L. Krog: I want to confirm that the minister is then admitting, in fact, that the government agrees with the decision of Justice Goepel in Barbour, that it is correct in law, and that is why the amendment is before the House.

Hon. M. Stilwell: No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the decision simply highlighted that the law was not drafted sufficiently to meet the intention and desire.
[ Page 1369 ]

L. Krog: The Supreme Court decided that the colleges didn't have the authority to impose fines and do the things that they were attempting to do in terms of the imposition of fines. Now, either the court is right or the law is right — or wrong, so to speak. I need to hear from the minister. Is the minister basically saying, then…? Are we doing this simply to clarify a decision? Or is the government admitting that, in fact, when these fines were imposed the colleges were not in a lawful position to do so?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Our interpretation is that the colleges do have the authority to levy parking fines.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response that that may be the opinion. If that's the case, then I have to ask the minister: what are we doing in this chamber amending the act if, in fact, the government has the lawful right to do so?

The Supreme Court of British Columbia happens to disagree with that opinion, so I guess I'm looking for an answer here. Who's right — the court or the government?

[1455]

Hon. M. Stilwell: As you know, under the governing legislation, B.C.'s colleges have the responsibility for managing all aspects of their operations. The amendments to the legislation simply affirm that the institutions do have the authority to regulate vehicle traffic and parking on their property. Until the recent court decision, it was understood that the institutions had this authority under the act.

L. Krog: Well, I appreciate the suggestion that it may have been understood, but clearly Justice Goepel has a different conclusion. Again, I come back to the basic question. I don't know why it's so difficult for the minister to simply acknowledge that the reason this amendment is before this chamber is because the B.C. Supreme Court has said that under the existing legislation, the colleges don't have the power to impose parking fines.

That is what a court has decided. I'm asking the minister to acknowledge…. If she is right, and the institutions have the power to do it, why is this amendment necessary? It can't be both. It's got to be one or the other.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that we are confirming it so that, in fact, it will be understood, again, that they do have the authority to do that.

L. Krog: I don't wish to appear to be difficult, but I would just simply like the minister to acknowledge what is obvious to everyone in this chamber and to the lawyers who pursued this class action lawsuit. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has said that the law does not allow colleges to impose a fine. That is why this legislation is before the House to amend — so that it can in fact legally impose a fine. Will the minister just acknowledge that?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The goal of these amendments is to ensure that public post-secondary institutions have the full legislative authority to regulate parking and enforce parking regulations on their campuses.

L. Krog: I think the minister came as close as she could to acknowledging, without a full admission, that I am right — the court is right — in saying that the government didn't have the authority to impose these fines.

Now, I appreciate that it's difficult for this government to acknowledge that it's wrong on any occasion. I understand that. But I'd just like the minister to answer this question simply. I'll try and put it as simply as I possibly can.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has said that colleges don't have the power to impose these fines. This amendment is before this House. Will the minister simply acknowledge that under the present legislation, without this amendment, the colleges don't have the lawful authority to impose the fine?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The proposed amendments are intended to bring clarity to the legislation for all public post-secondary institutions and reconfirm the government's intended policy in this area.

L. Krog: Well, with the greatest respect to the minister, I think Justice Goepel brought a great deal of clarity to this situation. The issue is whether this government is prepared to stand up in this House today and acknowledge that their legislation didn't authorize colleges to impose fines.

[1500]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think we agree to disagree in that the proposed amendments are simply intended to clarify the legislation for all public post-secondary institutions and to reconfirm the government's intended policy in this area.

L. Krog: Well, it's slowly inching out, slowly inching out — clarify policy, understanding, whatever. I guess the obvious question is….

This is still before the courts. Barbour v. The University of British Columbia is still before the courts. It is still a live legal action. If the minister is so absolutely convinced that the government is right — that under the college act, these institutions have the power to impose fines — why is the government bringing in this legislative change? Why isn't the government simply allowing the appeal to be heard and presumably, if the minister is
[ Page 1370 ]
so confident, the B.C. Court of Appeal to agree with the government on this?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Without the retroactive provisions, the institutions could possibly have to pay refunds from within their operating budgets and increase fees for students, negatively impacting programs and services for students and increasing the financial burden on students. This unexpected expense for those institutions would also negatively affect institutions' financial position.

It was felt that it was not reasonable or fair for students to bear the unreasonable burden of the expenses of people who chose not to obey the parking regulations.

L. Krog: I appreciate that the case is about the money. I understand that. All I'm simply asking the minister to acknowledge is what is patently obvious. Instead of letting a court decide this…. A court has made a decision, the government has appealed, and the matter is still a live action before the court. Mr. Barbour, as a representative plaintiff, has entitlement to proceed with his case.

The effect of this legislation, and we will get to the appropriate sections…. The effect of the change in this provision is to make lawful that which a court has decided is not lawful. Isn't that, in fact, simply what we're talking about?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia are in the process of being appealed, and the case is before the courts. So I will not comment specifically on that case.

However, in general terms, it means that fines and penalties which were appropriately imposed on institutions' property at any time in the past are valid. It also means that despite the court decision, institutions will not be required to refund previously paid parking fines.

L. Krog: I sense the presence of the ghost of the late, lamented Attorney General, a man for whom I had great respect, who might have given me a very straight answer on this question. "It's now before the courts." We've just spent — what? — ten or 15 minutes discussing the very court case which I enunciated, I think, in the second or third of my questions here today. The minister's response is, "It's before the courts," so we're not going to get an answer.

I'm glad the minister has acknowledged that the matter is before the courts. That's certainly a first step in this. But what I'd like the minister to acknowledge is that a court has said that the law means, presently interpreted by a court — the institution in our society to which we look for direction with respect to our laws….

The court has said: "You've illegally collected fines. You have illegally collected fines in our post-secondary system." This amendment, the effect of it, is to legalize the collection of fines by colleges. I don't want to spend the whole day here on this question. I'd like the minister to just acknowledge that what the government is doing by bringing in this amendment is acknowledging that, to date, these institutions have been illegally collecting fines.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is no, that is not our position.

[1505]

L. Krog: Well, if that's not the government's position — and I think there are only two positions you can take in this matter — I'd like the minister to stand up and tell me now: what exactly is the government's position on the decision in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia? Is the court wrong?

Hon. M. Stilwell: To reiterate, as it is before the courts, I won't comment on that specific case.

L. Krog: Well, this isn't Salome and the seven veils But when you've pulled the veils off, the rules say you don't get to put them back on again. That's a fairly well-recognized principle in our system. If there's any privilege to be honoured here, or positioned by this government that it's before the courts, that was waived several questions ago.

Again, my question to the minister is: will she simply acknowledge that the B.C. Supreme Court has said that the collection of fines was illegal and that that is the purpose of having this amendment before this House?

The Chair: I would caution the member on the repetitive nature of this debate.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Although the questions do feel repetitive, I actually forget what it was. Could you ask it again?

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, I'm sure the minister isn't showing contempt for your suggestion that my questions are repetitive by asking me to repeat the question. I'm sure that wasn't the minister's intention.

It's a fairly simple proposition. The B.C. Supreme Court has said that under the existing legislation, you cannot collect fines. We have an amendment before this House that authorizes the collection of fines. Now, either the court is right, and the government can't — and that's why we're here — or if the court is wrong, and the government is right, why don't they let the appeal proceed?

Hon. M. Stilwell: While we disagree with the court's decision, we do respect it. But to clear up doubt and ambiguity around these circumstances, we had two choices. One was to appeal; one was to bring the amendment forward. We chose the latter.
[ Page 1371 ]

L. Krog: I want to thank the minister for the clarity of her response at long last, and I appreciate it. So the minister has essentially acknowledged that by this amendment, we are circumventing a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court.

Hon. M. Stilwell: No, what we're doing is attempting to clarify the legislation.

L. Krog: Well, I appreciate that we're on section 7, but we can't pretend that we don't know what's in the following sections. It's pretty clear that this legislation will be retroactive. It won't be just clarifying. It will be covering the fiscal posteriors, if you will, of various college institutions.

Perhaps the minister could answer, with respect to this legislation: how much money are we talking about at the college level in terms of fines that would potentially otherwise have to be returned pursuant to the class action?

[1510]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I don't have the information breaking down colleges or universities, but the aggregate total for all post-secondary institutions is approximately $10 million.

L. Krog: So we could effectively characterize these amendments as the $10 million question, then. What this is really about is ensuring that a successful class action will, in fact, not be allowed to proceed.

Perhaps the minister didn't get the intent of my question. I'm asking the minister…. The real intent of this amendment is to ensure that the legitimate rights of litigants who have been successful so far will in fact be, if you will, voided by virtue of this legislation?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, our intent was to clarify the legislation and ensure that taxpayers and students were not on the hook for parking fines of other people at post-secondary institutions that we believed and intended to have the authority to charge parking fines.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear. I think I heard the minister acknowledge, frankly, that we're here because government didn't pass legislation that appropriately created the authority to impose fines.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, the intention of the legislation was to give the post-secondary institutions that we've been discussing the authority to charge those fines. It was our intention and our understanding that they could, and this simply clarifies that indeed they do.

L. Krog: Well, it does a little more than clarify. What it does is authorize moneys that have been declared by the Supreme Court to have been illegally collected to in fact be retained by the institutions that illegally collected them. Isn't that, in fact, what's happening here?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Making amendments to the legislation retroactively will ensure that current and future users will not be negatively impacted by institutions having to pay back fines that were collected in the past. Government's view is that the post-secondary institutions always had the authority over these matters, the power to make decisions about what happens on their campuses to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all students and staff and visitors to the institution.

These amendments clarify authority over matters such as parking regulation, which the government intended them to have.

L. Krog: Well, with great respect, I understand it may have been the government's intention. But the reality is that institutions have illegally collected money and are now asking the Legislature to approve the picking of the pockets of the students and others who paid fines that they weren't lawfully required to pay. Isn't that, in fact, what's happening here?

[1515]

Hon. M. Stilwell: At the risk of reiterating ad nauseam, until the recent court ruling, the ministry and institutions believed the existing legislation was clear that it gave universities full authority to collect the fines and penalties as part of their regular enforcement activities. Again, if the amendments were not made retroactive, it is estimated that this would cost our institutions over $10 million for refunds — money that would have to come from important programs and services provided to students.

L. Krog: What the minister is admitting is that we're going to take the $10 million from the students who paid fines that they didn't legally have to pay. That's essentially the choice we're making.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, no, that's not the case. What we're doing is clarifying that the intent was that the universities and colleges would have legal authority to enforce parking fines.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, I take it that what this means is that you can't be imprisoned. Is that the import of the addition of the amendment in section 8?

Hon. M. Stilwell: This amendment is made because it is unnecessary for institutions to rely on the Offence Act for enforcement of rules and bylaws made under the
[ Page 1372 ]
authority of the act. Proceedings relating to enforcement of such rules and bylaws are administrative in nature rather than penal.

This provision is included in order to align the College and Institute Act with the University Act provision, to similar effect.

L. Krog: What I think the hon. minister is saying is that we can illegally take your money with retroactive legislation, but in future we won't be able to imprison you if you park too long. Is that the effect of this?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is no. This never gave power to imprison someone, and we never thought that it did or intended that it would.

L. Krog: Is this another section where we're clarifying, so that we're really clear now, that we won't be able to imprison anyone? Is that the intent of this section — that we're again covering up for a previous error?

Hon. M. Stilwell: No.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could just explain: why is this amendment before the House? What exactly does it do?

[1520]

Hon. M. Stilwell: This provision adds a section within the College and Institute Act to exclude the application of section 5 of the Offence Act to the College and Institute Act. Section 5 of the Offence Act is the general provision specifying that a person who contravenes an enactment, whether by committing a forbidden act or omitting to do a required act, commits an offence against the enactment.

L. Krog: Is the minister's answer, then, telling me…? And I'm very obtuse today, I suspect….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Just today, one of my colleagues unkindly suggested.

The Offence Act won't apply. We get to fine you, but the Offence Act doesn't apply to anything you do if you breach that. This is to clarify the law. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The addition is to clarify that section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, what we're really saying is that there may have been an implication in the existing legislation that the Offence Act applied under the college act, and now we're clarifying that in fact it doesn't apply, that you're not subject to imprisonment for breach.

Hon. M. Stilwell: In section 8 we are clarifying both the original and current intent of the act and also making it uniform across all four acts, really, that we're amending.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

L. Krog: So just to confirm, this section is to ensure that Thompson Rivers University has the same capacity as a natural person of full capacity. In other words, they can buy, sell, be born through statute, die through statute, whatever — the same kind of principle as applies with respect to corporations in British Columbia now. Do we give them a heart and a head, not necessarily a conscience?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Thompson Rivers University always had the powers of a natural person, and we are simply clarifying the language again.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, again, it's the same provision with respect to 9 as in 11.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Yes, it's the same issue.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

[1525]

L. Krog: This is the section that again arises out of the Barbour v. The University of British Columbia decision, which gives the university clarified powers to in fact impose requirements in relation to parking and property, etc.; to remove, immobilize or impound vehicles — in other words, to do all of those things which, in the minister's earlier answer, she said everyone thought the institution had an ability to do but that the Supreme Court of British Columbia said the university didn't have the power to do. So this is in fact designed to have the same impact, if you will, as section 7.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Yes.

L. Krog: Just to confirm again. This will protect the University of British Columbia from the problems related to the return of fines if the Barbour case either stood or was successful at the B.C. Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, should it go that far.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]
[ Page 1373 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Indeed. Again, as in the previously discussed sections, this clarifies that the university has the authority outlined more specifically in section 12.

S. Simpson: One of the critical issues around this section, as it relates to the court case that was the motivation for much of this, clearly is the issue around whether it's appropriate for the government to be interfering in what is an ongoing court case.

The minister will have received a letter dated October 8 from Sharon Matthews, who is counsel for Mr. Barbour and for a number of the class action litigants. I'd just read a brief section of this letter, where Ms. Matthews says: "Apparently, notwithstanding your government's consistently stated opinion that it will not comment on or interfere with matters that are before the court, it has chosen to not only interfere with this matter but to pass legislation which, if valid, eradicates the rights of the class members as found by the trial judge which are the subject of the current appeal."

Now, clearly the legislation hasn't passed yet, but should it pass, that will be the effect of this. My question to the minister is: does the minister agree with Ms. Matthews that that is essentially the effect of what this bill does, and if not, could she explain why not?

[1530]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, we disagree with Ms. Matthews. While we respect the courts obviously, to clear up the doubt and ambiguity we had two choices. We could appeal, which may or may not have cleared up the ambiguity around the powers of the university, or we could amend the acts, as we have chosen to do.

S. Simpson: This government has on a number of occasions talked about the sanctity of the courts and has used that as a shield to protect itself from transparency on any number of issues that we could talk about here for hours and hours. But the question here is this particular instance.

My question to the minister is this. When there is an appeal in process now, why has the government chosen to introduce this legislation now rather than let the court system exhaust itself — let the appeal proceed and let a judgment be made on the appeal — and at that point let the Legislature and let the government decide whether it has to take some action? What is the rationale or the reason for breaching the court process, for interfering in the British Columbia court process by doing this when there is in fact an appeal in process?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Once again I have to reiterate that we had two choices we could have pursued to clear up the doubt and ambiguity, which we felt was important so that students would not face the negative impact on programs and their costs. We chose the path of amendment.

S. Simpson: Could the minister explain why it took what is an extraordinary decision, I would say, to interfere in the court process in the middle of that process when an appeal is moving forward? That's an extraordinary decision for this cabinet and this government to take.

Could the minister explain in some detail? It would be good to know what the logic is or if there's any rationale to this — what the logic is for not allowing the appeal to proceed, to be heard, with a judgment — which would not, as I understand it, at all have excluded the government from taking another extraordinary path of retroactivity afterwards. What is the minister's decision?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The government concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interests of British Columbians, helping to ensure that students' fees and public investment in post-secondary education are directed to where they benefit students.

S. Simpson: The decision to do this…. Clearly, the minister had discussions with UBC. I mean, we've heard about all the people that were hired as lobbyists by these institutions to come and lobby the government for this extraordinary legislation.

My question to the minister is this. Did the minister take the time even once to sit down and talk to the people who are engaged in this class action, to understand their side of this issue and, in fact, to see whether they could put a balanced solution in place rather than this decision?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I did not meet with the plaintiffs.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could explain why she believes it's okay to meet with one side in this issue, the side that lost in the court, yet it's not okay to meet with the other side and try to find some kind of balanced resolution to this rather than ramming this legislation through.

[1535]

Hon. M. Stilwell: The issue was brought to my attention by the Research Universities Council. As previously stated, it was the full intent and understanding of the government that the universities had the power to enforce parking fines. For that reason, the government concluded that the proposed amendments were in the best interests of British Columbians, helping to ensure that students' fees and public investment in post-secondary education are directed to where they benefit the students.

S. Simpson: That may be the understanding, but clearly it's not the law as far as the courts are concerned. The courts made a pretty clear decision in this. We would have seen what would happen under appeal, except for this extraordinary intervention and interference by this minister and government.
[ Page 1374 ]

This is a government that has purported to have respect for the law and the courts. This is hardly respect for the courts and the process of the courts — to intervene in this way in the middle of a proceeding.

Just one last comment in relation to this. Again, just a brief excerpt from the October 8 letter from Ms. Matthews, the counsel for Mr. Barbour and the litigants. In this, Ms. Matthews says: "We urge you to give a sober second thought to the retroactive nature of this legislation prior to it being passed. The B.C. government needs to respect the judiciary and show that respect. It also needs to treat all constituents with an even hand. The class members are your constituents. Please meet with them and hear their views."

Before this legislation passes, will the minister meet with those members of that class action group?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Meeting with the plaintiffs is not necessary. The government has clearly concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interests of British Columbians.

S. Simpson: I understand that consultation and talking to anybody outside the closed cabinet room is a unique thing for this minister and this government. It doesn't happen.

Why on earth does this minister think that this group of people who convinced a judge, through their case, of the merit of their argument and won that case…? Why on earth does this minister think that she doesn't have any obligation to talk to those people when, in fact, she's ripping up a court decision here? It's a remarkable decision — certainly not the decision to be made by a thoughtful legislator.

Will the minister commit to meet with these people?

[1540]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I've answered the question.

S. Simpson: This is not necessarily a question, because questions aren't something that get answered on this — clearly. We've seen that.

All I would say is that the minister certainly has disappointed these people, has disappointed any fair-minded person in this province, has shown a bias that is remarkable and has in fact disappointed due process.

I really, really would urge the minister to give this some of that sober second thought that's talked about in this letter. What the minister is doing is more than disappointing. It's really shameful for a democratic process, and she should consider that.

L. Krog: It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that you hear both sides in any matter, and the minister in this government sits in a unique position in this. This was a decision of the courts involving private plaintiffs and, arguably, private defendants. What this legislation also does is clarify that colleges and universities have the capacities of a natural person, and with the capacity of a natural person come the responsibilities that apply to that as well.

If you apply that principle fairly, the minister here through this legislation is going to override a decision of our judicial system. Our independent, independently appointed judiciary is going to be overridden by this legislation.

It is clear, unless the minister wishes to deny it today, that this government has met with representatives of our post-secondary education institutions and has come to the conclusion that they should be supported in their losing court battle without ever, it appears, having taken a minute of her time or this government's time to meet with the plaintiffs who happen to represent thousands of British Columbians who are natural persons at law.

My question to the minister is simply this. Why can she not take time out of her schedule, as she's clearly met with representatives of the post-secondary educational institutions of this province, to meet with the representatives of the plaintiffs in this action?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, it relates back to the choice that the government had between appealing to clear up the doubt and ambiguity around this issue, which may or may not have accomplished that, and amending the acts, which we chose to do.

L. Krog: Well, I'm just not sure I understand the minister. She said the government had the choice of appealing. I thought it was the post-secondary educational institutions which were under fire here. They are natural persons at law. They are independent, presumably, of government, apart from the fact that their boards are appointed by this government.

It wasn't the government's "decision" to appeal this legislation. This government wasn't a party to the legal proceeding in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia, to my knowledge. If I'm wrong, the minister, I'm sure, will correct me with the assistance of her staff.

Again, my question is: why, then, didn't the minister on behalf of the government, who's not a party to this proceeding, take the time to meet with constituents who have, according to the courts, equal rights and indeed superior rights when it comes to the matter of being fined for parking on a university campus?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The issue was brought to our attention by the Research Universities Council. As previously stated, it was our understanding and the full intent of the act that the institutions in question have the powers to enforce parking regulations.

L. Krog: To confirm, is it this government's practice in future court cases, then, that they will step in on
[ Page 1375 ]
behalf of the institutional defendants but not meet with the individual plaintiffs in actions? Is this a government policy, and if so, could the minister articulate it for this House?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I won't speculate about future cases.

[1545]

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm that this section relates back to section 10. It relates back to the clarification, if you will, that a university has "the power and capacity of a natural person of full capacity." I take it there is some concern about the existing legislation, and that's the sole reason this is being passed. Or is there some other purpose or intent behind this particular amendment?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The purpose is simply to clarify the intent of the act as it is.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

L. Krog: We have just approved a section that provides that a university has the capacity of a person of full capacity. Now we're amending a section to state: "For the purposes of carrying out and advancing, directly or indirectly, the purposes of a university, a university may acquire, by gift, purchase or any other manner, and hold, property of any kind."

I guess I need an explanation as to why we have to do that. If a university has the capacity of a natural person, then it goes without saying that they've got the ability to receive, acquire by gift or purchase or hold property of any kind. I mean, that's an absolute given. So what's the point of this section? Is there something I'm missing, or is there some other intent to this?

Hon. M. Stilwell: My understanding is that this clarifies the public law powers under the University Act versus their private law powers.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

L. Krog: My reading of this section, which is fairly lengthy, is that the government is asking the Legislature now to retroactively approve the collection and the retention of all the moneys that the post-secondary institutions of this province have collected by way of fines at a time when they weren't authorized by law to do so.

Hon. M. Stilwell: To reiterate, the intent was to clarify that, indeed, the colleges and universities have the authority to enforce parking fines.

[1550]

The government concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interests of British Columbians, helping to ensure student fees and public investment in post-secondary education are directed to where they benefit the students.

L. Krog: As delighted as I am to hear the minister read from her script again, it doesn't quite answer the question which is obviously raised in section 16(2), where it says: "Despite any pre-amendment provision and despite any decision of a court to the contrary made before or after the coming into force of this section."

That indicates to me that this is not something about clarification. This is a retroactive change of the law. The minister can try and maintain the pretence in this House that it isn't, but in fact this is an acknowledgment by that very provision in section 16(2) that despite a decision of the court, we're retroactively allowing the retention of these fines.

I would ask the minister to acknowledge once and for all — another opportunity to simply say — that this government's legislation, the existing statute, didn't authorize the collection of these fines, and this amendment, in particular section 16(2), directly acknowledges that a court has said it was illegal to do so, and we are now making it legal to retain those moneys.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Making the amendments to the legislation retroactively will ensure that current and future users will not be negatively impacted by institutions having to pay back fines that were collected in the past.

L. Krog: I don't know if the minister has ever heard these words quoted to her, but this was the Leader of the Official Opposition at one point. He said: "It is critical that we maintain everyone's rights in this province, that we not act retroactively. Retroactivity sends all of the wrong messages to everyone that has been involved."

That was the then Leader of the Official Opposition, now the Premier and First Minister of the province of British Columbia, the hon. minister's leader and Premier. So I'm just wondering: does she agree that it's wrong to pass retroactive legislation?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, in this instance we had two choices to clarify the ambiguity surrounding this issue. We chose the amendment.

L. Krog: I don't think there was anything terribly ambiguous about the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision. It was pretty straightforward. There wasn't the
[ Page 1376 ]
authority and power to do this. The court said no, and now the government is before the Legislature asking for passage of legislation that will retroactively make legal the retention of moneys that were illegally collected.

The former Attorney General said so elegantly at one point that "statute after statute, order-in-council after order-in-council, fee after fee and regulation after regulation for over a quarter of a century will be retroactively repaired, rewritten, rehabilitated, restored, revitalized, given new life. It will happen in a flash. And 26 years of government, were it to collect revenue from British Columbians — illegally, I should say — will be made whole."

That was the hon. Geoff Plant. He was the former Attorney General. That's what he said when he was in opposition. Now we're wearing the government's hat, and suddenly the rules have changed.

I'm asking once again for the minister to acknowledge that, in fact, a court has said that what the post-secondary institutions in this province did by collecting those fines was illegal, and we are being asked to retroactively repair that mistake so the post-secondary institutions can retain funds illegally collected.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The government's view was that the public post-secondary institutions always had the authority over these matters, the power to make decisions about what happens on their campuses and to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all students, staff and visitors to the institution. These amendments clarify authority over matters such as parking regulation, which the government intended them to have.

Section 16 approved.

[1555]

Interjection.

L. Krog: I'm so flattered.

On section 17.

L. Krog: Just so I can clarify for my own purposes, I take it that these amendments are necessary under section 17 because the government hasn't yet proclaimed the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. First, let me introduce Andrea Buzbuzian to assist us through these sections.

That's partially correct, but — as the member, I think, probably realizes from reading beyond — the original act, which has not been proclaimed, deals with, broadly speaking, two issues. Whilst the government is not in a position to proceed with proclamation of one component of that relating to adult guardianship — and I won't be coy about why; it is a fiscal situation associated with the cost of moving forward — there is great interest on the government's part and on the part of people in the community to give effect to the planning-directives component of that bill.

So virtually all of what's contained here is designed to delink those two components of the act, allow proclamation for the second part dealing with planning instruments, planning directives, and maintain or retain the old committeeship provisions from the Patients Property Act.

L. Krog: To the minister: he mentioned fiscal implications and problems, and I wonder if he could give me some idea of what he's talking about and what the range of issues are that are preventing this, because the legal community has been waiting for this for a very long time. Arguably, they and potential clients and people who will benefit from the passage of the statute are in limbo as well.

I would like to hear from the minister: what exactly are the problems that are holding that up?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's not just the legal community. I recall the number of years that went into crafting the piece of legislation, the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act. It engaged interest and involvement by a wide range of interested parties, so there is, I think, going to be some disappointment, as the member points out, that only a portion — a significant portion, the incapacity planning instruments portion — of this is moving ahead.

I think the member's specific question, though, related to what the impediments are. Broadly speaking, they relate to advice we've received from the Public Guardian and Trustee, which says that to give proper effect to the guardianship provisions is going to — in his, I think, conservative estimate — involve the hiring of up to 40 additional FTEs. He and the government are simply not in a position to provide the financing for that right now.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

L. Krog: To the minister: this is an amendment to the definition of "health care provider" and "qualified health care provider," and it's an expansion. Again, is this one of those transitional issues that we're stuck with because we now have to widen the definition in order to cover off medical practitioners who aren't mentioned in the act?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: The intention here is to replicate the definition and meaning as it exists in the Adult Guardianship Act, and that's necessary because the
[ Page 1377 ]
specific reference, based on what's happening, won't be valid until proclamation does take place.

L. Krog: As I understand it then…. I'm not trying to rush through these sections. That, I take it, obviously, is the purpose with respect to section 19, and likewise section 20. All of these are necessary to change existing legislation that's on the books that is, in fact, changed by the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, which hasn't yet been proclaimed.

So in order to make the system function and allow provisions, particularly relating to advanced health care directives and things of that nature, we've got to do all of this in the meantime, until we're in a position to hire 40 full-time FTEs, potentially.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is, I think, an accurate description of sections 17 to 39. Just to look ahead, I can advise the member that sections 40 to 51 are included in anticipation of a subsequent proclamation of the remaining sections of the Adult Guardianship Act so that it would not be necessary to come back before the House and undo what sections 17 through 39 are doing.

L. Krog: With the indulgence of the Chair, there was a fair bit of controversy around the advanced health care directives, which the Attorney General will certainly recall even though he wasn't the minister responsible at the time. Has there been full consultation with the involved groups with respect to sections 17 through to 39? And if so, what kind of consultation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I don't want to be coy again with the member. We did not have extensive discussions around the delinking exercise that I spoke of earlier. I think the member will accept that there were, and knows that there were, extensive discussions and consultations relating to the substantive provisions.

But we've, quite frankly, been wrestling with the question of how to move ahead on the incapacity, planning instruments, advanced directives and enduring powers of attorney — the planning component of this — and recognize that there will be disappointment on the part of those who were hoping proclamation would capture all facets of the bill.

L. Krog: Just so I'm fairly clear, what we have, then — and I don't mean it terribly unkindly, notwithstanding my somewhat sarcastic nature on occasion — is a stopgap measure again, which will allow for implementation of legislation that was reached after some controversy around adult advanced health care directives, which will allow for its implementation only, without dealing with the rest of the statute itself. And it is for that reason that we haven't gone back, if you will, to speak to the various interested groups.

Was there any kind of advice sought at all? I understand that I perhaps shouldn't have used the term "extensive." But was there any advice at all sought from any of these, or is the minister satisfied, after consultation with the ministry, that these are, in fact, what we would call inconsequential matters in terms of principle and public policy — that this is very much a legal exercise?

[1605]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wouldn't call it inconsequential. Any time this House has passed a bill — and we are now delayed, forcibly delayed, in being able to implement it in its entirety — especially a measure like the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Act, which was the product of extensive discussion, I think that's disappointing, quite frankly. It's disappointing for us, and I know it's disappointing for others, and there have been discussions.

I can say this to the member. Most of the submissions, because I think there has been an awareness…. The act was passed in 2007, so it's been a couple of years. The vast majority of those submissions articulated a concern, notwithstanding the pressures and the fiscal difficulties, that the portion of this that does not bestow costs upon the Crown not be held up in the wake of those difficulties.

So we've certainly heard from people in that respect. What the member and the House has before it today is our attempted response to address those concerns.

L. Krog: I wouldn't like to think the Attorney General was suggesting that I didn't say they were of consequence. In terms of any change to the policy as enunciated in the statute, which is not going to be proclaimed, there is no change in policy here. We are doing technical, and highly technical matters, and undertaking them in order to allow for the proclamation of some portions, but not all.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member's question/statement is: are the substantive provisions of the original act changed? The answer is no.

Sections 18 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

L. Krog: Just to be clear, this is as obvious as it looks. We simply have to retain the provision because we haven't yet proclaimed the legislation.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that's a fair comment. From sections 17 to 39, we have altered the reference from the guardianship act to the Patients Property Act. Sections 40 through 51 look ahead to the day when the remaining provisions of the guardianship act are proclaimed and
[ Page 1378 ]
return the reference from the Patients Property Act and committeeship to the guardianship act and the concept of guardianship.

L. Krog: Then, if I may, with the indulgence of the Chair, with respect to sections 40 through to 51, the more important question, I suspect — given what I've heard from the Attorney General today — is that we have a fiscal issue, 40 FTEs, that is holding up the proclamation of the entire statute.

We have legislation that…. I think, by and large, those who took an interest in these kinds of issues — or certainly would be forced to take an interest in these kinds of issues by virtue of age and infirmity — will be somewhat disappointed that we are not moving ahead as quickly.

Therefore, I would appreciate it if the Attorney General can perhaps give the House some idea, notwithstanding the fiscal uncertainty which we all face, when the legislation that was passed two years ago might indeed be proclaimed — given, in addition, that it represents a fairly significant change in the law and will certainly have an impact on practitioners and people whose advice will be sought with respect to this.

The process will take some time. We certainly know that we're looking at roughly 18 months, I believe, before the Wills, Estates and Succession Act is proclaimed. Can the Attorney General, in light of my comments, give us any idea when we're going to see this two-year-old legislation fully and completely proclaimed?

[1610]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure I can. But I hope the member and those who will be disappointed will take some measure of comfort from the fact that sections 40 through 51 are deliberately included, firstly, to expedite that process when we are in a position fiscally to do so and, secondly, to take it as a sign that proclamation of the remaining sections of the Adult Guardianship Act very much remains a priority.

Sections 40 to 52 inclusive approved.

On section 53.

L. Krog: This is such an interesting provision. I'm wondering what particular set of circumstances would have led to the necessity for defining "lawyer" as a member of the Law Society of British Columbia. Was there some court challenge? Was there some issue around an appointment? In other words, what's the explanation behind the necessity of this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member and the House know Neil Reimer, who has joined us for this portion of the discussion.

The section, I think, needs to be read in the context of a couple of the subsequent sections where, in adding a couple of people to the Judges Compensation Commission, we actually define in the reverse who cannot participate. That's where the specific definition of lawyer…. The idea being, again looking ahead, that the additional two participants would be lay people, not members of the bench or bar.

Sections 53 and 54 approved.

On section 55.

L. Krog: Again, this is the section that simply limits, if you will, the parties that can be appointed by specifying that two of them on each commission must be persons who are not lawyers.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

Sections 55 to 58 inclusive approved.

On section 59.

L. Krog: With respect to sections 59 through 64, again, these appear all consequential on the fact that we're stuck with the problem that we haven't proclaimed the adult guardianship legislation, and therefore, we have these transitional provisions until we do.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is an accurate description of sections 56 through 64 of this bill.

Sections 59 to 65 inclusive approved.

On section 66.

L. Krog: The purpose of this section, as I read it, is to give sheriffs powers and duties established in the act in addition to the common-law understanding of what a sheriff could and couldn't do. I'm just wondering: what's the purpose of these sections, and does it have anything to do with the Olympics?

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer to the second part of the question is that this has nothing to do with the Olympics. It is not triggered by any Olympic-related activity and is not designed to be in anticipation of, or in response to.

I think what has triggered this…. I can't cite the specific case for the member, but back in around 2006 there was an altercation involving a sheriff and an assault that moved from within the courthouse out onto the steps and into the street. There it became a jurisdictional issue about whether or not the sheriff maintained his or
[ Page 1379 ]
her status as a peace officer as that altercation moved beyond the interior of the courthouse.

That triggered an investigation or examination of the common law and codified authority that accrues to sheriffs and led to the conclusion that the duties of sheriffs, the kinds of things they are engaged in — be it searching of prisoners, the obtaining of sometimes physical evidence from people that are in custody — required something of a detailed examination and updating. That's what these three or four sections relate to.

Section 66 approved.

On section 67.

L. Krog: Referring back to his very helpful answer in section 66, I see that we've added the definition with respect to court facility area over which presumably the sheriffs will have jurisdiction. It says: "'court facility area' means (a) the grounds or other areas belonging to or used in connection with a court facility, and (b) the roads, streets or lanes immediately adjacent to a court facility or to the grounds or other areas referred to in paragraph (a)."

I'm just going to give an example. The altercation starts in the courthouse, and we've got a fleet-of-foot individual. Does this essentially mean that the sheriff has no jurisdiction to hold him if he's run across the street, quite literally, and therefore, we're hoping that some police officer will be available to detain him?

If my interpretation is roughly correct, is there any reason to limit it to roads, streets or lanes immediately adjacent? I mean, if it's a pursuit situation and public safety is an issue — and I can imagine a situation where public safety would be an issue where the individual is escaping — is there any reason to restrict it to laneways immediately adjacent? Or is there, in fact, some further legislative section that I'm not aware of that says a sheriff could literally chase you all the way down the street and still have jurisdiction?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can, by the way, advise the member — my notes have the citation — that the case was Regina v. Lum in 2006, and it may have inadvertently created an incorrect impression.

[1620]

The authority that the member refers to — to be in hot pursuit, for example — already exists under the Criminal Code by virtue of the designation of a peace officer. These provisions are designed to ensure that there's no doubt that in a situation, for example, where a controversial case or a controversial accused is attending at a courthouse and there are demonstrations, the authority of the sheriff to administer to the security of the overall justice facility extends beyond the interior of the building to the parking lot, to the roads.

L. Krog: Then basically, in other words, we're not going to be relying on having to get the police there to stop some dramatic activity. We're simply ensuring that sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, have the ability to continue to act to preserve peace and order in the streets immediately adjacent to the courthouse.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

Sections 67 to 70 inclusive approved.

On section 71.

L. Krog: My understanding of this section is that it repeals the minister's powers to make regulations under section 41 of the Interpretation Act. I take it, then, following on to section 72, that it means it has to be cabinet now that makes regulations. Is that a correct understanding?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is right. The minister has been stripped of this authority, and it has been vested in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, the cabinet. That, I'm told, is consistent, based on advice we've received from legislative counsel, when discussing regulations relating to powers of this sort. The practice now more commonly is to vest that authority in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as opposed to line ministers.

L. Krog: Notwithstanding, the opposition — as it always does, whoever the opposition is — believes it has all the answers. I take it, then, that you could arguably say that this is a progressive provision and change to ensure a wider consideration of change by the whole cabinet, as opposed to a minister acting alone.

Hon. M. de Jong: Knowing as I do the confidence that this member has in the judgment of the cabinet, I'm inclined to agree.

L. Krog: I simply wanted to clarify for the record that my confidence in the system doesn't necessarily extend to this cabinet.

Section 71 approved.

On section 72.

L. Krog: This is the general regulatory section, I take it, and that is to substitute the power to make regulation by placing it in the hands of cabinet. Is there any substantive change from the power that the minister on his or her own had prior to this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to make sure I answer the question accurately. I think it is fair to say that the….

[1625]
[ Page 1380 ]

We'll take an example. Section 15(2)(b) allows for the creation of regulations relating to the powers that sheriffs have. I don't believe there's a comparable regulation-making power today. So in a sense, that is new.

L. Krog: I'm sure the Attorney General, with the assistance of his able staff, will be able to assist me in my understanding. I read this section to provide that in addition to the traditional roles that sheriffs may have performed — and having clarified that if they start it in the courthouse, they can finish it on the street and those sorts of things — this gives the power to the cabinet to establish additional duties and responsibilities.

Would those additional duties and responsibilities, for instance, extend to the provision of security for the Olympic Games or public festivals or things of that nature, and if so, are there any such duties contemplated?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to make sure I answer accurately again. I think some sheriffs are going to be involved in Olympic-related activity, but they will derive whatever status or standing or authority they have elsewhere and not by virtue of the provisions we're dealing with in the House today.

L. Krog: I appreciate that it's always good in government never to close too many doors unnecessarily. But coming back to this section, it says in a very broad way: "establishing additional duties and responsibilities that may or must be undertaken by sheriffs." I'm not sure at law that they are limited back to the concept of being sheriffs and what they historically do and what they're empowered to do under the act.

I'm just wondering. Does this section mean that cabinet can now establish duties that the average person wouldn't have contemplated as being duties to be carried out by a sheriff? And if so, what might those duties and responsibilities be, if indeed government is considering that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I think it's fair to say that the power created here would allow for a regulation that could take sheriffs into what today we would consider non-traditional sheriffs' activities.

There's nothing specifically contemplated, although checking…. Here's an example. I'm not sure the average person, to use the member's example, would consider this non-traditional, because it's quite specific to what happens within a lockup.

For example, obtaining a court-ordered DNA sample is something that, arguably, sheriffs may or may not have authority to do today. The regulation power here would allow the cabinet to enumerate that specifically as a power. I think that is being contemplated, in fact — that they would have that specific authority.

L. Krog: To give an example, I believe that in some jurisdictions the sheriffs actually do the highway patrol, the traffic patrol. They issue the fines. They stop the speeders. They do that kind of thing.

[1630]

My interpretation, and I may well be wrong, of this section is that the government, if this passes, could authorize that kind of activity by sheriffs. I wonder if the Attorney General can tell me if I'm wrong or right or somewhere in between.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, they sure have that authority in Rincon county, Georgia, and I can attest to that personally.

Nothing like that is contemplated. But I don't want to get into a long, drawn-out debate, because I think the authority here is pretty wide and, I suppose, could be utilized at some point following all of the discussions and consultations that would take place. But I want to assure the member at this stage that that is not something that I or the government have turned our minds to.

L. Krog: Believe me, I'm not trying to box the Attorney General or ask whether they've contemplated it or not. I simply want to clarify the purposes of this debate because, frankly, one of my constituents — I don't know actually whether they're one of my constituents — wrote to my office and said, "Why don't we do what other jurisdictions do," and have the sheriffs do what he regarded as lower-level work that, of course, the police say is important because we catch some big-time criminals when we're doing the traffic stuff.

I just want to confirm that this legislation and this particular section would, in fact, allow the government to do that without having to bring it back to this chamber. In other words, if next week — and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the government's contemplating this — the government said, "You know what? Difficult circumstances. We're going to get the sheriffs to do the traffic work. Now the RCMP contract is up, and away we go," I don't see anything here to stop that from happening. I just want to confirm that my interpretation is correct.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think my only caveat…. I don't know what's in the collective agreement, so I'm always cautious to preface any remarks and, again, emphasize that nothing on that scope is being contemplated. But the words are there that speak to the possibility in the future of regulations that would establish expanded or additional duties.

Section 72 approved.

On section 73.
[ Page 1381 ]

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could just explain why we've got section 73. Is there some issue about fees that have been collected that it needs to be retroactive?

Hon. M. de Jong: This dates back to a regulation that was created in the late 1980s. The officials have identified some ambiguity that relates to the authority around which the Public Guardian and Trustee collects fees for acting as a trustee under statute.

The statutes involved I can list for the member: the Estate Administration Act, the Insurance Act, the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, the Trustee Act, the Criminal Injury Compensation Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

Though nothing has arisen in a litigious sense yet, there is concern that the authority be clearly understood to exist for the collection of fees, and I think, by virtue of when the section is deemed to exist, it is deemed to have existed at the time of the original regulation in 1988.

Section 73 approved.

On section 74.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could just explain the effect of section 74. What's its purpose, and what will it actually do?

[1635]

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member. I meant to send this over.

When the original act was brought into force on, I think, January 1, 2009 — it was an OIC; order-in-council 792 — we missed a section.

Section 74 approved.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, I believe the former foreign secretary of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gromyko, was referred to as Old Iron Pants. Not every part of my anatomy is made of iron. I wonder if we might have a recess for five minutes, as I'm the lead on the opposition side on this.

The Chair: We'll reconvene at 20 to the hour.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

On section 75.

L. Krog: My understanding of this section is that it broadens the definition of "eligible supportive housing property" to include those that are funded by health authorities as well. It will have the effect of reducing assessed value of those properties to $2, resulting in nominal or, essentially, no property taxes. If that is correct, then what happens insofar as those municipalities are concerned with respect to any revenue that they might otherwise derive?

Hon. B. Bennett: For the member's benefit, the estimated municipal property tax revenue impacts by municipality are: New Westminster, $19,449; Port Coquitlam, $1,896; Penticton, $2,417; Salmon Arm, $3,614; city of Vancouver, $267,994; Victoria, $34,431; and Nanaimo, $4,512. I'm happy to provide that list to the member.

L. Krog: Just to clarify. That is, in fact, revenue that these municipal governments will indeed forgo. They'll not be compensated by any other arm or branch of government for the lost revenue.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct.

L. Krog: Just out of curiosity, were the municipal governments involved consulted before the presentation of this amendment?

[1645]

Hon. B. Bennett: Consultations were undertaken with UBCM, as we do. It's our practice to discuss with UBCM pretty much anything that the ministry is involved in that's going to have an impact on local government. So we did have those consultations, and I think it's fair to characterize the outcome of those discussions with UBCM…. They had no specific concerns about this particular amendment.

Sections 75 and 76 approved.

On section 77.

L. Krog: This, arguably, is the most substantive and dramatic section of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act before the House. My understanding is that this will have the effect, in the municipalities of Richmond, Vancouver and the resort municipality of Whistler, of giving them powers with respect to signage that they would otherwise not have, including the ability to enter, upon 24 hours' written notice.

With respect to the sign bylaws that presently exist in those two cities and the resort municipality, are their sign bylaws consistent? Can the minister advise the House?

Hon. B. Bennett: If you, hon. Chair, and the member would just indulge me for a couple of minutes, I can hopefully provide some context for these amendments that will help all of us understand what in fact is being proposed by the legislation.
[ Page 1382 ]

The member used a very interesting phrase. I don't suggest any criticism here, but I think it'll help us get to the bottom of what this is actually….

Interjections.

The Chair: Minister, could you just wait a minute.

Excuse me. Order, Members.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member used the phrase "powers that they would not otherwise have." That's an excellent way to start with our discussion of this particular amendment, because I think what the public is interested in and what I think the opposition has tried to bring out in this discussion is: what is different? What powers are going to be created with this legislation that local governments, these three local governments in particular, didn't have before?

I'd like to just sort of set the stage, if I could. Section 77 of Bill 13 deals with the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. That goes to the sign bylaws and the enforcement of the sign bylaws that these three municipalities have.

Section 78, which we'll deal with next, is about amendments that are being made to the Vancouver Charter. I'll deal with those, obviously, when we get there, if there are questions on those.

I think it's important for me to say this now, even though we're not on 78 yet. Essentially, the amendments to the Vancouver Charter will bring the Vancouver Charter into line with the Community Charter. That goes, to some extent, to the member's question.

This particular section of Bill 13 is bringing into force four different sections that will increase the powers of these three local governments in one particular way and only one particular way. Today, under the Community Charter and under the Vancouver Charter, these three municipalities are able to create bylaws, through the exercise of their powers as democratically elected mayors and council, to deal with the content of signs and to deal with the enforcement of their sign bylaws.

[1650]

They are, of course, subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So when they set their bylaws, I think it's fair to believe that they deal with matters like sign content in the context of there being a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that their sign bylaws, I think it's fair to say, would be expected to be not contrary to any of the provisions of the Charter. It is the three municipalities who create these sign bylaws and who are responsible for enforcing them.

As I said a second ago, the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter already allow the creation of sign bylaws. They also allow for bylaw enforcement officers in the three municipalities to enter onto private land to enforce these bylaws. So in other words, they can do that today. In addition to that, they also authorize entry into a private domicile — so entry onto private land, entry into private land, which would be a private domicile — to enforce sign bylaws.

Now obviously, there are restrictions around that in terms of needing warrants in some situations. Each community, each municipality, has a practice that they follow with regard to that. They are obviously loath to go onto private property and into a private domicile. It would have to be, I think, something pretty flagrant and a serious abuse or contravention of a sign bylaw. But the point is: they already have those powers.

This act — Bill 13, section 77 — does not create new powers for these three municipalities to enter onto private property or into private property to enforce sign bylaws. It does not.

What it does is it allows these municipalities to enforce those sign bylaws more swiftly than they could ordinarily do. I'll give you an example. Under the Community Charter, there is a series of steps that a local government must go through in order to enforce a sign bylaw on private property. I don't know if I have them right in front of me, but one of those steps includes offering the owner-occupant the opportunity to take the sign down. That particular step is not included in these amendments, so that step would be skipped.

The requirement for 24 hours' written notice already exists in the Community Charter. We're not creating, with this legislation, some new powers to go onto private property and enforce sign bylaws with only 24 hours' written notice, which is what I've heard day after day for the past two weeks in the media. It's just simply not true. That power already exists in the Community Charter.

So what authority is actually being created here with section 77 is quite narrow. It's true that language from the Community Charter was used in these amendments and does, I think — without being familiar with the Community Charter, without being familiar with the Vancouver Charter — create the appearance or create the assumption, I guess, that these are new powers. But they are not, with the exception of the three communities being able to enforce the sign bylaws a little quicker than what they ordinarily could do.

I would just say, in conclusion, in terms of setting the context…. Certainly, speaking personally and speaking on behalf of government, we are satisfied that the city of Richmond, the municipality of Whistler and the city of Vancouver all understand that their sign bylaw content and the manner in which they enforce their bylaws has to be in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we would expect them to enforce their bylaws in full compliance of the Charter and with respect for people's individual liberties and rights of free speech.

[1655]
[ Page 1383 ]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments in the defence of this legislation and the opportunity he's been given to defend the legislation. But we don't operate in a vacuum in this chamber. The news tells me that the city of Vancouver is contemplating changes to its sign bylaw because of concerns that have been publicly raised by leading editorialists, writers, citizens across this province.

Even on that most right wing of institutions, the Christy Clark call-in show on CKNW, this is what some of the callers had to say.

Lauralee: "Good afternoon. In fact, I was speaking about this in a business capacity two days ago in New Jersey." This is talking about the sign bylaw and the issues around it. "They heard about it. They couldn't believe it. They were just blown away. The legacy that Vancouver's going to leave with this Olympics isn't going to be the one they want to be leaving, if they don't smarten up."

A little later in the program, John: "Yeah, I don't agree with teachers telling kids to like or to not like the Olympics. I came from a country some 50 years ago. We didn't have free speech, free elections, and we ended up in a revolution. Now here they have the same darn thing coming. To tell me I can't put a sign up if I don't like the Olympics because some former mayor signed some agreement giving away my rights…."

The hostess of the show: "It's ridiculous." His response: "They're forgetting my franchise, which I bled for in another country. It's precious. They are just using my franchise because I voted them in." The host: "Yeah, since when?" John: "This will make me a serf or a sheep or a slave."

Now, I appreciate that the minister has clothed this in a modest bureaucratic change of no substance or importance. But conscious of the fact that the minister is a lawyer by profession, that he has some understanding of the way courts interpret legislation and why we stand in this chamber and talk as much as we do about words is because words have meaning.

When you see a specific provision that adds a part to a statute and says specifically, in what will be 32(3): "A person may only exercise the authority in subsection (1) to enter into a place that is occupied as a private dwelling if any of the following applies: (a) the occupier consents; (b) the specified municipality" — so it only applies to three municipalities — "has given the occupier at least 24 hours' written notice of the entry and the reasons for it."

If this already exists, and that's essentially what the minister has told me in this House, then why do we have this provision before us? I can only assume it is designed to have some meaning, some impact, that it is necessary to do so. I spent a great deal of time earlier discussing with the Minister of Advanced Education provisions and changes to the University Act and the college act, which she assured me over and over again weren't really necessary but they had to happen, because after all, there was a court decision.

I'm fairly satisfied that a court is going to pay some attention to this legislation, assuming it passes, and that it is intended to have some meaning. Can the minister tell me where the exact provision exists now that allows this, that "the specified municipality has given the occupier at least 24 hours' written notice of the entry and the reasons for it," and if it does, then why is this before the House?

Hon. B. Bennett: The wording exists in section 16(5) of the Community Charter.

I like the member opposite, and I know he's a lawyer as well, hon. Chair. I did listen to what the member said a couple of days ago about the War Measures Act and Japanese internment camps and shooting someone who pushes you. I know that this is considered by the opposition to be an opportunity to make politics. I don't really want to do that.

This is third reading of this legislation. I can't account for what people have said in the media. I can't account for what columnists have said about this, except to say that they have misunderstood the intention of this legislation, and they have actually misread it. They have not familiarized themselves with the Community Charter or the Vancouver Charter. Otherwise, they would not have been saying the things they were saying.

[1700]

L. Krog: I certainly appreciate the minister's comments, but the fact is that section 16 of the charter talks about the authority to enter on property, and it says very clearly:

"(1) This section applies in relation to an authority under this or another Act for a municipality to enter on property.

"(2) The authority may be exercised by officers or employees of the municipality or by other persons authorized by the council.

"(3) Subject to this section, the authority includes authority to enter on property, and to enter into property, without the consent of the owner or occupier.

"(4) Except in the case of an emergency, a person (a) may only exercise the authority at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, and (b) must take reasonable steps to advise the owner or occupier before entering the property" — and so on.

It goes on in section (5) to talk about how you have to give "24 hours' written notice" and the reasons for the entry, etc.

I understand all of that. But we are passing legislation specifically in relation only to signage. We're not operating in a vacuum here, as I said earlier. The existing bylaw in Vancouver refers to graffiti and the ability to remove it.

Yes, the minister tells this House that it'll be subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and yes, we expect the municipalities — the city of Vancouver, the city of Richmond and the resort municipality of Whistler — to comply with the law and the Charter.

But we're not here because section 16 of the existing Community Charter authorizes this. We're here because this government wants to ensure that there is specific
[ Page 1384 ]
power granted to those three specific municipalities in order to allow them to go into people's houses on 24 hours' notice and take down signage that they consider to be in breach of their bylaw.

I understand that it's all about trust and that it's all about intent. The minister said, you know: "They are loath to do it." I think they're the exact words that he used; I wrote it down: "They are loath to do it."

We all understand they're loath to do it. But when you pass legislation that authorizes things that are wrong, that offend the principles of privacy, the principles of private property, that offend the basic principle that I'm sure the minister is familiar with…. It's the old phrase: "An Englishman's home is his castle." When you do that and you bring specific legislation, you cannot stand here and pretend that somehow it is to be read as nothing more than a simple legislative change. If it was….

If it wasn't important, if it wasn't needed, we wouldn't be doing it, and we wouldn't be having this debate. Clearly, it has an impact. What it allows specifically is to go in and deal with signage in a way that we don't expect municipalities to operate.

You know what? If you're running a grow op on a piece of property, that's one thing. That's pretty offensive to most people. If you're running a house of prostitution, that's pretty offensive to most people.

But when you are authorizing, on 24 hours' notice, officials of a city to come into your dwelling place, to drill your lock, to change your lock and then to take down signage that they consider to be offensive, all without the benefit of a hearing — with great respect to what the minister has had to tell this House, that's a step beyond.

That's what we're talking about, and if the minister thinks some of the members on this side of the House went a little over the top in the debate, I understand. He's got his viewpoint; we've got ours. The fact is: we're doing this because it does have an impact. It's pretty clear from public reaction to this that most people don't like this concept — that you get to do this over a sign or graffiti.

It would strike me, if I put up something on my window that is somewhat offensive, that gets covered. You get to take it down under the bylaw.

If I stick up a sign that says, "Whoopee! I love the Olympics," which may look just as ridiculous and just as offensive to the naked eye of the person living in the condo tower next door, that's okay. If they phone the city and say, "You know what? I don't like the member for Vancouver-Quilchena or whoever's sign that says, 'Whoopee for the Olympics.' I want you to take it down," the city official says, "Oh, we can't touch that," because the bylaw says specifically that that's okay.

[1705]

But if we've got a sign up that says, "I hate the Olympics," that might constitute graffiti. By gosh, you'll get your 24 hours' notice, and somebody will be there to take down the sign and exclude that graffiti. I don't know how the minister can pretend, in light of what the bylaw says, specifically allowing celebratory signage, that this is nothing new, that this isn't important. The fact is that that's what this does.

Moreover, to add insult to injury, you're going to get stuck with the costs of it. In other words, in the potential exercise of your democratic rights, they get to come in, drill your lock, take down your sign. And then what? As an ordinary citizen, you're expected to take on the great city of Vancouver or the city of Richmond or the resort municipality of Whistler? That's what this government is asking, and that's what the city of Vancouver and those other two levels of government — the city and the municipality — are asking.

They're essentially saying: if you don't like it, tough luck. We get to come in. We get to take it down. But again, if it's a celebratory thing, if we're saying we love it, that's okay. But if it looks like graffiti, we get to take it down.

I understand completely the necessity of ensuring the contractual obligations — and gosh knows what they are, because no one's mentioned them in this House and I haven't seen any evidence of what they are — that have to be enforced to ensure the Olympics make money, to ensure the sponsors get what they are paying. For most of us, it appears to be offensive.

To come back to it, I want the minister, if he can, to acknowledge that these particular sections refer to signs. And sign includes any signboards, advertisements, advertising devices or structures, and it refers only to three specified municipalities.

If all this power exists, and it can already do it under the existing Community Charter, I come back to my point. Why do we have section 77, which includes provisions 31, 32, 33 and 34?

Hon. B. Bennett: There are a number of things that I'll need to respond to in the member's speech.

First of all, with regard to enforcement of bylaws dealing with graffiti, there is no authority given in this legislation to enter into a private domicile with regard to graffiti. I believe — I might be wrong — the member opposite did indicate that he thought that the graffiti bylaw could be enforced in a way to allow enforcement officers to go into a private domicile. That's not the case.

Certainly, I can confirm for the member — I believe I'm already on Hansard having done this — that this legislation is focused on three municipalities: Whistler, Richmond and Vancouver. I certainly have no issue in reconfirming that.

I think, if I understand the member correctly, that he's suggesting that this legislation does more than what I indicated it did, initially, when I first stood here. I would suggest to the member that he take another look at the Community Charter, at both section 16(5) and section 16(6).
[ Page 1385 ]

If the member takes a close look at that Community Charter section 16(5), he'll see that the language there is almost identical to the language in section 77. It's in the new proposed section 32.

[1710]

He will also see in subsection (6) the authority that he was wondering about. Just to be clear, that's in the Community Charter section 16(6)(a). He'll see the authority that's in existence today for British Columbian municipalities to do exactly what they will continue to be able to do, which is to enter onto private property where necessary and also to enter into a private domicile.

I want to make it very clear. Although I appreciate the concern about individual liberties, freedom of speech…. That's very important. This side of the House agrees with the member opposite about the importance of those rights in Canada. But in fairness, I think we need to acknowledge in this House that we're not creating new rights for municipalities with regard to entry onto private property or into a private domicile. Those rights already exist today in the existing legislation.

I would go even one step further and suggest that these rights have existed, generally, in the Vancouver Charter for decades. Certainly, the member was here, I think, for at least a term or two before, when he was in government, and could have had those powers restricted, changed, amended in the Vancouver Charter. The government of the day didn't feel that was necessary.

Again, I think we should limit the discussion to what the legislation actually does, and the legislation does not create new powers to enforce signs, with the exception of a new power to more expeditiously enforce their bylaws. That's it. That's what it does.

L. Krog: I'd refer the minister back to section 16(1), which says quite straightforwardly: "This section applies in relation to an authority under this or another Act for a municipality to enter on property."

In other words, the power to enter on property has to be authorized specifically under the Community Charter, or it has to be authorized under another act, because municipal government only exists because this Legislature created it — the power to create it. It doesn't exist under the constitution.

I admit it might seem somewhat offensive to municipal politicians, but the only reason they have a mayor's office or a council chamber to go to is because this place created the ability for them to do that.

It's very specific. We don't hand down the constitutional authority of the province of British Columbia very easily. The only time municipal government gets to exercise authority in an area is because a statute specifically says they get to do it. All the authority under section 16 is enabling municipal government, through its officials, to enter on property if there is an authority to do so under the act or some other statute.

We wouldn't be here in relation to signage and graffiti — and we are — if that power existed already. In other words, if they had the power to run in and do it, we wouldn't be here, because what we're being asked to do is for a specific period of time, for the period specified in the legislation — February 1, 2010, to March 31, 2010 — to give municipal government specific authority and power to enforce signage and graffiti bylaws that they wouldn't otherwise be able to enforce in this manner. That's why we're here.

The minister may not want to accept that, but I can't think of any other reasonable explanation why we're here with these sections in front of us, referring to signage and referring to graffiti, if the authority to do this already existed. The fact is that these are extraordinary provisions designed specifically to deal with citizens in three jurisdictions in this province, giving extraordinary powers in relation to signage and graffiti.

The reason is because we don't want to potentially breach any contract. I understand that, although I'm not terribly happy about it. But we don't want to do anything that will spoil the games.

You know what? Every British Columbian wants these games to succeed because every British Columbian has a huge investment in this, both in terms of their provincial pride and their provincial tax dollars. But the fact is that this section 33, contained in section 77, says:

[1715]

"(1) Subject to this section and section 34, an officer or employee of a specified municipality or a person authorized by the council of a specified municipality" — that's the three of them — "has the authority to enter on property without the consent of the owner or occupier for the purpose of enforcing, in accordance with subsection (3), the specified municipality's bylaws in relation to graffiti.

"(2) A person (a) may only exercise the authority in subsection (1) at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, and (b) must take reasonable steps to advise the owner or occupier before entering the property.

"(3) A person who has entered on property in accordance with this section has the authority to enforce the specified municipality's bylaws in relation to graffiti by removing, covering or altering the graffiti that is in contravention of these bylaws."

It's a new provision. There are no ifs, ands or buts. These are statutory provisions authorizing the removal of graffiti and authorizing the removal of signs. If the specific jurisdictions in question referred to in this legislation had that authority already and could do what they felt they wanted or needed to do, we wouldn't be here. So we're here doing it.

My point is that British Columbians don't appreciate the concept that a municipality, notwithstanding its charter obligations, gets to come in on 24 hours' notice and take down your sign, or take down graffiti that you've decided to place there yourself, if you want, or leave up if somebody else placed it, because that all happens without the benefit of a hearing.

As I said in my remarks in this chamber the other day, even when we passed legislation authorizing the taking
[ Page 1386 ]
of property that we asserted was a result of criminal activity — even where there was no criminal conviction — you still, nevertheless, gave an opportunity for a hearing, a judicial hearing — someone to determine whether or not, in fact, those were the proceeds of crime.

This legislation doesn't give you that opportunity. The sign I stick up, which may be offensive to someone, the municipality gets to take down in its own wisdom, without the benefit of a hearing. All I get is 24 hours' notice telling me that someone is offended by it, or: "We think it breaches a contract. You take it down."

If I don't take it down, guess what? They get to come in. They get to, in essential terms, break and enter. They get to drill my lock, they get to come in, and they get to take it away.

If this isn't extraordinary and isn't offensive, then I've got to ask the question: why is it only restricted to February 1 to March 31? Why don't we have it year-round if it's so in accord with British Columbians' values and sense of freedom and passion for democracy? Why are we restricting it only to the Olympic period?

If the minister is telling me this power exists and it's a good idea, does he think we should extend it all the time so that municipalities can do this whenever they want?

Hon. B. Bennett: What the member thinks that we're doing here may be what he's doing here. It's definitely not what government is doing here, and it's definitely not what this legislation is doing. I say that with the greatest respect, because I know the member is a lawyer. By all accounts, he's a good lawyer. But very simply, he's wrong about the comments that he's making about this legislation.

I would refer the member to section 16, again, of the Community Charter, which is entitled "Authority to enter on or into property." I would refer the member to section 16(1), which he read out in the House.

Then I would refer the member over to subsection (6), where you will find that authority "to inspect and determine whether all regulations, prohibitions and requirements are being met in relation to any matter for which the council, a municipal officer or employee or a person authorized by the council has exercised authority under this or another Act to regulate, prohibit, and impose requirements." So there is authority there.

I would then refer the member over to section 65 of the Community Charter, which is entitled "Signs and other advertising." Section 65 reads: "The authority of a council under section 8(4) [spheres of authority — signs and other advertising] may be exercised in relation to the erection, placing, alteration, maintenance, demolition and removal of signs, sign boards, advertisements, advertising devices and structures."

[1720]

It is clear that the right to enforce sign bylaws, to enter onto private property, to enter into private property with 24 hours' written notice, exists today in local government legislation. It's clear that it does, which means that that's not what this legislation is doing. It is not creating those new rights. Those rights already exist.

What this legislation does is enable local government to enforce those bylaws somewhat more expeditiously than they could ordinarily. If the member takes issue with that, that's a discussion I'm happy to have, but that's all it does.

L. Krog: I guess I come back to the same point that the minister doesn't seem able to answer. He talks about "expeditiously." Section 16 already authorizes entry on 24 hours' written notice — section 16(5) of the Community Charter. Section 65, which the minister referred to, exists in law — the authority to exercise "in relation to the erection, placing, alteration, maintenance, demolition and removal of signs," etc.

What is clear here is that this legislation has to have some meaning. It's pretty clear to me that for the action that is contemplated for the period February 1 to March 31, the authority to do that, to undertake it, doesn't exist. That's why we've got section 77.

If it exists, then why doesn't the minister just walk out of the House? We'll abandon the bill if it — the authority necessary to do it — already exists. It makes no sense. It flies in the face of reason to tell us that the governing bodies of these jurisdictions have the authority to do this already. If they do, then why are we here? That's the question. Can the minister explain: if they have all this authority already, what's the difference?

Hon. B. Bennett: Now we're really getting somewhere. I'm happy to answer that question, because that really is what this legislation is about: what new powers are created by the legislation — not what we think they might be or what some columnist thinks they might be, but what the new authority actually is.

Let me refer the member again to the Community Charter, section 17(1). The member will see that currently in the local government legislation there is a requirement that local government bylaw enforcement officers permit the owner-occupier the opportunity to take the required action and that only if the owner-occupier has failed to take the required action — which is to remove the sign or cover it up — can the bylaw enforcement officer proceed with full enforcement of the bylaw. Section 17 of the charter states that.

Section 17 and what it accomplishes is not included in Bill 13. You won't find that language anywhere in these amendments, because that is the piece that is new, as I have stated on a number of occasions already. What this legislation is about, or at least this portion of the legislation, is allowing more expedited bylaw enforcement powers.

In other words, if a bylaw enforcement officer did, under the rare circumstance, go onto private property
[ Page 1387 ]
and did go into private property after providing 24 hours' written notice, as they already have to do in local government legislation, the one thing that the local bylaw officer would not have to do is wait for the owner-occupier to remove the sign or cover the sign up. That's the one thing. That is to allow for that more expeditious enforcement I have referred to. That's the one thing.

L. Krog: I must say, if that was the one thing, then I'm not sure why it occupies a page and three quarters of a bill in order to accomplish it. So I'm not terribly convinced by the minister's cogent argument in this area. The fact is that this provides authority to municipal government that doesn't exist now, with respect not just to signage but to graffiti.

[1725]

It is like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder. What is one person's graffiti may, in fact, be another person's free expression.

What we're allowing here is for municipal officers and officials to decide what's free speech and what's graffiti, enabling them to decide what's a reasonable sign and what's an unreasonable sign. That's where the rubber hits the road in this matter.

The fact is that if these powers existed in order to regulate, we wouldn't be here raising this issue. We wouldn't be here with this legislation, we wouldn't be here with this amendment, and we wouldn't be here with this portion of Bill 13. That's pretty straightforward.

The very fact that Vancouver council is already talking of amending its bylaws because of concerns that have been raised tells me that what this government really wants to do is wash its hands of this issue — throw it back on the city of Vancouver, for instance, and basically say: "It's their problem. It's their political hot potato. We have nothing to do with this." With great respect to the minister, I would suggest that is irresponsible.

We have a duty in this chamber to respect the authority given to this province under the constitution, to respect people's rights, to respect their Charter rights, to respect those things that we all hold dear. The prospect that someone is going to get to decide — without benefit of giving me, or any citizen, a hearing — that my graffiti is offensive and to take it down is, with great respect, patently unreasonable. That is what this Legislature is being asked to approve.

The minister can say over and over again as much as he wants — and I'm sure he's finding me just as repetitive — that this already exists. But again, you can't get past the basic point that if it existed, we wouldn't be here debating this. The fact is that this authority, under the Community Charter, doesn't exist.

There's a difference between regulating signage and removing or altering signs. It's not just about removal. It's about alteration. That's new. No matter how you cut it, that's new. That's just one example.

Let me ask this question to the minister. Has the minister consulted with all three municipalities, and has the minister personally reviewed the sign bylaws, such as they are, that exist in those three municipal governments?

Hon. B. Bennett: I personally did not consult with the three municipalities. However, senior staff in the ministry did consult with all three municipalities around, first of all, the need for these amendments. We didn't dream this up.

Actually, the three municipalities approached government and asked government to make these changes — including, I might say, the member's former colleague. We worked very closely with the three municipalities in creating this legislation, and as they have all stated publicly, they're appreciative of the provincial government doing this.

The member makes so many incorrect and inflammatory statements in the preamble to his question that I am always faced with the choice of just letting it go or responding to it.

I don't know if anybody's listening. I hear members in this House occasionally say, "For the folks at home who are watching," and I always think to myself: "Who might that be?" I don't know if they really do or not.

I do think, in the interests of really getting down to what this legislation does and also what it doesn't do, I have to respond to a few things that the member said. The member makes the point and asks what I think is a reasonable question. If all we're doing with this legislation is making that one change that I've referred to already, why do we need four sections and all the words?

[1730]

There are a couple of reasons for that, one of which is that the Community Charter is a much more modern piece of legislation — I think it was passed in 2003 or 2004 — compared to the Vancouver Charter, which is a very old piece of legislation and which has a ways to go to catch up to the clarity and, maybe, the modern use of language that we now use in statutes.

If we didn't set out a regime here in enough detail, we could leave these three municipalities wondering somewhat, I guess, about interpretation. We didn't want to take that chance, so we took the language right out of the Community Charter that already exists and put it in these amendments to make it clear for everybody.

These are not new powers, as I've said before. The language already exists in the charter, but we wanted to make sure that all three municipalities knew exactly what they were allowed to do and what they were not allowed to do. We created that full scheme that they could then refer to and their legal advisers could refer to so that they would understand what their authorities are.

The member talks a lot about sign content. I certainly understand that if you want to make an argument that there is some breach of freedom of speech, you would
[ Page 1388 ]
talk about sign content. This legislation does not deal with sign content. It doesn't deal with sign content, so everything that the member has to say about sign content is irrelevant.

This legislation doesn't deal with sign content. Sign content is determined by the municipality when they pass a bylaw. I'm not and the government's not trying to off-load responsibility for this onto the three municipalities. The three municipalities already have the authority to create bylaws dealing with signs, and that includes content, if that's what they want to do.

Of course, they know that there is a big law in this country — it's called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — that overarches everything that we do. So they know that when they create sign bylaws and they do deal with sign content, when and if they do, it has to be subject to the terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Again, I'm not trying to off-load this onto the municipalities. That's just the way the law is structured.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I missed something in my last answer. I wanted to just point out to the member that the legislation here that we are proposing to pass does include a requirement that bylaw officers are reasonable — that they approach private property owners in a reasonable way, at a reasonable time and that they make reasonable attempts to deal with the private property owner. That language is borrowed, again, from the Community Charter, but that language does not deal with sign content.

The member has made comments here that would indicate that somehow or other these bylaw enforcers are going to go look at a sign, and if the sign says, "I hate the Olympics," oh well, they'll be able to take that sign down. That's not so. That is not what this legislation does.

The reasonableness provisions in this legislation go to the enforcement of those bylaws, not to the content of the bylaws. I think it's important for the member to acknowledge that, because I don't see the point in trying to frighten people in these three communities — that somehow or other their rights of freedom of speech are going to be removed by this legislation. Surely the member can see that that's not the case.

Graffiti. The member has talked about graffiti in some of his questions, and I've already said that the changes we're making don't authorize bylaw enforcement into a private domicile around graffiti.

I should also point out to the member that the city of Vancouver already prohibits all forms of graffiti. The member indicated that somehow or other this legislation, Bill 13, is going to authorize bylaw enforcement officers in the city of Vancouver to go around and put people in jail who are putting up graffiti that might be critical of the 2010 games.

[1735]

Well, the city of Vancouver already has bylaws in place that prohibit all graffiti. They already do that, and it's not based on content. They just don't like the visual clutter. Most municipalities have the same sorts of bylaws prohibiting graffiti.

V. Huntington: Firstly, I'd like to thank the minister's staff for taking the time to brief me and my staff yesterday. I did find the briefing extremely useful and wished I'd had it before I had made the earlier comments. But as I indicated to the minister's staff yesterday, I still do have some concerns about the legislation.

My mind was wavering when the minister was defining the one thing that this piece of legislation does, and I wonder if he could point me to the exact words that are different in section 16 of the Community Charter.

Hon. B. Bennett: I thank the member for the question, and that really is the point. I appreciate the question. I can go back over it. I don't think I did a particularly good job of describing what the difference is, so let me take another stab at it.

If the member will look at proposed subsection 32(3), the language in that subsection is basically the same as the language that exists in the Community Charter. So if you're going to go into a private dwelling, there are things that will enable you or authorize you to do that before you can go into that private dwelling.

If you look at the Community Charter today — and I'm not sure if the member has it handy or not — the Community Charter today contains all that same language that's in subsection (3), but what Bill 13 doesn't have is the language that exists in section 17 of the Community Charter.

So subsection 17(1) of the Community Charter requires the enforcement officers to allow the occupant-owner to take the required action, and of course, the required action would be to remove the sign, cover the sign — whatever it is that they have the authority to order in that case.

If you look at subsection 32(4) under section 77 of Bill 13…. You'll have subsection 32(4) in front of you. You'll see subsection 32(4). You'll notice when you read that, there is no requirement to give the owner-occupier the opportunity to take the required action.

You know, one of the reasons for that — and I think it would be very unusual circumstances — is if the bylaw enforcement officers were to enter into a private dwelling after giving 24 hours' written notice, they would be able to remove that sign if the owner-occupier refused to or just wasn't there to do it. That is the difference. There is a practice that surrounds the enforcement of bylaws that is not part of legislation. Some of it is.

[1740]

In terms of any penalty under the Offence Act, it's my understanding that you have to have a warrant before… I won't go there. I think it'll probably confuse me.
[ Page 1389 ]

I think the point is that if you look at subsection 32(4) in the proposed legislation, you will not see reference to or a requirement to allow the owner-occupier of a private dwelling to take the sign down, and that's what's different — okay?

V. Huntington: So what we're looking at is really the Community Charter without section 17(1). Is that really what we're dealing with? You've removed that requirement for the homeowner or property owner to have time to take the enforcement action or to remove the signs. Does that also apply to the graffiti section, section 33? Is section 17(1) of the Community Charter also missing in relation to section 33?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member actually, I think, has hit upon a useful way of looking at this. Although the wording between the Community Charter and this proposed legislation is slightly different in a few sentences — not in any meaningful way, not in any way that would change the intention of the legislation — that's the only difference.

The only difference is that section 17 of the charter, and that language and that requirement to give that owner-occupier the opportunity to take a sign down, is not there in the new legislation. That is the basic difference between the Community Charter that we have today and have had for the last five or six years and what we're proposing here for the duration of the games.

V. Huntington: I do find that very helpful for my own understanding of what's happening here because it does go exactly to my concern with the powers that are being extended by the province.

These are an extension of power. When I say it's the province providing an exceptional power, I mean that it is a power that is being…. I'll start over again. I'll just say that I think it is the provision of an exceptional power, because certainly in my experience, municipalities are extremely careful how they go about enforcing their sign bylaws.

The element of time that is afforded by section 17 is absolutely critical to the ability of an individual to have the time to argue that the requirement is unreasonable, that the sign bylaw isn't ultra vires, that they have the opportunity to request legal assistance, if they want it, that they have the opportunity to demonstrate, to talk with their council members, to understand things through their municipal staff. The exercise of the power that the province is granting removes all of that ability from the citizen, and it is indeed, therefore, an extraordinary power.

If it's felt absolutely necessary to have that power, my concern then goes to how the minister and his government would choose to frame and restrict that power absolutely. I don't think they have really restricted the power sufficiently. You've said: "In this Part: 'sign' includes sign boards, advertisements, advertising devices and structures."

[1745]

I think because it is the provincial government providing this power in its own ability to legislate that power, then it is incumbent upon the government to define how that power is exercised in a reasonable manner. If this power is exercised by the municipalities, the citizen does not have an ability to argue that it's an unreasonable exercise.

I would strongly suggest to the minister that he perhaps take some time and discuss with his staff and with the municipalities how that power can be restricted and specifically defined in its use over this two-month period. I don't believe the power should be there, but if the province is going to extend it, it is a provincial power, it is a provincial piece of legislation, and it's incumbent upon the province, I would say, to restrict that power absolutely and define it precisely.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the first thing that I would say to the member is that I think there are two separate discussions that we are having. I think the member, as a second line of inquiry here, is suggesting that the power that local governments have today to pass bylaws, to create bylaws — including sign bylaws — and then to enforce those bylaws, is a greater power than what the member feels comfortable with.

I'll obviously try and save some time here and acknowledge that I see the member shaking her head, so I've got that wrong. Let me switch gears, then, and just say for the member's benefit that local government legislation has authorized municipalities to pass bylaws, including sign bylaws, for decades and decades.

Local government legislation has also been around for decades that authorizes municipalities to enforce their sign bylaws. These powers had been around for a very, very long time. I hope that that's fairly well established.

The Community Charter, in 2004 when it was brought in, codified the authorities of local government, I think, in a clearer way than existed before, and set out very clearly what a municipality can and cannot do with regard to the enforcement of bylaws dealing with signs. We took that language and moved it over into the new legislation minus the one piece.

I think it's important to recognize why the three municipalities asked us to do that and why we agreed to do that. The fact of the matter is that when you have an Olympic Games, it is a very extraordinary circumstance for any jurisdiction and for so many different reasons.

When we get into a discussion — if we get into a discussion — about the amendments to the Vancouver Charter, we may talk about things like traffic control and parade control and street vendors and all of the things that are going to come into play. You know, you want emergency vehicles to be able to get through the crowds
[ Page 1390 ]
and all that sort of thing. Again, that's in some of the amendments to the Vancouver Charter.

I think that one of the components of this — the fact that the Olympic Games do bring such extraordinary circumstances to a municipality — is that it opens up far greater potential for those entrepreneurial people who will want to take advantage of the Olympic Games. They will want to take advantage of an opportunity to get attention, to sell their product. Perhaps they'll want to steal the Olympic logo. Generally, what they want to do is they want to take commercial advantage.

The three municipalities requested that we make this narrow change in this legislation so that when they saw somebody trying to take commercial advantage of the situation, they didn't have to wait two to four weeks to be able to get that sign down or to get that sign covered up. Because clearly, these are extraordinary circumstances, and the benefit of that unauthorized sign is going to come from the period of the games.

[1750]

It just didn't make sense to them, and frankly doesn't make sense to us, that we would allow that sign that's trying to take commercial advantage of the situation to stay up until after the games and then get around to enforcing the bylaw then and have the sign taken down.

I have to say that I don't quite see it the same way as the member does in terms of this being a huge power that's somehow new. The basic authority to pass the bylaw, to enforce the bylaw, to enter onto private land or enter into private land after 24 hours' reasonable notice already exists.

Again, that's a separate discussion. If that's too much power, then the member and I can discuss that. All this is, is just the one step less than already exists in the Community Charter. In my view, that is not a particularly extraordinary power for a municipality to have.

V. Huntington: I won't take up much more time because I know the official opposition has more they need to say. But all I'm saying to the minister is that by extending this power to the municipalities, what you're doing is removing the ability of the citizen to argue whether that use of the power was unreasonable. You are removing the citizen's ability to argue reasonability. You are enabling abuse of a citizen if that citizen feels the power has been exercised unreasonably.

It may seem like a small thing in the large scheme of things, but it's the little things that make a difference in how our nation is governed. I am simply saying that I would prefer — aside from my personal feelings about the whole section 16 of the Community Charter, now that I look at it more carefully — to see that the exercise of that power be specifically restricted.

Either restrict the definition of "sign" to precisely the type of thing you're concerned about — I would think that would be the easiest way to go about it — or let the municipalities exercise the power in the old-fashioned way and give the citizen a right to argue the reasonable exercise of the power.

I think it is incumbent on the province to understand that they are extending a power that removes a citizen's right to argue in his own favour. That's all I'm attempting to say here.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member and I will probably agree to disagree on the point. I do now fully understand the point that the member makes about this, and I would respond by saying, first of all, that we have limited this particular power to the length of time that the Olympic Games are on. So it is time limited, and that is because we want to be particularly careful about this.

I would also say to the member that it's not quite the case — in fact, it's not the case — that an owner would have no recourse. I think the member used the words "to argue the reasonableness of their sign." Certainly, they have the same rights to challenge the municipality's enforcement as they had before.

Section 17 of the charter just basically comes into play after the sign bylaw officer has already established that the sign has to come down or be covered up. That decision has already been made. Section 17 in the charter authorizes the owner-occupier to physically take the sign down or cover it up.

[1755]

If, in this situation…. Of course, we're into the hypothetical situation. But fair enough. There could be use of this legislation during the games. If the situation does arise where an owner-occupier believes that the sign was removed improperly — you know, without good legal reason — they have all of the same legal remedies that they have today. That doesn't change. They can have their day in court now, after this legislation is passed, if it's passed, just as they can have their day in court under the current legislation.

The only other thing that I think I should say, just to inform the discussion here a little bit more today, is that I think there's an assumption that municipalities enforce sign bylaws on the basis of content. I mean, I hear that, certainly, in the opposition statements here in the House and in the media.

Municipalities have sign bylaws. They have them today. If you want to put a sign up, you go into the municipal office, the town office, and you get a permit to put the sign up.

Somebody asked me on CBC radio the other day: "Well, does that mean, Minister, that you have to get a permit to put a sign up, anytime you want to put a sign up that's exposed to the public?" My answer was: "Yes. In most municipalities in the western world, if you want to put a sign up, generally speaking, you have to have a permit."

Now, do municipalities enforce that to any degree? No, they don't. Municipalities have sign bylaws because
[ Page 1391 ]
they want to deal with visual clutter. They're concerned about public safety.

I think there are lots of good reasons for municipalities to have sign bylaws. They're not going to challenge somebody that hangs a sign off their balcony on the 27th floor of a condominium in Richmond saying "Happy birthday" or "Merry Christmas" if the sign is not permitted.

That's the reason why any of these three municipalities would even try to enforce their sign bylaw. It would be if that sign didn't have a permit. So I think we're…. I mean, I'm happy to have the discussion, but I don't think it's as much to do with content here, really, as what the opposition seems to think it is.

V. Huntington: One last comment. My concern isn't really with the content. It's with the concept of removing that right. I've been part of developing sign bylaws. They're horrible. They're horrible to develop, but it is that length of time that enables a citizen to come forward that is the critical element for me, and that municipalities understand.

However, I won't belabour the point. I'd like to see a more specific definition of "sign" in here. I think it would help the situation, but I'll end my comments at that.

L. Krog: What will be, potentially, section 33 makes reference to graffiti. I appreciate the minister's comments, but the fact is…. If municipalities regulate graffiti now and have the authority to do it and to enter on property and do all those things that the minister keeps telling us they can do now, if this is just a slight refinement, why is section 33 here? When I refer to section 33, I refer to that part of section 33 contained in section 77 of this bill.

Hon. B. Bennett: The reason why the section dealing with graffiti is there is because section 17 of the charter, which the member references, does deal with both situations: entering onto private property and entering into private property. If it didn't, if section 17 only dealt with entering into private property, into a private residence, the member would have an excellent point.

[1800]

Fortunately for me, section 17 does apply to both situations — entering onto and into — and that's why the graffiti provision is necessary to deal with situations where bylaw enforcement officers are going to go onto private property.

L. Krog: And also the power to alter it as well. That, in fact, is a very different and new power. I wonder if the minister can comment.

Hon. B. Bennett: I know for sure that the city of Vancouver has bylaws prohibiting all graffiti, and I understand from staff that there's a very good likelihood that the other two municipalities also have graffiti bylaws. So they already have the power to remove the graffiti.

The word "alter" is not meant to suggest that a bylaw enforcement officer can change the content of graffiti. It's meant to suggest that they can either remove or they can alter — by painting over, spray-painting over, doing whatever they have to do to cover up — the unauthorized graffiti.

L. Krog: Well, we all understand what "remove" means. We all understand what "cover" means. But the implication at law is that if you alter it, it means some part of the graffiti is obviously acceptable and some isn't. Which means that we then get into the issue, with great respect to the minister, around free speech and what is or isn't acceptable.

So either we're prohibiting graffiti or we're not prohibiting graffiti. But if we're allowing for the alteration of graffiti, then we are specifically, in my view, getting into the area of changing what may be an absolutely legitimate expression of free speech. It's basically being authorized by this statute.

Hon. B. Bennett: The authority to regulate graffiti in a municipality is generally given through local government legislation, but it is the bylaws passed by the municipalities that ordinarily will spell out exactly how the enforcement of those graffiti bylaws will take place.

Because you have three different municipalities here in this situation, and because they have different bylaws dealing with graffiti — some municipalities allow graffiti in some parts of town but not other parts of town; there are a variety, I understand, of graffiti bylaws around — the drafters of this particular provision wanted to make it broad enough to enable the sign bylaw enforcement folks from these three municipalities to basically get rid of the offending graffiti.

If a municipality just has a flat-out 100 percent prohibition against graffiti, it's pretty straightforward. They can just eliminate it.

[1805]

If, on the other hand, a municipality allows it some places but not other places, if a municipality has some specific and unique or different component to their graffiti bylaw, this wording would allow those bylaw enforcement officers to deal with that graffiti consistent with the bylaws passed by the democratically elected mayor and council.

L. Krog: I note with some interest that graffiti, for the purposes of this section, isn't defined anywhere. I'm wondering what definition we're going to be supposedly relying on for that purpose.

Hon. B. Bennett: This is one of those situations — many similar situations, I have discovered in the short time I've
[ Page 1392 ]
had this ministry — where senior government in this case allows local government — and the member correctly pointed out a while ago that local government is a delegated form of government — to define for themselves what graffiti is. I would suggest that is a reasonable thing for the province to do. It is a fair thing for the province to do.

I would bet that if the member and I were outside of this chamber, he might even agree with me that it would be better to allow the municipality to define graffiti, as opposed to Big Brother doing it.

L. Krog: The minister puts me in mind of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice who said about pornography that he couldn't define it, but he recognized it when he saw it.

I'm not convinced that that….

An Hon. Member: Sometimes we kind of like you.

L. Krog: I'm delighted that I have the affection of the member for Kamloops. In my party, that may be the kiss of death.

Interjections.

L. Krog: I'm delighted by the interest of the members in this ongoing debate.

I come back to the point. This section around graffiti arguably says that you get to go in and take it down, with reasonable notice. It doesn't even talk about 24 hours. It talks about "at reasonable times," "a reasonable manner," etc., and you "must take reasonable steps to advise the owner or occupier before entering the property."

Is the minister saying that section 33 is subject to the provisions in section 16 of the charter? Or is this some creation of a new right — or a different right or authority?

Hon. B. Bennett: This provision that we're discussing right now that deals with graffiti contains the same authority that exists today in the Community Charter.

[1810]

I should point out that the 24 hours' written notice only applies in a situation where the enforcement people have to go into a private residence. You're not required under local government legislation today to provide 24 hours' written notice to go onto property, onto land. You are required to do that, to provide that 24 hours' written notice, if you're going to go into a private residence.

I think, unless I misunderstood the question, that the question is: is there some new authority being created by this section 33 that does not now currently exist in section 16 of the Community Charter? My advice is that, no, there is no new authority created by section 33. Section 16 already authorizes the same actions.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, I can give an example. By definition, graffiti may contain some interesting artistic expression, and it's on the outside of my window in a condominium tower. Is the minister saying that if the city of Vancouver finds that offensive and in breach of its bylaw, deems it to be so, that they then can come through my dwelling place because of what 33 provides, or what section 16 provides?

Assuming they're going to have to come through my condominium — come through my front door and get access to my window — is the minister saying that section 33 authorizes that? Or section 16? Or both? Are they contradictory? And were different requirements in place in a situation like that?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll repeat what I've said a couple of times here already. The graffiti provisions do not authorize a bylaw enforcement official to go into what the member just referred to as a dwelling house or a private residence. They're not authorized to do that, neither with signs, in the case of signs, nor in the case of graffiti. I think that answers the member's question, although the member again is talking about content, and that's not what this legislation deals with.

L. Krog: In section 33 it talks about "has the authority to enter on property without the consent…." The only property that exists in a condominium is the unit entitlement of the owner. It strikes me that in that situation that "on property" would enable you to go into property. I wonder if the minister can reply to that.

Hon. B. Bennett: There are apparently no examples of anyone ever confusing the meaning of going onto property and going into property. It is language that is used widely in not only local government legislation but other legislation, and it seems that anyone who deals with the legislation understands what it means.

It means if you go onto property, you're actually setting foot on a piece of land. If you're going into property, you're going into somebody's private residence. I think the charter refers to it as a private dwelling, the language that the member used.

So to answer the member's question, if there is a question about entering a condominium, that would be into property. There would be no right for the bylaw enforcement people to enter into that property for the purposes of enforcing a bylaw dealing with graffiti. They would, in fact, as I think the member realizes, have the right to enforce a bylaw dealing with signs.

L. Krog: This specific provision in 77 says that the "powers in sections 32 and 33 may be exercised only
[ Page 1393 ]
during the period of February 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010." I come back to what I tried to get out of the minister previously on this.

[1815]

If these are not extraordinary provisions, then why are we only applying them for a period of two calendar months?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the answer to the member's question is implicit in his question. Why are we making this time limited? Because we are aware that this is a change.

My position as minister is that it is not a huge change that would justify the kind of speeches given in this House over the past few days. That's just my opinion, and I see now some folks in the media are starting to agree with me on that.

But still, we want to be careful. The enforcement of bylaws at any time, not just during the Olympics, is important. We have got the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be cognizant of. I know all three municipalities are well aware of the parameters set out by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So just out of an abundance of caution, we are making this one, what I believe to be modest, change to be time limited.

L. Krog: I suppose the automatic response is: why would one be at all apologetic about it and suggest that it only last for a couple of months if, in fact, it's such a great idea?

I think that's the immediate reaction of the general public — that this is designed in its effect to put a chill, if you will, on behaviour that occurs in the rest of the year that we find completely acceptable and indeed, arguably, may encourage. But for this particular time, we're prepared to put a different face on the reality of British Columbia for two months, as if to pretend that, well, we have no graffiti and, you know, we're really tough on signs.

I guess whatever the minister says, I'm not going to be convinced and he's not going to be convinced. So I'm going to ask him: is he aware of any contractual obligations that have financial implications for any of these governments or the provincial government that require the specific language that is used in section 77?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the member's question was whether any of the three municipalities had specifically asked for the language that exists in these four sections of section 77 of Bill 13. The answer is yes.

I would refer the member to a news release dated October 20, 2009, coming out from the city of Vancouver, in which the mayor of the city of Vancouver, the member's former colleague, indicates that the city is going to take appropriate steps to control ambush marketing that violates the city's 2010 Winter Olympics host-city obligations, which of course is where this all started.

[1820]

L. Krog: I'll repeat the part of the question the minister didn't address, and that is: is the minister aware of specific contractual obligations, and what are the financial implications that may exist with respect to those particular contractual obligations?

In other words, apart from the fact the city of Vancouver has requested this and apart from the fact the city of Richmond has requested this and the resort municipality of Whistler has presumably requested this and this language, what's the downside here that we have to do this for two months? Why are we upsetting so many British Columbians around this issue? In other words, what's the cost? Is this being done for some good reason, in other words? So what's the contract? What does it say? Why are we doing this?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I'm not privy to any legal arrangements between the three municipalities and VANOC or the International Olympic Committee. I haven't seen them; I haven't discussed them with anyone.

I would refer the member back to the news release, though, from the city of Vancouver. The mayor of Vancouver does state that the city wants to take these appropriate steps to control ambush marketing that violates the city's 2010 Winter Olympics host-city obligations.

I think it's pretty clear that there are some sorts of legal obligations between the city of Vancouver and VANOC. Otherwise, I'm sure that the mayor of Vancouver wouldn't be saying that. I think that there's no doubt that there are some obligations between the three municipalities and VANOC or the International Olympic Committee.

I think that in terms of the part of the member's question of why do we really need this, don't forget that the three municipalities asked for this. They came to us and said: "We need this. We need the capacity to enforce our sign bylaws and our graffiti bylaws faster than we would ordinarily be able to enforce them." They indicated to us that they're concerned about the potential proliferation of unauthorized signs in commercial advertising during the winter games due to an expected increase of visitor and media attention during that time.

That goes back to my earlier comments about this being a very, very unusual, extraordinary period of time in the province, but particularly in those three municipalities.

L. Krog: I want to thank the minister for his response, specifically in response to commercial obligations. But I'll come back to the graffiti side of this. Did they specifically request all of that as well? Was it just as important? Is there some contractual obligation with the IOC that requires us to keep graffiti off the streets of Vancouver and Whistler and Richmond for two months?

Hon. B. Bennett: In answer to the member's question, the city of Vancouver did specifically ask the province to deal not only with signs but with graffiti.
[ Page 1394 ]
The same principle that applies to signs and giving these three municipalities temporary powers to enforce their bylaws more swiftly applies to their graffiti bylaws. They wanted the authority to enforce those bylaws such that they could remove the sign or remove the graffiti prior to the end of the Olympic Games.

L. Krog: I hope the minister will understand why many British Columbians are saying: "What is it about a two-month period and graffiti that's suddenly become so important?" Graffiti is often associated with free political expression. So if the minister wonders why some of us on this side of the House are a bit suspicious, I'm wondering if the minister ever asked a question of any of these three governments: why graffiti? Why was that important? Are we pretending that Vancouver doesn't have graffiti or political expression at other times of the year?

[1825]

It's just extremely curious to me that the issue of graffiti is only important for two months of the year, and why it has to come in, in conjunction with things related to signage, which has a commercial aspect to it, which I appreciate makes it different.

Did the minister ever express his views and question this? Did someone in his ministry say: "Well, you know, we understand contractual obligations. We're all good at handling money over there, aren't we?" We understand that. But why graffiti?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised that there were considerable consultations between the municipalities and the province with regard to this section 77 of Bill 13 and that there was a specific request to be able to enforce graffiti bylaws as expeditiously as they will be able to enforce sign bylaws.

Again, the member probably is supposed to be suspicious. He's in the opposition. That's his job, to be suspicious, so he talks a lot about content. Perhaps he would like to leave the impression that this government would condone any municipality running around ripping down signs and covering up graffiti that is critical of the Olympics.

Let me assure the member that that is not the intention of this legislation, a fact the three municipalities know full well. The member who sat over there for four years, who is now mayor of Vancouver, knows full well that the bylaws from the city of Vancouver cannot contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They will not be tearing down signs that have content that somebody claims they don't like, and they will not be rubbing out graffiti unless the graffiti is contrary to their municipal bylaw.

L. Krog: The minister, with great respect, still hasn't addressed the issue. Why graffiti? Why this time? Why for this specific period? Did he ever receive an explanation from the city of Vancouver or the city of Richmond or the resort municipality of Whistler why we had to be so tough on graffiti for two months?

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me do my best to paint a picture for the member — not graffiti, just a mental picture, some mental graffiti, if you will, hon. Chair. We're going to have about 300,000 visitors in the province, I understand — although sometimes I hear it's 250,000; sometimes I hear it's 300,000; a lot of people, regardless of what the number is — from all over the world.

We clearly would like them to have a good time. We clearly would like them to enjoy themselves when they're here and to go home being real champions of British Columbia and telling their friends and their neighbours and their family what a great place British Columbia is: "You should go there. You should visit there. It is such a beautiful place. It's a green place. It's clean. You know, the towns and the cities that we went into are just spotless. They're beautiful."

We would prefer that they didn't go home and say: "I was in the city of Vancouver, and boy, there was all this profanity written all over the sides of buildings. I don't think I would go back there."

[1830]

Now of course, the city of Vancouver has the authority today to regulate graffiti, and they have already said that they'll be continuing to remove graffiti as they do today. In fact, I'll just read a very short quotation from one of the more right-wing councillors on the city of Vancouver, Geoff Meggs. This is what Mr. Meggs has to say: "Let's take them one at a time. Graffiti is graffiti, and it's illegal right now. So if civil liberties folks have a problem with it, then they should take a look at the policies that are in place for a long time, which make it important to deal with what is, fundamentally, vandalism."

I agree with Mr. Meggs. I think that's a reasonable approach for a municipality to take.

L. Krog: As one law professor once suggested, sometimes the lack of an answer is an answer. I haven't heard one cogent explanation from this minister as to why, for this period of time, we have to be especially harsh in this province around graffiti, particularly when it only applies to three municipalities. For the minister to stand up and say, "It's because they asked for it," is no explanation.

If I asked the minister tomorrow to pass legislation that outlawed the use of ATVs anywhere in the province of British Columbia just because I asked for it, I doubt very much the minister would approve the passage of that legislation. So I need to understand why three municipalities get to get special powers — and the minister can pretend they're not — to attack graffiti, which is, yes, an act of vandalism that is also often an act of public
[ Page 1395 ]
and political expression. Why for this period of time?

If we're going to pretend that Vancouver never has graffiti in the other parts of the year, are we also going to pretend that every person, the 250,000 or the 300,000 or the 200,000 or whatever the number is who come from various parts of the world — that they've never seen graffiti? Is that what this is all about? That we're going to pretend that no other part of the planet, no other city or centre has graffiti? Just doesn't strike me as reasonable, somehow.

Again, can the minister answer what I will try and make into a very simple question: did anyone ever ask him or explain to him, specifically, what it is about graffiti that they required these sections? Anybody — the mayors, a council member, anyone in particular — who said, "We've got to have this graffiti provision. We have to have it," and explained why?

Hon. B. Bennett: The three municipalities already have the authority to regulate graffiti. They already have it. This legislation doesn't create authority to regulate graffiti. This legislation deals with one aspect of enforcement. That's it. That's all it deals with — just one aspect of enforcement. It does not change the scope of authority that these three municipalities have to regulate signs or to regulate graffiti. As Councillor Meggs said, they already regulate graffiti. Graffiti is prohibited in the city of Vancouver. We're not changing that.

I'm not quite sure of the point that the member is making. I'm pretty sure that he's not suggesting that he thinks we should allow graffiti in Vancouver for the Olympic Games, or before or after — any time. I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't suggest that, particularly vandalism-oriented graffiti. I'm not really sure what it is that the member doesn't like about the authority that these three municipalities already have — and have had, in the case of Vancouver — for decades and decades and decades.

[1835]

L. Krog: I guess it begs the question. We were promised over and over again the enormous benefits that'll flow to every part of British Columbia as a result of the Olympic Games. So I guess I have to ask the question: is the expectation that the 250,000 visitors, with their fat wallets and thick purses, are only going to visit Richmond, Whistler and Vancouver and that no one is going to traipse across the Strait of Georgia via ferry, assuming they're running on time, and visit Nanaimo, where we actually have some graffiti?

Again, with great respect to the minister, if this is such an issue, why isn't it being applied to every municipality and every municipal government in British Columbia? Why only these three? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If this is about enabling municipal government to deal with graffiti in a faster, more expeditious manner and we're promised that these visitors are going to go everywhere and benefit all of British Columbia, why is it we're only doing it for two months in three particular, specific jurisdictions?

Hon. B. Bennett: There are two parts to my answer to the member.

I'll just remind the member that, as I have indicated on numerous occasions here already, we are dealing with an extraordinary situation where we're going to have hundreds of thousands of people in these three municipalities. Those three municipalities came to government. They asked us to assist them in meeting their obligations, whatever they are, to be host cities, so to speak, of the Olympic Games. That's where this comes from.

In terms of answering the member's question of why we are doing this, we're doing it because we were asked to do it and because we think it is the right thing to do.

More specifically, though, with regard to the member's question about why the graffiti provision is here and why it doesn't apply more broadly across the province, well, all municipalities already have the authority to deal with graffiti.

What's different about this amendment is that this amendment allows the three municipalities to remove graffiti at their own expense, whereas under the Vancouver Charter and the Community Charter, they would ordinarily seek redress for the costs of removing the graffiti from the property owners. In this case, this amendment allows them to simply go in and remove the graffiti that is contrary to their bylaws and actually pay for the cost of doing that themselves.

L. Krog: Well, I've heard a lot of explanations, but that has to be one of the funniest ones I've ever heard. I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition on anyone paying for the cost of something in this province if they chose to do so. That has to be a fairly unusual explanation.

I wasn't aware that the city of Vancouver was prohibited from spending money on painting over graffiti. I'm just wondering if the minister can point out the specific provision in the Vancouver Charter where it says they can't do that.

Hon. B. Bennett: The provision in the Vancouver Charter, which we are currently trying to identify…. It's there somewhere. It's a big piece of legislation. We'll identify it and find it for the member's benefit. It doesn't say that the city of Vancouver must pay for the removal of the graffiti, but that is the common practice, and the legislation does allow for that.

[1840]

In this case, because of the desire of the city of Vancouver to remove offending graffiti — well, all graffiti in Vancouver would be offending because they have
[ Page 1396 ]
a general prohibition against it — quickly, without bothering with the effort to locate the property owner — find out who owns the property and ask the property owner to remove the graffiti at the property owner's expense…. They don't have to do that now. They can just go in and remove it, but if they do that, they pay for it.

L. Krog: Let me just suggest to the minister that maybe the graffiti that's on my building is something I paid for. Maybe it's mural art, and the city of Vancouver decides it's graffiti. So you come in, and you paint over my mural while I'm away in Hawaii for a couple weeks. Maybe I don't like that.

What this really gets down to is that this is designed entirely to give extraordinary authority to government to repress what may include even art, may include political expression, and that's why we're here. This doesn't have anything to do with just cleaning up the city of Vancouver. That's what it's really aimed at.

That's the intent of this. That's why we're doing it. It strikes me as absolutely ridiculous that we're worried about graffiti in only these three jurisdictions if the whole point of this is to make everything look clean and wonderful.

Again, I come back to my point. I thought the whole of British Columbia was going to benefit by this. Are the good visitors to the great Olympic city of Vancouver not going to traipse out, perhaps, to see the wonders of New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Abbotsford, take a trip up to beautiful and historic Kamloops, visit Merritt? Is the expectation that they won't travel anywhere?

Again, I haven't heard from this minister today any reasonable explanation as to why it's necessary for this extraordinary power, to go in and remove graffiti in these circumstances. It just isn't there. I'd love to hear one final time the minister try and explain to me why, if he keeps telling us that they've already got all this power and authority, they need this.

Hon. B. Bennett: I can see, hon. Chair, that I'm not going to be able to convince the member that this government and the governments of the city of Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler are not out to get people. I'm not going to be able to convince this member that we deliberately intend to infringe on the rights that people have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I will remind the member, and perhaps it's for the benefit of others, given that I don't think I'm going to be able to change the member's mind on this…. I would remind others that it is the three municipalities who have the right to establish bylaws dealing with signs and graffiti, not the provincial government. We don't make bylaws. We don't make bylaws that distinguish between graffiti and murals. The municipalities do that.

Now, I've got a copy of the city of Vancouver's graffiti bylaw here, and they define what they think graffiti is. We gave them the right to do that. In fact, the Vancouver Charter gives them the right to do that, so it may have been some previous government. For all I know, it was the government of the 1990s that gave them the right to do that.

Somewhere along the way they got the right to define graffiti so that they could create bylaws dealing with graffiti. The Community Charter — our side of the House can take credit for that. In any case, this legislation doesn't deal with the scope of authority to create bylaws that define what a municipality can and cannot do with regard to signs or graffiti.

[1845]

With all due respect to the member, he has done his best over the past while to paint a picture, I would say, using phrases like "War Measures Act" and "Japanese internment camps," and just a minute ago he used the word "repress," you know, repression. This is all about big government repressing the rights of individuals. That's not what this legislation does. We wouldn't do that anyways, but that's not what this legislation does.

I would suggest to the member that he's insulting the mayor of Vancouver and the council of Vancouver. He's insulting the mayor and council of Richmond. He's insulting the mayor and council of that great resort municipality at Whistler. He's insulting those folks.

He's saying that those mayors and those councillors are going to sit there in the light of day, and they're going to pass bylaws that are going to steal away the rights of private citizens to free speech. They're going to run around in jackboots, to use the expression that one of the other opposition members used the other day, to haul these signs down and do all these terrible things.

Why would they do that, again? Somehow or other, I can't figure out why the hon. member thinks that his former colleague — sat here for four years — would actually do that. I don't believe it. I don't believe the mayor of Vancouver would do that, and for the life of me, I can't understand why the hon. member suggests that he would.

L. Krog: Well, I'm just delighted. I wonder why the hon. minister would suggest that all the other municipal governments in the great province of British Columbia don't deserve the benefit of this legislation and only three get to have it, if it's such a wonderful idea. I mean, that would be my automatic response. If this is so good for everybody, and graffiti is such an enormous problem in the province of British Columbia that we've got to bring in special legislation ensuring that three municipalities get the benefit of it, why don't we apply it to all, and why don't we extend it beyond the period of February 1 to March 31?

Are all the graffiti artists only here for a couple of months a year? Do they travel off in their Winnebagos down to Arizona the rest of the year? Do they jump on
[ Page 1397 ]
their sailboats and head to the South Pacific? Do they head back east to Ottawa? Maybe to sit in parliament, for all I know.

It just strikes me that for the minister to suggest that I'm somehow attacking three municipal governments, and he's defending the rights of these poor three municipal governments…. I just have to say that the great city of Nanaimo deserves some ability to assault these notorious graffiti artists that are threatening the well-being of the Olympic Games.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Don't forget Maple Ridge, the member points out. Don't forget the good people of Maple Ridge.

Well, it's very clear to me that the minister and this government have not looked carefully behind the reasons for this legislation. They've never made any in-depth analysis. It's clear to me that they have gone ahead and simply answered requests, as the provincial government, with respect to signage and graffiti bylaws without ever determining whether or not they're necessary, without ever determining whether or not there is a real evil to address here. With great respect, as I said the other day, maybe we're using a baseball bat when a fly swatter would have sufficed.

It's shocking to me that this government would proceed down this path without ever having inquired: is there any real financial risk of a substantive nature to the city of Vancouver or Richmond or Whistler or the provincial obligations under VANOC? It's pretty clear to me that nobody's really done their homework.

My sense of what's happened here is that people didn't consider the public reaction to this. People didn't consider that Canadians and British Columbians, in particular, and the citizens of Vancouver might be sensitive to issues like this, that they might see a heavy hand. Whether or not it exists, sometimes, as the minister well knows, in politics, it's the impression that counts more than the reality. It's the form, not the substance.

What we have here, essentially, is a form that isn't terribly appealing to people, that hasn't been swallowed by the public with any relish whatsoever, and that appears, I think, in the public's mind to make most people feel uncomfortable.

Having said that, I have belaboured section 77 to the point where I'm sure the minister is tired of hearing about it, so I am going to sit down.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I hear from the member for Kamloops. I'm delighted he's always willing to recognize my remarks in the House, and I'm so delighted he's so careful in listening to my every word. I'm sure he goes home every night and reads Hansard back just to refresh himself or perhaps put himself to sleep, which is what some of our members do.

[1850]

But apart from that, I'm finished on section 77, unless some other member of this House wishes to rise to speak to it.

Section 77 approved on division.

On section 78.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can explain, on section 78: why these changes? Are they, in fact, necessary? Was this requested as part of a larger package, or is this some change that has been in the works for a long time, and we just happened to stick it into this bill?

Hon. B. Bennett: I appreciate the question of the member. I can't tell him how much I appreciate the fact that he doesn't see any boogeymen. At least it doesn't sound like he's going to see any boogeymen here with section 78. There has been an impression created, certainly not by this side of the House, about section 77. It's an impression — if it is out there in the public — that was created by the opposition with the use of some outrageous terminology, which I've already indicated here earlier.

Section 78. It also, like section 77, is very straightforward. What we're doing, as I indicated earlier, is bringing the Vancouver Charter into line with the Community Charter. As I stated earlier, the Community Charter is a much newer piece of legislation that has more modern language. It's laid out a little more so that it's easier to read and understand. We are bringing the charter to some small degree, anyways, into line — the Vancouver Charter, that is — with the Community Charter.

All of these provisions, which I'm happy to discuss specifically with the member, are already located in the Community Charter. All of the authorities and powers that are created or enhanced by these amendments already exist in the Community Charter. I'm truly hoping that the member will just say: "It looks good to me."

Sections 78 to 80 inclusive approved.

L. Krog: Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 1398 ]

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

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HEALTHY LIVING AND SPORT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

On Vote 35: ministry operations, $85,078,000 (continued).

Hon. I. Chong: At this time I understand that the debates that are going to take place deal with the Minister of State for the Olympics and ActNow B.C. I will ask my colleague to provide her opening remarks.

[1455]

Hon. M. McNeil: Before I start, I would like to introduce the staff who are with me here today. We have Dr. Philip Steenkamp, the president and CEO of the 2010 Olympic Games Secretariat. On my right I have Wes Boyd, who is the assistant deputy minister of finance and corporate relations with the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport and the 2010 Olympic Games Secretariat. Behind me, David Galbraith, Assistant Deputy Minister for Healthy Living and Sport.

It's my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to the work that we're doing here to make the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games the most successful in history. Our biggest economic opportunity will come when we welcome the world to British Columbia for the games.

Leading economists have agreed that B.C. will benefit from hosting these games, probably to the tune of $4 billion. These games are going to create jobs, encourage investments and increase tourism all around our province. These are the benefits that B.C. will experience before, during and after 2010.

Next week here in Victoria we will have the first opportunity to share in the excitement. After a special welcome, the Olympic torch starts the longest relay in a host country ever done, touching every corner of our country, within close reach of 90 percent of Canadians.

The 2010 Winter Games provide an unparalleled opportunity to speak directly to three billion people watching around the world. We are also anticipating 250,000 visitors who will come to B.C. during these games. That's a quarter of a million people coming here to experience our province.

For 27 days we will have the very best of our province on display. There is no doubt that we need to take full advantage of this golden opportunity to promote British Columbia as the best place to live, work, play and invest.

Our provincial healthy living initiative, ActNow B.C., is also building on the games' legacy as it's helping to spread the healthy living message across the province. Since Premier Campbell launched ActNow B.C. in 2005, it has helped British Columbians make healthier choices by reminding them that even the simple changes can make a big difference in their health and by showing them how to focus on healthy eating and daily physical activity as a great place to start.

Through ActNow B.C., British Columbians have been leading healthier lifestyles by getting active and eating healthier. Currently B.C. has the highest physical activity rates in Canada for people over 12, the lowest self-reported obesity rates, the lowest smoking rate in Canada.

We have met and exceeded our goal, as 71 percent of pregnant women last year received coaching about alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Our goal was 50 percent, so it was a significant increase.

ActNow B.C. has been recognized by the Health Council of Canada and by the World Health Organization as a model of health promotion. Hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games provides an ideal opportunity to continue to spread the message of the importance of healthy choices for everyone.

I'm proud of the work that we've done, and I think we'll all look back at the Olympic and Paralympic Games as a landmark event that changed the province for the better.

K. Corrigan: Is it Madam Chair in this situation, or Madam Speaker?

The Chair: Madam Chair.

K. Corrigan: Madam Chair. Thank you very much. This is new for me, so I'm still learning. Found out this is where I sit, right across from you. We're both new.

I do have some questions, and the first one would be: can the minister please explain why the Olympic secretariat was given an $8.4 million budget lift between the February budget and the September update?

[1500]
[ Page 1399 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: This additional funding in the critical lead-up to the games that are coming up in February is going to be allocated to Robson Square, which is the province's B.C. pavilion in the art gallery, but also for the activities where we're going to showcase British Columbia to the visitors that are here.

K. Corrigan: So is that breakdown for Robson Square, and is that total amount — just to be clear — the whole of the $8 million increase?

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, that's correct. It's for the B.C. pavilion in the art gallery and for Robson Square activations.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering what has changed between February and now.

Hon. M. McNeil: What has changed since February is that there was a decision made to establish a B.C. pavilion. Up until then there were no plans to have a pavilion outside of the Robson Square activations. But in the lead-up to the 2010 games the Robson Square facility has become such a popular…. We found it has become so popular that we wanted to increase the amount of activation that we had there to showcase the best the province has.

K. Corrigan: Was this decision to increase this funding weighed against the simultaneous decisions to cut vital programs across government?

Hon. M. McNeil: Really, what this decision was about was the fact that the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games are coming to the province. We have an unparalleled opportunity with 250,000 visitors coming to this province, with three billion viewers who are going to be watching us.

It is an opportunity for us to absolutely get the best that we can with respect to showcasing ourselves to the world, again, as a place to live, work, play and invest. It's a huge economic opportunity for us, and we felt it best that we showcase ourselves the best we can.

K. Corrigan: I agree with the goals of the government absolutely in this regard — that we want to showcase our province and do a wonderful job. The government, however, has been planning the games with VANOC for about seven years now.

I guess my question is, again: what has changed between…? In February surely the government would have known and the minister would have known what the plans were. I'm wondering, particularly in a time when so many vital services are being cut, what it was that changed so much that suddenly the ministry needed to spend so much more percentage-wise at this point.

[1505]

Hon. M. McNeil: One thing that did come out is that the office of B.C.'s Auditor General has been urging the province to take a strong role in coordinating marketing efforts during the games. They, and we, agree that this is an unparalleled opportunity to showcase the province to the rest of the world — again, three billion people watching — and so in the lead-up to the games we felt it best to increase our presence, and that's what was done.

K. Corrigan: In terms of marketing, I just want to quickly…. Something that the minister has said, that we will reach three billion people — I've heard that number before many times. I'm just wondering whether that is the actual number of people that are expected to see the games through some medium, or is that the potential market through various television outlets — in other words, the potential viewing market, or the actual number of viewers that are expected?

Hon. M. McNeil: What I've been advised is that apparently these are three billion unique viewers that will be watching. In fact, it probably could be upwards of five billion, but these are the numbers that we've got from the broadcast folks.

K. Corrigan: I understand what you're saying about "unique." That wasn't really the point of my question, and I'll rephrase it, because it probably wasn't clear. The question to the minister is — and maybe the minister is answering: when you talk about that number, three billion or whatever it is, is that the number of people that are actually expected to be watching, or is that the size of the potential viewing market of all the various outlets?

In other words, I've heard very much lower estimates, because if you have a potential viewing audience for an outlet of a million people, but only 200,000 are watching at any given time, then your market is a million, but your actual viewers of a particular program are only 200,000. I'm trying to determine whether you're talking about three billion to five billion actual people or the size of the markets that they're reaching.

Hon. M. McNeil: What I've been advised is that experience has shown that upwards…. Three billion people will be watching worldwide over the course of the Olympic games.

K. Corrigan: In the September service plan it states that progress reports from the B.C. secretariat are one of the government's objectives to ensure that the province meets its financial commitments to the Olympics. Why has the secretariat not produced a progress report since March of 2007?
[ Page 1400 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: What I've been advised is that the progress reports are not formal ones, but they are given informally to the minister as requested.

K. Corrigan: Just to follow up on that with the minister: there is no expectation that the progress reports will be written reports?

[1510]

Hon. M. McNeil: No.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister would confirm that in March of 2007 the report was a written report.

Hon. M. McNeil: The three of us weren't here at that time, but what we understand is that it was a written report, and it was on the website.

K. Corrigan: I think there has been a perceived lack of transparency with relation to the Olympics, and I think the public is keen to know what is going on with the Olympics and the cost of the Olympics. I'm wondering if there could be a commitment by the minister that the progress reports would be more formalized and public.

Hon. M. McNeil: There are actually updates in the public accounts, and there have been updates in the budgets and in the service plan.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what the total expense for the minister of state's budget is for this fiscal year and next. I'm speaking specifically of the line item of executive and support services. It's around $6.2 million for the ministry, but I'm wondering what the breakdown is for the portion of that which is for this portion of the ministry — the minister of state's budget.

Hon. M. McNeil: Could I have the member clarify whether it is the Olympic Games secretariat budget or the minister's office budget.

K. Corrigan: I was speaking about the line item which is the minister's office. It is executive and support services on page 136 of the Estimates, and it's $6.232 million, 2009-2010. That's for the whole of the ministry, and I'm just wondering which portion of that is the minister of state's budget.

Hon. M. McNeil: I've been advised that the total of both ministers' offices is $745,000, and we're just getting the individual numbers.

K. Corrigan: I'm a little bit confused by the minister's answer. I'm talking about page 136 of the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, as updated on September 1, 2009.

[1515]

The question is…. On page 136, when there's executive and support services, which consists of minister's office and corporate services, the amount is $6.232 million. I'm wondering: about what portion of that is the minister of state's? Perhaps I'm confused. The answer is $745,000 of the $6.2 million?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I mentioned, the total of both ministers' offices is $745,000. For the minister of state, it is $300,000.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could explain what the other approximate $550,000 is in that line item.

Hon. M. McNeil: The remaining dollars are for executive and support services, corporate services, finance and admin, and corporate policy and legislation.

K. Corrigan: Just to clarify, then. The $300,000 for operations is simply the minister's office and secretarial staff and so on — that kind of stuff?

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, that's correct.

K. Corrigan: I'd like to ask a few questions about VANOC and the games now. I'm wondering if the minister receives updates from any VANOC officials in terms of their financial status.

Hon. M. McNeil: I receive updates from Dr. Philip Steenkamp. That's how I get my information. He actually sits as one of the co-chairs on the finance committee.

K. Corrigan: Can I just confirm that that's the finance committee of VANOC?

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm sorry. Yes, it is — of VANOC.

K. Corrigan: Okay. Because of these briefings and through the information that the minister receives through Dr. Steenkamp, I'm wondering if the minister can tell me about her level of confidence that VANOC will finish the games without a deficit.

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, through my regular updates from Dr. Philip Steenkamp, I do understand that they will finish…. He gets regular updates, and VANOC will finish with a balanced budget.

[1520]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister has been briefed, in particular, about two issues highlighted
[ Page 1401 ]
in VANOC's most recent — that would be the June — quarterly report. I'd like to just read from that. Page 23 of the VANOC latest quarterly report says:

"Pursuant to venue agreements between VANOC and Cypress Bowl Recreations Ltd. Partnership, VANOC and Whistler Mountain Resort Ltd. Partnership and Blackcomb Skiing Enterprises Ltd. Partnership, VANOC has entered into make-whole agreements with these parties for any shortfall in their expected earnings in relation to their venue operations as a result of certain events being held at the respective venue sites for the purpose of hosting the games. The calculation of the potential required payments has not yet been determined by the parties, and any amounts owing cannot yet be reasonably determined."

My question for the minister is: when was that agreement entered into, and why?

Hon. M. McNeil: The issue the member opposite talks about is VANOC's. I can only speak on the investment that the province has made to the games.

K. Corrigan: Given that the province has a certain liability in terms of any possible overruns, I'm wondering whether the minister has received a briefing on this matter and whether the minister is, therefore, able to answer the question through the briefing that the minister has received through Dr. Steenkamp.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, I can only speak about the province's investments to VANOC. I'm not privy to any of the other information.

K. Corrigan: Just to clarify and finalize. You said that you can't speak to that — that it's a VANOC issue. But my question is: is the minister aware of this, and has the minister been briefed on this?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, I have not been briefed on that issue.

K. Corrigan: I would like to draw your attention to another piece of the same quarterly report, which says:

"VANOC's operating activities are financed by its revenues from sponsorships, broadcasting, ticketing and other sources related to the market and merchandising of the games. VANOC's venue development activities are financed by contributions from Canada and B.C. Working capital requirements arise from the timing differences between the receipt and use of funds and are financed through term credit facilities that provide for VANOC to borrow up to $30 million."

This is the part that I'm stressing.

"Current projections indicate that additional short-term financing will be necessary, which management is confident will be achieved through negotiation with its lenders. VANOC believes that it will secure sufficient credit facilities in order to finance its future operations for the planning, organizing and staging of the 2010 Winter Games."

My question to the minister is: has the minister been briefed on the fact that VANOC was looking to secure additional short-term financing?

Hon. M. McNeil: I cannot speak to this, as I'm not aware of VANOC's cash flow or access to credit. I'm sorry.

[1525]

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear. The minister is not made aware of events like…. With the taxpayers of British Columbia eventually being on the hook to backstop any overruns, the minister is not being briefed on matters such as the two statements that I have quoted from the quarterly report, and just to add to that, the minister doesn't read the quarterly reports?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I think the member opposite knows, VANOC is a federally registered organization with multiple sources of revenue. My concern directly with this ministry is with the province's investment.

K. Corrigan: You know, I've heard this answer several times, not necessarily from this minister — the comment that VANOC is a separate registered company, and therefore, we can't get at it.

Unfortunately, the taxpayers of this province are investing hundreds of millions of dollars, and there have been many reports of shortfalls and financial peril. Things are not looking as good as they should with the Olympics, and as I said earlier, the taxpayers of British Columbia are the ones that are eventually backstopping overruns, or could backstop overruns.

So I find it quite surprising that the minister says that she is not particularly concerned about, or privy to, what's going on with VANOC, because it does seem that it would be in the taxpayers' best interest to be fully aware of what's going on with VANOC at all times. Given that we have able representation from Dr. Steenkamp on the board, it would be my assumption that the government and the ministry would be fully aware of what exactly was going on with VANOC. That's just an observation.

I want to start on a slightly different tack. Back in estimates debate in 2007 the then Minister for the Olympics explained the province's financial liabilities for any games overruns as follows: "The limit of our responsibility would be for any indebtedness that existed between VANOC and the IOC. So if VANOC owed the IOC funds at that stage, then our covenant would click in."

Partially, I'm mentioning that because the answer that the minister is not responsible for VANOC…. It's very clear that there is a financial liability there, a potential liability and a financial responsibility, so I'm surprised at the lack of ability to answer those questions, in the sense that there is no responsibility to answer those questions.

I'll continue on. Recently VANOC announced it had signed an agreement that stipulated that the IOC would
[ Page 1402 ]
provide an unspecified amount of money to VANOC after the games if VANOC cannot balance its budget. At that time, it was reported that VANOC was currently $40 million short in terms of revenues. Was the government involved in any way with the signing of this agreement?

[1530]

Hon. M. McNeil: I guess what I would like to do, and in this forum, which is estimates…. I'm here to answer questions about the province's investment in the 2010 Olympic Games and not to discuss any agreement between IOC and VANOC.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: If the answer to the question was that the government was involved in the signing of the agreement, then that, to me, would have very much to do with the government's responsibilities and government's involvement in the Olympics. So I guess that without knowing the answer to the question, we can't know whether it's appropriate or not that the question was asked.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, this was a discussion and an agreement between the IOC and VANOC, and the province was not involved.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that.

Will the B.C. government have any responsibility to repay moneys forwarded from the IOC to VANOC under this agreement or any other agreement?

Hon. M. McNeil: In the event that VANOC owes the IOC, then the province indemnifies the IOC.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to go to another matter. Also in estimates debate in 2007, the minister of the day referred to participation agreements that had been signed between the province of B.C. and the city of Whistler and the city of Vancouver.

He stated the following — that in those agreements, it stated that "the province would cover off certain costs over and above what those jurisdictions might otherwise have to incur."

"What is important is that in the participation agreements, there is a specific requirement that the province has to agree to that obligation prior. So the province is not obligated for any costs incurred by Vancouver or Whistler unless we agree specifically in writing that we would accept responsibility for those costs. To date we have not accepted any such obligations."

Then, in a city of Vancouver administrative report dated September 15, 2009, it states:

"Under Olympic funding, funding continues for the 2010 games at the levels announced by the Premier in February, at $765 million. The budget update indicates that the provincial costs are now covered. There's a $69 million contingency related to the games, and an additional $10 million is available in the subsequent fiscal year to deal with costs that may arise following the games."

Then it says:

"It remains unclear whether these allocations will address challenges identified by VANOC over the last few months. Specifically, there is as yet no confirmation of funding for instrumental games-related municipal services, which are currently the topic of negotiation with the province."

[1535]

As per the participation agreements, has the province now accepted any responsibility for these additional municipal costs?

Hon. M. McNeil: We are close to concluding agreements with both Whistler and the city of Vancouver on incremental costs.

K. Corrigan: Have the cities requested a certain funding level? What amount has each requested?

Hon. M. McNeil: We are still in negotiation with both, but the dollars will be funded within the $765 million envelope.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear. The province is signing an agreement with Whistler and Vancouver to cover additional municipal costs. When the negotiations are complete, will the minister commit to publicly releasing the agreement and/or the amount that the commitment is?

Hon. M. McNeil: We would have to talk with both Whistler and Vancouver about the releasing of this. But this is for incremental costs. It depends on whether or not it's used, so it's an up-to amount. When the final amount is determined — absolutely.

K. Corrigan: The funds will come from the $765 million? I suppose the minister could confirm whether that is from contingencies or what part of the Olympic budget that's coming from.

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, it's from contingency.

K. Corrigan: I'd like to turn now to some questions about the employee loan program. VANOC had announced that they need 1,500 paid employees on loan for the games. We know that the government recently posted a request for 250 of its employees to work for up to six months during the games. We also know that the government is likely to offer even more of its workforce as the games approach.

The first question for the minister is: how many provincial employees are currently being paid by taxpayers but working for VANOC?

Hon. M. McNeil: I'll have to get that number for you. Up to 1,400 is the total amount required, and they're still receiving interest from corporations.
[ Page 1403 ]

K. Corrigan: Up to 1,400. That's a correction on the 1,500 number, I take it.

[1540]

Maybe I'll just finish my questions so we don't have to get up and down quite as many times. I would appreciate getting that information. That would be very helpful.

In addition, the cost of these current loaned employees — in other words, how much it's going to cost in total, given the amount of time that they're going to work and whether that includes their total benefit package and from what areas of government they've been loaned and into what specific program areas as well.

Hon. M. McNeil: These are ongoing recruitments, so we'll have to do periodic updates.

K. Corrigan: How many provincial employees will receive additional time off to volunteer for the games?

Hon. M. McNeil: The ministry of public service is tracking this number, and we can get it from them.

K. Corrigan: If that is being tracked, I'm wondering if we could also find out what the total expense of this employee volunteer program is. In other words, what would have been the costs associated with those employees for the time that they're volunteering?

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, when we're through the process, we will have those numbers.

K. Corrigan: Can the minister explain how the provincial government can afford to give away for free its labour force at a time when vital programs and services are being cut across government?

Hon. M. McNeil: As you can appreciate, these 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games are a huge economic stimulus for this province. We are very fortunate to have this happening at a time when our economy can absolutely use a jump-start. Any involvement with the games to further their success is a very good investment by the province, because this is really going to be the launching pad for this province, probably for years to come.

K. Corrigan: Does the government count these loaned employees — this is the employee loan program, not the volunteer — as an Olympic expense? Is this part of the Olympic budget, and if not, why not?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, this is not part of the $765 million envelope.

K. Corrigan: We spoke a little earlier about this, but I just want to finally be clear that these loaned employees can be counted and accounted for and that that is going to happen and that the grand total will be available eventually. I also would like confirmation from the minister that that will be made public, or available.

[1545]

Hon. M. McNeil: Seconding public service employees to assist with the games is something that was done in Calgary, as you know, in 1988. It's something that the province has done in the past, and yes, we will have the numbers and an accounting later.

K. Corrigan: During the Olympic Games many provincial employees will be working specifically on Olympic-related work, and I'm thinking of things like medical staff, police officers, public safety officials. Does the minister have an accounting of what percentage of the human resources of government will have to be redirected for the games — not percentage necessarily, but an accounting of what the costs of that are going to be?

Hon. M. McNeil: As you can appreciate, the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games are a government priority. It's a huge economic opportunity for this province, and as such, we would do this for any such opportunity.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a few questions about the B.C. government's tracking of the benefits of the games. In October of 2007 the B.C. government issued a $2 million RFP for a company to compile six annual reports from 2007 to 2013 measuring the benefits of the 2010 games.

We have a copy of that RFP, so I'll just read a few excerpts from it. The stated intention of the RFP was to ensure that the economic, tourism, cultural, sport, social and environmental opportunities associated with hosting the games were identified early and realized before, during and after 2010.

The first baseline report was to be delivered by the contractor no later than November 2007, with the first annual report to be delivered by April 30, 2008. None of these reports have ever been made public.

First of all, my question is: who was awarded this contract?

Hon. M. McNeil: PricewaterhouseCoopers was awarded the contract.

K. Corrigan: Has the government already paid the contractor?

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, there is a payment schedule, and we've been making those.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could advise me of how much has been paid to the contractor to date.
[ Page 1404 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: This is a joint payment with the federal government. I don't have the number on hand, but I can certainly find out for you.

K. Corrigan: Continuing on, what work has been completed? The first baseline report was due November 2007. I'm wondering if that report has been received by the minister, and if so, will the minister commit to providing it to me? What subsequent reports have been completed, and will the minister commit to providing them to me? And can the minister summarize some of the conclusions? I can repeat some of those questions, if necessary.

Hon. M. McNeil: Very shortly the reports from PwC will be released, and I can then talk about it at that time.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that. The minister said that the reports will be released very shortly and that we can speak about them then. I just want to be clear. We're talking about the baseline report due in November 2007, which is the first one.

[1550]

Hon. M. McNeil: There are four reports. The first report is a framework report that discusses the overall project methodology. The second is an interim report summarizing the impacts of the 2010 Winter Games from 2003 to 2007. The third is a detailed report on the impact of the games from 2003 to 2008. The fourth is a comparison of actual impacts to date with an original study conducted by InterVistas in 2002.

K. Corrigan: So these are going to be released soon. I'm wondering if it would be possible to get some idea of the expectation of when the reports will be released.

Hon. M. McNeil: Next week.

K. Corrigan: If the minister could confirm: was the baseline report that was due in November of 2007 received in November of 2007? And same question for the subsequent reports. I'm wondering if the minister could confirm what the schedule was for them and whether they were received on the scheduled dates, and what those dates were.

Hon. M. McNeil: The reports that you talk about are coming in. They are being translated, as they are partially from the federal government. They will be received, hopefully, next week.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify, then. The minister said that the reports were coming in. So is the minister saying that she has not received these reports to date?

Hon. M. McNeil: I have not received them, but they will be released jointly with the federal government next week.

K. Corrigan: Just to be absolutely picky, the minister said that she had not received the reports. Does that mean that the ministry or the secretariat had not received those reports? This has come to government, is my assumption from that answer. I just want to clarify.

Hon. M. McNeil: I've been advised that the Olympic Games secretariat has received a draft, but they're working with the federal government on the translation.

K. Corrigan: I'm a little surprised, because the baseline report was due in November 2007. The answer that I've just received indicates that the secretariat has received the reports only very recently and that they're being translated.

Could I receive a confirmation that, in fact, the first baseline report that was due in November 2007 and the subsequent reports are now just being received and translated for the first time by the ministry?

Hon. M. McNeil: We're going to have to clarify the date, because the information that we have was that the report was commissioned by both governments in January 2008. We're just clarifying the date.

[1555]

K. Corrigan: I'd appreciate any further information on that. If the date was not…. My understanding was that that was what was in the RFP. There may have been some changes to that.

Could the minister confirm to me, then: if we move the goalpost just a little bit, was the first baseline report due, then, in early 2008?

Hon. M. McNeil: We will have to confirm that.

K. Corrigan: One of the stated intentions of this $2 million contract was to ensure that the economic, tourism, cultural, sport, social and environmental opportunities associated with hosting the games were identified early. I believe that's a quote from the RFP.

I'm a little mystified that we are here, a few months before the Olympics, and what I'm hearing is that these reports that were supposed to be a baseline report, an interim report and then two further reports — one more report and then a final report. I don't understand why there is a value, then, to having these reports if government is just receiving them now.

Hon. M. McNeil: It's my understanding that this is the first time they've had a longitudinal look at the
[ Page 1405 ]
games — the impact of the games, if you will. I know that the IOC sees this as a best practice.

The information I have is that they were developing a series of reports beginning in 2009 that are there to assess the annual direct and indirect impacts, between 2003 and 2012, of hosting the games, and steps taken by the federal and provincial governments to leverage impacts in eight areas: sport development, tourism, environmental sustainability, social development, arts and culture, economic development, employment and business development. The report is helping to quantify the many economic benefits of hosting the games, which will include creating businesses and jobs.

K. Corrigan: Well, I guess my understanding of what the report was supposed to do is different than what I'm being told. My understanding was that the reports were supposed to provide some information to government in the lead-up to the games, as well as post-games, about what the possibilities were for the games and where changes could be made and to take advantage of the information in the reports.

The fact of the original dates for the reports being earlier than what is happening now would, to me, confirm that there would seem to be some benefit from the fact that the reports would be delivered in succession, well in advance of the games.

The first report was either due in…. November 2007 was the original RFP, and perhaps it was delayed to early 2008. Then the first annual report from the RFP was to be delivered by April 30, 2008. It seems pretty clear to me that it was expected, from the RFP, that there was some value in getting these reports in advance.

To the minister: I'm wondering if you could reconcile these two different approaches to what the reports were supposed to be delivering and what they were for?

[1600]

Hon. M. McNeil: I think the real goal of this was to see what the actual return on the investment was of the games. Do they result in clear economic benefits for British Columbia and Canada? That is what we are already seeing, but that's what the report is there to provide us.

K. Corrigan: Well, the stated intention of the RFP was to ensure that the economic, tourism, cultural, sports, social and environmental opportunities associated with the games were identified early and realized before, during and after 2010.

I won't continue on with that. For some reason the reports were supposed to be there and they weren't, and there was apparently a reason for them to be there. So whatever — they're late.

Perhaps my next question will be, then: is there a reason that these reports have been delivered so late?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, I don't see a reason for the delay. We've been working with the federal government. The last issue, that I understand, was getting the translations done. That is what has been done, and they'll be released next week.

K. Corrigan: Has the ministry had any discussions with Pricewaterhouse with regard to removing or amending or suppressing any content of that report?

Hon. M. McNeil: As you can appreciate, Pricewater­houseCoopers is an independent, highly respected organization, and in no way did we want to, I guess, talk to them about any of the information. We want it to be absolutely factual.

K. Corrigan: I don't want to play with words here, but I appreciate the candidness, and I want to be clear that what the minister is saying is that the answer is no.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm advised that the ministry has been asked to do fact checks, but in no way would they be involved in any part of the report that's coming forward.

K. Corrigan: So "fact checks" — that's an interesting word. Could the minister please give me an example of what kind of fact checks there could be, and what kind of information would end up perhaps being amended because of a fact check?

Hon. M. McNeil: What I understand is that anytime there's a report done like this, the ministry may be asked for corrections of dates or facts of information as to numbers or dates.

K. Corrigan: So we're not talking about any material change in terms of the content — perhaps the estimation of the benefits or the baseline information, and so on — that has been provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Hon. M. McNeil: No. First off, it would defeat the purpose of the report. Also, it would be against any professional conduct of either the public service or of the independent body.

[1605]

K. Corrigan: It's been close to seven years since the government has publicly released an economic impact study of the games. In a December 13, 2008, Vancouver Sun article, Auditor General John Doyle commented on the need for public reporting on the benefits of the Olympics. He said: "I'd also like to see completion of the benefits model so that citizens can have the entire picture of how the whole process is going."

Can the minister account for the absence of this important public information?
[ Page 1406 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: As I've said, the report will be available next week.

K. Corrigan: I want to talk about another impact study. A UBC research team led by Dr. Rob VanWynsberghe was appointed by VANOC to provide third-party data and analyses for the Olympic Games Impact, or the OGI, research project. OGI is mandated by the International Olympic Committee. The purpose of OGI is to measure the impact of future Olympic and Paralympic Games through a consistent and comparable reporting system.

OGI uses a series of 126 indicators that measure the status of many environmental, socio-cultural and economic dimensions of the host city, region and nation. This is a five-year project. The UBC researchers will measure changes between 2001 and 2013 with respect to the 126 indicators.

The baseline report done by the Fraser Basin Council has already been delivered. A second pre-games report has been completed and was delivered to VANOC in May, I believe, of this year. It has not been released since then.

My question to the minister is: who paid for the report, and how much did it cost?

Hon. M. McNeil: We did not. It's not our study. We didn't pay for it, so I can't comment any further.

K. Corrigan: I would like confirmation, then, that the reason this report has not been made public yet has absolutely nothing to do with the ministry. It's entirely the decision of VANOC.

Hon. M. McNeil: I have no information about the report, nor can I comment on it.

K. Corrigan: I assume that when the minister says, "I haven't seen the report and can't comment on it," that the minister is saying that the minister is representing the ministry and that the ministry or the secretariat is also not privy to the report and has not had any contact with that report.

Hon. M. McNeil: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to speak for a few minutes about the service plan performance measures. In the September service plan update the government includes only three ways to measure the effectiveness of the government's efforts in holding and promoting the games. These are businesses registered for the 2010 business opportunities, the number of media visits to the B.C. Media Centre and the value of earned media in all forms generated by B.C. Media Centre use.

My question to the minister is: why were these particular variables chosen?

[1610]

Hon. M. McNeil: The objective that we have for the OGS is to ensure that we best showcase British Columbia as the best place to live, work, play and invest. These three measurements are there because they are a good way to measure our success.

K. Corrigan: We've just talked about a Pricewater­houseCoopers report, that the initial reports were due as much as a year and a half ago, and an OGI report, which looks at 126 indicators that measure the status of environmental, socio-cultural and economic dimensions of the host city, the region and the nation — very intensive reports that are evaluating the benefits and the impact of the games.

At the same time, I've heard the minister and the government repeatedly say that these games are going to bring X number of dollars of benefit, several billion dollars' worth of benefit. Publicly that is what's said repeatedly — that the games are going to change the face of the province, that tourism is going to receive X number of dollars of benefit.

I need to ask again how it is that the minister thinks that these three small measurements are sufficient to reflect the benefits or impacts of the games upon this province.

Hon. M. McNeil: Not only do we go on those three measurements, as you've said, we're also going on the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which will be released next week. We'll have additional numbers that we can talk about at that time.

K. Corrigan: I hate to be cynical, but I'm just wondering whether these choices that were made in terms of measuring the government's success were chosen because there was already a sense that the media visits to the B.C. Media Centre were going to be very high and, in fact, were very high.

I guess my question is: is it a complete coincidence that these things that were chosen are the ones that are, in fact, doing well?

Hon. M. McNeil: It's interesting. The B.C. unaccredited media centre is looking very successful. I think one thing that we have learned from other jurisdictions is they have not been a success. So already we're showing success in this regard.

S. Simpson: I'm looking forward to the opportunity just to ask a few questions that relate very specifically to my constituency and to the situation in Vancouver-Hastings, where we have a couple of Olympic venues. We have the Pacific Coliseum and the Agrodome, facilities that will be used for the Olympics.

[1615]

To put this in a bit of context, I've been involved in a number of discussions with the local business improve-
[ Page 1407 ]
ment association in my constituency. We've had the opportunity to meet with VANOC officials on a couple of occasions to talk about the potential impacts on small businesses and local businesses along the Hastings corridor primarily.

As the minister may know, Hastings is going to be a key corridor for Olympic traffic, and there's going to be, obviously, a series of restrictions and conditions put on road use and that. As the minister I'm sure will also know, there's no doubt that the downtown peninsula and businesses in the downtown peninsula are hopefully going to do very, very well by the Olympics and are going to find a lot of business coming their way — as will the Whistler village find an awful lot of opportunities there.

It's less so the case — and I would hope that the minister would agree — for many of the small businesses in a place like the Hastings corridor, where much of their clientele is local. It's the local dry cleaner. It's the local café. It's the local pub. It's those kinds of things that are very much neighbourhood-based.

One of the challenges…. Certainly, the people and the businesses in my constituency are happy to be part of the Olympic event, and they understand that they are going to make a small sacrifice of sorts in order for the Olympics to succeed. They appreciate that, and I don't think there's a lot of quibbling about that.

However, here's the situation. What they have been looking for…. I know that they've had some discussions around things like neighbourhood promotions. What they've been looking at is a situation where….

For example, is there room for the Olympics…? Is there room for the ministry to encourage VANOC — directly or through other avenues — to do the kinds of things that encourage people who are coming into that community, "If you're going to the coliseum for figure skating, beat the rush and come an hour earlier, and here are a bunch of interesting places along this area where you might be able to have a drink or have something to eat" — to prepare brochures to that effect?

Or: "If you're at the event, when it ends and you don't want to be caught in the rush coming back, spend another hour in that neighbourhood, and then you can catch a bus right there on Hastings and get back to your hotel or wherever it is that you're going" — to do that and to be able to produce neighbourhood brochures or whatever that say: "It's a ten-minute bike ride from downtown to this area, so take your bike." And also, "Stop by and enjoy sushi at the local sushi restaurant," or whatever, so that a little bit of that business that is largely going to go to the downtown core — and that's to be expected….

It provides some opportunity, maybe, for a little bit of that spinoff to come into local neighbourhoods and communities who are affected, because we do have venues, but aren't realistically going to see much of the direct benefit from that at a local business level.

My question to the minister is: has the minister given any thought to those kinds of initiatives and to whether those might be a doable thing?

Hon. M. McNeil: Actually, the member opposite brings up a very good point, and I think that might be a good opportunity. We are working closely with Tourism B.C. to produce a map of the various neighbourhoods of the Lower Mainland to encourage the 250,000 people that are coming to the city to get around and enjoy the neighbourhoods. So I think that's a very good idea.

One of the things that the province is doing is we're spending a lot of time in Robson Square — as you know, that's where the province's presence will be — and we are also looking to promote the communities, not just in the Lower Mainland but also around British Columbia. So there are opportunities there as well, and I take note of the member's suggestion.

S. Simpson: I know that there's been some conversation…. I certainly can't claim this idea as my own. It's an idea that was developed by the local business improvement association, and I suspect it's one that's probably been part of a discussion with a number of the BIAs in Vancouver, particularly — maybe not exclusively — as they look for ways to draw a little bit of that anticipated benefit of the quarter-million visitors and everything that that will mean in terms of spending dollars in Vancouver and, as the minister says, in other communities.

[1620]

The question I have around this …. They have had some challenges, and I will tell you that the BIA has had some difficulties in getting much traction on this idea with the folks that they've talked to. I've spoken to them as recently as today.

They've really had a little difficulty, for example, in talking to TransLink or the bus service and saying, "Can we produce these kinds of things and maybe get them on to the buses?" so that when somebody jumps on a Hastings bus to head up Hastings to go up to the coliseum for an event, on that bus is going to be some kind of promotion that talks about the neighbourhoods that that bus is going to pass through. So that people might say…. They read it, and they go, "Oh, yeah, that's not a bad idea; maybe I'll do that," or whatever. But they've had some difficulty with that.

So the question I have is: what are the opportunities for leadership from the minister and the ministry to encourage Tourism B.C., to encourage VANOC, to encourage TransLink and the city of Vancouver, which I think has given some thought to this, certainly? How does that happen to move this along?

My concern is that it's potentially a good idea that falls through the cracks. As the minister will tell us every day as we count down the days…. I expect to hear it almost every day from the minister.
[ Page 1408 ]

A Voice: It's 114.

S. Simpson: The 114, 113 and so on. But it gets pretty quickly that it's on top of us, and this will take some preparation, it will take some thought, and it will take some investment.

I'm asking the minister or her officials through the secretariat: what can be done to, hopefully, advance an idea like this and maybe bring it to fruition so that those smaller communities that are not downtown Vancouver or Whistler actually get maybe a little bit bigger piece of this pie than they might under other circumstances?

Hon. M. McNeil: In 2005 the province did open what's called the 2010 Commerce Centre. It's located in Robson Square down by the soon-to-be GE ice rink, and it has been open since 2005. It's been working with the various business organizations and the business associations as well — maybe not the one you're referring to, so we should maybe rectify that.

But they are meeting with a lot of these different folks — and again, not just in the Lower Mainland but all around British Columbia — to let them know about the opportunities going forward and how to benefit from not only visitors to the games but also the other opportunities that we might have.

So I would — if you can do the same — encourage them to get in touch with 2010 Commerce Centre. Go on line as well, and we can make that connection. Or just go down to Robson Square. They've been there, as I've said, since 2005. It's a wonderful opportunity for businesses, big and small, to find out the opportunities.

S. Simpson: Just one last comment in relation to this, and then I'll be done. I appreciate the minister's comments there. I guess I would express this concern again. I know that there are an awful lot of people working extremely hard and under very tight deadlines to get things done to make sure February rolls out the way everybody wants it to and hopes that it will roll out in terms of the success of the Olympics. I am very aware of that, and everybody has got a lot on their plate to do.

I will pass on that information, but what I'm hoping is that there may be an official related to the minister, through the secretariat or whatever, who might be able to support this file a little bit — I know everybody is busy — somebody who we could connect this BIA with.

I know the Commercial Drive folks would have the same view of Commercial Drive. There are a lot of fabulous restaurants and opportunities to visit there. But somebody that they could talk to. Get it out of this place, and get it into the hands of people who might actually get it done, with the folks at the community level and some of your officials.

So I would appreciate if the minister had any direction as to who I could specifically put the BIA and some of those organizations in my community in touch with, and then they can take it upon themselves to move these ideas forward.

Hon. M. McNeil: I will ensure that my office gets in touch with you and lets you know about who to get in touch with at 2010 Commerce Centre so that the connections can be made.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to follow up on something that I asked a few questions about earlier and get a clarification on something.

[1625]

When I asked the minister whether the B.C. government will have any responsibility to repay moneys forwarded from the IOC to VANOC, the response, I believe, was that there would be a responsibility.

Hon. M. McNeil: The province's obligation is to the IOC. That's how it works.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to know whether this was tied in any way to the announcement from the IOC that they would provide an unspecified amount of money to VANOC after the games if VANOC cannot balance its budget. And that was up to $40 million.

Hon. M. McNeil: No, it is not tied.

K. Corrigan: I want to ask a couple of questions about Tourism B.C. I'm wondering if the minister was part of the decision-making process to dissolve Tourism B.C. as an entity separate from government.

Hon. M. McNeil: I am part of cabinet, but I can't talk about this.

K. Corrigan: Has the ministry carried out any studies on the impact of this decision on Olympic-related marketing initiatives?

Hon. M. McNeil: No.

K. Corrigan: It seems odd — in this year leading up to the Olympics, when tourism is seen as such a major spinoff benefit and is proclaimed to be such a major spinoff benefit, not only now but in the future of the Olympics — that the ministry responsible for the Olympics would not have investigated the potential impact that dissolving an effective organization like Tourism B.C. would be.

Hon. M. McNeil: Tourism B.C. is under Tourism, Culture and the Arts, and I know that they're working very hard on marketing opportunities for the Olympic Games.
[ Page 1409 ]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what her ministry is doing to maximize the tourism benefits of the Olympic Games.

Hon. M. McNeil: As you can imagine, the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games are a huge marketing opportunity, and our ministry is working with Tourism, Culture and the Arts and PAB on this. But probably the biggest marketing opportunity we will have is at Robson Square, where we are focusing the province's attention.

[1630]

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a couple of questions that were related to some comments that were made by the minister yesterday, I believe it was, in question period. There was a question asked about…. There was a comment made about the percentage of contracts that were Canadian or let to Canadian companies and the percentage of contracts that were B.C. companies. I'm wondering if the minister could just remind me of what that information was. Frankly, I don't have it in front of me.

Hon. M. McNeil: I was advised by VANOC that 92 percent of the contracts of value are Canadian. Of those, 86 percent are in B.C.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering, when we're talking about that 92 percent of the value of the contracts being Canadian, what that includes. Does that include construction contracts? Does that include the service contracts? Does that include the procurement contracts? Does it include everything, or what would be included in that?

Hon. M. McNeil: That includes all contracts awarded.

K. Corrigan: Does the minister have a separate breakdown of what percentage value of the contracts are Canadian and what percentage of value of contracts are B.C. contracts, with regard to procurement of items?

Hon. M. McNeil: No. I don't have that information.

K. Corrigan: The minister is obviously able to gather that information, because it was there yesterday. I'm wondering if the minister would be so kind as to gather that information and provide it to me.

Hon. M. McNeil: Obviously, these questions are VANOC-related. I could speak to VANOC about that and see if it is publicly available, but otherwise, I don't have that information.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: It seems to me that when the minister wants to have some information that the minister feels is positive information in responding to question period, the minister is quite able to get that information from VANOC.

It seems to me, also, that if the minister is capable of getting that information…. VANOC obviously was quite willing to share that information. The minister should be just as capable of getting that information, and VANOC should be just as willing to share that information.

I would like a commitment from the minister that she will just as vigorously pursue that information as she did the information that was used to put forward her response in question period.

Hon. M. McNeil: I think it would be appropriate to remind the member opposite that this is not question period and that this discussion we're having is about budget estimates of my ministry and not those of VANOC.

K. Corrigan: I think that the minister is throwing information out there in question period and making an assertion. You're right. It is VANOC, but the reality is that this is money that could be coming to B.C. companies. We're just trying to find out what percentage of money is actually coming to B.C. companies.

I'm going to ask another related question. So, 92 percent of the value of contracts that are Canadian…. A contract that would be called Canadian would include, would it not, a contract that had been given to a Canadian company but where the work had been outsourced to, say, China?

[1635]

Hon. M. McNeil: I guess I would like to remind the member opposite again that the reason for these proceedings is to discuss budget estimates of my ministry and not those of VANOC.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think the people of British Columbia would appreciate having that information. Again, this is one of the problems we have with having a private company, which has received hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, being shielded, essentially, from questions about the use of public moneys because they are a private company. However, I will maybe save that question for question period.

I wanted to ask a couple of more questions about the budget for the games, and I'd like to go through a couple of areas.

I would like to first of all ask about the status of the medical budget. The medical budget in the 2009 B.C. budget was $13 million. I've heard various medical people, actually, say to me that it sounds like a really low number for a medical budget for the Olympic Games. I just would like to check with the minister whether or not we are still on track for $13 million for medical costs for the Olympic Games.
[ Page 1410 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: The province's contribution to the medical aspects is $12.8 million.

K. Corrigan: Okay, the contribution is $12.8 million, and the minister doesn't see that there will be an overrun on those medical costs.

Hon. M. McNeil: The answer is no.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the security budget. The security budget in the original budget was $87 million, and then it went up to $252.5 million — this information was contained in a provincial-federal security announcement in February of 2009 — and $165 million of that was in a deferred federal capital payment.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what the total security cost for the Olympic Games is at this point.

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, our contribution is $87.5 million to security plus $165 million for infrastructure, and the rest of this is a federal cost.

K. Corrigan: This other $165 million was for infrastructure. I'm wondering if that infrastructure money…. Now the province is going to pay the federal share, I assume, on a project. Do we know what project that is at this point?

Hon. M. McNeil: The answer is no, we don't. They are projects to be negotiated with the federal government.

[1640]

K. Corrigan: In terms of the total security costs, which I understand range — I've heard differing numbers — between $900 million and $1 billion, I appreciate that the minister says that the rest is federal. My question for the minister is: does the ministry not receive updates as to what the security costs are?

Hon. M. McNeil: No. After making our initial payment, the federal government is the one that's responsible for everything over and above.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to check in on a couple of other estimated costs. The Olympics contingency allowance was $79 million in the February budget. I'm wondering if the minister could update me on what the contingency allowance is at this point.

Hon. M. McNeil: The contingency is $69 million for this fiscal and $10 million for next fiscal.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to check on a couple of other Olympic costs and just confirm whether they are considered to be costs associated with the Olympics and confirm whether or not they are considered to be Olympic costs. The $765 million budget that the province has said is their Olympic budget — does that include the Olympic secretariat costs?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, it does not.

K. Corrigan: Could the minister tell me what the total costs of the Olympic secretariat have been to date?

Hon. M. McNeil: To date it has been $32.9 million.

K. Corrigan: Just for clarification, that was $32.9 million for this year.

[1645]

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, the OGS operating budget is $32.9 million, and that's since 2002-03.

K. Corrigan: I seek some clarification from the minister, because the secretariat's budget for this fiscal year in February was $32 million and, with the update, increased up to $40 million. I'm trying to understand what the disparity is. Can I assume you're talking about the operating, as opposed to the actual budget of VANOC? Is that what you're talking about?

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

K. Corrigan: Okay, thank you.

K. Conroy: Quick change here. Just a few questions on security issues. I'm not sure if the minister is up on it. Just a brief summary. It's to do with the security issues around small airports in B.C. who have to be shut down due to the Olympics.

Trail is a perfect example of this. It's one of the very few airports that now looks like they're going to have to be shut down during the Olympics for security reasons. It's quite devastating to the community.

Actually, the community is looking at one of the benefits of the Olympics as potentially, hopefully, bringing in the cross-country ski team from Russia, I believe. They would fly into Trail. So it is exceedingly difficult to see that airport being closed.

There are two flights a day that come in and out. It's operated by Pacific Coastal. Pacific Coastal cannot afford the extra costs of the security that it would have to incur to put up any kind of security. The cost of additional flights for people or the enhancement of the flights — it would be very difficult for them to incur that as well.

Also, the people from Pacific Coastal, as well as the folks…. We've talked to federal folks, Pacific Coastal folks, and everybody says it seems somewhat ridiculous to think that the airline could load in Trail, fly to
[ Page 1411 ]
another airport, unload at another airport, then go through security and reload again. Because if there was really a security issue and they got on the flight in Trail, someone could commandeer that flight and do what they wanted with it prior to getting to another airport. So it does seem a little ridiculous, very expensive and cost prohibitive for the airline.

We're wondering if there is any funding. I know we've been asking for this. This is really quite unfair and impacts the community of Trail fairly substantially. We're wondering if there's any funding at all or any further considerations to ensuring that this community isn't penalized by the Olympics.

Hon. M. McNeil: This is an issue I know quite well. My actual riding is downtown Vancouver, where a lot of the harbour flights come in and out as well. I've met with many of them. At UBCM I had the opportunity to meet with some of the airports also around British Columbia to talk about this.

I also spent some time last week at ISU with them. It is their issue, as you know. Security is their issue. I did meet with them, and at the end of our discussion on security, I did bring up the airlines. We chatted a bit about that. What we agreed is that they will give me the name of the person that I can have folks that I chat with talk to directly about these issues — because, as you say, for some of the airlines, it is significant.

Having said that, the federal government and the ISU are tasked with a pretty significant task, and that is the security of the games. I do know that ISU has said they've had meetings every three months with the various carriers. They have met with Pacific Coastal, who asked them to consider certain airports. Trail was not one of them, but I did put that forward as an airport that had concerns.

What I can say to the member opposite is that I have chatted with ISU about it. I know that they have a huge task ahead of them, but they also understand that there are concerns and are going to be working directly with these folks.

[1650]

K. Conroy: I appreciate that the minister has had these discussions with ISU. I've also been speaking to them. I think that the community would feel a lot better if it was more than discussions, and somewhere there might even be some funding to help out. It seems wrong that a community should be penalized because of the Olympics.

There are very few benefits to the interior of B.C. It would just be really concerning for the people to have this as one of the outcomes of the Olympics — to see their airport shut down.

So I'm hoping that the minister, in her wisdom, will be able to not only work with these people but to be able to find some sort of funding to help the very few airports now. As the minister has alluded to, the airports in Vancouver are actually getting funding, as are many of the airports in the Victoria area. They're being dealt with. So it seems to be, from our understanding, the airports in rural B.C. that are being penalized in this manner.

Hon. M. McNeil: Actually, a correction should be made, in that there are airports that have been working with Transport Canada and CATSA. ISU has worked with them to put in extra screening devices in various airports. So it's not all the airports that are troubled by this. It is a few. Again, I know that Pacific Coastal was working with ISU to ensure that certain airports did get it. So as far as rural B.C. having a problem, they are being looked after in certain things. Is it enough? That's something I'm still concerned with.

K. Conroy: I thank her for her concern, but it's a few rural airports that are being hampered by this ruling. I hope there's more than concern, but an actual show of support through financial support or working in cooperation with other members — other of the partners that are involved in this — and ensuring that those rural airports are not hampered. I know that other rural airports have managed to get the funding and have managed to get the support so they can go ahead with their service. It would be unfortunate if there were a few that were penalized by the Olympics.

K. Corrigan: I had a particular constituent who had asked that I bring up an issue in estimates. It has to do with the outsourcing of mapping for the Olympics. Now, my understanding from this constituent is that there is a healthy mapping industry in British Columbia which is trying to survive, and that there was a mapping project done as part of preparation for the Olympics and that this mapping contract was not given to a Canadian company but to an offshore company.

The concern that was expressed by my constituent was that it is very difficult for Canadian companies who pay $8 an hour at minimum and probably more, that pay for benefits — CPP and EI so on — and all the things that we think are valuable and important to give to employees in Canada, but that are not necessarily true when mapping services are contracted out….

I'm wondering if the minister would be so kind as to let me know if she knows anything about this contract and whether or not it was, in fact, outsourced out of the country and whether or not the minister is willing to…. First of all, whether or not it was outsourced.

[1655]

Hon. M. McNeil: I have no knowledge of this, as it's a VANOC issue. Again, I'm here to answer questions about budget estimates in my ministry. But if the
[ Page 1412 ]
member would like a conversation out of this forum, absolutely, we can do that.

K. Corrigan: I would be pleased to do that, and I think my constituent would appreciate that as well. So I will put that aside and take you up on that offer.

I wanted to go back to the estimated costs and just go through some of them — because it's been quite a while since we've been in estimates — and check whether or not these are part of the provincial budget and whether they are, in fact, provincial responsibilities. So I'm just going to go through a list of them.

Legacies Now, in 2008, had estimated costs, in the public accounts, of $194.3 million. Is Legacies Now part of the provincial government budget for the Olympics — the $765 million?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, it is not.

K. Corrigan: It's not, but can I just have a confirmation that it is, in fact, a provincial cost?

Hon. M. McNeil: Unfortunately, I can't answer that because I do know that Legacies Now has received money from many sources, including government funding. So that number I can't respond to.

K. Corrigan: I don't have the B.C. Public Accounts for 2008-2009 in front of me right now, but my understanding is that it did say that $194 million in the public accounts, which I would assume would be a provincial government cost…. So I guess the question is, again: is that a government cost, and would the minister also confirm that that would indeed be appropriately characterized as an Olympic cost?

Hon. M. McNeil: The relationship that that group has is with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts and not this ministry.

K. Corrigan: Okay, well, I will then pass that on to the appropriate critic, to ask that question.

Perhaps the minister could answer, then — because the minister is responsible for the Olympics, whether it's in the minister's ministry or not — that that would be considered an Olympic-related expenditure.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. M. McNeil: The $765 million that we speak of is the amount that the province has spent to meet its obligation to the IOC, for the Olympic Games. There are additional costs that the province has made in order to benefit and take advantage of the opportunity of having the 2010 games here within the province.

[1700]

K. Corrigan: Madam Chair, it's so nice to see you back.

You know, I've heard over and over again the government saying that the cost of the Olympics, the provincial contribution, is $765 million. I am very interested that the minister is now saying that that is simply the obligation — under the Olympics — to VANOC and the IOC.

So I would just like to clarify that the minister is indeed saying that there are other and substantial costs that are directly related to the Olympics that the provincial taxpayers are paying for.

Hon. M. McNeil: What I am saying — what the previous minister for the Olympics has said as well — is that the $765 million is the amount that the province has to meet its obligation to stage the Olympics.

K. Corrigan: Obligations to stage the Olympics. So I will remember that phrase in the future when I hear references from government about the costs of the Olympics, but I would also like, perhaps, just a confirmation on the second part of that. Is the minister confirming that other expenses, like Legacies Now, are properly characterized as Olympic-related expenses?

Hon. M. McNeil: These are investments to take advantage of the Olympics, as you would to take advantage of any other tremendous opportunity.

K. Corrigan: I think I'm going to defer to another member right now to ask a few questions.

D. Routley: The minister and the government have made wide-ranging claims regarding the benefits of the Olympics, and it's been canvassed here earlier just what information those claims are based on. There has been very little offered in terms of any kind of empirical evidence that could indicate that British Columbia stands to benefit to the levels that have been advertised by the government. Very little information has been offered.

We haven't heard of studies of previous host jurisdictions and the impacts and benefits that have been felt there versus what was advertised before the holding of the Olympics. In fact, we've heard from different sectors of the economy and different players in the economy of their discomfort in having been left out of the equation.

I listened to a bus contractor talk about how they weren't given an opportunity to participate. In fact, the contract for providing buses went to a company in Florida. Earlier, the minister in question period used some figures regarding the number of contracts that have been let to Canadian and B.C. firms. So those claims have been wide-ranging. We haven't seen what they're based on.

[1705]

To those of us in more rural areas, we have a difficult time seeing just how we're going to derive benefits
[ Page 1413 ]
from those claims. There's one particular issue in my region. I used to represent the area that encompassed the Cowichan First Nation. I now am a little bit north of that, but since I'm standing here, I'd like to ask the minister some questions about what was done to include the Cowichan people.

The sweaters that have been created by Hudson's Bay Co. have in fact referred to the Cowichan sweater in their promotion. Last year there was a strong effort put forth by the Cowichan people, the local media in the Cowichan Valley, myself and other local representatives to encourage the Vancouver Olympics to include the Cowichan sweater in either the uniform of the Canadian team or in some kind of a promotional way.

Now we see that Hudson's Bay has used the style of the Cowichan sweater and have even referred to the words "Cowichan sweater" in their promotion. The Cowichan people are offended.

The knitters were ready. They could produce items for the Olympics, but they weren't given that chance. Does the minister not see that as a failure to extend the benefit of the Olympics to the fullest number of British Columbians possible?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, earlier in this discussion we were chatting about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that is going to be coming out next week. It's going to help to quantify the many economic benefits of hosting the 2010 games. That will give us some more numbers to talk about next week.

Just to go to what the member opposite was chatting about, and that was the issue of the Cowichan sweater, I'd like to remind the member that this was a commercial agreement between a corporation, Hbc, and VANOC. It has nothing to do with budget estimates of this ministry, so outside of saying anything more, there really can't be more said in this forum.

D. Routley: I do think that some of the claims that were made even in the opening statements by the minister point to the ministry's role in extending the benefits, economic and social, of the Olympics to as many British Columbians as possible. I would like to know what the ministry has done, if anything, to encourage the use of the Cowichan sweater in some form — or any other first nations–produced products in the Olympic event.

Hon. M. McNeil: To the member opposite: I have met with the Chief of Cowichan Tribes a couple of days ago and have agreed to help connect her with VANOC. Again, it is an Olympic issue in that regard. Other than that, I cannot really say anything more in this forum.

D. Routley: The government has also promoted itself through its commitment to the concept of reconciliation and the concept that we would be, in all of our endeavours and all of our enterprises, attempting to include, encourage and promote our first nations sisters, brothers and cousins. So I wonder…. I think this was an opportunity missed, to bring real meaning to the word "reconciliation" — the concept that was promoted.

It's encouraging that the minister has met with the Cowichan Chief, but this is after the fact. In fact, there was a strong effort put forth by the community to in some way reach out to the government and encourage the government to include the Cowichan people, the Cowichan sweater, in the Olympic preparations. That goes back more than a year.

One of the local reporters, Mike Damour, tried to reach the Premier, to speak to the Premier about the issue. He has tried for over a year to reach the Premier to have some kind of a discussion on this, and he's been unsuccessful in doing that. Frankly, the people in Cowichan feel — and these are their words — insulted that they weren't given more consideration in advance of this time.

[1710]

Now it's encouraging that this minister has met with the Chief, but this is after this decision was taken. Surely, there could have been some effort made by the government to be encouraging of that movement. Does the minister not agree that there should have been a stronger effort to include first nations in the development of products and marketplaces for those products?

Hon. M. McNeil: I would like to remind the member opposite — and I've said many times in the House as well — that this is the first Olympic Games where the first nations have been included as a full partner in an Olympic Games. I think the province should be very proud of that.

They do have the Four Host First Nations group that is actually within the same building as the organizing committee. A fellow by the name of Tewanee Joseph is working with the first nations to include them and to give them the tools they need to get involved with the games. He has apparently met…. According to the Chief of the Cowichan Tribes, they had met with Tewanee prior to…. "Often" is the word she actually used. There was that connection made, and I'm disappointed that nothing came of that.

Having said that, I did mention earlier in this forum that in 2005 the provincial government set up 2010 Commerce Centre. This is a centre that's in Robson Square. It has been doing workshops around the province to talk to people about ways they can get involved with the games and how they can benefit with contracts, etc.

I do note that the 2010 procurement workshops were hosted in the Greater Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce in January '09 and again in April '06. They had folks that actually came down to the 2010 Commerce Centre.

In addition to that, there are local business network members, that ability for folks to get on. I do know
[ Page 1414 ]
that 30 Nanaimo businesses are registered — four from Chemainus. One Crofton business is registered. As you can see, within your region there are folks that have got involved.

Again, I would encourage — as I did the Chief of the Cowichan Tribes — to (1) discuss the issue, which was a commercial arrangement with a corporation, with them, and (2) to get back in touch with Tewanee Joseph of the Four Host First Nations to see what she could do moving forward. The 2010 Commerce Centre is there to help her steer through the process as well.

J. Brar: Yesterday we went through estimates debate for the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. During my discussion with the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport there was one question which is still outstanding because that question is related to the Ministry of State for the Olympics.

I will just read my question and the response from the minister, who is here as well, and I would like to ask your response on that one. My question was: "Between February '09 and September '09 the budget for base salaries in the minister's office for fiscal year 2009-10 increased from $169,000 to $382,000." That is in the budget.

So the question was: "Can the minister tell us why it was necessary to increase the salary budget in her office at this point in time?" The response from the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport was: "In general, I think that it's important to note — and the member acknowledged earlier in our comments — that the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport has also now a Minister of State for the Olympics and ActNow B.C. As such, the budget takes some consideration for that."

Having said that, I would like to ask the minister this question: can the minister tell us what those positions are in the Ministry of State for the Olympics and ActNow office that are funded through the additional salary budget, amounting to $213,000?

[1715]

Hon. M. McNeil: To the member opposite: as you can appreciate, from February to September, a new position was formed between that time, and that is why there is an increase. The Ministry of State for the Olympics and ActNow is a position. It contains myself as the minister. I have a ministerial assistant and I have an admin assistant.

J. Brar: Just to make sure that that $213,000 stands for both of those positions, is that the answer, or is there anything else in addition to that?

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, that is it. There's the minister, the ministerial assistant and the admin assistant. That's it.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for her clarification. I heard the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport saying that I was told yesterday. That's not true. I have read Hansard, and I found, after reading everything, that this clarification was not made yesterday. But I understand that, because that part is not part of your ministry. Thanks for the clarification.

My next question is about H1N1, but I would like to give you some background of that piece as to how it is related to the Olympics. By the time we have the next wave of the H1N1 virus in British Columbia, schools will be back in full swing, the temperature will be dropping, and the final Olympic preparations will be underway. So the timing of the next wave of H1N1 and the timing of the Olympics is a very sensitive issue. They're very, very close.

My question to the minister is: has the minister conducted any assessment with regard to the impact of H1N1, or potential impact of H1N1, on the Olympics?

Hon. M. McNeil: There is an H1N1 pandemic plan that the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport…. As you know, she's overseeing this. It involves many ministries. It also takes into account the fact that we will have the Olympics coming up in February, and we will have an increased number of people. But we're working, again, with the health authorities and with the public health officer all across the board, so everyone is working together knowing that we do have the games coming up.

J. Brar: I will take that as that there has not been any specific assessment conducted by the minister, because that was my question.

I understand the bigger plan for H1N1, but my question was more related to the Olympics because the timing, as I said, of the next wave of H1N1 and the start of the Olympics is almost the same day. In that respect that could have a huge impact on the Olympics, including how many people have come from outside if we have a big outbreak of H1N1 in this province at that time.

I will take it as that there has not been any specific assessment conducted or risk assessment conducted by the minister about the impact of H1N1, as listening to the response from the minister. If there is, I would be happy to listen to that.

[1720]

I would move on to the second question. The Canadian Olympic Committee has developed a comprehensive strategy, as I know, for dealing with H1N1 during the Vancouver games. But COC wanted to first share that with administrators and team officials at a meeting in Vancouver next month, which was in September. I would like to ask the minister: is the minister aware of the COC strategy prepared to deal with H1N1?

Hon. M. McNeil: There are ministry officials working with the various stakeholders on the H1N1. This is a huge issue for the government. Also, in the integrated
[ Page 1415 ]
strategy they are taking into account the fact that the Olympics are coming. They're working with all of the health authorities and all those involved to ensure that there is a plan where we can have all British Columbians, including our athletes, immunized before Christmas.

Then they're also working on a plan with respect to immunizing those athletes that are coming in. If they need a vaccine and haven't been done, it will be done. So there is a plan.

It is not directly in my ministry, but my role is to ensure that it's being looked after, and it is in the greater scope. So it is being looked after. It's part of the integrated plan but not directly in my ministry.

J. Brar: There are two sides of this question I would like to probably get more clarity and ask the next questions on. One is to deal with the H1N1.

The second piece, Minister, is that to conduct the Olympic Games in the most efficient and successful way, it includes a lot of people coming from outside — including the athletes, particularly — who will be taking part in the games. In that respect, the Canadian Olympic Committee has said already on record that they have a plan to deal with H1N1 during the Vancouver games, but they wanted to share that plan first with the administrators and team officials at a meeting that took place last September.

I would like to ask the minister: what was that plan? What was the recommendation made in that plan to make sure that we conduct the Olympics in the most efficient and successful way?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, what I would say to the member opposite is that there are many parts of the Olympics — including H1N1 planning, security planning, various other planning — that are being dealt with through many different ministries within the province.

My role is to oversee and make sure…. It's not to do, actually, the H1N1 planning but to ensure that it is being done to the best it can be. I do know that they're working on an H1N1 pandemic plan with the public health officer, through the health authorities and through all those involved, and they are taking into consideration the Olympic Games and working with the other stakeholders as well. So again, I am very confident that it is being done very well and that we will have a good plan in place.

J. Brar: I have mentioned four times the Canadian Olympic Committee, which is dealing with the organization of the Olympics. The Olympics is part of the Ministry of State for the Olympics. I'm talking about the report they have prepared — the report, as per my information, they shared with the administrators and with the officials in September.

From the response I got from the minister, I will take it as the minister is not aware about that report. If you are, I would like to know, again: what was the recommendation made in that report about the Olympics?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, the professionals that are working on this plan are working with the COC, are working with VANOC and are working with the professionals to ensure that there is an appropriate H1N1 plan in place. That's what my concern is: to make sure that that is happening.

[1725]

J. Brar: I will take it as…. At this stage I have asked the same question three times. The minister is not aware of the report that was entered by the Canadian Olympic Committee. The minister is not prepared to discuss, or the minister is not aware of the recommendations made by the Canadian Olympic Committee. That is a bit shocking to me, because the minister is in charge of conducting the Olympic Games in the province of British Columbia.

I will give you the next question, which will probably make more clear why the Minister of State for the Olympics needs to respond to these questions.

In a normal situation — this is what the COC is saying — all decisions regarding games and athletes are made by the IOC, the International Olympic Committee. But these Olympics may be unique in that respect. There is a possibility that we experience a big wave of H1N1 when the Olympic Games are underway. That's the Canadian Olympic Committee making comments. They are, of course, thinking through about those things.

My question will be to the Minister of State for the Olympics: what to do when an athlete is suspected of contracting the H1N1 virus? Will she or he be allowed to continue participating in the competition or not? Who will take those decisions? And how will that athlete be isolated?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, to the member opposite, I would suggest it would be incredibly arrogant of me to assume that I would know what to do in this situation. I do know that we have Dr. Perry Kendall, who is working very closely with all of the health authorities and all of the folks involved.

I think that it's important to leave it up to the professionals to know what to do in a case like this. It's not something that I, as minister of state, would be involved in, but it is very important that I am aware that they are working hard on it, that there is a report that has been looked at and that all the plans are underway to ensure that we deal with any situation, if it should happen, in the best way we can.

Again, it's the health authorities and the health professionals that are tasked with this role and certainly not a minister of state.

J. Brar: I will just take it that at this stage the minister, at least, is not aware of what will happen to that athlete
[ Page 1416 ]
who is seen as having H1N1 and who will make the decision about that athlete. This is a very, very important decision. On one side, we are talking about the lifelong commitment of an individual who is here to participate in the games. On the other side, we are talking about a life-threatening virus that we have in the province.

At this stage, as the minister said to me that the minister is not clear as to who will take the decision, what will happen to that athlete, where that athlete will be isolated and how we can make sure that the games can continue in an effective and successful way.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, there are measures in place to deal with people who are ill, as in any situation. If it's H1N1, there are measures in place, and the person will be dealt with. I know that the organizing committee — along with the health authorities, along with Dr. Perry Kendall and those that are knowledgeable about H1N1 — is looking into this, and the patient, if there is one, will be dealt with, as will anybody that comes in contact with H1N1.

The Chair: Member for Alberni-Qualicum.

S. Fraser: Actually, Madam Chair, it's Alberni–Pacific Rim since the boundary changes were brought into place.

[1730]

The Chair: I beg your pardon.

S. Fraser: I still do it too, so it's force of habit for both of us.

The Chair: I apologize.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and your staff.

I know that the minister has made many claims about the economic benefits of the Olympics, and certainly, the Premier and the Liberal government have made those claims. Certainly, all in British Columbia are hoping they will come true. I suspect it won't be until after the Olympics that we'll actually know whether it's true or not. I haven't seen formal studies done on this, but let's cross our fingers and hope that goes well.

As the MLA for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I have heard the problem ends of this from businesses, that the Olympics are going to cause trouble. I know one of my colleagues probed some stuff on this earlier around local airlines, but I'm going to go right to, specifically, Qualicum Beach. They are not unique. They are a small, local, vital airline. K.D. Air is the name of this one. I have used them, and certainly, the community considers them a vital link.

During the Olympics, where we're hoping to see the benefits spill over to other sections of the province from the Olympics, if that's what's going to happen, we want to be part of that. Those airlines like K.D. Air are going through, actually, extreme hardship because of the Olympics.

Can the minister explain what attempts have been made to mitigate that from her ministry?

Hon. M. McNeil: To the member opposite, welcome. I don't think that you were here in the room earlier when we talked about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, but it is going to be released next week. Hopefully, we'll have more data there.

As you suggest, I think that all of us here in British Columbia, both sides of the House, are hoping for only great success with respect to the Olympics. It's a huge opportunity for our province at a time when, as you know, around the world it isn't easy.

What we have learned through other jurisdictions that have hosted is that it's not just what happens during the Olympic Games. It's what happens — the investment in the jurisdiction — prior to the games, the actual games themselves, and then it's the time afterwards. What I'm hearing from some of them is that it's upwards of 18 months to five years to ten years where there really are tremendous benefits from the Olympic Games.

I'm absolutely confident that B.C. will not be any different than that, that we will have long-term gains from this. Hopefully, the airline you're talking about will benefit from future business when people come in.

I am aware of what you're chatting about. I did mention to your previous colleague, who spoke about this, that I have been approached by airlines, both at UBCM and also in my constituency. I do know that the ISU has a tremendous task ahead of it to make sure that these are safe games, and the safety of all who are participating.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I did go to the ISU offices last week. I did bring this up as a concern that I had about airlines and what we can do to mitigate any risks to them and have discussed with them ways to be able to connect the airlines with the appropriate people to get the right information.

What I'm also finding out is that there are lots of concerns that aren't based in any real facts and sometimes, which we all do, you know…. What if something happens? Then it becomes an issue. What I'm trying to do is to ensure that folks that are involved do get the correct information so that they can plan ahead.

As for the benefits of the games, I think you're right. We will look back and know whether or not they were. I am very confident that it's going to be tremendous for the province of British Columbia and look forward to the economic generation that's going to happen from them.

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, welcome. And thanks for that from the minister. But I'll get off the 10,000-foot level, since we're talking about airlines here, and K.D. Air
[ Page 1417 ]
won't fly that high, I don't believe. The Navajo might make it that high.

Specifically, they're facing major hardship because of the Olympics. There are 33 or 34 days associated with the Olympics where they have been required for security reasons to go through some very expensive changes.

[1735]

A 20-minute flight is one of their mainstays from Qualicum Beach. These are often regular commuters. They're directly from Qualicum Beach to Vancouver south terminal. It's the lifeline of the airline, and for those 33 days they cannot do that. They'll have to divert to other airports — Nanaimo, if the weather is clear and if there's not too much traffic. Everyone, many airlines, could be funnelled into that area, both floatplanes and land-based planes.

They'll have to deplane their passengers. They'll have to remove all the luggage. They'll have to go through security clearances. They'll have to wait for clearances to get back into the air again. Their 20-minute flight, which is the lifeblood of the airline, for 33 days — over a month of their livelihood….

Their margins aren't that great in this business. The costs associated with that, the extra fuel and, of course, the huge inconvenience, because the 20-minute flight is now pushing two hours, if they can get clearance to get in and out of a very busy sector, now, out of, say, Nanaimo….

What plans are in place to address those hardships that are going to be directly foisted on K.D. Air?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, as I said, this is an Integrated Security Unit issue. I have brought up concerns to them because I'm aware of the concerns and concern for many of the operators. I have brought it up.

The only thing I really can do is to commit to make sure that the right people are talking to each other and make sure that that happens. But again, it is an ISU issue.

Perhaps we can have a chat offside afterwards.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I would be happy to have that, although I'm not quite finished yet on this.

There has been no consultation with K.D. Air. This is the problem. These small airlines have contacted me. I raised this issue in the Legislature in question period. From that, I had a number of calls from various small airlines who are facing the same thing. A common thread was there had been no consultation. ATAC had not been consulted. There had been no chat about this before.

The local airlines, in a lot of cases — and K.D. Air is no exception — have many of the same people flying with them over and over again. They're community members. They know each other. These small airlines have come up with very innovative ideas for mitigating the security problems — retired security people, portables, retired RCMP. There are a number of different things that would work, especially considering these small airlines have people that they know all the time.

But there was no consultation. They're going to be out a substantial amount of money. Now whether it's ATAC or whether it's federal…. As the minister responsible for the Olympics, these are our companies. You've got them in your constituency. I have them in mine. They have not been consulted. They are being hurt.

Is there any attempt to mitigate the damages done to these airlines for those 33 days, where they may be, in some cases, forced to shut down and lay off employees who they may not be able to get back?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, this is the Integrated Security Unit. I have brought this up with them. I have spoken to them. They say they have done extensive consultations. Some of the airlines that I have chatted with, yes, have had consultation. But my concern, obviously, is we should…. We'll connect and make sure that we get the right people to talk to the right people so that they can chat about this.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I will take her up on the further consultation with me. Hopefully, we can find some remedy here so that these companies are not put out of business because of the Olympics or are not facing undue hardship, or their employees. At K.D. Air, small though it may be, there are 12 employees that rely on this. Then, of course, the community itself — the area, the region of Vancouver Island — relies on these airlines to get people in and out for work and also for economic activity.

[1740]

People will be here — presumably, I heard 250,000 people — for the Olympics. If they have limited or no access to areas like Qualicum Beach and Vancouver Island because of the Olympics, it almost defeats the purpose of economic….

You're bringing people in. Claims are being made that they're going to benefit other parts of the province. If the transportation is being shut down to those other parts of the province, it is counter to the statements made that there will be direct benefit. Maybe there will be indirect benefit, but when it comes to these small airlines, a month of lost business could mean the end of them. So that won't benefit them, and it won't benefit the communities that they serve.

I just want to make a comment for the record for the future conversation we're having. Some of the costs, besides losing their passenger base because they can't provide the service that they've historically provided, a 20-minute flight. That's the life blood. To fly elsewhere, to fly through Nanaimo or Victoria or Comox or wherever
[ Page 1418 ]
the security is set up — which will be very expensive to do, and they'll lose ridership — they have to come up with new manuals. They have to come up with audits for Transport Canada. They have to come up with new training.

There are significant expenses associated with this, even if they can maintain their passenger list in some way during the Olympics.

Can the minister just comment on that — this would be my last — that these are issues that she will attempt to address so that companies like K.D. Air are not made collateral damage of the Olympics?

Hon. M. McNeil: These are serious issues. I do appreciate it, because I've spoken with many of them, some of my constituents as well, and have chatted with them. Again, it's an issue between ISU and them. I will make sure that they get together as they should.

Again, I think we need to step back and look at the economic benefits that are happening before and after the games as well, so it's not just during the games. I'm hoping that we'll do such an amazing job at the Olympics that people will want to come back and experience the entire province on their second trip.

Apparently the studies do show that the two summers after an Olympic games, the tourism does increase considerably. Hopefully, this is the same, and these airlines will benefit at that time. But it is something that I will definitely speak with you about after.

The Chair: Member for Port Coquitlam.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I note that you get my riding name right. [Laughter.]

My question is for the minister. Can the minister tell me what opportunities VANOC has extended to government MLAs to participate in events surrounding the Olympics?

Hon. M. McNeil: Actually, none. That is something that we, as a province, have to look at. There's nothing.

M. Farnworth: The reason I ask the question is I notice that today there appeared opportunities, or MLAs having their picture taken with the Olympic torch and a background. I'm just wondering how that came about. Was that a VANOC offer, or was it a caucus decision?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, actually, any Olympic partner has access to the torch. I would absolutely like to offer, if your caucus would like to have that opportunity to have your picture taken with the torch with the backdrop — absolutely, we can make that happen.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, because I think one of the important things is that this is British Columbia's games. If there are opportunities for MLAs on the government side to have their picture taken with the torch and the backdrop, I think that that should also be extended to the opposition. I just wanted to ensure that was, in fact, taking place.

[1745]

B. Ralston: In my riding there's a building being built called the volunteer centre, which the city of Surrey is constructing and also, in association with that, paid $2 million to VANOC for the privilege of being called a host city.

I'm just wondering whether there's any direct provincial involvement in the operation of this centre? I understand that it's due to open in advance of the games themselves, but I'm not sure when.

So can the minister explain what direct provincial involvement there may be — or indirect by way of the secondment of provincial government employees, if any — to operate this centre?

Hon. M. McNeil: None that we know of.

B. Ralston: Well, can I give the minister then…. The answer, with respect, sounds a bit tentative. Is the minister prepared to make a commitment to seek out a more detailed answer? I appreciate that sometimes the exigencies of staffing estimates make for rather provisional answers. I'm interested in knowing more, if there is more to know. So is the minister prepared to make that commitment?

Hon. M. McNeil: The answer is: none.

B. Ralston: The other issue that I wanted to pursue is an issue of the sheriff services. I understand that a number of British Columbia employees who are employed as sheriffs are being seconded to, in some cases, the security apparatus of the games. I'm wondering if the minister can confirm if that is in general terms true, to begin with, and then, more specifically, the number of sheriffs who have been seconded.

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, I believe that there are going to be some secondments, but the numbers are still being negotiated. That's under the Public Safety Ministry with Minister Heed.

B. Ralston: I understood that some of those assignments are already finalized. Is the minister saying that there's an uncertainty about whether there will be sheriffs assigned, or is it simply to what roles they're going to be assigned?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, it's actually about the numbers that will be seconded, because we're also looking at sheriffs for our facilities as well.
[ Page 1419 ]

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise, based on the information and advice that she has available to her, when it's expected that the numbers will be finalized?

Hon. M. McNeil: I've been advised that they're looking at probably the end of November.

B. Ralston: Again, is the minister in a position to give any indication of the number of sheriffs who might be seconded? I understand that the ordinary operation of the court service, particularly criminal trials, will be shut down for most purposes for a period of about six weeks which bridges the Olympic and the Paralympic Games. I understand that there will be personnel likely available, but is there any indication at this point what numbers we're talking about?

Hon. M. McNeil: We will attempt to get those numbers from the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[1750]

S. Herbert: Thank you to the minister. We're in neighbouring ridings, so many of the concerns and issues that arise from hosting such a large event affect both of our constituencies in quite a different way than they might affect other areas of the province, simply because we're right in the heart of it.

The first question I had…. The minister, in a spirit of non-partisanship, I believe, extended the offer of the Olympic torch, pictures and that kind of thing to MLAs of all sides, since it is the peoples' games. Would that offer also extend, say, for openings of Olympic centres, to Olympic events, events like…? I know in the past there was a Richmond skating oval which was just for the Premier and company. Is that a policy change, and would that extend to other Olympic events — that all sides could be involved?

Hon. M. McNeil: I actually have never taken the torch to any event myself, although there is one that is available. There are certain criteria about when you can use it and all that, so I haven't done it.

Many of the times when you've seen the torch, it's been through VANOC. It's their event, and that's how it's there. I can maybe find out and talk to you off line after about it.

S. Herbert: I understand that there would be protocol requirements. It wouldn't be just simply: "Sure. Here, take the torch." But I'm curious about the events, the openings of facilities which are paid from all taxpayers' money and those kinds of events which you would think would reach out to that spirit of non-partisanship that I know the games could be about. I'm curious about those kinds of events and whether or not the members of both sides would be invited to such things now, as they have not been in the past.

Hon. M. McNeil: Absolutely, and I think that it's a good opportunity now with the torch coming. I'm hoping that all MLAs, regardless of what party, will be involved in the torch. I'm encouraging…. I think a letter has gone out — or if not, it is going out shortly — to all to ensure that when it comes through, you're involved with your spirit committee or whoever is the committee organizing the torch event within yours…. I guess, because where I am, it's at the very end of the torch relay.

But, absolutely, I think that the MLAs should be there and celebrate, because as you say, it is an event for all of the province.

S. Herbert: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Right in the heart of the area where our two constituencies combine is Robson Square. I'm curious if the minister might be able to share with this committee what is the planning for Robson Square and if there are costs associated with it within her ministry. If she could share those numbers with us and what line by line they are — what the costs relate to?

Hon. M. McNeil: Robson Square, as you know, and I had mentioned earlier today, is going to be very active. It is the province's opportunity to showcase itself. As you can appreciate, one of the things that we're trying to do during these games is to take advantage of this incredible opportunity with all the media in town — anywhere from 13,000 media to 250,000 folks. I mean, it's just an unparalleled opportunity, so it's something that we want to do a good job on.

So there are lots of plans for Robson Square, and we hope to have it up and running early. It's where we will have the B.C. international media centre, which is an unaccredited media centre.

[1755]

I have to say that I'm absolutely thrilled with the amount of interest we've had, including folks that are also going to be at the accredited media centre. They also want to have a place at the Robson Square. So that's very exciting for us. The B.C. pavilion will be there, on the fourth floor of the art gallery.

We also have, and I mentioned it earlier, the 2010 Commerce Centre, which has been there since 2005. It's been open there to talk to businesses around the province about how to be involved and benefit. It's also done the other way — groups that come in from out of province and want to connect up with various groups. So the 2010 Commerce Centre has been able to do that. It will be up and running strongly during the games.

We also have B.C. Showcase, which is…. Unfortunately, not all of the 250,000 people will be able to go around the
[ Page 1420 ]
entire province, so what we're trying to do is bring the province to them, bring the communities to them. We're working with the various communities. We are going to be showcasing them in there. I absolutely would offer to give you a tour, because it really is an incredible place.

There is what is going to be the GE ice rink. What's the official title? GE Plaza. It will have the ice rink, which is going to be back operational again. That will be very exciting.

The whole Robson Square is going to be a real hub of activity during the games, hopefully, for us to be able to showcase our province as best we can. I would be delighted to show you around, because I think you're right. It's right on the border of the two of us, and I think that it's a good opportunity.

S. Herbert: I thank the minister for that answer. Funny thing. One of the first things that I got involved in politically when I was an elected park commissioner was that ice rink — trying to find some way to get it opened again, because it had been closed for a number of years. Didn't get to get to an answer at the time, because we were working with a B.C. building, and it didn't quite work out. So it's nice to see that it will be open again.

My question to the minister: is the focus of the Robson Square domestic? Or is that an international focus in terms of selling the B.C. message?

Hon. M. McNeil: What we're trying to do here is to make it both. There are some folks within the Lower Mainland, like me, who weren't successful in the lottery for tickets and who want to be involved. So there are lots of opportunities around Vancouver. As you know, the city is putting LiveCity Yaletown and LiveCity Downtown.

Our Robson Square is where the province is going to shine. We'll be able to…. We're hoping — starting even at the end of November, beginning of December, when the ice rink is open — to start people coming down to get to know the facility as a place to go, and hopefully, it will really do well during the games.

But also, because of the unaccredited media centre being there, we have an opportunity to bring in folks from outside. Again, the numbers of media that are coming…. The top Japanese broadcaster is going to be there. There are folks from all over. Again, a long answer. It's for both; it's for all. As much as we can showcase the province to everybody, the better.

S. Herbert: Thank you for that answer.

My next question. Earlier I heard the minister discuss tourism and the Olympics role in tourism, and the minister mentioned that she was working with PAB, the public affairs bureau, as well as the Tourism Ministry. Would the minister be able to share with me what kind of work PAB is doing in relation to the Olympics?

Hon. M. McNeil: The public affairs bureau is working with Tourism B.C. and Tourism, Culture and the Arts on an overall strategy, a marketing strategy. Again, it's a huge opportunity having the Olympic Games here, and the more we can get out, not just locally but abroad, international….

Apparently three billion people — upwards of that — watch over the period of the games. That's a captive audience, so as much as we can do to get our message out about, "This is the place to work, play and invest," the better. So we're working very closely with them on a strategy that'll be both national and international in scope.

[1800]

S. Herbert: I'm new to this place — relatively new, I guess — so I'm still figuring out how the different ministries and the different groups interact. I guess my question would be: would it be the Tourism Ministry or Tourism B.C. or PAB that's leading that kind of a process?

Hon. M. McNeil: The lead person is the public affairs bureau, but they're working very closely, as you can imagine, with Tourism B.C. and with my own ministry. We're as coordinated as we can be, and I think it's going to be an absolutely incredible strategy, and it's really going to help the province.

S. Herbert: PAB is public affairs bureau. I think that's the name. Yeah. It's the lead agency. Is that focused on the tourism, or is that focused on other possibilities as well? Is it just tourism, or is it also business investment? I thought that Tourism B.C. was our marketer, so I'm just trying to understand the role there.

Hon. M. McNeil: It's really very integrated, so it gets very hard, but when you actually want to designate — is there someone — it's the public affairs bureau that is working on the actual strategy. But I have to say, the meetings we have, I'm involved, and Small Business, Technology and Economic Development are at the table. We've got tourism at the table. All of us are at the table because, of course, we all benefit from the success. So everyone has a piece, but it's very, very integrated. That's one of my roles — to make sure that the right people are at the table so that the right message gets out — and it's very coordinated.

S. Herbert: Is this kind of strategy similar to — I'm trying to put it in context — "The best place on earth" kind of campaign, which I think came out of the public affairs bureau as well?

Hon. M. McNeil: Obviously, the focus we all have is marketing British Columbia across Canada and around
[ Page 1421 ]
the world, and that's what we're all working on. That's my goal. We have a captive audience, if you will — not only the folks that are going to be here but also via the journalists. So that's an important part.

If you have any more in-depth questions, I think it's probably best that you ask them of the public affairs bureau. But again, the goal that we all have — and I'm sure, including you as well — is to make sure that we take the best advantage of this huge opportunity.

S. Herbert: Thank you to the minister for that answer. The reason I asked about "The best place on earth" campaign is I'm just curious what that looks like in that this is the Olympics, and the minister is the lead on Olympic benefits. I was curious if that would be seen to be a model that this campaign is following. So if I could just try once more for an answer on that one.

Hon. M. McNeil: In answer to your question, we've consulted broadly. We're working with all sorts of folks to ensure that we do get the correct message, working very closely with Tourism B.C., obviously, because they're important, and consulting with other stakeholders as well — and not just within the province but outside — to ensure that we get the right message out.

I mean, who are the folks who actually come to an Olympic Games? What interests them? How can we trigger…? Who are the folks that listen on the other end of the television, newspaper, whatever? We've done a lot of that strategy. The strategy will be unveiled, and you'll be able to see for yourself. It's very extensive.

[1805]

S. Herbert: I'll just put this as a two-part question, and then we can move on to another area of investigation. The first question is, I guess: do we have an idea of the timeline of when the campaign is going to be launched? And then I guess the second question is…. Anyway, we'll just ask the question: when is the campaign going to be launched?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, they are working on it. We don't have a final date yet, but it's not to say that nothing has been happening now. There is lots going on, but there isn't a focus. Listening to other jurisdictions that have done the same thing…. When is the optimum time? When is the best time? That's what they've designed their program around. So you'll be hearing — yep.

S. Herbert: I remembered the second question. I shouldn't try to cram too much in the head. There are so many briefing documents and things we all read as members.

In our earlier discussion about the focus of Robson Square and this strategy, as well, the minister mentioned domestic market, as in British Columbia, and then in subsequent answers focused on the international and that audience.

I just want to be clear. Is there a domestic portion of this message, of this work, and is there a budget figure that might be available around what that kind of cost would be — around the domestic message?

Hon. M. McNeil: In answer to your question, there is a domestic, there is a national, and there's an international, because as you can imagine, they're different groups and different focuses — foci, if that's a word. That's what we are working on. There is an overall budget, and it's part of PAB.

S. Herbert: Next question. It's a short one, and it may be another ministry or somebody else I need to speak to about this. When I was the member for Vancouver-Burrard…. Much of the area the minister now is the MLA for was comprised in that constituency. At the time I heard from constituents in the area around GM Place who were quite concerned that they would be in the red zone and that they wouldn't be able to get into or out of their homes without a passport or things like that.

Is the minister able to provide me with some answers on what they would have to do, as residents, if they live in the red zone?

Hon. M. McNeil: As you can appreciate, that is one of my concerns because if you actually look at the road closure map, it's my constituency. I've done extensive investigation on this. I have actually spoken with the city of Vancouver as well as VANOC and others to help educate my staff, my constituency assistants, so that they know exactly what the impacts will be around.

It's not just around GM Place, B.C. Place. As you can appreciate, Vancouver, our live site…. Yaletown is in there, as well as the others and Robson Square. It's all there, which is exciting. So what I'm doing is working with the constituents and the residents that live around there to ensure that they take advantage of the benefits of hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games rather than the impacts.

There will be impacts. You do not invite this many people to Vancouver without there being an impact, but ways we can mitigate that impact is what we're working on.

Again, I've taken it on to ensure that we have all the information we need. I'd be very pleased to share that with you, because again, you're not far off. We've got information. We have all the websites. If we don't have the answer within the constituency, we have a way to get to VANOC or to the city of Vancouver — who have been incredible, by the way — to make sure that we get the information to the folks.

In a lot of cases, with the release of the different plans…. They actually look at it. They realize it's not as bad as they had first assumed, and that's good.
[ Page 1422 ]

So whatever I can do to help you. But it is a big deal, yes.

[1810]

S. Herbert: I will speak with my constituency staff. Certainly, they've developed a lot of good relationships, as well, and are getting information. I'll suggest that maybe our staff can talk to each other and figure out how we can work together on that one.

My next question is about B.C. Place. I know I will be talking about PavCo and stuff in a future estimate, but a couple months ago there was a big foofaraw or a big tumult in the news about $5 million being spent somewhere in B.C. Place on something, but a surprise is what I was told and what the papers…. I believe it was $5 million — a surprise for the Olympics. Nobody would be able to know what it was, since they wanted to keep it a surprise.

Is the minister able to give me any information on what I'm talking about?

Hon. M. McNeil: I wish I could. No, as you know, this is VANOC planning, and they've got some great plans. Part of me…. As much as I'd love to find out, it's a surprise, and it is something…. This is a very incredible event. It's a huge opportunity for all of us, and that is something that is not being shared.

S. Herbert: Nobody wants to spoil a surprise. I understand that. But I understand, as well, that taxpayers are concerned. I had some constituents reach me, and they were concerned that it was their money that might be this $5 million surprise, and they would prefer to know how it was being spent rather than to be surprised if they don't like what the surprise is. I wonder if the minister might be able to respond to that concern.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, VANOC is working on this. It's the site, as you know, of the opening and closing ceremonies and the medal ceremonies. They're keeping it pretty tight, of course. This is part of the intrigue of the Olympic Games, if you will. But it is all part of their budget, which is out there. That's all I can say.

S. Herbert: I don't have any more questions. I see my colleague has some more, but I just wanted to thank the minister for sharing what she has so far today.

On the idea of the $5 million surprise: I hope it's a good one, because my constituents are concerned that in a time of leaky schools and problems that we see and hospital challenges and others in the downtown area, but across B.C. as well…. They're questioning me on why government would get involved in $5 million for an Olympic surprise for an opening ceremony when they feel that that $5 million might be better spent for a long-term benefit — say, in a local school or something like that.

So I'll wait and see what the surprise is. I like surprises as much as the next person. I just want to ensure that the taxes that we take to invest in the province are spent in the best way possible. I thank the minister for her time.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about an element of the commitments to host environmentally responsible Olympics and some of the things that are listed in greening the games that we're hosting.

One element of it that I wanted to ask the minister some questions on is the hydrogen highway and the hydrogen fuel cell buses that B.C. Transit procured and was asked to procure by the end of 2009. Some of those are already here and in limited service. That end-of-2009 date, of course, is designed to occur and to be used during the games by Whistler and in Vancouver.

[1815]

The question I wanted to ask is…. This announcement, originally, around the hydrogen highway was made in 2006 by the Premier. Phase 1 of that announcement was a $10 million spend on infrastructure — filling stations, those kinds of things. Can the minister tell me how the Olympics are going to report, in this area, carbon reductions or a contribution to carbon neutrality in the Olympic Games through the use of these buses, and how that is calculated?

Hon. M. McNeil: This is a Ministry of Transportation responsibility, but I'd be happy to work with you and get the information.

R. Fleming: Well, I appreciate the offer from the minister. One of the things that I would ask her to obtain, if she's going to get information on that for me, which I appreciate, is to look at the supply of the hydrogen fuel stock.

My understanding is that the source for that is Quebec. If the minister could inform me, when she obtains this information, whether that liquid hydrogen is going to be brought to British Columbia during the Olympic Games by rail or truck, and if there could be a calculation as to the carbon miles associated with bringing that fuel stock here to British Columbia.

The Chair: Shall Vote 35…? Member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I've been sitting there for a while listening to my colleagues and forgot that I would be getting up again, so thank you for prompting me in your subtle way.

I'd like to go back to the questions I was asking before my colleagues came and asked various questions, which were looking at some of the costs that are not directly part of the Olympic budget but that are directly Olympic-related — trying to get a confirmation about whether or
[ Page 1423 ]
not those costs are being contemplated and tracked as Olympic costs.

As a general comment or, actually, a general question for the minister…. The minister has said that the minister and this ministry is responsible for the overall coordination of the games — the oversight. I think I've heard reference to a certain amount of coordination as well.

Disagree if I'm wrong on this, but it seems important, to me, that one of the things that would be done is there would be a tracking, because if you're looking at the benefits to a province, you also have to look at the costs associated with something that is being taken.

My question is: is this ministry or any ministry in government tracking the overall costs of the Olympics to the provincial taxpayer and coordinating that, keeping that in one place, so that we know in the end, when we're doing a cost-benefit analysis, what the costs are?

Hon. M. McNeil: The costs that…. As you explained, I have an oversight role to ensure that the players at the table are the right ones and that the things we need to do to enhance or to make sure that our province is represented and our province's investment in the 2010 games is looked after responsibly…. That's what I am doing.

[1820]

There are various portions of the Olympic preparations that are in other ministries, and they can each speak to their ministry. What I can assure you is that of the costs for the province's investment in staging the Olympic Games proper…. It is $765 million, and it will remain at that. Right now it's on target to remain at that cost. That's the one that I can talk to you about.

In addition to that, the Olympic Games secretariat is working to ensure that while we have the games here, we take advantage of the opportunity that we have in order to showcase B.C. That's that part.

K. Corrigan: It sounds to me like what the minister is saying is that the answer is no. If it is no, I actually find it quite astounding that there is no attempt and no system that has been put in place in order to do half of what is critical to a cost-benefit analysis for the province, which is to determine what the costs are associated….

It can be stuck in other ministries. I appreciate that there may be different ministries that are responsible, but surely there must be someplace that all these costs associated with the games are being tabulated in order that we can determine whether or not the taxpayers of this province have been well-served in playing a large part in hosting the Olympic Games.

Hon. M. McNeil: One of the things that we have ahead, which we're looking forward to next week, is the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis, which is working on its own independent cost assumptions as part of its full analysis. That will be out there.

In addition, each one of the ministries is monitoring theirs, and it's full-out and in view. You have an opportunity to talk to each ministry during estimates as to what their budget is, but we're looking forward to next week.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that we can go to each and every ministry and ask them about their budget, but that seems like an inefficient, obscure and unfocused way to monitor the costs of the Olympic Games. Having looked at some of the ministry budgets, I don't think there is a line item for the Olympics in other ministry budgets.

In other words, it is impossible to know what is being spent on the Olympics by questioning those. You may get some answers, but it seems, frankly, quite astounding to me that there is no arm of government which is gathering in all the costs, tracking the costs — which it seems to me wouldn't be that difficult to do — so that we know how much the Olympic Games are costing the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Perhaps my question will be whether or not the minister intends to meet with the Auditor General or has recently met with the Auditor General in order to discuss the Olympic Games and the costs of the Olympic Games.

Hon. M. McNeil: I think it's a difference in how we're looking at things. The cost associated with staging the Olympic Games, the provincial investment, is $765 million. That's for staging the Olympic Games. There are costs that we are looking at in order to leverage these games.

This is a huge opportunity for this province, and for us to just let the games go on and not take advantage around the games would be irresponsible of us as a government. What we need to do is take advantage of the 250,000 people we're going to have here, to take advantage of the three billion people that are going to be watching us.

[1825]

Yes, the Auditor General is looking at these costs. We are aware of the costs that we are spending in various areas, but it's not as easy as what you're saying.

What I am saying is that the actual costs to stage the Olympic Games remain at $765 million. That's actually the province's investment in the games. Over and above that is what we're doing to leverage the games so that we take advantage. It's not just leading up to the games and during the games but after the games so that we can benefit for the 18 months, the five years and the decade after from the games.

K. Corrigan: The minister talks about leveraging and about benefits. Again, one cannot possibly understand what those benefits are without understanding what the costs are. Maybe what I'll do is go through a couple of items so that I can ask specifically whether or not the minister would consider these to be Olympic-related costs.
[ Page 1424 ]

I won't go through some of the ones that have been in the Auditor General report. I think that the Auditor General has already spoken on that in 2006 and some follow-up reports as well.

But for example, how about upgrades to Robson Square of around $22 million? First of all, could the minister confirm that that is the range of the upgrades to Robson Square and, secondly, whether or not that is part of the $765 million?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, that is not part of the $765 million because that's not just for the Olympic Games. It's an upgrade as a legacy that, yes, will be used during games time, but also will be used November, December and all the way through the next few decades. So that is not an Olympic cost.

K. Corrigan: Okay. Another one would be the ICBC sponsorship of $15 million. Would the minister consider that to be an Olympic-related cost? Is that $15 million included in the $765 million budget?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, that is not part of the $765 million, but I understand that the funds that ICBC used for those were generated by the sale of Olympic licence plates, if you will. It was an additional cost for folks like my husband and myself, who are supporters of the games. We actually purchased those, and that's what I understand those are from.

K. Corrigan: It may be that there was revenue generated, but whatever revenue is generated is revenue that is generated provincially, and how you then spend the money is a discretion of the provincial bodies that are spending it. It isn't just there as a separate item. It's money that came in and money that went out. That was a choice to have that money go out.

I have another item that I'm wondering about, which is the cost of the wood roof for the Richmond Oval that apparently came from a provincial agency, Forestry Innovation Investment. Would the minister consider that an Olympic-related cost — that's $1.5 million? And is it included in the $765 million?

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, that is part of the $765 million. It is our portion. The Richmond Olympic Oval was…. There were many funding partners, and our portion comes from that, yes.

[1830]

K. Corrigan: Okay, likewise as far as…. There's a B.C. Place rental of approximately $3 million, which is because — and this is an estimate — the B.C. Place rental is $25,000 a day. Would that be considered an Olympic cost, and is it part of the $765 million budget?

Hon. M. McNeil: That is a VANOC cost that is paid for by them. It is not part of the province's investment.

K. Corrigan: How about the approximately $22 million, not including hockey tickets, I believe, from B.C. Hydro?

Hon. M. McNeil: Sorry. Could you repeat the question?

K. Corrigan: Yes, absolutely. I was asking about the $22 million from B.C. Hydro.

Hon. M. McNeil: I don't have the actual number with me, but I do know that B.C. Hydro…. One of the things that we're trying to do, taking advantage of having the Olympic and Paralympic Games, is leveraging opportunities here. For B.C. Hydro, one of the big things that they felt was important was for them to leverage the opportunity to talk to people within the province about energy consumption.

They've done a program which I think is pretty neat. It's got real people around the province. If they reduce their energy consumption by 10 percent — which is a good thing to do, as we will all agree — it's an incentive to then have an opportunity to go to the games.

This is a B.C. Hydro initiative. I think it's something that is a great thing for them to do, leveraging the excitement of the games and leveraging good behaviours. So that's what they have been doing.

K. Corrigan: How about $15 million from the B.C. Lottery Corporation? Is that part of the $765 million?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, it is not.

K. Corrigan: Terasen Gas. My understanding is that there will be $4 million, approximately, to be charged to ratepayers, starting in 2011, that is Olympic-related as well. Would that be part of the $765 million? Can the minister confirm that that is the approximate amount?

Hon. M. McNeil: You’ve gone into an area that I do not know about. It is not part of the $765 million. I am not aware of that program.

The Chair: Member, I would remind you that we're discussing vote number 35. I would ask you to keep your questioning to vote 35 and the matters currently before this committee.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, hon. Chair. Yes, I appreciate that we are dealing with the minister's budget — but also the responsibilities of the minister. The point that I'm making in asking these questions is that there seems to be what I would consider an incredible gap in the gathering of information and evaluating the costs of the Olympics.
[ Page 1425 ]

I would have thought that the ministry that is responsible for overseeing the Olympics would be, almost automatically, gathering the information about how much the Olympics cost so that the minister and the government can say to the people of British Columbia: "This is how much it has cost, and this is what the legacy is."

I don't see the point of talking about leveraging the money that goes into it and saying, "This is the great benefit we've got" when we're not aware of what the costs are. That's why I'm asking these questions.

[1835]

Perhaps it is outside of the scope of the minister, but I think that reflects badly on the management of this government if it is outside and there's no way of figuring out what the total costs are.

I'll just ask about a couple more items, noting the time. It's very specifically a couple of items that have come up in the last few weeks. The ticket sales that we've heard about recently, the B.C. Hydro ticket sales that were $263,000 for the luxury box. Is that part of the $765 million?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, that is not.

K. Corrigan: We appreciated the minister today giving us the estimation of how much the 3,000 tickets for MLAs were going to cost — approximately $900,000. I'm wondering if that's part of the $765 million budget for the province.

Hon. M. McNeil: No, that is not. The ticket strategy on those tickets will be forthcoming when we know exactly how they will be used and how much cost recovery will happen.

K. Corrigan: Just a couple more, and then I'll be finished. I'm wondering about the $500,000 for the Olympic module for schools. Is that $500,000 part of the $765 million Olympic budget?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, that is not. That, again, is what I would classify as an opportunity to leverage the tremendous experience about the Olympics and the value that the Olympic Games teaches children about physical activity, getting active and being involved in good sportsmanship. That is something that the Ministry of Education — again, a question for that ministry — felt was important.

K. Corrigan: I certainly wouldn't want the minister to suggest or believe that anything that I'm asking about, necessarily — any individual item — is a good or poor investment on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia. However, my point is that the province has repeatedly said that the investment by this province is $765 million, and it's very clear that it's not.

All I'm saying is that I think that it is regrettable and quite astounding that there is not one place that all of this is being kept track of as the costs of the Olympics — because they clearly are, whatever the purpose.

Okay, one more. I would like to ask about the torch relay funding for the parties. The B.C. Government is giving $3.5 million to B.C. communities for celebrations of the 2010 Olympic Torch Relay. Is that part of the $765 million Olympic budget?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, that is not part of the $765 million cost of staging the games. That is part of Tourism, Culture and the Arts to leverage the experience of the Olympics and bring the communities from all around the province to get them involved in the Olympic experience.

K. Corrigan: That is the list of questions I had about these specific costs. I've left some of them out. Most of them have been covered by the Auditor General at various times and so on, but there were some that I wanted to specifically ask about today.

As a final question, I would like to ask if the minister is aware of any other government cost that would be considered to be an Olympic cost but is not, for whatever purpose — leveraging the games, whatever — part of the $765 million.

[1840]

Hon. M. McNeil: The answer to the member opposite is no. Not that I'm aware of, no.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the answers of the minister today. We've had a lot of people asking a lot of questions. I must say that the minister has been quite forthright, very helpful, cooperative and quick in answering questions. I really appreciate it. With that, I believe I have no more questions.

Hon. M. McNeil: If I could just respond, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for all your questions. As I can appreciate, the member opposite and I are both new. We both kept calling you, Chair, the Speaker, and we apologize for that, but we're learning. It was an interesting experience.

I thank you for your questions, and I want to thank the staff again for being here with me through this time.

Vote 35: ministry operations, $85,078,000 — approved.

Hon. M. McNeil: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:42 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 © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175