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, November 18, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 5

[ Page 2485 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce some folks today from the Kootenays. First of all, the electoral area B director from Central Kootenay regional district, John Kettle. John wears a black cowboy hat, but he's still a good guy.

Welcome to the Legislature, John.

I'd also like to welcome today to the Legislature the mayor of Castlegar, Lawrence Chernoff, and his CAO, John Malcolm — both sitting up here. Please help me make them feel welcome today.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the gallery is my sister Joan Scott and her husband, Allen Scott, who are here from Nanoose Bay. They've come down with a group of folks to express their concerns regarding health care on the Island. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

[1335]

Hon. R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Dave Newnham and Bill Brooks. Dave is the vice-president and executive director and Bill is the special projects manager of the Tim Horton Children's Foundation. They are here today to talk to government about…. As many here know, Tim Hortons has children's camps across North America but none in British Columbia. They are here today to talk to members of government about establishing a children's camp in British Columbia.

I'd like the House to please wish them both Godspeed, good luck and to thank them for all the work they do for all kids all across Canada. Tim Hortons is great for what they do.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a long-time friend of mine. Diane Gillis is here in the audience today, in the gallery. Diane and I first met many years ago when we were both parents at the West Burnaby Parent Participation Preschool.

Diane has continued to give so much to our community. Right now, just as one example, she heads up the Kingsway-Imperial neighbourhood house and does wonderful things in our community. I'd like you to make her welcome.

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

C. Trevena: In the precincts today are a number of constituents from North Island. They came down to show their concerns about public health care. They are Joanne Banks, Richard Hagensen, Lance Klaasen, Larry Widen, Betty Frost, Thora Hood, Anita Brochochka, Dave Kulyk, Steve Mooney and Lois Jarvis. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure to have some constituents travel down for a series of meetings here in Victoria today. With me in the Legislature are Linda Bush and her daughters Rene Bush and Andrea Patrick as well as Delores Young, from Vanderhoof, and their lawyer Howard Rubin. I'd ask that the House would please make them welcome.

S. Fraser: I'd like to join my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in welcoming Joan and Allen Scott. They are friends of mine from Nanoose. Accompanying them today, also concerned with protecting public health care, is Bernie Pearce. Would you please join me in making them all feel very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: A couple of introductions today. First of all, I'd like to welcome into the House Ethan Huberman and his father, Morry Hubburmin, who are joining us today. Ethan has been and continues to be a strong supporter of the Asia-Pacific gateway strategy and the Gateway program in British Columbia. I want to welcome them.

In addition, I understand someone I attended high school with is with us today. Eric Polson and his partner Kim Berekely are here today. I'd ask the House to make all of them welcome.

M. Mungall: I'd like to add some words of welcome to those of the Minister of Community and Rural Development. He welcomed John Kettle from electoral area B of the RDCK. Well, John happens to be a very good friend of mine, despite our political differences, and I actually have one of his black hats in my office in Nelson.

Hon. I. Black: There's an organization in B.C. called MITACS. This is a group of individuals who are leading our province in the areas of science and mathematics. If
[ Page 2486 ]
you've ever wondered if you can be passionate about mathematics, this group can prove it with the best of them.

In the gallery today or in the precinct, we've got Daniel Fontaine, who's the vice-president of communications and public affairs, and Olga Stackova, who's the chief operating officer of that organization. I ask the House to join me in making our mathematicians feel most welcome.

[1340]

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome grades 4, 5 and 6 students from Park Avenue Community School in Nanaimo, from my constituency. We should feel very welcoming in greeting them in our House, in their House.

R. Chouhan: I would also like to join my friend from Burnaby–Deer Lake in welcoming Diane Gillis to the gallery. In addition, I want to welcome my dear friend Gordie Larkin, who's here — a community leader, a great trade unionist. Please join me to welcome him.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the precincts today are three very good friends of mine from Sooke, down Highway 14. I know that the Minister of Transportation is familiar with that arterial road. They are Lorna and Ron Barry and my friend Flo Tickner. Would the House make these Sookians very, very welcome.

K. Corrigan: I've just become aware that we also have in the House another friend of mine, Leslie Dickout. She's staff at the B.C. Health Coalition, does brilliant work for them and was here today with a number of other people expressing concern about our health care system. I hope you'll make her welcome.

Tributes

Sandy Korman

K. Conroy: On November 11 we lost an amazing woman when Sandy Korman passed away. Yesterday hundreds of friends and family gathered in Castlegar to say goodbye, share our stories and remember her infectious laughter and humorous stories.

Sandy was well known in these halls as a capable assistant to Corky Evans throughout his 15 years in politics. What isn't as well known is the influence she had on so many of our lives in the Kootenays. Her patience and excellent political sense helped to create and sustain the Columbia Basin Trust, the Kootenay School of the Arts, the Kootenay Gallery and the beautiful built-in-the-Kootenays Osprey ferry that sails across Kootenay Lake, just to name a few.

Sandy was also an artist, creating beautiful pottery, wonderful interior designs and of course her blings. You will see hundreds of these unique pieces of art hanging on many necks around the province. She was mom to Shaun and Jen, sister to Sheren and Brian, auntie to her nieces and nephews and a great friend to many of us who, although we will miss her, know her legacy will live on in the many memories we all cherish.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

BOMBING OF AIR INDIA FLIGHT
AND DEATH OF TARA SINGH HAYER

D. Hayer: Almost 25 years have gone by since Canada's worst act of political terrorism, the bombing of Air India flight 182 and the related bombing at Tokyo's Narita airport. A total of 331 people, most of them Canadians, were murdered that day. Although it happened on June 23, 1985, in the minds of the families of those who were slain, the tragedy lives on as if it had only happened yesterday. Closure has not been achieved. Justice has not been served.

Several years after those 331 killings my father, a newspaper publisher who'd reported on the tragedy, was assassinated. He was a journalist who had the courage to write candidly about the tragedy and told what he knew to the police. For speaking out his mind, he was killed.

On November 18, 1998, my father, Tara Singh Hayer, was assassinated as he sat in his wheelchair at his home. I believe he was killed to prevent him from testifying in court as a witness.

My father was an outspoken advocate against terrorism and injustice, and he was for democracy and for freedom. Today is the 11th anniversary of his death. My mother and my sister are opening a community centre in memory of his life in our village of Paddi Jagir in Punjab, India, where he was born. Funded by the Tara Singh Hayer Memorial Foundation, this community centre will be expanded into a seniors centre and a library. It will remind us of his peaceful pursuit of justice and the importance of freedom of speech and democracy.

I ask all MLAs, all MPs and all Senators in Ottawa, on the anniversary of my father's death, to once again remember the victims and their families and to encourage efforts to bring the killers to justice and to prevent such tragedies from ever happening again in Canada. [Applause.]

REMEMBRANCE DAY CEREMONY IN NEWTON

H. Bains: I'm sure all members were able to participate in Remembrance Day ceremonies to pay respect to our fallen soldiers in their own way this year.

[1345]

I'd like to share with you the Remembrance Day ceremony I attended, which was very unique and special. It
[ Page 2487 ]
was special because it was organized and attended by the young people in our community. There were close to 500 people in attendance, most of them youth. There were Sparks, Brownies, Girl Guides, Pathfinders, Beavers,

Cubs, Scouts. All participated in this ceremony. These are the youth of Newton.

I believe it is important for our youth to learn of the sacrifices that were made and are being made by our service women and men in return for our freedom and liberty. The Pioneer District Girl Guides, along with all the organizations who participated in this service, are doing a great job in educating our young people about those sacrifices.

I was so proud to watch the youngsters bring their hand-made wreaths and poppies and lay them at the cenotaph. You could see in their eyes that they knew the importance of what they were doing and were trying to understand.

I have attended this ceremony at Newton cenotaph for the past four years. This year's event was the largest. I believe this is a growing trend that will force us to look for peaceful means to settle our differences. I say this because within a few years it's today's youth who will be sitting in these chairs and other chairs of the parliaments of our country. The more they know of our history, the better the position they will be in to make decisions to avoid wars and bring long-lasting peace.

I would like to thank Kirstie Goy, who was the original organizer of this event. Kirstie plans this event every year along with Heather Smith, Angela Roscoe, Janice Chisholm and Pioneer District Girl Guides. I would like all of you to join with me in thanking all of them for their time, effort, commitment and the tremendous job that they are doing in organizing this event every year.

BILL ROSS, DOUG EMBREE
AND RON BANNERMAN

D. McRae: It is with great sadness that I stand here today to recognize three long-serving teachers in the Comox Valley who have left their friends and family far too early. Within the past month Bill Ross, Doug Embree and Ron Bannerman, with a combined teaching experience of 106 years, have passed.

Bill Ross is survived by his wife, Joanna; his children, Andi and Rob; and his grandchildren, Charlotte and Oliver. For 36 years Bill was a great role model for both his students and his colleagues. He is described as firm but fair, a man who cared for his students, and they knew it. Young teachers also looked to him for advice and guidance, and he gladly gave it. Bill was best described as passionate about his family, his teaching, his barbecuing, his love for red wine and the Dallas Cowboys.

Doug Embree is survived by his wife, Marilyn; sons, Owen and Ben; and grandchildren, Rhiannon, Maia, Hamilton and Quinnton. Doug taught for 39 years, retiring last June. He was a giant of a man whose physical size was only exceeded by the size of his heart. He worked tirelessly with students needing both academic and sometimes parental guidance. The number of young students who achieved success in school because of Doug's efforts is immeasurable.

Ron Bannerman is survived by his wife, Cindy; his father, John; children, Kim and Mike; and granddaughter, Zoey. Ron was born and raised in Cumberland and began his teaching career in the Comox Valley in 1968. He worked for 31 years as an educator, and I'm proud to say that Ron was my grade 6 teacher and inspired in me a love of history and storytelling. He was also instrumental in the creation of the No. 6 Mine Park and its maintenance and a driving force behind the Cumberland Heritage Fair and the Comox Valley Heritage Tour.

The Comox Valley has lost three great individuals. While their absence saddens both myself and those who knew them, I can say with certainty that they touched so many people during the course of their lives, that their legacies will live on.

DIABETES AWARENESS

M. Elmore: November is when we commemorate World Diabetes Month, the primary global awareness campaign for diabetes. World Diabetes Day is celebrated every November 14 and was created in 1991 by the International Diabetes Federation and the World Health Organization in response to the growing and escalating health threat that diabetes now poses.

With the passage of the United Nations World Diabetes Day resolution in December 2006, diabetes became the first chronic disease to be granted global recognition. Presently 3 million Canadians live with diabetes, including over 283,000 people in British Columbia.

I'd like to take this time to congratulate and recognize the work of the Canadian Diabetes Association in working on this issue, raising awareness and working towards preventing and supporting people with diabetes, and also to recognize the leadership of the executive director, Connie Abrams, and congratulate the Canadian Diabetes Association on their eighth annual seasonal dinner.

It was sponsored by the B.C. Association of Podiatrists, and the focus this year was on providing practical gifts, such as walkers and socks, and support for people from low-income families in partnership with the Carnegie Centre.

[1350]

I had the opportunity of participating in an event, Diabetes and the Filipino Family, and learned a lot from Dr. Ranbir Mann and Noony Santos-Paletta, a dietitian. I and also participated in community fundraising events with my good friends Evelyn and Rey del Rosario.

Together with the support of Dr. Keith Dawson and Dr. John Hunt, I encourage everybody to become a diabetes
[ Page 2488 ]
champion and to sign on as a diabetes champion onto worlddiabetes.ca and to support the great work of the Canadian Diabetes Association on this important issue.

burnaby local hero awards

R. Lee: On November 2 Burnaby city hall honoured 13 remarkable individuals from Burnaby. The Burnaby Local Hero Awards are given to those who have made outstanding contributions to community well-being.

These awards have been granted since 1997, recognizing 187 people to date, from local business owners to retirees, teachers and parents. These awards recognize the efforts and contributions of a diverse group of individuals, all of whom have been nominated by the people in the community.

The Burnaby Local Hero Awards, therefore, not only acknowledge the hard work of active citizens but also encourage and enhance the sense of community living in Burnaby. This year's recipients of the award have unique stories to share.

Stella Castillo, who is originally from Colombia, arrived in Canada in 2000 after being held hostage by a guerrilla group for five months. In Canada she has been facilitating a Latin American women's group through the REACH Community Health Centre.

Other winners are Merrilyn Cook, Sidney Cumbers, Sharon Freeman, Fatehali Jetha, Jack Kuyer, Tammy Ozero, Wanley Poh, Deepak Prasad, Wendell Ratcliffe, Mohammad Shamsi, Millie Wylie and Keanna Driedger, who is the youngest member of this group, at only 16 years of age.

These remarkable individuals have donated numerous hours and have demonstrated the courage, commitment and dedication to the variety of different causes they champion and to a better quality of life for the residents of Burnaby.

I would like to ask the House to join me in congratulating all of Burnaby's local heroes.

climate conference in copenhagen

L. Popham: On December 6 world leaders will gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to negotiate a world climate deal. In order for this to succeed, this deal must include binding targets for steep and immediate reductions of CO2 emissions.

Copenhagen presents a most crucial opportunity at a pivotal time. We have a chance to create a successor treaty to the Kyoto accord and move the planet towards a solution before irreversible global warming takes effect.

Climate change is the number one threat to our planet at this time. A rise in temperature will kill our forests, intensify storms, diminish our food supplies, threaten mass extinction and will ultimately lead to war. Many world leaders are already committed to negotiating an agreement at Copenhagen that is ambitious, fair and binding.

Unfortunately, Canada is falling behind. Our national targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been called ineffective, and our performance at a number of recent climate meetings has been labelled "obstructionist." Does inaction or paralysis come from fear, or does it come from greed, or does it come from the addiction to fossil fuels that has such a grasp on us that we would risk our entire planet?

I hope our fear regarding change can be overcome and replaced with the stronger fear of doing nothing. I stand in front of all of you today and tell you from my heart that I'm afraid of what our future holds. I would like to ask this government to join with the opposition to collectively send a letter of concern to the government of Canada and together request a very strong Canadian presence at Copenhagen.

Oral Questions

olympic games costs

C. James: Documents obtained through freedom of information show that the B.C. Liberal government continues to cover up Olympic costs.

[1355]

I have a letter here from VANOC's chief financial officer to Philip Steenkamp, CEO of the Olympic secretariat, in which he writes: "Dear Mr. Steenkamp, I am writing to request funding from British Columbia with respect to the 2010 opening ceremonies and other projects. This request totals…." That's where the document ends — blanked out.

My question is to the minister responsible for the Olympics. What possible reason does she have to withhold this information from the public?

Hon. M. McNeil: In just 86 days from now we will be hosting the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. Again, what we know is that these Olympic Games, if we take full advantage of them…. This is going to be even better for our province. If we don't, we will have a missed opportunity. VANOC is working incredibly hard to make sure the 2010 Olympic Winter Games are the best yet and, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, it's about time that the members opposite get on board with the Olympics.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.
[ Page 2489 ]

C. James: Unlike this minister and unlike this government, I believe that you can support the Olympics and look out for taxpayer dollars at the same time.

It's no surprise….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: It's no surprise to the public that the Olympics cost money, but this government appears to be dead set on hiding just how much. It appears to be nothing less than a cover-up by this minister, refusing to put the information out there. We've seen this before, when the minister refused to tell British Columbians just how much this government was spending on Olympic tickets. We see it again today.

Again to the minister: why does she continue to refuse to put the information in front of the public?

Hon. M. McNeil: It was interesting, and I'm thrilled to see that the Leader of the Opposition is now for the Olympics, because she's been on record as not being. So that's great news to hear.

What I can say today is that we are going to ensure that we do everything right when it comes to the Olympics, because this is an unparalleled opportunity for our economy. This will be the launching pad for the next decade, and this government is going to make sure we get it right.

Having said that, there will be a full accounting of every cost at the end of the Olympics.

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

C. James: If this government wants to do something right, put out the information about the real costs of the Olympics. It's simple, straightforward. Words that this minister and this government don't seem to understand — openness, accountability, public oversight.

There is no reason why this information couldn't be made public. So again my question is to the minister. Stop the cover-up, be upfront with British Columbians, and tell us how much money VANOC received from the government.

Hon. M. McNeil: I think what's really important here is that these 2010 Olympic Games are a major stimulant for our economic growth. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, these games already have been a major job creator — 22,000 new jobs. Over 800 businesses have been created.

This is a very positive thing for this province, and we're going to make sure that we do it right. Again, there will be a full accounting, but I tell you that this government is going to make sure we are the host of the greatest Olympic Games ever.

[1400]

K. Corrigan: Well, you talk about the benefits of the games. But what's the point of figuring out whether the benefits are worthwhile if you don't know what the costs are? That's our problem.

Again, secrecy and cover-up — that's this government's legacy for the Olympics. Thanks to the government's ask, don't tell approach, there's no way to know how much money VANOC requested. Information about how they planned to spend it was also severed.

Again to the minister: will she for once commit to be open and transparent and release this information to the public today?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, our budget for hosting the games, living up to the IOC commitment, remains the same at $765 million. In addition to this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: What I will also point out, again…. For the first time in Olympic history all of the venues were finished ahead of time by one year. These venues will continue to support a lot of our future athletes for years and decades to come, and I think that is incredibly important.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I can't quite believe my ears. Three weeks ago in estimates I went through a whole series of costs with this minister and asked specifically, one by one: is this part of the $765 million? This minister confirmed that cost after cost — tickets, Crown corporations, the Crown secretariat — and millions and millions of dollars were not part of that $765 million.

At the end of those estimates I asked the minister whether there were any other costs that we should know about. Sitting with that same official involved in this FOI, she said to us: "No. After consultation, there is nothing else that we're aware of."

The public wants to know the true cost of the Olympics. Does the minister think that the public will tolerate her government's continual whiting-out and hiding of Olympic costs?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, these Olympics are the largest economic stimulus that this province could ever ask for. Leaders around the world envy us this opportunity, especially at this time in history. These games are going
[ Page 2490 ]
to drive tourism, they're going to create jobs, and they're going to reinvigorate our economy at the very time we need it most so that we can continue to support education and health care in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: That's something that you'll never have a problem…. It will never happen with you.

This is taxpayers' money that's being spent on the Olympics. The public demands accountability and transparency. Under this government, under freedom of information, we've seen neither nothing free or informative about the information that this government makes available to the public.

[1405]

VANOC is asking the Olympic secretariat, which according to this government is not even an Olympic cost, for additional money. It's severed in a release. There can be no possible reason not to put that information out to the public, not to let this House know what that information is.

So will the Minister for the Olympics, who's supposed to know where these expenditures are going, supposed to know where this money is going…? Will she stand in this House and tell how much money was requested by VANOC from the Olympic secretariat?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, the funding has not changed. It is within the $765 million, and VANOC still has a contingency within that. VANOC has been reporting on their finances quarterly, and they show they're on track. In addition to that, our expenses are in our current budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, the request was to the Olympic secretariat, which this government says isn't even an Olympic cost. How absurd is that? My question to the minister is clear. If it's in the budget, tell us. What's she afraid of? What's she got to hide?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, I'll repeat for the other side that there will be a full accounting of the expenses on the Olympics.

What I would also like to say is that in 86 days from now there's going to be an opening ceremony that is going to be broadcast to over three billion people worldwide. I know that this side of the House is going to be glued to the television watching, and it's going to be an exciting time.

In addition to that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: In addition, I think it would actually be a good idea for the members opposite to actually go on line and see what's happening today in Nova Scotia. That Olympic torch is being carried throughout the small towns in Nova Scotia. Sidney Crosby has it today, and I tell you, the amount of people watching that is very exciting.

This is a good thing for our country. It is a good thing for our province, and this government is going to make sure that we do it right.

B. Ralston: The Premier, as Leader of the Opposition, once said: "Openness is better than hiddenness." Leaving aside the grammatical problems with that statement, I recommend that to the minister. Will the minister follow that advice of her leader and reveal the cost of the request from VANOC?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, without sounding repetitive, there will be a full accounting of the costs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, this government, in 86 days from now, is going to make sure we have the greatest Olympics in history, and we're going to make sure that this province does everything it can to benefit from every opportunity that will be happening.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: A couple of weeks ago the Premier, in this House, made a speech in which he appealed to our better natures and to set aside partisan differences on the occasion of the Olympics. Does the minister not understand that this attitude of stonewalling on the costs destroys public confidence in the Olympics?

[1410]

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, there will be a full accounting for the members opposite. But I just want to say that the public isn't looking at this. What the public is looking forward to, as is seen by the number of tickets that have gone out….

People are excited about these games; 1.6 million tickets have been sold for these games. People are excited about this. Athletes are coming here. They're excited. Over 80 countries will be represented, and I tell you this government is going to make sure that we do ourselves proud.
[ Page 2491 ]

GRAVEL EXTRACTION
FROM FRASER RIVER

V. Huntington: The Minister of Environment is charged with the public duty to protect wildlife in this province. His own conservation framework, which he described to me the other day personally, champions the use of preventative science and the conservation of habitats and ecosystems as his ministry's guide to decision-making.

Yet we know that engineering and scientific studies show that gravel removal does nothing to aid flood control. We know that in the last few years the government has removed two biologists from the technical gravel committee who are refusing to support gravel extraction as an aid to flood control.

The minister will also recall that in 2006 a gravel extraction operation on the lower Fraser killed over two million young pink right on the rearing area.

I'm not sure how the minister can continue to champion gravel removal and flood control in the same breath, and I ask him if he will stand by his conservation framework, do his duty and call a halt to the gravel removal on the Fraser.

Hon. B. Penner: I think it's important to protect both the environment and public safety. That is the priority of the Ministry of Environment when we participate in planning activities related to the permitting of gravel extraction projects that are designed to reduce the flood risk for the hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars of investment that exist in the Fraser Valley in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

Our key priorities are protecting the environment as well as public safety. Since 2007 our government has invested in 168 flood protection projects, at a cost of $85.5 million, in partnership with the federal and local governments.

The recent flood concerns we had just in the last few days underscore why it's prudent to protect both the environment and the public from the risk of flooding.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I think if the minister really wanted to look at flood control on the Fraser, he would start to work with the communities on the lower Fraser that are in jeopardy of infill on the secondary channels, given that the federal government will no longer dredge them.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

V. Huntington: Well, nobody knows it, sir.

The Minister of Environment wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans calling for a review of the sockeye collapse on the Fraser River. On November 5 the Prime Minister ordered a judicial inquiry into the sockeye collapse, announcing the most comprehensive review ever undertaken into the administration of the Fraser fishery.

We know that gravel removal does not assist flood control, and we also know the Gateway has confirmed an enormous need for gravel through 2010, declaring it will source it through gravel removal on the Fraser River.

No commercial activity should threaten the survival of a species, and the minister's first obligation should be to do no harm. The minister has announced his support for the judicial inquiry into the collapse of the sockeye on the Fraser, and I would submit that a failure to halt the removal of gravel prior to that inquiry would be showing contempt for that very inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose the question, please.

V. Huntington: I would ask the minister again to declare that no further gravel removal will take place on our river until the judicial inquiry has reported on the reasons for the sockeye collapse.

Hon. B. Penner: As I noted, we do take the interests of protecting the environment and fish habitat into account in carefully planning any gravel extraction.

[1415]

Interesting to note that in the member's supplemental question she advocated for dredging in the part of the Fraser River near her community, but people living upstream in the Fraser Valley also feel it's important that they should benefit from flood protection activities as well.

I'd be pleased to welcome the member to our constituency, where she would learn that every year hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of gravel are deposited in the stretch of the Fraser River between Agassiz and Chilliwack and downstream. That sediment accumulates over time.

What we've reached is an agreement with the federal government. There's still federal permitting. DFO provides input. Federal approvals are required.

But we believe that doing nothing is not a responsible thing when it comes to protecting the environment or the people, and the hundreds of thousands of people that live in the Lower Mainland.

COMMENTS BY DAVID HAHN ON
COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT

G. Coons: The Finance Minister said on Monday in regards to the report on B.C. Ferries and TransLink that the comptroller has done a very competent and thor-
[ Page 2492 ]
ough job. The CEO of B.C. Ferries, David Hahn, said the report was biased, nonsense, craziness and dumb.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Who does she agree with: the Finance Minister or the CEO of B.C. Ferries?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite knows full well that in fact it was the government that requested the advice of the comptroller general. She is competent. She is capable. In fact, the Minister of Finance said exactly the same thing. We intend to consider every single one of her recommendations seriously.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: The minister seems to forget that the office of the comptroller general is responsible for the overall quality and integrity of this government's financial management and control systems, and she needs to support the comptroller general against outlandish and outrageous accusations.

The CEO of B.C. Ferries shoots off his mouth, insults B.C. taxpayers and ferry users, and at a million dollars per year, the entire province knows he makes too much. In regards to the size of Mr. Hahn's paycheque, the Finance Minister said on Monday: "The Minister of Transportation spoke, I think, for all of us when she said she was shocked when she found out the level of compensation the board of directors had agreed to."

Now, two issues are in front of us: the provocative and inflammatory statements from CEO Hahn and the total lack of accountability and scrutiny from B.C. Ferries. Will the Transportation Minister ask Mr. Hahn to retract his brazen, insulting statements and apologize to the comptroller general, and will she commit to putting B.C. Ferries under the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. S. Bond: We actually believe in the competence of the comptroller general so much that in fact we asked her to do the report and received it. At the risk of repeating not only what the Finance Minister said but what I will say for the second time: we take the report seriously. We asked for the advice. We're going to consider every single recommendation, including the recommendation concerning freedom of information.

ACCESS TO B.C. FERRIES INFORMATION

H. Bains: Let's be clear. The only reason British Columbians even know how much they're coughing up for Mr. Hahn's salary is because of the federal rules. The comptroller general has called for more accountability into B.C. Ferries, but this government continues to refuse to open B.C. Ferries to public scrutiny.

My question is to the minister. Why won't the minister agree to include B.C. Ferries under FOI?

Hon. S. Bond: As we've said continuously since the moment we received the report from the competent comptroller general, we will consider every single one of her recommendations, including that one.

[1420]

But we're not going to stand on this side of the House and listen to the member opposite talk about our legacy. Let's talk about the legacy of that government when it was in control. Let's face it. They bankrupted B.C. Ferries. It was shameful and embarrassing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member. We're not continuing until there's silence.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: Very interesting. The minister called the comptroller general competent, but the CEO called it craziness and dumb. Will she stand up and defend the CEO?

Now let me go into another area here. The Auditor General's report yesterday raised some really red flags. But that report didn't even touch the salaries of B.C. Ferries, because the government is shielding the corporation from public accountability. So my question again is to the minister. What are you afraid of? Why won't you agree to open B.C. Ferries to FOI?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we asked for advice. We asked about how we can ensure that the model that's in place is working as efficiently as possible. We have a series of recommendations, and we intend to consider every single one of them. But, you know, the member opposite's legacy with B.C. Ferries continues. In fact, very shortly now we're going to see their legacy floated on the back of a barge off to Abu Dhabi. That's what the member opposite did with B.C. Ferries.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B.C. FERRIES AND B.C. RAIL
EXECUTIVE SALARIES

J. Horgan: As staggering as it is that the members on that side of the House don't seem to think it's odd that we're paying a guy a million bucks to run a monopoly ferry system, I think they'll be even more surprised to learn that six years ago they privatized B.C. Rail, but they continue to pay the chief executive officer and the president $500,000 a year to run zero trains on 40 kilometres of track.

Now, they may have a miniature train set in the boardroom, but you've got four chief executive officers making $1.2 million — no trains. Is that acceptable — a million bucks for the ferries, $1.2 million for no train?
[ Page 2493 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, it shows how little the member opposite actually does his homework. In fact, B.C. Rail Properties has a number of important responsibilities, including…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: …the disposal of surplus properties for revenue. They also look after the completion of subdivisions to support economic development, and they monitor the very important B.C. investment railway partnership. So there is work being done.

In addition, like all of the Crowns in British Columbia, we in fact are going to review B.C. Rail Properties.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, I'll give the Minister of Transportation one more opportunity to do the right thing for the taxpayers of British Columbia. Will she, first of all, call in Mr. Hahn to her office and tell him to mind his manners and then tell him that she's going to roll back his salary and, the second thing, call in B.C. Rail executives and say that their services are no longer required?

Hon. S. Bond: We have said consistently that we believe the comptroller general did an outstanding job. We disagree with Mr. Hahn. Mr. Hahn can actually defend his own remarks.

[1425]

But I'll tell you what. What the member opposite should look back to is…. Let's just look at what happened with B.C. Ferries under their leadership. In fact….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sit down, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's just look at a fact. To the member opposite: between 1991 and 1991, B.C. Ferries' debt increased….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sit down, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Want to wind it up, Minister?

Hon. S. Bond: I can hardly wait to wind it up.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Very quickly, between 1991 and 1991, B.C. Ferries' debt went up by 1,800 percent under that government.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Horgan: I have a petition signed by over 500 British Columbians calling on the government of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey to withdraw the HST.

Hon. M. Polak: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: Joining us in the House today is the Carrier Youth Drum Group and their chaperones. The Carrier Youth Drum Group is a group of teenage youth from the Carrier and Sekani territory.

The youth participate in cultural programming to increase and strengthen their cultural identity. The drum group has spent the last two years learning the traditional clan songs and stories of their territory and performing for various celebrations, events and forums. They will be performing at the aboriginal child care conference in Vancouver.

They are Ashley Lowely, Jenny Lowely, Kerri Palmer, Christine Batoche, Wyonna Batoche, Tammy Alexis, Shane Palmer, Sheldon Batoche, Kurtis Alec, Elijah George West and their chaperones — Vernaye Morgan, Sonya Sheppard and John Alec. Would the House please make them welcome.

Petitions

C. James: I rise to present a petition opposing the implementation of the HST signed by over a thousand people.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

D. Donaldson: I rise to present a petition of over 480 people from seven communities in Stikine and also five
[ Page 2494 ]
communities in Nechako Lakes, calling on the government to scrap plans to implement the HST.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Kwan: I have a petition from the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant calling on the government to reinstate the arts cuts funding in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General; and in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 20, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009

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

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On section 1.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise and ask a few questions around this very interesting provision. I'm just wondering if the minister can explain the effect of section 1 and why the change is being made.

Hon. S. Thomson: Before I respond to the question, I'd like to introduce the staff that are here with me: Grant Parnell, the assistant deputy minister of Crown land administration in the ministry; Linda Bates, our manager of legislation; and Judi Sigurdson, who is the manager of trade policy in the ministry.

The purpose of the amendment is to…. As the member opposite may know, currently ranchers and farmers are exempt from the Animal Disease Control Act. The purpose of this amendment is to apply that same exemption to Alberta farmers and ranchers, to be consistent with TILMA. This is for when they are purchasing livestock for their own farm operations only.

L. Krog: I want to assure the minister that I'm here to get an education this afternoon around this issue. I have a few questions that might be helpful to me and might explain this fully to the public.

There is a TILMA aspect to this, I gather, from the minister's response. We're now supposedly putting British Columbia ranchers and Alberta ranchers on the same footing. Is there an advantage to British Columbia ranchers arising out of this?

[1435]

Hon. S. Thomson: This is an advantage to B.C. farmers and ranchers. What it does is give them better access to ranchers and business opportunities in Alberta. It opens up those opportunities for them. It reduces the barriers to trade and reduces costs for them.

L. Krog: I just wonder if the minister could be a bit more specific. It opens up opportunities. Does this mean that a B.C. rancher, for instance, can now purchase an Alberta farm more easily and operate more easily in the province of Alberta? Or does it mean that he can simply purchase livestock in Alberta and transport them back to British Columbia more easily? In other words, what are the specifics to that advantage the minister is talking about?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify one point to make sure the member opposite understands that we're dealing strictly with livestock in this case. This has nothing to do with in terms of purchasing farms or property. This is strictly related to livestock. What it does is that it makes it easier for B.C. farmers and ranchers by exempting the Alberta farmers and ranchers and putting them on the same footing as B.C. farmers and ranchers in terms of recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

L. Krog: If I can kind of crystallize this for my mind…. I'm a cattle rancher in the Cariboo, and I want to buy some stock in Alberta, but I'm not a livestock dealer. If I'm a livestock dealer, of course, then I'm stuck with certain regulatory requirements, I assume, that are fairly onerous because of all the concerns around mad cow and everything else. And if the minister nods that I'm on the right track, that'll give me a hint that I am.

But if I'm just your ordinary, run-of-the-range rancher and I want to buy ten head of Angus out of Edmonton and bring them back, what this provision does is cut down the regulatory framework so that I can bring those back more easily. Whereas if I was a livestock dealer, then I'm stuck with, I presume, regulatory and reporting requirements in order to exclude the possibility of disease or whatever else may be an issue for the governments.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, these amendments allow the farmers in both jurisdictions to be exempt from the requirements for bonding and licensing. What
[ Page 2495 ]
we're dealing with here are individual ranchers with their own livestock that have been raised on their own farms dealing with an individual farmer and rancher in Alberta.

[1440]

The livestock dealers' requirements are, as the member opposite mentioned, much more strict because of the volumes they deal with, because of the fact they are moving cattle for other people and things like that. We're simply putting farmers and ranchers in B.C. and farmers and ranchers in Alberta on an even footing.

L. Krog: If I can understand it…. If I'm a rancher in the Cariboo and I go to a livestock dealer in Edmonton and purchase ten head, then the provisions around the Animal Disease Control Act, etc., will apply to me and I'll have to meet a rigorous regulatory arrangement, so to speak. Whereas if I'm a rancher in the Cariboo and I go to see my friend George in Edson and buy ten head, then I can bring those back without any concerns.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, this change does not make any change to the animal health requirements, safety requirements, as far as that side of it. All it simply does is exempt Alberta ranchers and farmers, doing business with a B.C. farmer and rancher on their own cattle, from the reporting requirements. Right now B.C. farmers and ranchers are exempt from that requirement, so if they are selling into Alberta, they're currently excluded. They're not subject to those same reporting requirements that livestock dealers are.

What we're saying is that for an Alberta farmer and rancher, on his own livestock, dealing directly with a B.C. farmer and rancher…. When they are selling their own livestock, they are on the same footing in terms of not having to comply with the same reporting requirements, exactly the same as we currently have for our B.C. farmers and ranchers.

L. Krog: If I get this straight, essentially, the purpose of this is to give an advantage to Alberta farmers now in dealing with B.C. farmers, which presently B.C. farmers enjoy in dealing with Alberta farmers, which gives us, arguably, comparative advantage.

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite has essentially got it right. What it does is make it easier to sell and do business between farmers and ranchers in B.C. and Alberta on their own cattle — both ways. The advantage flows both ways. It opens up the opportunities and makes it easier or gives an advantage or business opportunities and reduces costs to B.C. farmers and ranchers.

L. Krog: I think the minister is perhaps missing my point. I understood from his previous answer that right now a B.C. rancher gets to sell his cattle into Alberta without restriction, whereas an Alberta farmer presently would face some restriction or prohibition on selling his cattle to a B.C. rancher in British Columbia. Is that the present situation?

Hon. S. Thomson: There's not a prohibition. Those sales can currently occur, but under the current regulation, without this change and the reason the change is being proposed, that Alberta farmer, doing business with the B.C. rancher on his own cattle — selling them — would now be classified as a livestock dealer and have to go through those requirements of bonding and licensing and reporting.

What we're simply saying is that we're exempting the Alberta farmer and rancher from that requirement that the B.C. farmer and rancher currently has, in order to facilitate business between two farmers and ranchers. So as I said previously, the advantage goes both ways.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, my point is that right now, the way I interpreted the minister's previous answers, as a B.C. farmer, I can sell my cattle to an Alberta rancher without incurring the provisions of this act, whereas the Alberta rancher presently can't do that. We'll do this one step at a time. Is that the situation now?

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, the situation is that the current B.C. farmer and rancher is not classified as a livestock dealer if he's selling his own cows or his own livestock and dealing directly with another individual rancher in Alberta. What we're simply saying is that we're putting the Alberta rancher on the same footing, opening up the opportunities for that B.C. rancher.

If he is looking to do business with and to bring cattle breeding stock or cattle from Alberta that he'd like to purchase, it puts the Alberta farmer and rancher in the same category, reduces those requirements. So not considering that Alberta farmer and rancher a livestock dealer — that reduces the cost, generally reduces the cost of doing business for B.C. farmers and ranchers. It simply puts them on the same footing.

L. Krog: So if I get this straight, right now as a B.C. rancher I can sell my cattle to an Alberta farmer without prohibition, whereas an Alberta farmer cannot sell his cattle to a B.C. farmer without, unless he…. If he did, he'd be a livestock dealer and have to register. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, that's correct. Under the current regulation, he would be considered a dealer and subject to those reporting requirements — licensing, bonding. What we're saying is that when you're dealing with your own cattle, B.C. rancher to Alberta rancher….

This applies to a limited number of sales. We're not talking about the livestock dealers where volumes of
[ Page 2496 ]
cattle are moving. We're simply talking about business between an individual rancher in British Columbia and an individual rancher in Alberta.

L. Krog: So we've talked about selling. Right now, I take it, a B.C. rancher can buy Alberta cattle from a rancher there and bring them back, again without prohibition, whereas an Alberta rancher couldn't buy B.C. cattle and take them back without prohibition. Is that right?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm not sure. I think the member is talking about prohibition. There is no prohibition either way in terms of individual ranchers in B.C. dealing with individual farmers in Alberta. There are health and safety requirements and biosecurity requirements and those kinds of things to meet.

This doesn't deal with that. What we're simply dealing with here is levelling the playing field as far as the reporting and bonding and licensing requirements so that an individual Alberta rancher is not considered a livestock dealer when he's dealing directly with an individual B.C. rancher.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, we've got to the point that I want the minister to acknowledge, and I think he has acknowledged it. The fact is that this provision puts Alberta ranchers on a level playing field with B.C., when in fact, we have enjoyed an advantage up until this, and this is to comply with TILMA. Is that correct?

[1450]

Hon. S. Thomson: The advantage to the B.C. producer here is the fact that a B.C. producer — I'll just use an example — may want to buy a good breeding cow out of Alberta. Right now — because of the additional requirements they have, where that Alberta rancher would be considered a livestock dealer — that affects the transaction costs.

What we're doing is simply putting the B.C. rancher and the Alberta rancher on the same footing. That reduces the cost and reduces barriers to B.C. farmers and ranchers doing business with Alberta farmers and ranchers when we're dealing strictly between a B.C. rancher and an Alberta rancher and strictly with cattle and livestock that are from their own operations.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: I understand this change will allow for lay members to the board of management, the Association of Land Surveyors, much like the Law Society and other governing bodies of various professionals in the province.

What I want to know is: is this a government-driven initiative, or is this a request from the B.C. Land Surveyors? Is this a public request? In other words, where does the impetus for this change come from?

Hon. S. Thomson: This change was supported by the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors. This is simply about broadening the perspective and making sure that the decisions that that association makes are well informed. Consultation occurred with the land surveyors, and it is supported by that association.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Krog: What is the point of this particular change? The explanatory note indicates it changes the eligibility requirements for land surveying companies to whom a permit may be issued. I guess my first question is: what kind of permit are we contemplating, and why is the change necessary?

Hon. S. Thomson: The permit process that currently exists — that isn't changing. That's the permit that the association provides to the company. What is changing by this are the provisions around the makeup of the companies, but the permitting process doesn't change.

[1455]

L. Krog: I'd like concrete, simple examples that I can understand. So we've got two surveyors or three surveyors now who operate a surveying company. It's Letnick Bros. Ltd. or something — B.C. land surveyors.

The effect of this legislation is that if those three B.C. land surveyors are now the only shareholders of that company, then they could perhaps sell 25 percent of their shares to a lawyer who could hold shares, and they'd still be entitled to get a permit to act as B.C. land surveyors. Is that sort of the essence of this?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. Right now you can't do that. With this change, the suggestion or the approach that the member opposite suggested could take place now under the change.

L. Krog: As I understand it, then, the minister is confirming that right now if you're a land surveyor operating through a limited company — and the proprietorship example is too obvious, but a limited company — in order to get a permit to operate as a licensed land surveyor facing all the professional obligations of the association, etc., that company can only belong to the land surveyors — not their spouses, not their cousins, aunts or uncles. It has to belong to the land surveyors, and this change will have the effect of allowing others to
[ Page 2497 ]
own shares in a company that operates a land surveying company.

Hon. S. Thomson: The provisions that are being proposed with this change will still require the majority voting shares to be held by surveyors.

L. Krog: The next question that flows from that is: is this a request from the land surveyors themselves? And if so, is the point of it simply to allow them to get other sources of capital, to spread income with spouses? What's the point of this, and is this in the public interest?

You know, the hybridization of professions in terms of ownership may or may not be in the public interest, so I want to hear the minister's comments on that aspect of it as well.

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: The proposed changes will provide relief to land-surveying companies regarding what I think are unnecessary restrictions in place on the ownership of the business currently. This will allow greater opportunity in terms of raising capital and could provide additional expertise.

It's expected that B.C. companies will now be more competitive in the land surveying business. These are currently the provisions that exist in Alberta, so it makes our companies more competitive. I think that's what is in the public interest. We want to make sure that our land-surveying companies are on a level playing field and have that opportunity to be more competitive.

L. Krog: Just to confirm. This was, in fact, a request for this change from the board of management of the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors?

Hon. S. Thomson: Consultation occurred. This change is supported by the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Krog: Just to confirm. This change is simply consequential on section 1, I take it, in terms of including the definition. So if you reside in British Columbia or Alberta…. Again, it's to try and comply with TILMA. We're putting livestock dealers on an equal footing. Is that the effect of it?

Hon. S. Thomson: That's correct.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

L. Krog: This section, I take it, is simply doing what probably most British Columbians assumed it is, and that is that all the provisions of the Elections Act governing spending limits and all the regulation that goes with the general election will now apply in by-elections as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: With one qualification to what the member said. These are the provisions that deal with candidate expenditures. As the member knows, there are other parts of the act dealing with third party that are presently being litigated, and we purposely didn't touch any of those sections. The member is correct with respect to candidate expenditures.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. Horgan: As I foreshadowed in my second reading debates, I'm anxious to hear from the Minister of Energy the rationale for removing transparency from the Hydro and Power Authority Act. I'm wondering if the minister could perhaps introduce the staff that are accompanying him here and then answer that question.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will start by introducing the people and staff I have with me. We have, to my right, Les MacLaren and, to Les's right, Jennifer Champion joining us here today.

Thank you to the member for the question. The sections are really a product of the 1960s in this piece of legislation. What we're attempting to do here today in section 6 of Bill 20 is to bring them up to date to reflect what the actual fact is today on what we do. As of April 1, 2009, for example, all Crown corporations, including B.C. Hydro, have been subject to open and non-discriminatory procurement requirements — under TILMA, for example.

[1505]

We believe that this is, from my perspective, an update. It will bring us in line with the modern-day procurement, whether it would be the different issues of power plants, as we're talking about. I know the member will get into that here in his future questions.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his answer, and I'm delighted to see both the capable staff joining him in here today looking dapper.

I appreciate the member's response. We had talked off line about why we were using a miscellaneous amendment act to remove directly from the Hydro and Power Authority Act provisions around tenders and, more importantly, the opening of tenders. So that covers section 6.
[ Page 2498 ]

I'm wondering if the minister could direct me to or table documents at a later time or provide them to me at a later time — those references to B.C. Bid and TILMA where we can determine how it is that contractors seeking opportunities from B.C. Hydro would be assured that the open tendering process would continue under these other provisions.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I certainly will endeavour to get you that information, Member, as far as what you've asked under the TILMA and the B.C. Bid requirements for tendering.

J. Horgan: I just want to touch briefly…. The minister talked about modernizing the procurement process. Certainly, we look at statutes here every day. There's often archaic language, and that's a challenge for contemporary contractors.

I certainly find a value in having these provisions contained directly in the Hydro and Power Authority Act, and I'm wondering if the minister could just, beyond the explanation he gave in his preliminary answer, explain how it is an improvement for those who are accessing statutes.

Were I seeking to bid on a construction project, I would first go to the B.C. Hydro act. Again, with modern technology and the Internet and so on, B.C. Bid is a simpler way for modern procurement to take place, but I think there is some value in leaving these statutes or these clauses in place. Could the minister suggest to me why the removal of these is important when these other processes exist?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The update really is necessary, and the question is a good one. The scope is very narrow under 14 of the existing Hydro and Power Authority Act. It refers to power plants — what we're doing — and the reference is also to tenders. There are many other ways now, whether it be requests for proposals, requests for expressions of interest and so on. So this will bring it up.

It also is broader. It will cover goods, services and construction, as well, under TILMA. That's the information that we have said we would forward to the member as well. It broadens it out. It brings it into today's era.

I understand the member's question. As he said, people would go to B.C. Hydro. Also, B.C. Bid, for quite some time, has been utilized. I think most people are aware of it, but if there is an issue, such as a link from B.C. Hydro's website, we would endeavour to do that. If it's not there already, I believe it would be.

J. Horgan: I firstly want to commend the minister for not using acronyms. That's the trap that ministers of all political stripes fall into. Rather than saying "request for proposal," they say "RFP." Those that are reading the debate or watching the debate may not know what the heck we're talking about, so good on the minister for that.

[1510]

I just want to touch, then, on section 15 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act. That, again, is the section which is being repealed with respect to the prices then being made known. I want to just get an assurance from the minister that existing provisions within TILMA or B.C. Bid ensure that all bidders have access to not only the successful bid but to all bids that were submitted. My understanding is that that's guaranteed under section 15 of the act. Will that guarantee be continued with these new provisions?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I can definitely give the member that guarantee. As a matter of fact, it will be as of November 3, 2009. B.C. Hydro has been making this information available on B.C. Bid's website, as well, for both tenders and requests for proposals.

This actually opens it up — greater transparency and the fact that you don't have to be there at the opening per se with the new technology that we have and the advancements. I think the public of British Columbia should be very happy with what they'll be able to access and see formally.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

J. Horgan: For those that are trying to follow without the aid of the documents that the minister and I and other members have in front of them, section 7 is called the transitional provision of this repealing of sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act.

I'm wondering if the minister could just walk us through sections 7(a) and 7(b) so there's clarity on the dates. Of course, it would come into force at royal assent, but you did make reference to November 3, 2009, in your previous answer in terms of the transparency and access to tenders under the former section 15. How will the transition process work?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 7, the transition, is really going to ensure that, rather than during this transition period — and as the member said, until this bill receives royal assent, it doesn't come into play — we can actually do the opening as it is today, which isn't just at their office. As I said, going back to November 3 was the date. It just bridges that so there isn't an inequity that people would fall back and say, "Oh, those had to be opened at the office of B.C. Hydro," when in fact they're actually posted now on B.C. Bid on line.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that answer. I'm just curious. This November 3 date — I don't believe Bill
[ Page 2499 ]
20 had been introduced at that point in time. Is there any magical reason for that? I assume that Hydro put forward their request for legislation through the leg. counsel. The papers were processed. Were they jumping the gun a bit on the November 3 date, or was it just convenient to do so in anticipation of the repealing of these sections?

[1515]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: November 3, to the member, for information, was actually…. That day was chosen…. That was the day after this bill was introduced. That was, I guess, the requirement under that for that date.

The other. These changes were actually drafted in February for the spring session, which would allow us to work in conjunction with the requirements under TILMA for Crown procurement practices on that.

J. Horgan: Is this the only amendment that the minister anticipates with respect to B.C. Hydro to be compliant with TILMA, or will there be other amendments in future miscellaneous amendments?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We're not aware of any other changes that would be needed.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

N. Macdonald: These are all pretty straightforward.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

N. Macdonald: Basically, the provisions we're going to look at here that relate to amendments under this look pretty straightforward. The people I've talked to seem to feel that they're fairly benign.

Just a couple of questions. The first one is on section 8, which is an amendment to section 8 of the Forest Act. It changes the maximum time for the determination of the AACs from five to ten years and gives greater power to the chief forester in determining the annual allowable cut by extending the maximum time that she or he must make an order. Just the question: an explanation of why that change was made?

Hon. P. Bell: The chief forester still determines in his or her own assessment when the appropriate time to do a TSR is. However, it will allow the chief forester to focus the resources in areas where there are changed circumstances. In areas that the chief forester, in their determination, believes are remaining consistent in terms of the circumstances — the health of the forest, the conditions of the forest in a given area — it simply won't require them to do an assessment when in their judgment it is not necessary. It just creates flexibility for the chief forester.

N. Macdonald: The changed circumstances, I presume, would have to do with infestations, perhaps, or a beetle kill. Just maybe related to that is one of the concerns that has been expressed, which is just about the lack of inventory information that we have right now. With this change, is there any concern that that would be problematic, or does the minister not see that as a concern?

Hon. P. Bell: The member asked initially what sorts of circumstances might trigger the chief forester's decision to do a TSR earlier than a ten-year period or a five-year period. He pointed out beetle infestations. That would be an example of one.

There may be other reasons why the chief forester would want to initiate a TSR — as an example, if one were to enter into an extensive fertilization program and wanted to monitor the results and determine whether that would create a potential uplift for the area; or land use decisions, where components of the land are preserved for one reason or another; perhaps a species-at-risk initiative, treaty measures and those sorts of things.

[1520]

The chief forester would look at all of the various circumstances that would impact the annual allowable cut in a given TSR and then make his determination on whether it was appropriate to engage in a timber supply review at that point in time.

There could be a variety of reasons. Some of the ones the member pointed out already. Other reasons could include land use decisions, species-at-risk initiatives, monitoring the incremental growth of the forest.

The member mentioned inventory as a concern. Would inventory information become depleted as a result of this? The chief forester is simply looking for the flexibility to not have to do a TSR in an area where he believes the conditions remain the same as they did on his previous timber supply review. The current rules don't allow that to happen. The current rules require the chief forester to do a timber supply review after five years.

This creates the flexibility for him to make the decision of his determination, and it is a statutory decision, not a political decision. So the chief forester is the one, ultimately, who has the responsibility to make that determination.

N. Macdonald: Just the last question, then. Presumably, this was driven by a request from the chief forester in terms of trying to create a framework that would work more efficiently.
[ Page 2500 ]

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

N. Macdonald: This provides for stumpage amounts to be calculated with the approval of the minister, based on a cruise of the timber rather than the volume reported in the scale of the timber. Really, just one question on that around: what are the circumstances that this sort of a change is intended for?

Hon. P. Bell: We already have the ability to sell wood this way through the B.C. Timber Sales program, through the ITSLs, or innovative timber sale licences. We want to be able to use those same principles for pricing timber in tenured volume as well, and particularly as it relates to homogenous stands of pine beetle–damaged timber.

So the intent is to be able to sell stands where the stand is very homogenous, where it's a relatively simple stand structure, to licensees who hold tenures, rather than using a scale-based system, cruising the stand and selling it and charging for the stand in that way.

N. Macdonald: Just quickly to build on that, then. This is seen as a tool that would be used in an exceptional way rather than a general way. It's just a tool that would be used in very few circumstances, or is it something that the minister would see using more regularly?

Hon. P. Bell: Initially, I think we believe this is a tool we would use in the pine beetle stands in specific circumstances where it's a relatively homogenous stand. But I think it has broader applications, and I think that it offers some very real advantages to the way we currently sell timber.

When the stand is purchased as a whole and it is 100 percent sunk cost on the part of the licensee, I believe that creates a stronger incentive to recover maximum value from that stand. The member knows that that's a personal priority of mine — that I want to see us capturing more value from the stands.

It eliminates a lot of the questions in a stand about tops, about grade 4 issues, about all of those sorts of challenges that come to bear. I like the model. I think it's a better way of charging for wood. At this point the intent is to use it primarily for pine beetle–infested stands, but I would not want the member to think that we aren't considering this as a broader tool if we find that it is successful in achieving our objectives.

N. Macdonald: Maybe just to spend a bit more time with it, because it sounds like it's one of the tools that you're going to use, as you say, to make sure that you get better utilization out of the wood that's there.

So the intention is, as I hear the minister say, to use it as a trial for a certain period of time. What sort of thinking is the minister doing about how you evaluate the effectiveness of the trial? Is there a plan in place to go for a specific period of time and have a specific evaluation to see if it's an accurate way of moving and it achieves the results that the minister wants?

[1525]

Maybe the minister could take some time and just explain the thinking around that.

Hon. P. Bell: We'll be monitoring the stands that are being influenced by this sort of a pricing system to see if we are attaining the objectives, particularly as it relates to maximizing value from the stand and decreasing waste volumes that are left behind in the stand.

I'm interested in seeing us piloting this, primarily in mountain pine beetle areas for now, but I'm interested to see how it would be received in other areas. So it is, I think, something that will take several years to move across the province.

I don't want to suggest that there's a preconceived conclusion here that it will be successful. I think we have to monitor it closely and make sure that it is achieving the intended result, but we want to have it as a tool so that we can extend it beyond where we're at right now.

I think, also, that this is a very helpful tool from the perspective of bioenergy. We've chatted on a number of occasions about bioenergy initiatives and capturing all of the stem as opposed to just the merchantable component of the stem. How do you do that, and how do you allocate that timber out to different licensees for use in bioenergy facilities — whether it's pellets, electrical energy or combined heat and power, or whatever it happens to be? This is, we think, another tool that can help achieve that objective.

A number of different reasons. It creates a new tool in the tool box. Initial use will be primarily in the pine beetle stands. We'll be monitoring it very closely to see if we're getting the results that are expected. We can still use either tool. It doesn't mean that we can only sell volume using this model. We can still use our scale-based systems that we've always used in the past. Then we'll make decisions going forward on whether we think this has greater applicability across stands that have a variety of species as well as homogenous stands.

N. Macdonald: So that's one piece in terms of putting a price on the forest, but you still have tools that you'll need to force the full removal of that. Even having paid for it, perhaps there still wouldn't be the economics for a company to remove all of the wood.

You're thinking of starting this in the pine beetle areas. Then, if it is something that proves successful, the minister sees expanding this to other parts of the province over a period of time. But the initial area will be in the
[ Page 2501 ]
pine beetle area around Quesnel, Prince George. Is that the thinking?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct — and down into the Williams Lake area, as well; perhaps into the Okanagan. Now we're starting to see stands there that have been hit. The Merritt area is another area that we could consider. It'll be a tool that's in the tool box.

The initial focus, as the member points out, will be in the pine-dominated stands. As we go forward, if we find success, we'll consider using it in other areas as well.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

N. Macdonald: This changes the Forest Act, section 128, and it provides the minister the ability to use orders-in-council to allow log exports to include residual wood products up to 5,000 bone-dry units. Here, again, maybe just an explanation to begin with by the minister of the reason for the change.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: In the past, in order to allow for export of either hog or chips, the permitting process was by order-in-council. This gives the Minister of Forests the authority to make that decision as a statutory decision, as opposed to taking it to order-in-council.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

[1530]

N. Macdonald: Again, this is a change to the Forest Act. It allows the cabinet, essentially, to repeal by regulation this section respecting the area-based allowable annual cut trial program. It doesn't seem to be particularly problematic. How is the area-based AAC trial proceeding now? How is that going?

Hon. P. Bell: We believe that we're having good success on this pilot. It was due to terminate shortly, so the initial thought was that we would extend it by legislation to a new timeline. I reconsidered that option and decided to create the flexibility to do it by regulation rather than bringing it to the House.

I think the question the member asked is: how is the pilot going? We think we're seeing some good success in this area and would like to continue it for a period of time. That's why this particular section is here.

N. Macdonald: I think the final question is: is there any sense as to how long a period this will extend to? Clearly, February was too short a time. But are we looking at years from now? Or is it a pilot that will simply have a few more months to go on? Just a sense of how long the minister is looking at studying this.

Hon. P. Bell: Initially, we were thinking it might be just another year. We wanted to create the flexibility by putting in the date by regulation. Realistically, we're thinking probably two years.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

N. Macdonald: This seems to go back to the…. Well, it does go back to the revitalization plan, which was six years ago. Just a question as to why these changes would be made under the auspices now, six years later. Just an explanation of, I guess, why this is being done now.

Hon. P. Bell: We've not yet completed the deletions from the area-based tenures, so we need additional time to complete those deletions.

N. Macdonald: Does the minister have a sense of the time frame?

Hon. P. Bell: Depending on whether I turn to my right or my left, I got answers ranging from one to three years. This is primarily the wood that's being allocated to both first nations and woodlots. That's why it's taking a bit more time to identify the specific areas in area-based tenures that are appropriate for a first nations tenure or for a woodlot tenure.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

N. Macdonald: Just along the same lines. With this change here, as I understand it, the holders of tree farm licences are now going to be compensated for the reduction in their cut. Just an explanation there of why this change, and then we'll go from there.

Hon. P. Bell: This applies specifically to TFLs and areas that were deleted as part of the revitalization act in TFLs for woodlots, first nations, BCTS, community forests — that sort of thing.

[1535]

The Forest Act didn't contemplate compensation for TFLs and did contemplate compensation for volume-based tenures. So this is necessary in order to complete the compensation requirements under the revitalization act specific to TFL holders.
[ Page 2502 ]

N. Macdonald: Just to understand with the TFLs. When private land was removed, there was no compensation to the Crown. Maybe I just don't understand how the TFLs work.

Is it now the case that the TFLs are going to be treated the same as…? Or was it always the case they were going to be treated the same as the other tenures that were held in the province in terms of compensation? Was that always the intent, and it simply wasn't laid out in the language, or is this something that has changed from what was intended when this first took place six years ago?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. I should just highlight for the member opposite that we've always had the ability to compensate for improvements in the TFLs — so roads, bridges, planning, that sort of thing. This was for AAC reduction specific to the TFL. Because of the nature of TFLs, in the past you wouldn't have contemplated that. But because this is an extraction from the TFL, it's believed to be fair to compensate for that purpose.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

S. Simpson: Section 15, part 6, the housing and social development amendments section, deals with the Community Living Authority Act. Section 15 of the bill repeals a number of sections about the composition of the board under the Community Living Authority Act.

First of all, it says: "All directors, other than a director referred to in subsection (4), must have the necessary skills, qualifications and experience to direct the authority." That now is being removed as a requirement under this section.

Could the minister tell us: why would he remove a section of the bill that talks about and obligates that directors should have skills, qualifications and experience to direct the authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 5 establishes a board of 11 directors comprised of a majority of directors who fit the definition of "community living support," who are significantly connected to those individuals. Two members must have a developmental disability. That's the current provision.

[1540]

The proposed amendment repeals the requirement that the board consist of a majority of directors who fit the definition and thereby doesn't require also the subsection (2) of the same section. Basically, what this amendment is going to do is enable us to make a selection to the board of members from a wider pool of individuals, bringing the board in line with provincial Crown corporation operations.

S. Simpson: What it says to me is that the board, which…. Under section 5, the "Composition of board," "The board consists of up to 11 directors appointed by the minister," which is all good and fine. But the sections (2), (3) and (4) that this Bill 20 will repeal removes some significant components in terms of some of the people and the interests that are made up on that board and provides no guarantees of those interests, which are certainly legitimate to the community living authority and to families who are involved in these activities.

Again, I guess it comes back to the question I have. Why has the minister chosen to remove a reference in the current legislation that says "…members of the board have to have the skills, qualifications and experience to direct the authority," and stay silent on that question in terms of this legislation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member's assistance here, that section that was in there before says: "All directors, other than a director referred to in subsection (4), must have the necessary skills…." The two sections — the sections go together.

We have Crown corporation board guidelines that basically say people have to have the skill sets to be directors, and they're selected through a board selection process through the board resourcing office of government. What we're doing is repealing that and bringing it back into line with the amendment so that it's for the wider pool of individuals to also match up to how we do every other Crown corporation in government with regards to selection of board members.

They are selected based on their skills and what the board skill set needs. It doesn't matter which Crown it is. Sometimes you need one person that's good on legal, somebody good on financial, someone good on certain things. You actually build that board around that. There are guidelines within government for how that takes place, so it doesn't need to be in here because this was an exception clause versus a directive clause.

S. Simpson: It's interesting that you would remove something that explicitly refers to the requirement for that skill set in the authority. But moving on to section 5(3), which is also dealt with by this and repealed under this legislation. What 5(3) says is: "Subject to subsection (2) and section 6 (2) (c), a majority of directors must be (a) individuals referred to in the definition of 'community living support', or (b) individuals who have a significant connection to the individuals referred to in paragraph (a), including family members."

It seems to me, and the minister can correct me, that this is the section that ensures that a number of people who will be on the board will actually be people who have a direct relationship to the services of the authority, and they will have that relationship by being family members of people who have a developmental disabil-
[ Page 2503 ]
ity or fit the definition of members of community living support.

Could the minister tell us: why would the ministry make the decision to remove stakeholders — and this will be true in section (4), clearly, which requires that two of the directors must be individuals with a developmental disability?

So sections (3) and (4) are removing the people who have the most direct interest as stakeholders in this and providing no requirement at all — not a single requirement here — that those groups who have the vested interest, because of family members or because they have disabilities themselves, are going to have any representation on this board. Why would the minister do that?

Hon. R. Coleman: They're not precluded from continuing. Those that are there will continue to serve. If the member looks at subsection (6) of the same act, it also says: "The board must establish an advisory committee to the board composed of individuals referred to in the definition of 'community living support'."

[1545]

This is a $700 million operation. We were finding that, as far as the understanding and the development of long-term business plans dealing with the issues around wait-lists and that sort of thing, it was important to add some additional expertise on the board, and the makeup of the legislation actually restricted the ability to do that. We've made that decision based on that, and we will have the advisory committee to the board as defined in the legislation.

S. Simpson: The minister is saying "it doesn't preclude." That's not the problem here. The problem is that this section quite rightly, in my view, in fact obligates that those folks have some representation, that they have a role on the board of Community Living B.C.

Now, I understand that Community Living B.C. has its problems, and I understand that there are challenges in Community Living B.C. But the reality is that this requires people to be on the board.

The minister may talk about an advisory committee, but there is a distinct difference between sitting on an advisory committee and sitting on a board of directors. They're not the same thing, and I'm sure the minister knows that.

Since the minister intends to remove all obligation of representation from families or people with developmental disabilities from this board — which will guarantee that not one single person who has a connection to developmental disabilities is obliged to be on this board — nowhere will that be a requirement. It is today; it won't be when this legislation passes.

Why would the minister do that? Can the minister tell that community what assurances they have that they're going to have any representation at that board table at all?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is correct. We're making the change. That is the change in the legislation. There will be an advisory committee to the board as set out in legislation, and that advisory committee will be fully struck. We may choose to disagree that this would come out, but that's what this section does. I don't think there's any further explanation I can give the member than, actually, that's what we're doing.

S. Simpson: Just for those people who are involved with Community Living B.C…. I know that those people who face, sometimes, the challenges related to the work at Community Living B.C. can now know that they will have additional challenges, because this government has just said that the people who have disabilities, the families of people who have disabilities, are not worthy of playing a role in the leadership of this organization.

We are going to rip up the sections of this act that ensure that they have a role in the leadership of this organization. It's gone now.

That is sad, and it's unfortunate, and the minister may say that this is what we're going to do, and he truly, I'm sure, is going to do exactly that. But the loss will be to the families and people with developmental disabilities, and it will be a loss to the quality of work that this organization provides because they've removed those people from the board. It is a sad day that those people no longer have a role to play as legitimate stakeholders in this, because the government has chosen to close the door on them and turn their back on them.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am prepared to accept the criticism as to what the structure of the board will be, but I won't sit here and have somebody demean the people that work hard at Community Living B.C. every day and say that their quality of performance is going to go down because we're bringing in a professional board to help the organization build long-term plans.

I won't accept the fact that he makes comments about the corporation being in trouble because, quite frankly, the member knows very well that the funding for wait-lists has gone up. He knows very well they've just finished the whole process of dealing with IQ 70. I can accept the fact that there's a difference of opinion on whether this should or should not be in the act. I think that's fine.

But I can't accept just taking what I thought, at the end there, was a shot at the people that I think work very hard for developmentally disabled people in this province every single day at this Crown corporation, who I think have come a very long way in a short period of time building the programs and stuff as a management team and as the people who deliver on the ground on behalf of those folks.
[ Page 2504 ]

I'm okay with the disagreement on how that board should be structured. Of course we're going to have the advisory board, but I do think that we should make sure that we don't leave the impression that there's something wrong with the people that run this corporation.

[1550]

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

S. Simpson: Just to confirm. Section 17 repeals the aspect of the Homeowner Protection Act that actually provides for what is commonly known as the leaky-condo program and removes that program as an obligation under the Homeowner Protection Act for the agency. That would be correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, that isn't correct. What this does do is it basically repeals the current purpose of the act with regards to administrating a reconstruction loan program.

S. Simpson: The reconstruction loan program would be the program commonly known as the leaky-condo program, and it removes the administration. By that, are we to assume that once you remove that, the program, in effect, does not exist any longer other than having to meet the obligations that are referred to in section 20 — those that are in play now but will presumably be completed at some point? It does end the program, essentially, in terms of any new applications or new initiatives around that program?

Hon. R. Coleman: What it does is it basically ends the program as of an effective date. There would be no more applications taken after that date, which was July 31, 2009.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: has there been any analysis done by the Homeowner Protection Office or by the ministry to determine whether, in fact, there are outstanding strata units out there that would, had the program continued, be eligible to avail themselves of the program? Has there been any assessment done of whether there are units out there, and if so, how many?

Hon. R. Coleman: This program was available to eligible homeowners of strata units constructed prior to July 1999. As of July 2009, these homes would be at least ten years old, and many of them are much older. At this stage, water damage would have been identified as a result of construction, but not necessarily because of poor maintenance. This is what we were finding on most of our applications. It wasn't actually relative to a construction flaw, which the program was initiated for.

Homes built after July 1, 1999, have been protected by a mandatory 2-5-10 home warranty insurance. Homeowners are not eligible for assistance under that on the reconstruction program for those.

This insurance today, which they have since 1999, provides coverage for the building envelope for five years. Water damage caused by building envelope failure is expected to show itself within five years. This has been going for ten.

Just so the member knows, the program was started…. It actually went for 11 years. It was supposed to be a $250 million program and deal with about 6,000 to 8,000 units. It has actually been a $700 million program and dealt with 16,000 units over an 11-year period.

It's gone the course of what it was intended to do by those who put it together. It has served the purpose of what it was supposed to do when it was put together. Today it's time to sunset that particular piece of the program.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the program has done what it was supposed to do for 16,000 units in the province.

The question I had for the minister: has the Homeowner Protection Office, B.C. Housing or any other area in government done an assessment of how many other homes, how many potential strata units there are out there, that may face the problems that this legislation, this program, was originally intended to deal with?

Is there an assessment anywhere of how many units may be outstanding and still face those problems and now not be eligible for a program?

[1555]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, what we were finding is that the applications we were getting were not being approved. A lot of them that were coming through, quite frankly, were for a building envelope that had nothing to do with the reconstruction program.

The second thing is that we noticed our applications were way, way down, significantly, over the years, and we were not getting the applications in any sense. We also knew that water egress issues with regards to faulty construction should have been identified within the first five years of the unit.

There's been new warranty on all of the units since 1999. It's 11 years since the new warranties were put in place, and we've actually gone five to six years beyond when any water ingress or egress took place.

We were finding that we were getting applications on projects that were not eligible and that should not have been at the cost of the taxpayer to take care of because there were issues in and around owner responsibility, whether it was because somebody wasn't cleaning their gutters on a regular basis or taking care of their patios and construction or whether their maintenance wasn't
[ Page 2505 ]
there. That's what this was not intended to be for. It was actually intended to do with water egress issues in and around construction that created the problem with regards to leaky condos.

We have transitioned through what should be the time frame for those types of applications. But the definitive answer to the member's question is: is there a building out there today that may qualify? If it was under the actual rules that this was established on, I would say probably not likely because there will be other contributing factors to the fact that it has a water egress problem.

S. Simpson: Just getting back to the question. I fully accept that if there are applications out there that weren't eligible under the intention of the program, presumably those applications get rejected. Presumably that would have happened under the program. If people apply for the money and they're not eligible because the damage doesn't apply to what the program was intended for, then those applications get set aside.

The minister said he presumed that there might not be any buildings out there and explained some of the history here. Am I, then, to assume that the decision to cancel this program was made without an assessment, without the ministry or the Homeowner Protection Office having done any assessment of whether there are units out there or reasonably expected to be units out there that would have been eligible and now will not be able to apply? Was there no analysis done of that before the decision was made to cancel the program?

Hon. R. Coleman: We knew that the program had run its course. We knew that the applications were down. We knew that the ones that were qualifying were down. But more importantly, Member, this program was set up for a ten-year period. It was set up to meet a need because everyone knew that within five years you should know your water ingress or egress issues.

A building which would have been in the last year of construction before the new warranty would have been built in 1998 to 1999. So any water issues with that building relative to the construction should have been known by 2004. We gave it another five years after that, which I think is actually prudent. That's what the whole intent of the program was when it was designed in the first place.

Then the other thing that changed, quite frankly, is that at the time the leaky-condo issue was there, one of the biggest challenges and reasons that the reconstruction loan program was put in place was because property values were lower than the value of the mortgages, so people were unable to actually finance their reconstruction loan under traditional financing. The real estate market has changed since that particular period of time and has gone up substantially, and the equity has grown into the units.

The other thing we were facing, and the member will remember this, is the level of interest rates that we had at that particular time versus today. Today money is actually a lot cheaper and can be financed more directly with regards to this, including things like reverse mortgages and the things that have changed with regards to the ability to use equity. So all of that changed over that ten-year period.

[1600]

What the program was intended to do is done. We made the decision that we would sunset it because that was the entire intention of the program to begin with. We followed through on the intention with the exception that it was certainly a lot larger than it was intended to be when it was first put together in 1999.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that it was sunsetted. As the minister says, significantly more money was lent out with loans that were guaranteed, among other things, by government for this program. What that tells us, more than anything, is that there was an underestimation of just how big this problem was.

When the determination was made that this problem was much, much larger than was originally anticipated, I presume that the government would then have assessed whether that ten years in fact made sense — as the minister says, 11 years; there was an extra year of time on the program — or whether some additional time was required.

I've asked the minister three times whether there was any research or analysis done to determine whether there is reason to believe, with evidence, there are buildings or units out there that would have qualified for this program and are not going to be funded because the program has ended. The minister has not answered that question or been able to answer that question at this point, so I will assume for the moment that the answer is no, there was no analysis done and that, as the minister says: "The ten years was up. We killed the program."

The question that I have is: did the minister or the Homeowner Protection Office, in making the decision on killing the program, consult with organizations like the Condominium Home Owners Association of B.C.? Their executive director sits on the board of the HPO, I believe — or did.

Was there consultation directly with that organization to get some assessment from the people who are stakeholders in condos as to whether they had any information that might inform whether there were in fact units or buildings out there that would still need support?

Hon. R. Coleman: I can tell the member that this was a unanimous decision by the board of directors to do this. They made this decision. The member mentioned who was on the board. They made a unanimous decision to do this.
[ Page 2506 ]

Our research, which would not have been a big, broad consultation…. I mean, we can't go to every single building in B.C. and say, "What has your maintenance schedule been like? How have you been doing with cleaning your gutters? Are you actually checking whether the grout around your windows is strong?" — or whatever the case may be.

The reality is that any building that had issues with regard to the leaky-condo issue should have known at year 5, and they got five more years to identify it. If they didn't identify it, it's because they weren't doing their maintenance. Or a strata corporation, for some reason, decided that they were going to turn another eye to it and not get around to dealing with their reconstruction loan application, or not actually going and getting the engineering reported because they preferred not to admit the fact that they may have a difficulty. That's not the responsibility of the taxpayer. That's the proper ownership responsibility of the people who own the units.

Frankly, all this section does is sunset the program. The Homeowner Protection Office is still intact. It is now in a management operation with B.C. Housing. The board is still intact. We will look at the future of the Homeowner Protection Office, but the services that it provided — which aren't subject to this section; just the loan program — are continuing. But this is done.

The program ran its course. It wasn't this government that made the estimate of $250 million, hon. Member. It was the previous government. We agreed that we would have a program that would work over that period of time. We continued to do it for that particular issue that faced us in that particular envelope.

Today the warranties are stronger. Today the construction, things like rain screening, is stronger. We know there was an era of construction. There were some mistakes made early on in the program by the previous government in allowing to go back way more years than the actual construction flaws existed, as regards some of the people who could come into the program.

[1605]

They were buildings that weren't built under a building code or under the situations that actually created this. They were buildings that were just getting older.

In a wet climate you're going to have some issues with roofing, gutters, siding, trim and flashing and that sort of thing, which are ongoing maintenance. But the reality is that it went the 11 years. It has run its course. We made the decision that it was the right time to do it. The decision was made, and all this does is put the change in the law to implement the decision that's already done.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. That's what the program does, and this is the one opportunity we get to have a discussion about this program here in this place.

I appreciate that new buildings…. We know the work of the Barrett commission, which led to the establishment of this program. Hopefully, the warranty programs that were subsequent to that…. The minister, hopefully, is correct. We're not going to see, in buildings that were built post–that period, these kinds of problems. That doesn't take away from the fact that these problems may still exist in some cases.

The minister, though, in his answer, said that the decision of the board of the Homeowner Protection Office wasn't unanimous. Maybe the minister could clarify the process for this decision. Was it a directive or strong advice from the minister to the board of the Homeowner Protection Office that this should occur, or was it the Homeowner Protection board of directors that came to the minister and said: "We should kill this program"?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it was the board's decision to do this. They did it without the minister being there. However, I did meet with the board and explained to them that we thought this program had run its course. That was through discussions with both the CEO and the people with regard to the Homeowner Protection Office, with the board and the people who were advising us on other issues in and around housing, that this was something that needed to be looked at.

They agreed with that discussion. They made their own resolution, and the board made their decision unanimously to do this. Quite frankly, I was supportive of the decision. I also thought, when I'd had the discussion with the board, that it was the right thing to do, and so did other officials within government.

If you look at it, it's a program that was supposed to be $250 million for ten years. I remember doing debates back in the '90s during the Barrett commission. Actually, one of the members was then the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, I think it's called — whatever the riding is now. They keep changing the names of ridings.

At that time we actually had conversations where we thought it might be bigger than $250 million. We also recognized at the time — all of us involved in this discussion, both informally and formally — that this was probably a ten-year thing. Buildings would be reaching the point within five years of knowing what their issues were, and they should all be done within ten years. At that point in time the program should sunset.

If this is anything, it's an example of some work being done by one government, identifying an issue, identifying a timeline and the timeline working out, with the exception of the dollar amount, to what the timeline should have been to actually sunset this particular program. That's what this amendment does.

S. Simpson: Just one last question on this, and then I'll move on — hopefully, one last question.
[ Page 2507 ]

I just want to be clear. The minister, in a previous answer, said this decision was not unanimous. Then I believe he just said that it was unanimous — the decision of the board, in this recent answer. Was there unanimity on the board to do this? I might have misheard the minister. Just to get a clarification.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think that if you check Hansard…. You misheard the first answer. I said it was unanimous in both situations when I described the decision of the board.

Section 17 approved.

[1610]

On section 18.

S. Simpson: Section 18. I'll use this. This is the discussion. As we know, part of this program — the renovation program, the reconstruction program — was financed by a fee of, I believe, $750 a unit on new construction. Those are the dollars that were used to underwrite this program.

Could the minister confirm that that's where the dollars came from? And could the minister tell us whether those fees will continue to be collected by the Homeowner Protection Office?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is actually a housekeeping amendment. I'll just read the description for you: "This amendment is meant to clarify that the assessment under the Homeowner Protection Act, section 26, is one of the fees that must be collected by the registrar. The assessment in the per-unit levy paid by residential buildings for new construction of multi-unit buildings in the coastal climate zone is where these are collected."

This is actually a housekeeping amendment, as it was always the intent of the Homeowner Protection Act to do that but that the registrar collect the assessment. Basically, it really clarifies that the registrar must collect the assessment that is imposed. It was just, I guess, an old drafting error that needed to be clarified with regards to this particular section.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could give me direction as to which of these two sections would be the appropriate place to have some discussion on the question of the fees — either under 18 or 19. I'd be happy to do it under either one. The minister can tell me which one would be the best place to discuss it.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think you could do it under either. They're both housekeeping amendments. Both of them are housekeeping amendments to the legislation. They are not germane to the operations of how things are today. The levy will continue to be collected, because there's a $700 million liability out there, or some loan liabilities that have to be taken care of. As those are extinguished, then the levy would be reviewed as we go through how the homeowner protection operation — and where it rests with government in the future — is managed, etc.

Basically, the levy will continue to fund the reconstruction program, including the payment of interest subsidies. It's expected that the majority of loans will be retired by 2020 on a ten-year loan repayment estimate.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe I'll just continue to get the couple of questions I have in relation to this done under 18, and then we'll be able to move through 18 and 19 pretty quickly.

The fee, the $750, continues to be collected. Could the minister tell us: what was the value of those fees — the collection, say, for last year and what we know — and what's the projection for the dollars that the office will collect this year?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's forecast that in 2009-10, the levy will bring in about $3.75 million.

S. Simpson: The minister spoke about the projection being that the loans…. I'm assuming that what we're talking about here is the interest that the government is paying on the loans on behalf of the people who are participating in the program, because we're paying the interest on this. That's where the $700 million comes from, largely — or the $50 million or whatever the loan is. I'm sure the minister has the number there. I don't have it. But the cost of the interest charges on that $700 million is what we're talking about — these fees being paid.

Could the minister tell us: how much of that are we actually paying in terms of interest? What's the outstanding interest or projected interest from now to 2020 that we're going to owe on this? Is the minister saying that the $750 fee will disappear after these loans have been retired?

[1615]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't want to go into a lengthy estimates debate here with regards to this section, but I'm going to try and give the member the answer. If he wants more technical information, we're happy to provide it. I'll try and contextualize it.

There's an active loan program. The program has given out loans of $700 million or so over a number of years. I just want to try this for the members opposite. If we could just have a moment, because this is technical in nature, and I want the member to be able to hear it.

The active loan program is made up of 4,200 loans today worth $210 million, with an additional 38 co-op projects representing another estimated total of $32 mil-
[ Page 2508 ]
lion in interest subsidies due to CMHC between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2020. That's because we have a loan relationship on those, the ones with CMHC.

The interest paid to financial institutions is $1.722 million forecast for 2009-10. CMHC is $3.411 forecast for '09-10. Financial institutions — the present value of the loan and of those in the long-term liability, I guess you'd call it, on the financial institution side is $13.1 million as of September 30. CMHC issued $22.1 million as of September 30.

When our interest liability is extinguished, that's when we would extinguish the loan. That could happen quicker, depending on market. That's one thing we can't control. In actual fact, if these sold, the loans would be paid out, or our interest liability would extinguish by loan.

This is actually a pretty technical financial piece of this thing. If the member wants, we could give him a summary of that, but we obviously weren't prepared to go into that much detail today.

S. Simpson: Maybe a summary on that would be good. I don't want to dwell on this. I'm just trying to determine…. The Homeowner Protection Office is collecting $750 a unit. How much money is coming in? Where's the money going in terms of paying off those interest charges — interest that the government is picking up on behalf of people who are participants in the program?

I just want to figure out the basic math on how that works. I'm happy to just have that in a summary from the minister. That would be fine.

In terms of that, I think that exhausts my questions in relation to 18 and 19. I think my colleague might have questions on another section.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

L. Krog: I would call this the meat of these sections, and I think the minister would agree with me. This is the provision that actually — how shall I say? — destroys the program. Is that a fair comment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah. Basically, this amendment gives effect to the government announcement that no new applications for financial assistance under the program would be accepted after July 31, 2009, and ensures that applications received after July 31 are not eligible for financial assistance under the reconstruction program.

This is the section that puts…. The first section was basically what was being cancelled. This actually finishes it up. We discussed what the major policy change was probably in section 16 or…. I guess it was 17. But in actual fact, this is the section that gives power to the major policy change that we discussed in the earlier section.

[1620]

L. Krog: I know that the minister has received numerous pieces of correspondence from across the province. In particular, in my own constituency the folks at the Creekside development, the folks who are in the condo tower at the corner of Vancouver Avenue and…. It will come to me in a minute. Those people have faced enormous costs.

Many of them, like many condo owners in British Columbia, are senior citizens, people on fixed income — people who, in the larger centres, certainly can't afford a single-family dwelling to the same extent that someone in perhaps Dawson Creek or Prince George could. These are people who are restricted, by income, to buying condominiums. It's not always a first choice.

For others, it is very much a first choice in terms of accommodation. They are too elderly to care for yards. They can't afford yard upkeep, so they've moved into condominiums.

As the minister is well aware, literally thousands and thousands of units across this province are affected by the leaky-condo syndrome, as it's called. It is very clear on the evidence that the buildings that have been discovered now to be leaky-condo units are certainly not the only ones. Indeed, builders have suggested to me — and people who work for builders — that they believe there are significantly more in my own community that will be discovered. The penny will drop shortly for strata councils, as they will in strata councils across the province, that they are in leaky-condo buildings.

The costs of repair now are becoming even more extraordinary, taking into account the initial survey to determine there's an issue, the engineering cost, the rehabilitation costs. It's not uncommon now to see something in the order of $100,000 or $150,000 easily. In my own community these may represent the costs of repair to a unit, which if in tip-top shape might be worth $250,000 or $300,000 in the market if it was certified by an engineer not to be a leaky condo. In other words, literally half of the value of these units is swallowed up in repair costs.

Now, for some of these people, particularly newer owners, if they have entered into a mortgage, as most people do when they make a first purchase, the cost of the repair added to the cost of the mortgage means there is absolutely no equity whatsoever. Indeed, there is what's referred to as negative equity — $50,000 or $100,000 or more, quite commonly.

If those people, those owners who are the victims…. They are almost invariably innocent purchasers who may have bought from innocent vendors, for that matter — ignorant vendors, not in the pejorative sense, but vendors who thought they had a marketable product to sell. Those people will face bankruptcy.
[ Page 2509 ]

You can argue that the ultimate responsibility will fall on the banks, the institutions that will loan them the moneys. Perhaps the Canadian banking system, being as strong as it is, is in a better position to swallow the loss. But in the meantime, those individual owners will literally lose everything.

For those individual owners, for instance…. The example I used and some of the buildings I used are dead accurate. If you're looking at $150,000 in repairs and your unit is worth $300,000 and you're living on a fixed income, without an interest-free loan, you will not be able to maintain ownership. So it will fall into foreclosure. As sure as the sun comes up in the morning, you will fall into foreclosure.

The human tragedy that flows from this is enormous. It affects thousands and thousands of British Columbians. It creates incredible concern in the real estate industry. It restricts economic activity. It discourages people from purchasing, because they're concerned about being stuck with this problem. It creates enormous uncertainty in the marketplace.

The cost to government, I would suggest to the minister, is minimal in terms of the economic impact across the real estate industry in general and amongst homeowners in particular. So my question to the minister is: what is the actual cost potentially to government to maintain this program, based on the current numbers, for another year?

[1625]

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks for the member's comments.

It's not about the cost to government to maintain a program. In the service plan of the NDP, when this program was put in place, it was a ten-year program for $250 million. It's been over a ten-year program for $11 million. The applications, as I told your colleague earlier, change dramatically as to those that had the issues. What some people classify as a leaky condo today has nothing to do with the construction of the building.

Anything that should have been identified should have been identified in the first five years of the ownership of the building. That would have meant the last buildings built under the old warranty and water egress issues in B.C. were built in 1999. The building code was changed subsequent to that — how things are constructed and the warranty program changes subsequent to that. So from that point forward, buildings were built on a totally different thing.

I think the member knows that the disclosure laws with regards to real estate were changed. The requirement for three years of minutes to be made available from strata corporations when people were doing their disclosure on a sale and the disclosure that was required with regards to every building in B.C. being disclosed, whether it had any water issues subsequent to that through that number of years, also took place.

A person buying a unit after 1999…. Both the legal profession and the real estate profession had those requirements put on them with regards to a sale of a unit in British Columbia. So those things have taken place.

Also, the difference in interest rates is about 9 or 10 percent with regards to what it was back at the time this was put together. Today interest rates are such that they're substantially different.

This has run its course. The member may think that there's…. I mean, the challenge with describing a building…. I'll tell the member this, because I actually did these debates in '96, '97 and '98, in opposition with the former government, when the whole issue of this came up as to what were the issues in and around the maintenance of buildings. The issues of water ingress and egress within a building were much more substantial than just the construction.

It also went to maintenance. It also went to repair of certain things in a timely fashion. Other things with regards to a building, including how you're planting around the edges of a building with regards to water ingress into other areas of the building, took place.

This has done what it was set out to do. It's done so in a bit of a longer timetable than was set out by the previous government — but has done so. We have completed the program, in our opinion, in the time frame that it was said it would be done. Because of all the different changes — interest rates, disclosures, how we do building code and build buildings today and know the timing of when a building should be identified — we feel that more than enough time has been allowed for this particular issue to be taken care of.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments. I think that, essentially, what he's saying is: "Everyone should know now. It's been acknowledged. From a practical perspective, this should have run its course. The buildings that are leaky should have been identified, and there's no more necessity for the program." That is what I draw from the minister's comments.

The second thing I draw from the minister's comments is that, essentially, you've got the right to sue everybody. It's very clear now that you can pursue this. If something untoward happens now, if you discover you've got a leaky condo that wasn't disclosed, you're going to sue the realtor. You're going to sue the strata council. You're going to sue whoever. But you're going to take legal action.

The minister well knows that one of the problems facing all British Columbians today — and the Attorney General is very conscious of this, having discussed it yesterday in estimates with him — is the cost of litigation. It is not just beyond the reach of the poor and vulnerable in this province. It is beyond the reach of much of the middle class in British Columbia. Indeed, arguably, it's beyond the reach of many of the members of
[ Page 2510 ]
this assembly to pursue any significant litigation for any period of time.

In essence, what you're really stuck with is an empty remedy. The ability to sue someone in British Columbia and the right to sue are two different things. The ability indicates you've got the money to do it. The right to sue you may well have, but in essence, for many people it is almost an empty remedy.

What it means is that with the elimination of this program, if you discover you're a victim now, you are absolutely out of luck. I understand that the minister's position on this — and the government's position — is: "Look, the program was set up by my party when we were in power. It's done its job, and it's run its course."

[1630]

Well, that may well be a wonderful argument, but it's like discovering that with the H1N1, you needed two million vaccinations — that's what you thought initially — and now you need four million. "The program was for two million, and we've met our goal. We've reached our standard, so the other two million — well, that's your problem." That's essentially what I draw from the minister's comments: "We've established a program. It has run its course. If you haven't been able to get in under this deadline of July 31, tough luck."

Now, I have to say that for those who got under the deadline, they must feel especially comfortable and lucky, but for those British Columbians who are still facing this problem — and there will be more, and there are more — this is pretty minimal comfort to them.

So I come back to my point. The minister says that it's not a cost to government, arguably, but there is clearly a cost to the people of British Columbia who have been victimized by shoddy construction. There are suggestions now that the building code was responsible for this. It wasn't just shoddy construction; it was the building code. It was the way we designed things — the whole gamut of possibilities and reasons that led to this crisis. And it is still a crisis for thousands of British Columbians.

My question, again, to the minister is: can he tell this House what the actual cost to government is if this program were continued for another year or two? Does he have any numbers? Does he have a paper in front of him? Does he have an assistant there who can give the House some idea what the actual cost to government would be to continue with this program?

Hon. R. Coleman: The program has run its course. There's a $750 levy that's actually been there to pay for it. Now the levy will pay for the liability still outstanding over a number of years. All this section does is give effect to the debate that the member wants to have now that should have taken place in section 17. Section 17 was where the program was actually discussed. This is just the effect of the date for the end of the reconstruction program, July 31, 2009. That's done.

I get that the member may want to enter into more of a lengthy debate or estimates debate in around the dollars or what have you. I've already offered the member opposite the numbers that he asked. I'm happy to provide the member opposite with the same information when I send it to the member from Vancouver-Kingsway — is it? Kingsway, I think it is. Anyway, the critic for HST. I'm happy to provide that to him.

But this section here gives force to what has already actually been passed in the previous section. Basically, it is just that it's done, and that was the date that it was sunset. It was appropriate to do it.

The member may wish to want to enter into debate about Homeowner Protection Office stuff. I could tell the member opposite that this announcement was made in July of 2009 and was not canvassed in detail during three or four days of estimates debate.

L. Krog: Again, I appreciate the minister's comments on this and the criticism about whether this was raised under section 17 or section 20. But there are thousands of British Columbians who are not going to be comforted by this minister's words, who are going to look at a retirement that is now utterly gone for many of them, in which they will not be able to sustain ownership of their home. It is no comfort whatsoever to hear from the minister that the program has run its course.

It's like announcing a housing program when you have identified 10,000 homeless people in British Columbia that will provide housing for 5,000 — when you know there's 10,000, the program's finished its course, and the problem's solved. It's like Nixon in Vietnam declaring victory and going home.

I have to say that that provides no comfort whatsoever to my constituents. But the minister has given his answer. He's given his answer on behalf of this government. They know there's a problem. They refuse to acknowledge it.

I'm not going to waste the time of this House anymore continuing with this issue, but I want to tell the minister on behalf of my constituents who are still suffering from this that they're not going to be happy with what he had to say in this House today.

[1635]

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

On section 22.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to see the Attorney General assisting in the debate in this matter. I've spent so much time with him in the last few days. Always a pleasure, and I have no doubt he'll be as forthcoming in his answers today as he was yesterday during the course of estimates.
[ Page 2511 ]

If the minister could just explain the effect of section 22. I take it this merely relates to the definition and replaces that so that it expands it to include, how shall I say, the definitions that are necessary to carry out the intent of this group of sections under part 7, which will have the effect of putting people who work with vulnerable adults in the same position as people who work with children.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct. The overall focus of the following 20 sections — I think 22 through to 41 or 42 — of the bill relate to giving effect to an initiative that is designed to extend the protection that presently exists for children to vulnerable adults, and the definitions contained within section 2 are those which are required to give effect to that policy intention.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

L. Krog: Just for the purposes of clarification, this substitutes the existing description of the purposes of the act. It simply expands it to include vulnerable adults, and that's the only significant change. Otherwise, the statute previously simply referred to the physical and sexual abuse of children. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct. The specific purpose is to prevent the physical, sexual and financial abuse of vulnerable adults, and that is the extent of the alteration.

Sections 23 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

L. Krog: This is the provision relating to the authorization of regulations amending the schedule of specified offences. My question is simply this: why is that section necessary?

We have identified a fairly lengthy list of specified offences. I think it would be commonly acknowledged that those are the probably appropriate offences under the Criminal Code. Why are we leaving it open? Why not satisfy ourselves with that schedule as opposed to leaving it open for regulation for further additions — or, as I understand it, amending, which could mean that you could literally, for instance, declare that breaking and entering wasn't to be a specified offence?

[1640]

Hon. M. de Jong: Two reasons. One relates to the distinct possibility that the sections within the Canadian Criminal Code may change or be amended, and therefore, contained within the act they wouldn't any longer be valid.

The second thing I'm reminded of is that on occasion the law does evolve to take account of changing technologies and Internet luring. I'm not sure how relevant that is to vulnerable seniors, but one never knows. On occasion the law does evolve to take account of changing technologies, including that the regulatory power will ensure the means exist to keep pace with that change.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

On section 43.

L. Krog: A simple question to the minister. I take it — or I'm going to assume, and you can correct me if I'm wrong — there was some court case that determined these fees and charges weren't appropriate, and that's why we have this section in front of us.

Hon. M. de Jong: I know there is someone on the way that I'm going to verify this with. I think that, as opposed to arising in the course of litigation, this was discovered to be a gap in the law. I'm going to check on that because it goes to the heart of the member's question.

It is as I thought. There was no litigation. The oversight relates to the failure to create the regulation that should have been necessary to authorize the fee. It was discovered and is attempted to be cured through the mechanism that we have here, but there has been no litigation pertaining to the point.

L. Krog: I'm not expecting the minister to go to great length if he doesn't have an answer to this question. Just out of pure curiosity: how much money are we talking about that the treasury would be out if we didn't pass this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that something in the neighbourhood of $13 million over the years may have been collected by the Motor Vehicle Sales Authority. Arguably, it wouldn't be the Crown, necessarily, that is vulnerable here. But obviously, the collecting agency would be.

Sections 43 to 45 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 2512 ]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — miscellaneous statutes
Amendment act (No. 2), 2009

Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

[1650]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 4:51 p.m.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $67,793,000.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I am looking forward to the questions that will be put forward under these estimates. We do a great deal of work within the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and I know my critic as well as other members will be asking questions on a wide array of issues.

I do want to take just a brief moment to reflect on what our ministry does for the province of British Columbia. It deals with the oil and gas industry, an industry that is doing very well in the province of British Columbia today. Most recently, we had a stimulus package that we put forward a number of months ago, and last month we saw an incredible land sale of $372 million brought into the revenue of the province.

We have established an atmosphere within British Columbia under the oil and gas industry that really allows us to be competitive with jurisdictions not just in Canada but really North America and around the world. It is helping drive our economic well-being. At the same time that we do this, we ensure that we have the highest environmental standards. As we extract our resources, this is about finding the proper balance to ensure those resources work for us. We maintain the environment in which you and I and our families and our children live in, and I'm very proud of the work that we do.

Mining is another area that our ministry looks after. I know my colleague the Minister of State for Mining will be dealing with that, so I won't go in depth on that, other than to say that we're doing very well on that front.

Electricity — I expect a number of questions on that. We have an incredible system here in British Columbia. Our heritage assets are something we should be extremely proud of. We have developed a system in British Columbia that really is second to none in the world.

I think we're blessed with a diversity of opportunity with our existing heritage assets. With the clean, renewable electricity opportunities we have, whether it be wind, biomass, tidal, solar — gosh, there are so many opportunities we have — run of the river or large hydro, we're fortunate. Many jurisdictions around the globe have one or two of those. In British Columbia we have a diversity that is really the envy of the world.

We have a number of Crowns under the ministry that fall under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, being B.C. Hydro, B.C. Transmission Corporation, the Columbia Power Corporation, the Oil and Gas Commission. All of these do an amazing job for British Columbians right across this province. I do expect some questions as we move through the estimates on a number of those fronts.

Before we get into the questions, I do want to just say a huge thank-you to our staff. I do have staff with us today. I do want to introduce on my right, Mr. Greg Reimer, who is my deputy minister. Also joining us as we move in, I know, with the Minister of State for Mining, we have John Cavanagh, who is the ADM for Mining. As well, we have Brian Hansen, who is our executive financial officer. We have Jody Shimkus, who is our ADM for marketing, aboriginal and community relations division.

Not only those employees that we have and the staff that we have here today but all of the staff in the Ministry of Energy and Mines…. I'm sure the members across would join me in giving a heartfelt thank-you to all of them for the work that they do on our behalf each and every day to make this province what it is and to make this ministry what it is, which I believe is the greatest ministry in all of government — no slight to my colleagues. You know, no slight intended, but it's an amazing ministry. It does amazing things. It is really at the forefront of our economic ability to deliver on health care and education.

[1655]

I do want to say thank you, and I know that the member for Juan de Fuca, my critic, will join me in agreeing that we have some of the greatest staff, I think, in British Columbia delivering and working on behalf of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

At this time I do want to pass it on to the Minister of State for Mining. I know there are a number of questions, and then we will reconvene.

I look forward to the estimates process. It is something that we can all learn from each and every day. The British Columbians that are watching, I think, are going
[ Page 2513 ]
to be intrigued with the questions and answers that are shared in this chamber.

With that, I will take my seat.

Hon. R. Hawes: Just to carry on from the minister's statement, I am the Minister of State for Mining, and it's a great opportunity to answer the questions that are going to be posed today. This is my first opportunity to participate in estimates as the Minister of State for Mining, so I do look forward to the questions.

What I do want to say, though, is how fortunate we are in British Columbia. We are extremely lucky to live in a province that's so rich with natural resources — with minerals that are wanted all over the world, with coal deposits that are the envy of most of the world and with the talented people that explore and produce those materials through mining.

We have a staff that's so dedicated, from the deputy minister through to the assistant deputy ministers, the senior management, all our staff in Victoria and through to the regional offices throughout British Columbia. We have people that are dedicated to making sure that people are safe, that the mining activities in this province are done to the highest environmental standards and that we actually produce revenue that helps drive what all of us want to see happen in this province, and that's better education, better health care.

This is where dollars come from: the extraction of resources and putting families to work in, actually, the highest-paid heavy industry in British Columbia, which I think today has an average salary of $112,000 a year for the average person working in the mining industry.

I do want to say that in 2008 we established the Minister's Council on Mineral Exploration and Mining. This council is about building relationships between government, first nations and the industry to ensure that mining and the mineral sector have every opportunity to grow responsibly.

To ensure that B.C.'s mining sector remains highly visible and competitive, the government has taken steps to enhance tax regimes, such as extending the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit to the end of 2010, and we've actively promoted B.C. exploration and mine development investment opportunities on the international stage, particularly building on our connections with Asia.

I do also want to say that the implementation of the HST is going to be of great benefit to the mining industry and is going to actually help create new jobs in that industry.

I want to also say that we are actively seeking to increase the participation of first nations peoples in mineral exploration and in the mining industry. The government has authorized provincial negotiators, as they speak to first nations, to include revenue-sharing with first nations on new mining projects. That has not happened in the past — direct sharing of the revenues and the riches that we as people in British Columbia receive when mining industry actually goes out and mines the minerals that belong to all of the people of British Columbia. We're making sure that first nations, rightly, get a proper share of those resources.

The last thing I want to touch on is some of the innovative things that we have done in British Columbia, such as Geoscience B.C., which is out there exploring for new mineralization through all kinds of very modern techniques like magnetic and gravity imaging. That's producing great results for British Columbia, and in the exploration business we are leaders in Canada.

[1700]

With that, I do look forward to the questions that are going to come. I'm sure that all of us here share in the knowledge and in the satisfaction that mining in British Columbia is not just an industry that's here to stay, but it's so necessary to provide the income that all of us want to see the province receive to fuel our health and education sectors.

With that, I look forward to the questions from some of the members opposite.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure for me, as the official opposition's Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources critic, to once again…. I think this is my third or fourth go as critic, and I couldn't let that pass by, noting that this is the fourth Minister of State for Mining in that period of time.

Although longevity doesn't appear to be the strong suit in the position, I'm confident the current resident of the office will be attentive to the questions that my colleagues and I have over the next number of hours and that he will do his level best to give us straight answers in a timely fashion.

I want to comment briefly, before we get into the substance of the estimates, on some of the comments by the Minister of Energy, who I have, a number of times in this place, called my friend. I continue to do that, even though we are in an adversarial relationship here as minister and critic. I am confident and hopeful, as is he, that we can set a new standard for debate on these issues.

We have profound disagreements on policy questions, and we will canvass those, whether it be the direction of this government to overlook the decisions by the Utilities Commission in terms of its independent role to monitor and regulate B.C. Hydro, Columbia Power and the B.C. Transmission Corporation…. We have significant differences. The opportunity for the public to understand those differences is best done by a civil exchange on the substance of the issues.

I know I'll do my level best, with the guidance of the Chair and my colleagues on both sides, to try and meet a standard that the minister and I both would like to set for this debate and, potentially, subsequent debates.
[ Page 2514 ]
We'll see how it goes is how I think we're going to proceed from here.

As I say, there are profound differences on policy questions, on approach. We need to get those on the record, and that is the process that we're about to embark on.

There are a few issues around electricity that are paramount for me personally and for the opposition. We will be laying those out tomorrow.

I had a discussion with the minister and his staff, who — I also want to echo the sentiments of the minister — I find to be very capable and articulate and committed to ensuring that the energy component of our economy is as vibrant as it can be.

Again, we quibble around the edges, but I've said in the past — and it won't be a surprise to members here — that were it not for the work that's being done in the energy sector, whether it be oil and gas….

In the mining sector, in terms of mineral exploration, we haven't had a lot of mine development, and the minister, I think, would be the first to admit that. Perhaps not. The two or three or four secretaries back seemed to think that we were doing great guns, but there's no significant evidence that we're putting jobs into active mines. There are a number of good reasons for that. We'll debate those over the coming hours.

The challenges before British Columbians are pretty stark. The minister touched upon them. As we look at energy and the consumption of raw materials and commodities in B.C….

Our economy is in transition. We're shifting away from our forest base and looking to minerals, metals and energy through electricity, natural gas and coal. These are big-ticket items. They're not insignificant.

I have a number of colleagues on this side who want to engage in the debate, so without too much prophesizing, I think I'll just dive in. I'll ask my first question to the current Minister of State for Mining. That would be: can he outline for me how he plans to manage the MSP increases that were announced in the budget in terms of meeting the targets outlined in the budget estimates?

[1705]

Hon. R. Hawes: That's an interesting question, but the management of MSP actually falls within the scope of the entire ministry. It's not segregated just to Mining. It's a budget that's for the whole ministry.

I would point out to the member that we have curtailed a number of expenses right across the ministry, including things like being prudent and restricting travel, etc. Through numerous cost-cutting measures, I know that the ministry is going to be able to absorb those costs, but it will be across the whole ministry and not restricted just to the Mining section of the ministry.

J. Horgan: Well, perhaps when we get to the minister's component…. I'll just flag it for the deputy. If he, when we get to the broader ministry, could outline what the impact of the MSP premium increase has been in terms of salaries and compensation for staff right across the piece.

I'll then go to ask the minister…. The mining and minerals division, in February '09, for the '09-10 budget tabled before the election, had a budget of $11.905 million. In the September budget it was reduced to $4.676 million. Can the minister outline for me why the significant change?

Hon. R. Hawes: I'm not sure that I heard the numbers that the member quoted. It sounded to me like he said we'd gone from $14 million to $4 million. The figure for 2008-09 was $14.037 million. For 2009-10 it's $12.667 million. That reduction is attributable to things like travel reductions and administrative savings and through contract savings.

J. Horgan: I think the minister just gave me the '08-09 number juxtaposed to the '09-10 number, as revised in September of this year. Can the minister advise if there was a difference between the February '09-10 tabled budget and the current budget?

[1710]

Hon. R. Hawes: Again, the actual number I have for 2008-09 was $14.037 million, and we agree on that. The number that I have in front of me now is $12.544 million in the '09-10 updated estimates.

J. Horgan: I'm asking the minister if there's a differential between the budget tabled in February and the budget tabled in September. And if so, what is that number?

Hon. R. Hawes: What we have for the member are the numbers that have been provided. We do have numbers, the restated numbers, for the entire ministry. We'll have to provide the broken-down numbers for you tomorrow morning.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I thought it would have been easy to put a hand to…. I don't have my blue book with me. I just asked for it, so that might help us move along.

I will then move to order-in-council appointments within the minister's office and within the divisions that he's responsible for. Could he give me a figure for this fiscal year and then also tell me if it's an increase or a decrease from last year?

Hon. R. Hawes: There have been no OICs this year if you're talking about directly in the minister's office. I have two support staff, which is the same as there were last year.
[ Page 2515 ]

J. Horgan: So there's no executive assistant, no ministerial assistant — just two administrative support staff?

Hon. R. Hawes: There's a ministerial assistant and an administrative clerk.

J. Horgan: Were there salary increases from last year to this year for those two individuals?

Hon. R. Hawes: The answer to that would be no.

J. Horgan: With the divisions and staff within the ministry that the minister of state is responsible for, what's the FTE number this year as opposed to last year?

[1715]

Hon. R. Hawes: There were previously, directly in the mining component, 118 staff members. There has been some reallocation of staff and some movement of staff that are actually shared right across the ministry, and the number today is 107.

J. Horgan: Does the minister of state have an advertising budget — STOB 68 or STOB 67 — and if so, how much?

Hon. R. Hawes: No.

J. Horgan: My colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows will be touching upon aggregate and its role in the economy and within the ministry.

I do know that when gravel extraction applications are about to proceed, there are advertisements in the newspapers. They make reference to ministry employees. Who pays for that? Does the proponent pay for that, or does that come out of another budget?

Hon. R. Hawes: When there is that type of advertising, the proponent actually pays for the advertising.

J. Horgan: The government has spoken about…. Again, one of the challenges…. Through you, hon. Chair, to both ministers and to the staff: some of the issues that I wanted to canvass in terms of the scope of the minister's activities will cross over and perhaps be the responsibility of the senior minister. Perhaps we can canvass these questions, and if I'm asking the wrong horse, we can go at it again tomorrow.

I wanted to know what the Minister of State for Mining is doing to meet the commitment of carbon neutrality by next year within the ministry in its activities.

Hon. R. Hawes: Across the ministry there is a green team that does put together programs for carbon neutrality that run across the whole ministry. Specifically within Mining, some of the examples I know…. Within our regional offices, for example, I think it's all hybrid vehicles. There are bicycles available for when it's a suitable thing.

There are bicycles that some of the staff would utilize where it is applicable. There are a number of steps that are being taken, but it is a broad initiative across the whole ministry and administered through a green team.

[1720]

J. Horgan: Perhaps, then, this will be one that the minister would want to think about overnight, because this is of great importance. One of the issues…. Certainly, you want to know where you're starting from and how we determined what the footprint of the ministry was, when that footprint was determined and what steps have been taken in each of the fiscal years since the commitment was made to realize that neutrality by the date prescribed by whatever statement it was the Premier made on the subject.

Are there significant or noteworthy climate change initiatives underway within the Minister of State for Mining's orbit?

Hon. R. Hawes: Within the ministry there is a task force, a ministry-industry task force, that's working closely with industry to try to decrease the carbon footprint of mining throughout British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Could the minister table the membership of that task force or direct me to where I can find it?

Hon. R. Hawes: The task force is comprised of the Mining Association of British Columbia. There are representatives from both large and small companies in the mining sector. There are some ministry appointees. Also, the climate action secretariat has membership.

J. Horgan: Would those names be made available through this process, or can the minister direct me where I can find a comprehensive list without too much cutting and pasting?

Hon. R. Hawes: We don't have that list here, but we can provide it to the member at a subsequent date.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that commitment. I want to now, if I may…. The minister, in his opening remarks, made reference to the harmonized sales tax. I'm wondering if the minister can advise what analysis the ministry did in advance of the announcement of the proposal to harmonize the GST and the PST.

Hon. R. Hawes: Actually, questions relating to the HST should rightly be placed to the Minister of Finance, who I'm sure would be happy to provide you with those answers.
[ Page 2516 ]

J. Horgan: Well, I pose the question to the minister because he said as much in his opening remarks — that he, as the Minister of State for Mining, felt strongly that the HST would be a significant boost to the mining sector. I'm assuming that his staff had done some analysis on that to give him the confidence to make that statement. On what basis did he make that statement?

[1725]

Hon. R. Hawes: Actually, as we look at this, it's information that we receive from the mining industry itself. The mining industry, through the Pricewaterhouse annual survey, has estimated the savings to them to be approximately $19 million per annum.

J. Horgan: I'm delighted that the sector has the resources to hire consultants to provide data for them to support their arguments, but I'm curious as to why the ministry wouldn't have done some due diligence on that data. Can the minister confirm — yes or no…? Did ministry staff do an assessment, at a minimum, of the Pricewaterhouse work? What's their opinion, and what did they provide to him?

Hon. R. Hawes: Again, these questions about HST, other than the general statement that I made and what I've just answered to you, I think, should better be addressed directly to the Minister of Finance, who I know would be happy to answer those questions.

J. Horgan: In my opening remarks I spoke of my confidence in the staff at the minister's disposal — both ministers. Again, I have to believe, based on my time in government and my understanding of how the processes work, that there would be some at least water cooler chatter about what is good or bad for the industry.

You have people that work on these things all the time. You have policy staff at your disposal. Did no one in the ministry provide a note to the minister confirming or supporting or disproving the data that the ministry provided to support their position that they are going to get a $1.9 billion tax break?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. R. Hawes: I know we have a difference of opinion on the value of the HST to building a better tomorrow in our economy in British Columbia, but let me just say this then. I know that the HST…. If you listen to pretty much anyone across the business sector in British Columbia, if you listen to the leading economists in the country, they tell you that the HST is the best and biggest thing that we can do to spur our economy on at this time.

The estimates we have all received, and you've read them many times, are closing in on $2 billion that would be the benefit to business, which would make them more competitive across Canada and in the global marketplace in which we all live.

Other than giving you those general statements, I would really suggest, if you have some specific questions around HST, that they're better addressed directly to the Minister of Finance, who I know will be happy to answer them for you.

J. Horgan: Well, I don't doubt the rhetoric from the business community. I mean, if I was going to get a $2 billion tax break, I'd say it was a good idea too.

My question is not about the veracity of the work being done by external sources. My question is specifically to the minister and the staff that report to him. Surely to goodness, the minister responsible for mining must be from Missouri. So wouldn't you have said to your staff: "Show me. Demonstrate to me that public dollars being transferred to the private sector will somehow be a net benefit to the province"?

Has no one in the ministry given you any material to confirm that position which at this point, based on what you've said, is rhetorical?

Hon. R. Hawes: I'm absolutely confident that the Minister of Finance has done an analysis. I know the figures I've given, and I think they're pretty much out there publicly, that across the energy sector, including mining, the saving is about $80 million. It's $19 million estimated by the industry.

[1730]

I know that there was considerable work done by the staff of the Minister of Finance, but that overall work would have been done within the Ministry of Finance. So I would suggest that those questions are best aimed at the Minister of Finance.

J. Horgan: I'm very certain that my colleague from Surrey-Whalley will canvass this issue thoroughly with the Minister of Finance. But my concern is that the minister of the Crown for mining has stood in this place and advised all who are listening and all those who will read the material later on, with great certainty, that the net benefit to the province will be significant.

I'm just asking to the minister: prove it. Show me what analysis has been done by ministry staff — whether it be in concert with Treasury Board staff, with Ministry of Finance staff, with the man on the moon. Show me how it is that transferring $1.9 billion in tax savings to the private sector is going to be a benefit to the province, and particularly to the mining industry. That's the responsibility of the minister.

Hon. R. Hawes: First and foremost, I guess I would say that I think everyone knows that for anyone to invest in any sector, you first have to have confidence. We've heard from the industry that this is going to help them.
[ Page 2517 ]
They're convinced it's going to help them, and it's giving them more confidence. They have stated that publicly.

The other thing is that through the Pricewaterhouse study, they claim there is a $19 million savings annually to the industry. Those are, I think, real numbers. We can debate back and forth whether they're real, but I just don't see the value in that. The industry itself is saying that this is inspiring confidence, that they will be looking to make some investments and that this is going to help them make those investment decisions. Frankly, I'm prepared to accept them at their word, and that benefits British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Well, my neighbours have said to me categorically, with great confidence, that a reduction in the sales tax would be a net benefit to their family income, and I take them at their word. I've not done any analysis on that, but I'm fairly confident that the Minister of Finance would not give a blanket tax break to my neighbours based on their good word.

So my question once again…. I don't want to go around and around the mulberry bush here, but I'm talking to the minister responsible for mining who has a responsibility not just to encourage and enhance the sector but also to challenge them on their assumptions — not to take them at face value.

I've met with the Mining Association. I've sat in committees with the minister where presentations have been made with respect to the HST. I've heard the rhetoric. I've seen the data from industry. My concern is that I haven't seen any data from government, and government is the one that's giving the money away.

So again, has anyone under the minister's responsibility worked with the Ministry of Finance to demonstrate unequivocally that there's a net benefit to the people of British Columbia from the HST, transferring $1.9 billion in tax revenues from consumers to the corporate sector?

Hon. R. Hawes: I hope the member can cast his mind back to 2001 when we gave a 25 percent tax increase actually to your neighbour. Our belief at that time was that this was going to….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Hawes: A tax cut of 25 percent in 2001, followed by numerous tax cuts, all of which we believed would spur the economy. Over time I truly believe — and I know the Finance Minister is convinced — that those tax cuts have spurred the economy. There's no reason to believe that this change in taxation to the HST, which is actually something that's going around the world, isn't going to do exactly the same thing. I know that the Finance Minister would be pleased to answer all of your questions on this.

J. Horgan: I'll just leave it at this, then, with the minister. If the minister's intent is to be an apologist and a front man and an advocate for the position of the industry, that's great. But when you're a member of the executive council and a member of cabinet, your obligation is not just to the industry, and it's not just to the title on the door. It's to the people of British Columbia.

[1735]

It's my view that the minister of mines should not just take at face value the presentations which I have heard with him, side by side, as members of the Finance Committee — not take it at its word — when he has very capable staff who would have been, had they been asked, delighted to do an analysis.

Simple question: was there any analysis done on the impact of the HST prior to its announcement by staff under his watch?

Hon. R. Hawes: We can go around and around on this, but the bottom line is that this government has a belief that cutting taxes and now the reorganization of taxation to an add-on tax actually is going to be of huge benefit to our economy. We take the words that the leading economists in this country have said. There's been a huge amount of study, whether it be through economists in Ontario, you name it — actually, around the world. The world is moving to this, Member.

So I would strongly suggest that…. I know that we have a very big difference of opinion on whether the HST is beneficial. However, if you have specific questions, I'd still recommend…. I have answered your questions. You should refer the specific ones to the Minister of Finance.

J. Horgan: Again, last shot. While the minister has been in his chair at the executive council, have any staff on his watch provided any information to him to demonstrate that the statements by the Mining Association and others interested in getting a tax break in this sector…. Has anyone in his ministry provided data to him since he was sworn in? Anyone?

Hon. R. Hawes: The information that has been provided, and I'll repeat this again, was that there is — combined, across the whole ministry — about $80 million worth of tax savings to the overall industry, $19 million of which is attributable to mining. That's the information that I have been given.

Any other questions you have about it, perhaps through the Minister of Finance…. I know that the Ministry of Finance has done some analysis, and I think some of those numbers are from the Ministry of Finance.

J. Horgan: We're making a bit of progress. We've got an $80 million number, a $19 million number and an assertion from the minister that some of that data would have come from within the ministry. So I'm asking: will
[ Page 2518 ]
the minister table the data that's been provided by ministry staff, employees of the province of British Columbia, committed to protecting and preserving the integrity of the Crown and its interests that are materially affected by this tax change?

Will he table that information — not produced by Pricewaterhouse, not produced by the Mining Association — produced by ministry staff? A briefing note or something — anything, a fig leaf — that demonstrates that there's been due diligence done within the ministry to justify this tax shift.

Hon. R. Hawes: The questions are getting quite repetitive. I have answered them. I would ask if we could move on. I really don't intend to answer the same question with the same answer any further.

J. Horgan: In the interests of time, I'll just press on. I'd like to now talk about Geoscience B.C. I know all sides of the House support the work.

I see the minister of mines two or three ministers ago supporting the initiative. I'm wondering if the current minister can tell me if there's been an increase in the budget for Geoscience B.C., since the minister who was clapping was the minister, and the minister who is answering was the minister.

[1740]

Hon. R. Hawes: Since 2005 Geoscience has received $36.7 million. There has been no budget allocation this year, but I think their funding does continue, or they have funding to last until 2011.

J. Horgan: The minister's right. The information that I have is that it begins winding down 2010-2011 and wrapping up March 2012.

I'm wondering, again thinking of the enthusiasm from the member for Kamloops–South Thompson and others about the work…. I know my colleague from Cariboo North and my colleague from Stikine have benefited in their communities from the good work at Geoscience B.C. What is the plan from the minister and the ministry beyond the current funding targets? Is there any plan to revive this very successful program with new funding in the next budget? I know that's out of order.

Hon. R. Hawes: Before I get into the funding part of it, I just want to make sure that people are aware that Geoscience has completed, first, QUEST-North, which was a survey of the northern part of this province. Immediately they tabled all of the results that they had.

There was a fairly substantive increase in staking and interest in exploration in the northern area. They're just finishing now and I think are very quickly going to table all of the rest for QUEST-South, which we expect will have the same kind of result.

Geoscience has been an enormous success, and I'm really pleased that the members opposite see the same thing we do — that this is a great initiative. It's one that has been heartily supported.

I will say, though — and I think the member knows this from the time that he spent in government — that when funding announcements are going to be made, they're generally made by the Finance Minister as part of a budget. Today Geoscience B.C. has funding in its coffers until 2011-2012. We're not about to be making some announcements today.

J. Horgan: That's a good answer, Minister. Well done.

I just want to reinforce that Geoscience B.C. has been very, very successful in providing opportunities for mineral exploration. That's the thin edge of the wedge. Once you find what you need, the challenge then is: how do you get it out of the ground?

I'd like to move to that component. I said in my opening remarks — and I'd be delighted to be corrected — that this is the opportunity I give the minister to stand up and say that all of these projects are in stream. Well, I say that none of them are underway. What has the minister in mind for the coming fiscal year to try and get a mine operating in British Columbia?

[1745]

Hon. R. Hawes: I just want to go back one little piece first as we talk about Geoscience. I think we're remiss if we don't talk about the geological survey of British Columbia as well, which is an extremely valuable component to the exploration side. I just want to pay a little bit of homage to Dave Lefebure and his group at the geological survey because they do absolutely great work, too, and they work hand in glove with Geoscience B.C.

In terms of what's coming, New Afton, just outside Kamloops, is 40 percent complete. They're now going underground. I had the pleasure of going through that mine earlier this summer — my first experience going underground, a place that I personally wouldn't want to work. But I really give kudos to those men and women that do work underground. It takes a special type of person, and I was absolutely blown away by the pride that they take in what they're able to do underground.

The Copper Mountain, the old Similco mine in Princeton, has now been permitted to put the footings in for their mill. I also had the pleasure of attending a signing ceremony in their offices in Vancouver with a Japanese partner who has invested considerable money in getting that particular mine reopened.

So those are two that are very, very close, and I believe we will be seeing them in production within the next year or so.

There are at the present 28 mining projects that are in the permitting process. They're going through the environmental assessment certification and operational
[ Page 2519 ]
permitting. In addition, there are six other projects that have received their permits and are yet to commence production. So this puts us in a very, very strong position to see a number of new mines and very, very soon.

J. Horgan: I, too, like the minister, had a trip down the Quinsam mine just outside Campbell River. It scared the daylights out of me when it started to get black, but after about five minutes it was fine. Like you, you couldn't pay me enough to do the good, hard work that you do in an underground mine. The people that do that are definitely a rare breed. They provide for their families by doing work that I don't think too many people in this place would do, so I commend them as well.

I want to take the opportunity to also speak just briefly about the geological survey — again extraordinary work. When I was in the ministry many years ago, the excitement — and staff are nodding their heads — within that section of the ministry about what they do was really uplifting. It's something that when we talk about public servants, quite often we're thinking about paper moving around and information being provided. But this is under-the-fingernail stuff that really gets people going in that branch, and it's exciting.

I want to ask the minister: what was the budget lift for this very important division this year?

[1750]

Hon. R. Hawes: I now have the restated number for February, which was $11.905 million. Overall, the budget reductions in the ministry this year were shared across the ministry, including geological survey, which did take a budget reduction, along with many other parts of the ministry. I don't have a complete breakdown here right now of what their total budget is for this year. But if the member needs it, I can provide it for you likely tomorrow.

J. Horgan: That is disappointing that there's been a budget reduction in that section after we both sung the praises of the good work they do. One would think there would be a budget lift to meet the new challenges that we've talked about or at least heard about in throne speech after throne speech, from minister after minister in this sector — that there would be a budget lift for the good and exciting work done there.

I'll thank the minister for giving me last year's figure, the February figure, and the restated figure in September for that sector. That would be terrific if he could provide that tomorrow.

There's been an issue raised with me. It was raised with the Finance Committee. The minister might well have read some of the briefs. It's from the B.C. Assayers Certification council, which is looking for certification for assayers. I'm wondering if the minister has had any discussion or correspondence about the assayer certification program and what he plans to do about it.

Hon. R. Hawes: In the certification process, two of three adjudicators are just now going through the process of being appointed.

J. Horgan: So two of three. What news of the third?

Hon. R. Hawes: We are in the recruitment process for the third.

J. Horgan: Well, perhaps the minister could explain to me and to members in the House the function of the board of examiners when it comes to certifying assayers and what the role and function of that board of examiners is.

Hon. R. Hawes: We're just bringing in a staff member who has some real expertise in this area. It happens to be someone from the geological survey, so I'm sure you'll be very pleased.

[1755]

J. Horgan: Well, in the interest of time, while we're waiting for a new staff member to come in, perhaps I'll just ask one more quick question before I give the floor to my colleague from Stikine for a couple of questions. It would be going back to Geoscience B.C. just for a moment.

Again, we've heard from Mineral Exploration B.C., from the Mining Association and many, many others that stable funding at Geoscience B.C. would be as significant a symbol and message to the sector as the alleged benefits from the HST. Can the minister once again confirm that his ministry and the government will continue to support Geoscience B.C. into the future?

Hon. R. Hawes: If it were up to me to write the budget, I would always want to support Geoscience. But as you know, with your time in government, Member…. He knows, too, that the Finance Minister actually will prepare a budget and will make the suitable announcements at the appropriate time. I'm quite satisfied to wait for him to make those decisions. As I think we both know, he has made some extremely wise decisions over the past few years, and I expect he will continue to do so.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for the opening comments from the minister and minister of state. There are parts of the opening statements that I can concur with and others that we disagree on, and I'll get to some of those.

My first question for the minister of state is with regards to mining flow-through shares. We've had discussions with the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. and with the Mining Association of B.C. about those flow-through shares. I note that they were extended to the end of 2010.
[ Page 2520 ]

The question I have is: what would be the value in tax deductions that the mining flow-through shares would have represented in this past year, in this budget, and then in the years leading up to 2010?

Hon. R. Hawes: Madam Chair, if you could just indulge us for a moment, because the answer that we were getting a new staff member in to provide or to help us with actually…. He's now going to give the answer directly to the former questioner from….

Yeah, okay. So what we're going to do is get another staff member back in to assist with this. If you'll indulge us for one minute, then we'll have your answers for you.

This is a tax-related question, and as such, the Minister of Finance really is the person that these sorts of questions should be addressed to — the value of the tax cut to investors. He, I'm sure, would be pleased to provide you with that information.

D. Donaldson: I see that it's within the minister's purview that developing and reviewing regulations and policies as they relate to promotion of mining is part of the responsibility. That's why I posed the question around mining flow-through shares, because they're apparently a very worthwhile tool.

[1800]

I also wanted to point out that in the deliberations of the Finance Committee, we had presentations from the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. and from the Mining Association of B.C. We came to the unanimous conclusion that they were a good tool and should be extended beyond 2010. They made some good arguments around permanency related to that.

My question was specifically related to the value of that tax deduction. I will take that up with the Minister of Finance, if you're unable to answer that question.

I'll move on to another area under this minister's responsibility. That would be around reclamation and monitoring of minesites that are no longer in production or will soon not be in production. I'm wondering about specifically…. Kemess, Huckleberry and in the past Equity mine, in and close to my area, are soon going to be out of production, and one is already.

There have been concerns expressed to me, especially from Wet'suwet'en First Nation whose traditional territory two of those mines are on, around the reclamation and monitoring work. It's troublesome to me that I see there's actually a decrease in your sector of the overall budget in this ministry.

Considering it's such a revenue generator for the province and such an important part of the future of the province, I was hoping to see that reflected in an increase in the budget for your department.

Specifically, what kind of reclamation and monitoring for those minesites will be undertaken by your ministry under this budget vote?

Hon. R. Hawes: Every mine is required to have a mine closure plan. Those are renewed and reviewed every five years. Staff do an extensive amount of review to make sure that they are reasonable and workable.

There are mine closure plans for these mines. Through our staff and the chief mines inspector, I have every confidence that the Wet'suwet'en will be satisfied with the ultimate closure of some of these mines.

D. Donaldson: The mine closure plans are reviewed every five years from staff within your ministry. How many staff under this budget that we're talking about here are responsible for that and actually do the work in the area I'm talking about?

Hon. R. Hawes: In each region there are about 25 staff members that can review these plans. In addition, there are six specialists. So there are 30 to 31 staff members that would review these mine closure plans.

D. Donaldson: Is that staffing level fully fulfilled at this point in the region that we're talking about?

Hon. R. Hawes: There are currently two vacancies out of 30.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. Is there an appeal process? As we know, technology improves. The permits were approved 15 years ago or 20 in some cases. The reclamation plan that was put in place or the mine closure plan might not have been as up to date as possible.

[1805]

So as they're reviewed every five years…. Is it after the mine closes that it continues to be reviewed every five years? Is there an ability or a component where there's a public review of those five-year reviews?

Hon. R. Hawes: There is a closure plan when the mine first opens and before it becomes operational. Then it's reviewed every five years through the entire operation of the mine for its life. In terms of public input, actually, it's reviewed by specialists. That is a fairly technical review, and once the mine closes there is a continual monitoring process.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for those answers. I have one more in this area. After the mine closes, is it then the responsibility of your ministry staff to monitor whether the mitigation measures are being fulfilled and efficient and effective?

Hon. R. Hawes: Once the mine closes, the ongoing monitoring is a cross-ministry initiative. There are some staff from this ministry, but there are also staff from the Ministry of Environment who would be looking at
[ Page 2521 ]
water quality issues and the like. So it is a cross-ministry initiative.

D. Donaldson: I'm going to move on to another area under the minister's responsibility. It's regulation of industries that explore for minerals by regulating environmental responsibility.

It has been brought to my attention on a couple of occasions, one specifically in the area which I represent, where mining exploration activities were seen to have a very heavy impact on the environment. Could the minister describe to me the actual enforcement teeth that the minister has in ensuring that the mineral exploration, which is a very important stage of mining development, is done in an environmentally responsible manner?

Hon. R. Hawes: In terms of teeth, the chief mines inspector actually has lots of tools at his beck and call if there are infractions. I should first say that the industry, by and large, is extremely responsible, and I think the member would agree with that.

There are always going to be some exceptions, and when there is an exception the chief mines inspector has the ability to go in and stop the work immediately. We can cancel the permit. There are a number of fairly progressive steps that can be taken to ensure that the environmental plan that is laid out with the exploration is followed and all of the permit conditions are met.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I agree with the minister that oftentimes there are very responsible exploration activities. I know personally many of the people involved in that industry in my area. They do care about the land base.

[1810]

But unfortunately, when there is a bad example it gets highlighted and talked about a lot. So just to clarify: under the code, are mineral exploration activities and ones that don't comply with environmentally responsible behaviour under a code? Is that a legal code — infractions under the code?

Hon. R. Hawes: The mining code is legislation, so it is legal.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. I'm going to ask a few questions that relate to certainty on the land base. I know it's within the minister's responsibility about consulting with communities and first nations. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources talked about confidence and competitiveness.

I think what we've heard from the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. and also from the Mining Association of B.C. is that certainty on the land base, they feel, is the biggest impediment to moving forward with some of the mines that we know have great potential and create the revenue that the minister has described.

One of the questions I have on certainty and confidence is the confidence amongst the first nations on whose traditional lands many of these projects are taking place. When mineral exploration takes place, what's the responsibility, under the legislation that you talked about, for making the traditional owners of the land base aware that the exploration activity is taking place? What's the onus on the company for doing that?

Hon. R. Hawes: The legal obligation to consult lies with the province, but we encourage — in fact, I think we pretty much insist — that all proponents first engage early with first nations. We work with the companies to make sure that engagement takes place, and then we later fulfil our total legal obligation for consultation before any exploration.

D. Donaldson: The reason I'm asking these questions is that it's obvious that in many instances where I am living and representing, when the people whose traditional land base this is taking place on find out after the fact, it leads to erosion of confidence and is not very good for the future around communication.

If I heard the minister right — and maybe you could make sure I've got this correct — there's no legal obligation for a company to let a first nation know that they're coming into their traditional territory to do exploration. You talked about insisting that they engage, but there's no legal obligation to do that.

[1815]

Hon. R. Hawes: What we do is, when a proponent comes forward with an application, we strongly encourage them to engage first nations before anything is done. However, before any permit or activity can take place, we make sure that we have fulfilled the legal obligation to do the full consultation.

D. Donaldson: The minister mentioned at the outset around revenue-sharing on new mining projects with first nations. In the work that has been done to date, which we're discussing under this budget vote, is he referring to royalties being shared? If so, what's the amount of royalties that have been shared, under this period we're talking about, with first nations around mineral development?

Hon. R. Hawes: First, I should explain that revenue-sharing applies to new mines and major expansions. What we're sharing here is the mineral tax revenue. There is a negotiation on each project to determine what the amount of sharing would be, and it's done on a case-by-case basis.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. We haven't had a new metal mine opened in B.C. for the last eight
[ Page 2522 ]
years, and we're looking forward to one being opened soon, as I'm sure members on that side are as well. One in the area I represent that's quite close to potentially being opened — this is according to the Mining Association of B.C. — is Red Chris, for instance.

Considering how negotiations over the sharing of mineral tax revenue could take quite a while and actually cause delays in the opening of a new mine, could the minister shed some light on the negotiations that have been underway for mineral tax revenue-sharing with Red Chris and what stage that might be at with the Tahltan people, on whose territory that is?

Hon. R. Hawes: As I know the member knows, the Red Chris project right now is in the Supreme Court of Canada. We have not yet begun the negotiation process for revenue-sharing. But as this wends its way through court, if the mine in fact finds its way through successfully, we would be looking to sit down with first nations to begin that discussion on revenue-sharing.

M. Sather: I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Mining some questions about the Pitt River Quarries operation in Pitt Meadows, which is an operation that's been going since the 1960s.

Although there have been complaints from time to time from residents of Sheridan Hill, they have been minimal compared to most recently, because in recent years the mine has expanded greatly. They're looking at a further expansion proposal now that would leave…. Mind you, we're taking a recognized land form, a geographical feature, in Maple Ridge and levelling it to sea level here, so there's a lot of concern from residents about what effect this is going to have not only on them but the viewscapes in the area, the effects on tourism and so on.

[1820]

I just want to start by asking the minister about the materials that Pitt River Quarries presented to Pitt Meadows council. They had a very outdated map on there, in terms of the extent of their operation to date. Is there any requirement that they produce a current map, or is it up to local government to figure that out?

Hon. R. Hawes: They would be required to provide updated maps. Certainly, the chief mines inspector would be looking for that material from them.

M. Sather: I hope they do provide those soon, because even on Google now, 2008 is their last satellite photo, and it's quite out of date.

There's a gentleman named Brent Richards who will have contacted the minister of state and who has sort of been a spokesperson for our residents around this issue. One of the things he was told by a ministry official was that as soon as the ministry received a reclamation bond, they could grant the extension approval in as little as a week. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. R. Hawes: I'm not sure where that information came from, but that is not accurate. Full public input is received and considered. The chief mines inspector takes many factors into consideration. It's not just a matter of making a submission, and in a week you have a permit. It doesn't work like that.

M. Sather: Well, Pitt River Quarries actually had written a letter to me saying that they're going to have a public process in four to six weeks, which would be right around Christmas — not a very opportune time for the public. In any event, can the minister of state confirm that that means there wouldn't be any action taken, that there wouldn't be any extension granted, before that period of time?

Hon. R. Hawes: First and foremost, there can't be a public consultation over the Christmas period. That would have to take place not during the Christmas period, so I'm assuming it would be sometime afterwards.

The chief mines inspector, though, will gather all of the information from the public input. He will also consider all of the other factors, including safety and other things. When he makes his decision, it will be after all of those things. A permit will not be issued until he has made that full consideration.

M. Sather: Well, Mr. Richards has told us that in an e-mail he received from the minister of state, the minister of state said that this process of expansion could conceivably be stopped by an environmental assessment. Can the minister of state comment on that?

Hon. R. Hawes: If the proponent was trying to pass the threshold of 250,000 tonnes — which he's not — that would trigger a full environmental assessment. But if he's under that, then a mine development review panel is struck. They review pretty much all aspects, including the environmental aspects. So there is an environmental scan taken prior to any permit being issued. The information that they compile, I think, goes to the chief mines inspector and also forms part of the information he uses to form his decision.

[1825]

M. Sather: Well, the minister is quoted in the local press as saying that the chief inspector of mines makes the decision on this. "There can be no political interference," I believe was the phrase that he used. Can the minister of state tell me, then: can the minister not have any involvement in this process?
[ Page 2523 ]

Hon. R. Hawes: The chief mines inspector is a statutory officer. He's a statutory decision-maker. Across government, all statutory decision-makers make decisions free from political interference. I think the member, if you sat down and thought about why that should be…. It's pretty clear to me that you don't want political interference in the types of decisions that these statutory decision-makers are charged with making.

Frankly, I have absolute confidence in not just the staff within the ministry and the information they gather but also in the chief mines inspector.

M. Sather: I'm not sure what the minister of state means by "political interference." Section 11 of the Mines Act under "Permits – powers of minister," says: "If the minister considers it to be necessary in the public interest, the minister, in respect of the issuing of permits, has and may exercise all the powers that the chief inspector may exercise under this Act." How, then, could the minister not be involved if he chose to be?

Hon. R. Hawes: In fact, that provision is there where a really rapid decision in an emergency is necessary. But it has, in the last 15 years, never been invoked. I'll be blunt about it. I have no intention of invoking it. The ministry has full confidence in the chief mines inspector and the work that he does.

M. Sather: Well, there's nothing in that section that says anything about an emergency response or rapid necessity. It's very clear from the act that the minister could get involved if he wants. It's not a matter of political interference, but he's saying, in effect, that this is not in the public interest. I mean, there's a great deal of public interest in this.

Once that mine has levelled most of the hill…. Some of those are historic homes in there. Some are homes that are recently settled with the understanding that they would have a future there. They're not going to have a future there. Their home values are going to be diddly-squat, if I can use that technical term. How can this not be in the public interest for the minister to become involved?

Hon. R. Hawes: The first thing I guess I would say is that the chief mines inspector always acts in the public interest. That's his job. As I've said, we have full confidence in our chief mines inspector and the work that he does.

With respect to what the minister can or can't do, as I've said, the intent of that section was originally to act in emergencies. It has not been acted upon in the last 15 years. But I am aware, particularly with the service that I've had at the local level, that every time there is anything to do with aggregate in any community, there's always a lot of opposition.

Frankly, at that point the minister could always, I suppose, if they were following through with what you're saying, in every instance stop every aggregate operation from ever happening because everyone who lives near an aggregate operation will make an argument that it's in the public interest to stop it. That's just the way life is.

The chief mines inspector, though, takes a position that first he has to protect the public. He protects the environment. He listens to the public input, and he acts in the public interest. I am absolutely confident that that's what he will do in this case. That's what he does in every case.

[1830]

M. Sather: Well, it's clear that government simply doesn't want to become involved. There are massive environmental effects that are going to happen here and that already have happened, notwithstanding the other effects.

You know, we've seen this government push aside decision-makers before. We saw it on the RAV line when they did that with TransLink. They didn't like the decisions that were made and just got another board. We saw it with run of the river, where they changed the rules so that local government doesn't have effect.

We've seen it in a number of cases, the BCUC decision most recently, so it's pretty clear to me that the government simply doesn't want to get involved. The minister is simply hiding behind the skirts of the bureaucrats, and that's simply not acceptable to the people of Pitt Meadows.

Hon. R. Hawes: I'd just remind the member that this is the estimates for Mining. If you have questions about BCUC or any other matters that don't fall under Mining, I would suggest you address them to the appropriate spot.

M. Sather: I want to move on to the issue of aggregate gravel mining in the Fraser Valley, which is very contentious. I think a lot of people don't realize the value of the fishery along the Fraser. The gravel reach is considered from Mission up to the Chilliwack and Hope area.

There are some 30 species of fish that occupy that reach. There's the largest run…. Spawning grounds for pink salmon are there. This is a very valuable piece of real estate for fish, yet this government consistently seems to — does — totally ignore any of the environmental effects of the gravel operations there.

For example, in a recent article:

"The British Columbia government plans to remove gravel from the Fraser River this winter" — this was on November 12 of this year — "despite a federal Auditor General report that found the extraction has killed up to 2.2 million young pink salmon…. The Fraser River gravel removal stewardship committee urged Ottawa on Thursday not to enter into any long-term agreements with B.C., pending the results of the commission of inquiry announced by the federal Conservatives last week into the collapse of the Fraser River sockeye."
[ Page 2524 ]

Yet we heard the Minister of Environment say earlier this afternoon: "There's no problem. They're going full steam ahead." With all these concerns and many more, which I'll talk about if I have a few more minutes, what does the Minister of State for Mining have to say? I know he's been very involved in this issue over a number of years.

Hon. R. Hawes: I'm not sure where this member has been. For a long time removal of gravel from the river has fallen under the Ministry of Environment, and also the Ministry of Solicitor General, through emergency preparedness.

The Ministry of Mines has not been involved with gravel removal from the Fraser River. I'm going to answer, though, as a resident of the Fraser Valley, in the area where…. My fellow residents in that part of the valley have extreme concern about the gravel that's infiltrating the river, particularly in the Chilliwack area.

If the member were to come up and have a look at what's going on there — and I don't know as how you have — and if you took a look at how the channel is being turned by some of the gravel infiltration…

The Chair: Minister, through the Chair.

Hon. R. Hawes: Through the Chair.

…and you looked at how the erosion is taking place and large tracts of land…. It's moving towards dikes, and this is extremely dangerous. That's why it's so important to get aggregate, the gravel, out of the river — because it's a safety issue, pure and simple.

There were estimates for the Ministry of Environment that ran earlier this week. I know, having looked and having spoken with the Minister of Environment, that the member was present in the room while the Minister of Environment was there to answer questions. Not one single question about gravel removal in the Fraser River. It's a little late in the day, and today he's asking the wrong ministry.

M. Sather: Well, we've seen this kind of response from the government many times. "Oh, don't talk to me. Talk to somebody else." The other one says the same thing.

[1835]

The facts simply don't support this government's contentions. The consultant, UMA, did reports and studies on this in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004 and found that "despite the net deposition of larger classes of material, the net sedimentation was approximately neutral when all…classes of materials at all locations…." This is over the period 1952 to 1999, so it was over a long period of time.

They went on to say in the report: "That is, contrary to what many believe" — apparently — "the Fraser gravel reach is not filling up with sediment…. Thus, the reach is roughly in equilibrium in regards to erosion and deposition…."

The Chair: Member. Member.

Point of Order

Hon. R. Hawes: Point of order, Madam Chair. This is the estimates for Mining. As I've said, this ministry has absolutely nothing to do with the removal of gravel from the Fraser River — nothing — so there can be no relevance whatsoever to any of the statements being made here by that member. I would ask that he confine his remarks to items that are relevant to the estimates for the Ministry of Mines.

The Chair: The minister's point, Member, is well taken. I would ask you to confine your remarks germane to the ministry under debate.

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, clearly, although this member has been hugely involved in this issue, he doesn't want to face the facts.

Let's look, then….

The Chair: Member, he does not have ministerial responsibility for the questions you are now posing. You need to find a different chain of questions.

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I take that under advisement, certainly.

Debate Continued

M. Sather: I will talk about an issue that the minister certainly does have involvement in. That's the Fraser Valley regional district aggregate pilot project.

Now, this pilot project was initiated by the Minister of State for Mining back in 2004, as I believe, in response to persistent and intense conflict surrounding aggregate operations in the Fraser Valley regional district. The project was guided by a committee, chaired by the current Minister of State for Mining, comprised of the Aggregate Producers Association of British Columbia, local governments and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

You will note the total absence of any environmental involvement in that committee. They go on to talk about some of the challenges that committee is facing. I won't go into many of them, except that all of the challenges they list — noise and dust, blasting and vibration, etc…. There's nothing whatsoever about the environment or fish here.

How could the minister chair a committee that absolutely ignored the effect that gravel operations have on fish in the Fraser River?
[ Page 2525 ]

Hon. R. Hawes: The Fraser Valley aggregate pilot project actually is going to be — and I believe sincerely — a very, very positive step forward to end the friction that exists between residential growth in municipalities and the aggregate industry. I think there would be very few members anywhere that would dispute that aggregate is essential to our economy. Seventy percent of the aggregate that's produced is actually consumed by local government and the provincial government in the construction of roads and housing, which we all enjoy, and public buildings and infrastructure.

First and foremost, I'd like to say that the production of aggregate is totally, totally essential to the proper operation of our economy. The second thing I would say is that the aggregate pilot project, in trying to consider what we're going to do in the future, didn't look at existing aggregate operations.

What we tried to do was to say that in future, if there's going to be an aggregate operation somewhere, let's plan where it ought to be and let's agree on where it shouldn't be. Let's agree on the areas where there should be conditions and perhaps areas where there don't need to be conditions and where you can do more things in an aggregate pit.

[1840]

First and foremost, I would like to say that this ministry does an outstanding job in its environmental management around all mining operations — an outstanding job. We have a very, very strong team that works on the environment and environmental stewardship and monitoring. We work in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment, which has dedicated staff to this purpose.

When you're looking at where a future mine might exist….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Hawes: If the member doesn't want to hear the answer, then he should stop asking questions. If you don't want answers, don't ask questions.

The bottom line is this. When you're planning where a future mine might go, there's obviously no environmental impact on a plan. This is a high-level plan that's a mapping exercise. That's all it is. So if and when a mine is located, or a quarry, in any of the areas designated in this plan — happily agreed to by local government and the industry all working together rather than through the court system, which has happened in the past…. At that point the full environmental scan of the ministry would be put towards any permitting application that would go in any of those areas.

To the member: I think a little homework and a little understanding of the kinds of things you want to ask here would be helpful. I think you're showing that you don't really understand how the industry works, nor do you have an understanding of the pilot project.

I would be happy to give you a briefing at any time you want to come to my office so you could fully understand it. Or perhaps talk to some of the municipalities that took part in that operation, which think it was huge benefit to them and the taxpayers.

The Chair: I would ask all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

G. Gentner: I want to move from the aggravating aggregate to something that's really interesting. I know the members in the northeast sector, the north part of the lower Fraser basin, have quite the time together, and it's quite enjoyable.

I want to address the minister relative to the Flathead. I sent a letter to the ministry asking for information relative to what the delegation came forward with — the UNESCO delegation that was in Fernie. I have yet to hear.

I do commend the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. She's made it clear that there will be some, but to date I have yet to receive anything from this ministry.

I'd like to ask, first of all, the minister: did the ministry send UNESCO a presentation when they were here in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Hawes: Member, I know that you canvassed this issue with the Minister of Environment. I think his answer to you was that the lead ministry on anything to do with UNESCO is the intergovernmental relations ministry because this is the United Nations. I think their estimates are coming up in the next few days, and I would strongly recommend that you address your questions regarding the UNESCO mission to the IGR ministry.

G. Gentner: Will the minister confirm that Mr. Ricci Berdusco from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources attended and was there to make a presentation?

Hon. R. Hawes: The answer to that is yes.

G. Gentner: Would he confirm that Mr. David Grieve, regional geologist in mining and minerals division, Cranbrook, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, was also there to give a presentation?

Hon. R. Hawes: The regional director is Mr. Ricci Berdusco. He may have had staff there. I'm really not sure. I suppose that if the member continues to have curiosity around this, we can find out from Mr. Berdusco.

[1845]

G. Gentner: Are these reports available to the opposition — as soon as possible?
[ Page 2526 ]

Hon. R. Hawes: We're kind of getting into the detail around the UNESCO visit, and again, this is the IGR ministry that would answer those questions. I suppose the only thing I would tell you is that I think that at some point UNESCO is going to issue a report that — I'm assuming, although I don't know — would have minutes, probably, of every presentation. Perhaps if the member wants to ask the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, she may know when that report is coming forward.

G. Gentner: Therefore, I'm making the assumption that the reports are going to the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations as the messenger. Then it's going to come to me. Is that correct? We are going to get the reports that the ministry submitted to the United Nations?

Hon. R. Hawes: I think I have said that questions surrounding the UNESCO visit should go to the ministry of IGR. If these questions continue to come, I've answered them, and I really don't see the point of continuing to say: "Ask the ministry of IGR."

G. Gentner: In December 2008 the B.C. government exempted the Flathead River Valley from the Mist Mountain coalbed methane tenure granted to BP Canada. At the time, the B.C. government declared that the Flathead was an "environmentally sensitive area," yet BP Canada still wants to drill coalbed methane in the Flathead.

In the absence of permanent protection of the Flathead, what stops BP Canada from continuing with its exploration?

Hon. R. Hawes: I think the member knows that mining is mining, and coalbed methane is not. If there are questions around coalbed methane or anything pertaining to oil or gas, there is an appropriate minister, and I think you'll be talking to him tomorrow.

G. Gentner: Well, let's talk mining, then. Let's talk about gold mining in the Flathead. Can the minister explain: how is it that he granted an exploratory permit for the proposal by Max Resource?

Hon. R. Hawes: There was an application made by the proponent based on the current land plan. The application was received. It was reviewed. It's an exploration application. It was reviewed by the chief mines inspector, and based on the current land use applicable in that area, the permit was granted.

G. Gentner: It's interesting that this was granted at the time when the delegation was here. Frankly, it was mud in your eye when it comes down to the United Nations.

Would the minister agree that by doing such action, B.C. is violating the 2003 environmental cooperation arrangement signed by allowing this to proceed — projects that would never be allowed to proceed, necessarily, on the Montana side of the border relative to mining itself? Is this in violation of the goodwill that was developed by the Premier and the Governor of 2003?

[1850]

Hon. R. Hawes: I think it's pretty obvious that you're talking about an intergovernmental relationship. If the member isn't sure, then let me remind him that the ministry for intergovernmental relations…. There's probably a clue in the title there. They would be responsible, and that's who you should ask. Their estimates are coming within the next few days.

G. Gentner: I'll try this one, then. Why is the government concealing documents relative to its approval of Max Resource Corp.? An organization has asked for it, and I'm asking the question: why are these documents being concealed from Ecojustice, and why won't the ministry come forward with them?

Hon. R. Hawes: I guess I'd say that the ministry never conceals documents. When people want documentation, there is a legal process. I'm sure that the member knows what that process is. If Ecojustice doesn't know, perhaps the member could remind them. Or if they want to ask the ministry, we would be happy to explain to them what the legal process is.

G. Gentner: Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.

Hon. R. Hawes: I move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. B. Penner 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.
[ Page 2527 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

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

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon. Before we start, I want to remind all members that they're allowed to use a BlackBerry and a computer only while they're seated in the committee chair. Once they take the floor, they cannot refer to any device. For everyone in the committee room, cell phones are not allowed at all. There is no voice contact.

For the gallery, the rules apply the same here as they do in the big House. There's no use of BlackBerry or cell phones. It's an honour system, so we expect you not to use these devices. If you receive a call, you have to leave the room.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $625,431,000.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to make an opening statement?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, I would, and I'll make it very, very brief. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

I'd like to introduce some of my immediate staff right here. I have David Morhart, deputy solicitor general, to my left; to my right, Wes Shoemaker, Deputy Minister of Public Safety. I have Tara Faganello's assistance here, and Ted Stevens. Other staff will be brought up here as necessary as we proceed through.

M. Farnworth: Before we begin, I'd just like to outline…. I've got a number of questions directed more to the minister's office in the beginning. Then I'd like to proceed through a series of areas of the minister's responsibility in the ministry involving restorative justice, gang issues and programs, municipal police forces, the RCMP contract, regionalization, correctional facilities, an issue around coroner's inquests and finally victim services and ICBC. For particular points, besides myself, other colleagues of mine will be coming to ask questions.

In terms of the minister's office budget and the ministry budget in general, has there been an increase in the minister's office budget?

[1440]

Hon. K. Heed: There has been a slight decrease of $17,000 from '08-09 to '09-10.

M. Farnworth: What areas does that decrease involve?

Hon. K. Heed: Those are other operating costs, which were mainly used for travel and other business expenses.

M. Farnworth: Has there been any change, or is there an advertising budget within the ministry?

Hon. K. Heed: We don't have a separate advertisement budget for the minister's office or for the ministry.

M. Farnworth: Have any programs been transferred under the current budget to another ministry?

Hon. K. Heed: There were no actual programs moved out of the ministry. We did have funds moved out of the ministry to the Public Service Agency, and that was $3 million for human resource services.

[1445]

M. Farnworth: Has there been any reduction in any program spending areas?

Hon. K. Heed: Within the Estimates, the "Ministry Summary," there were two reductions. One was the civil forfeiture account special account, for $750,000, which was an accounting adjustment. Under corrections work program account special account, there's a $23,000 reduction, and that was due to administrative reductions.

[1450]

M. Farnworth: On the $750,000 in the civil forfeiture, can you tell me what type of accounting change, reduction, that was?

Hon. K. Heed: This was money that was provided by the ministry to get the program up and running. It was startup funds. This is a self-funded program. As a result, this was removable money, and it was removed.

M. Farnworth: In other words, the government provided the money to start the program — the civil forfeiture. So when we realize assets, either financial or monetary, and they now come under the possession of the Crown, and the money that was used to set that up….
[ Page 2528 ]

What the Crown is now doing, then, is clawing that back. Is that correct? They're saying: "Okay, we've received this money from civil forfeiture, but we're now going to take back our startup costs."

Is this something that happens on an annual basis, or is this a one-time thing?

Hon. K. Heed: One time.

M. Farnworth: Has there been an increase or decrease in the number of FTEs in the various programs in the ministry?

Hon. K. Heed: The FTE allocations are under review, as discussed in the government September budget update.

M. Farnworth: In other words, you're showing reductions over the next two years. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Heed: That is still under review.

[1455]

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell me which areas of the ministry are under review? Is it…? Or let me put it this way. There must be a goal, or there must be some sort of idea of a reduction that the minister is working towards in terms of the review. What areas are under review in terms of reductions, and can the minister give an idea of the size of the potential reduction that's under review?

Hon. K. Heed: I can assure the member that there will be…. We're not looking at program cuts. We want to maintain all front-line services. Where we would be looking at areas for efficiencies would be back office staff.

M. Farnworth: So are Corrections under the review for potential staff reductions?

Hon. K. Heed: No front-line services would be looked at in Corrections.

M. Farnworth: How about funded provincial police positions in some of the integrated teams?

Hon. K. Heed: Not in this budget.

M. Farnworth: So it's not in this budget but potentially in the budget that we will be dealing with in a few months and in the service plan then. What you're saying is that that may well be the case.

[1500]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. K. Heed: The question was with respect to this particular budget, and that's what the answer was referring to. We're in the process of looking at future budgets, and the question I answered was in reference to this particular budget.

M. Farnworth: But the service plan the minister operates, which is part of this budget and the future service plan out, does anticipate staff reductions in a number of areas — does it not?

Hon. K. Heed: FTEs for each ministry are currently being reviewed across government and, therefore, are not reported in this service plan.

The Chair: I remind the member to keep the questioning to the motion before the committee.

M. Farnworth: Thank you hon. Chair. We are discussing estimates of the ministry, and part of that work is, as the minister has indicated, a review of FTEs. That review is clearly taking place with a mind to next year's budget, but that work is being done and that expenditure is taking place in this year's budget, and it's clearly a focus right across government.

What I hear the minister saying is that while — for example, in the case of Corrections — he's not anticipating any front-line reductions in staff, the fact is that the ministry is reviewing because they have to deal with cost pressures that are in place that have been imposed, clearly, in terms of a review of FTEs.

So can the minister tell me: is the government's recent change in this budget to MSP premiums accounted for in this particular budget? Has the ministry received increased funding to take care of those increased costs?

[1505]

Hon. K. Heed: There were no dollars added. MSPs are reflected in our current employee benefit plan.

M. Farnworth: But they are increasing. Has the ministry looked at the impact of HST on its operations and at how much that is likely to be?

Hon. K. Heed: We have started the analysis. There is no impact in the current fiscal year because HST will come into effect July 1, 2010.

M. Farnworth: I understand that it doesn't come into effect until July 1 next year. But in terms of the impact on the ministry and the operations of the ministry, it will have an impact, particularly when you're looking at it in a way that you're having to do a review of FTEs, for example, in terms of cost containment. You've got increased costs from MSP. There are increased costs
[ Page 2529 ]
from HST. Any idea when that work will be completed and when the impact number will be known?

Hon. K. Heed: The review is currently underway. If there are any more questions related to HST, I would ask that you direct them to the Minister of Finance or the tax policy branch for the Ministry of Finance.

M. Farnworth: In other words, the ministry is not involved in any way, shape or form in terms of the impact on HST? They're not involved in providing information and not involved in providing areas where they think that there will be an impact on HST? Is the ministry involved in any way, shape or form with this?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, we are involved, but the Ministry of Finance is taking the lead with respect to this.

M. Farnworth: So it's a good thing we have Finance estimates to come up too, because I think that there will be an awful lot of questions being asked then exactly about the impact, because it's pretty clear that that hasn't been assessed.

Okay, let's move on to one other area. Have there been any changes in terms of performance measures either being added or dropped from the ministry service plan?

[1510]

Hon. K. Heed: I've been advised that there have been no performance measures changed since the February 2009 service plan.

M. Farnworth: One of the key areas that the minister is responsible for is around crime prevention. One of the key areas that has received, I think, a lot of attention over the last number of years has been around the issue of restorative justice as an alternative way to the court system. It has received a considerable amount of support in the local communities, but also among police themselves.

Can the minister tell us what the state is and how the budget is changing for restorative justice this year compared to last year?

Hon. K. Heed: The restorative justice program has been maintained at the same level from year to year.

M. Farnworth: So in other words, it has not had any funding increases.

Hon. K. Heed: That's correct.

M. Farnworth: Setting aside for the moment the lack of increase in terms of funding for restorative justice, what changes in the way that the program is being delivered or administered is the ministry undertaking or contemplating at the current time?

[1515]

Hon. K. Heed: We are not contemplating any changes. This is to support communities. It's led by these local communities and with respect to their local needs.

M. Farnworth: It is led by local needs, but the money that's available to allow them to do the work they do comes from the province. If funding does not increase over time, then the amount of money they have available to them decreases, and therefore, their ability to do the work they do also decreases, and in part, many of these people, by and large, are volunteers.

I'd just like to get the minister's perspective on how he sees restorative justice and how it can work within the current criminal justice system in the province and whether or not he believes that it should be expanded.

Hon. K. Heed: Personally, I'm very, very supportive of it. Our ministry is very, very supportive of restorative justice. We're working with the communities, as indicated. We're letting the communities take a lead, and I think our commitment is demonstrated in the fact that during the times that we're in right now, where we are looking for efficiencies, we've maintained restorative justice programs.

We will continue to advocate for other levels of government and other stakeholders to get involved in restorative justice.

M. Farnworth: I would expect, given the minister's background, that he would recognize the role of restorative justice and its importance. One of the ways to ensure that its success continues and that we're able to use it in more communities is that it's something that is accessible right across the province. Right now that's not the case. There are a number of areas in the province where restorative justice doesn't function. Does the ministry have any plans to address that?

[1520]

Hon. K. Heed: We have outreach programs and outreach workers that go across the province giving information with respect to restorative justice programs that are offered. There's an application process and an application that communities go through to apply. This year the deadline was October 19 for those communities to submit their applications for restorative justice programs.

M. Farnworth: When you apply, there's a set amount of money that you can get. Is that not correct, Minister?

I see the minister nodding his head. For the next question, a nod will probably apply as well. There's also a finite
[ Page 2530 ]
amount of money that is available in terms of restorative justice for communities to access. Is that not correct?

I again see the minister nodding his head. In other words, the problem becomes that if you want restorative justice to function across the province — where you have equity in terms of a community's ability to access it — right now there's not enough money in the restorative justice program to do that without cutting the funding to those communities that are already participating. Isn't that right?

[1525]

Hon. K. Heed: The ministry provides up to $150,000 for restorative justice programs in British Columbia, and it's up to $2,500 per program in 2009 to 2010. As I've indicated earlier, our goal was to maintain services this year for restorative justice across the province. The government also supports a variety of other restorative justice initiatives, including 31 provincewide coordinators around restorative justice, with our corrections people working with our federal partners.

M. Farnworth: The bottom line is that we have a program which we know works. The minister knows it works. Front-line police officers know it works. There's a budget of $150,000 right now which communities can access, but it doesn't go right across the province.

As a result, we have what is potentially a very effective tool in terms of crime prevention, particularly in preventing those from reoffending, and all we're doing is maintaining, when, instead, we should be looking at how we can increase its effectiveness, make it more available and encourage more communities to be involved across the province. I think it's a problem that the minister needs to address. I don't think that just maintaining that current funding is going to achieve what I think he knows is an effective program.

I've got a few more questions on this particular area. I'd like to know: is the ministry involved in, and could he provide details on, the interministerial committee on restorative justice, which is currently under development?

Hon. K. Heed: We are working across government from an interministerial goal to deal with this particular problem. I would like to be as specific as possible for the member, so if we could, we will get that information to him so he has actual specifics with respect to that.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that.

I'll ask a few more questions, then, so that hopefully, if he's got the answers, we can get that resolved now. Is it the Public Safety and Solicitor General's ministry that's taking the leadership role on this committee, or is it another ministry?

[1530]

Hon. K. Heed: I've been advised that this is a partnership between the Attorney General, the Ministry of Children and Families and my ministry, and we do have the lead on that.

M. Farnworth: Given that the ministry is taking a leadership role on this, can the minister tell us if members of the restorative justice community are on the committee?

Hon. K. Heed: We will have to get back to the member with respect to the composition of that committee.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that. I'm hoping the answer is yes, but does the minister not believe that it would be important, if there's an interministerial committee that's reviewing restorative justice and looking at restorative justice issues, that it have members of the restorative justice community on the committee?

Hon. K. Heed: I certainly think it's very, very important to have them involved at one particular step and be there when we go to them and talk to them. As far as the composition of the committee, we will get back to the member with respect to that.

M. Farnworth: Well, I would encourage the minister to ensure that there is participation and representation from the restorative justice community on this committee.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

I think that if you're looking at how restorative justice can fit into the justice system but also in terms of being more effective in how it does its role — and I think we all agree that it is important — then I would think you'd want to hear from the people who are actually engaged in that front-line delivery of the program. So if the minister could commit to that, I would appreciate that.

Is this committee going to be looking at the way in which restorative justice is currently funded, for example?

Hon. K. Heed: We would be looking at partnership funding, best practices and community needs, to name a few.

[1535]

M. Farnworth: Nice to see you, Chair.

To the minister: those are laudable, and I think we all want to see an increase in potential partners and having as many people as involved as possible, but what I've heard so far sounds a little vague.

In terms of funding, is the current funding model going to be part of the committee's purview? Are they
[ Page 2531 ]
going to examine the current funding model, which is basically grant-based? Are you going to be looking at, perhaps, changing the model to a more sustainable model that's based on either contract funding or a more permanent system of funding?

Hon. K. Heed: That would be part of the funding model discussion that would take place with this particular committee, not just with reference to our ministry but all of the other ministries that are involved.

M. Farnworth: So does the minister believe that the current funding model does need to be changed, and is it the ministry's position that there should be changes in terms of the funding model?

Hon. K. Heed: It's part of the review that the committee will look at, and it's prudent, in my opinion, for that committee to look at the funding.

M. Farnworth: Will a review ensure that there's a cost-effectiveness analysis done of the current model of funding, and perhaps compare it to other alternative models, such as a more long-term contract, moving away from the uncertainty of grants?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, that is something that they would look at. I'll just provide some additional information. This year we moved from grants to contracts for accountability reasons and to ensure that we focus on best practices.

M. Farnworth: I think one of the things that the restorative justice community has been looking at is ensuring that there is long-term sustainability. So whether it's done by grants or if it's by contract, I think that's one of the key issues that needs to be addressed, and I think that's one of the things the committee needs to be looking at.

Has the committee started its work yet, and when is it anticipated that it will finish its work?

Hon. K. Heed: We will commit to the member that we will get back to him with that specific information.

M. Farnworth: I would appreciate that, because I do think it's important. I would also, before we move off, like to once again stress, I think, the need that if there's a committee — an interministerial committee that the ministry is taking a lead on — that is looking around restorative justice issues, it include members of the restorative justice community.

[1540]

I think that they have important insight and advice to give, particularly since they're the ones who are delivering the program on the front line, and I think the minister knows how effective restorative justice can be. So I would ask that he do those things.

Hon. K. Heed: Yes.

M. Farnworth: At this particular time I'd like us to move on to some of the gang-related programs, issues. So if there's staff that the minister needs to come up, I think now is the right time to bring them forward.

Hon. K. Heed: Hon. Chair, I'm joined by my ADM Kevin Begg.

M. Farnworth: The minister commented earlier this year that we not only must be tough on gangs but equally tough on social conditions that breed them. We need to put in place a comprehensive, coordinated, assertive regional gang suppression strategy that addresses intervention and prevention while moving law enforcement from being random and reactive to proactive and sustained.

I'd like to know what changes the minister has put in place or are in place in this budget that are aimed at preventing young people from entering gangs.

Hon. K. Heed: We've added $1 million to the allocated $3 million that we've invested in youth programs, youth education programs, programs that are designed to be proactive and to prevent our youth from getting engaged in gang activity and the gang culture.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister outline where the additional money is going to, and can he also outline how the programs are being monitored?

[1545]

Hon. K. Heed: To give a few examples of the prevention programs we have in place…. We have the Youth Against Violence line. We have the Children of the Streets Society that we do fund for various programs — also school districts, many around British Columbia, including Prince George, Richmond, Vancouver, Kamloops and Abbotsford.

[1550]

We also provide funding to the South Asian community, to groups around there to come up with prevention programs for some of the gang prevention side of it.

One particular program that there's a lot of promise — and I'll go back to the Surrey school district — is called the Wrap program. We're hoping that we can duplicate the results of that particular gang prevention program throughout the province. That's one that right now is showing some very, very promising results.

We will look, from an accountability point of view, at all of these particular programs and work forward from a best-practices point of view on what actually is work-
[ Page 2532 ]
ing to prevent our youth from getting involved in gang activity.

M. Farnworth: Are those programs new programs that this million dollars is going to, or are those already-existing programs that the money is going to?

Hon. K. Heed: Part of it is for an expansion of existing programs. We do have some new programs, and we are currently working with some partners in a very, very innovative way in order to ensure that we have a very sound prevention program in place that we can evaluate as we move forward.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us who those partners are?

Hon. K. Heed: It's in development right now, and until we confirm the relationships and the arrangements we have with those particular individuals, it would be premature to give those names out.

M. Farnworth: Any idea how long this will take and what the timeline is for accomplishing it? You've got this new money that is there. Some of it is going to the expansion of existing programs, and some of it is going to new programs. What timelines are we looking at? What sorts of concrete actions and dates is the minister trying to work towards to get this accomplished?

Hon. K. Heed: Several of those programs are already underway, as I've mentioned. We will be launching a new program in the near future.

M. Farnworth: The government says that youth gangs are a priority. They say, "We've got additional money for it," and that there are partners, but they can't say who the partners are, because that's still under negotiation or it's still not been ironed out yet. Now the minister is saying there's going to be a new program.

My question is this. Is he expecting all the money that's allocated in this year's budget to be spent in this year's budget on gang and youth prevention programs? So if that money that's earmarked for new programs…. If those programs don't materialize until later down the road, when we've got those partners in place that are somewhere out there, and there's this money that's not spent, is that money going to go to existing programs, or will that money go back into general revenue?

[1555]

Hon. K. Heed: Our intent is to expend the dollars by the end of the year. With some of the existing programs, we do have contracts in place, and we will honour those particular contracts. As we move forward, as I've mentioned, our intent is to spend the dollars by the end of the year.

M. Farnworth: Will the minister guarantee that that money will go towards fighting youth gang activity and existing programs? Let's put it this way. It would not be the first time that a government has said: "We're going to spend money in this area on a new program. We're going to get all these partners in place, and we've got this money budgeted." The public looks and says: "Oh, that's great. Government is doing something." And the reality is that for one reason or another, it doesn't materialize.

So you have this pot of money that government has said is to fight gang activity, and you have existing programs that are providing some services. The minister has talked about ensuring some expansion, so what I want to know is: is there a firm commitment that the money that has been allocated will, in fact, be spent in this fiscal year on gang prevention programs?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, I'm committed to spend that money on gang prevention programs by the end of the year.

M. Farnworth: Now that we've established that the money will, in fact, be spent, can the minister tell us: does the ministry have targets in place in terms of reducing the level of gang activity — in particular, youth gang activity — and if so, what are those targets?

Hon. K. Heed: As far as the contracts go with some of these providers, we will be looking for a measurement of the success of their particular prevention programs. We do not have specific targets on this simply because when you're involved in preventing crime, as you move forward, especially when you're dealing with the youth, what we invest now with the youth may not pay off for several years. It's difficult to measure that.

From our point of view, there have been indications of success, like I mentioned in one particular program. We're hoping that we can use best practices as we move forward. We have not set specific targets with respect to this prevention, but we've built accountability into the contracts that we've provided to the various providers and groups out there.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying about investments being made today paying dividends down the road. That applies not just in crime prevention but right across the spectrum. In other areas around crime prevention — poverty reduction, for example — I guess that same principle would apply, that money spent on this end will pay dividends down the road.

But surely there must be some indication within the ministry that they have a sense of the scope of the problem right now and would be looking at that, for example, as a baseline in terms of…. We don't want to see increasing; we want to see the trend line decreasing.

[1600]

Can the minister tell me if, in fact, the ministry has a sense of how big the problem is — is it present — and how that differs from, let's say, five or six years ago? Has the trend line been increasing, or has it been decreasing?

Hon. K. Heed: As we've mentioned earlier, the committee would be looking at best practices and at the data that is available.

But I just want to go back to talking about my experience. A lot of the individuals that are involved in gang and organized crime activity right now were individuals that were back in elementary school in the early '90s. At that time we didn't have prevention programs to any degree in the schools to deal with gang problems.

As a result…. I'm sure the member has heard me say many times in my previous career that we had a generation of kids that grew up looking at certain gang members that were out there, and these young kids were aspiring to be these particular gang members. Unfortunately, that's what we have taking place right now. The individuals that we're arresting in our balanced approach to this are those young people that were at that age group, the demographic that we're focusing on right now.

Again, it's difficult for me to give quantifiable numbers, if that's what the member is actually looking for, on not only the scope of the problem with our youth…. I can give numbers on the scope of the problem in general with gang members out there operating and the number of gangs, you know — the number of killings that have taken place. Albeit our crime rate is down, but the murders are up.

I can certainly talk about the success we've had since February in locking up several of these gang members and charges we have, but I think, bringing us back, what we're talking about here is prevention, and we're talking about whether or not we can quantify an indicator that shows the success or the failure of our prevention programs. That is difficult to give at this particular time, not only from my point of view but from my experience in law enforcement, even from my experience in the world of academics when we've looked at and talked about this particular problem.

[1605]

M. Farnworth: I agree with some of what the minister has said, that there aren't definitive…. But certainly there's an idea of what the scope of the problem is. If you look at it just in a nutshell, if you have X number of gangs, and you have an idea of how many people are associated with those gangs — through intelligence, through law enforcement, through contacts with the court system — there must be some sort of sense of how many people are involved. You can get a sense over time of whether the problem is growing or not growing.

If you go back to…. The fact is that the government has now been in power for eight years, and the number of gangs has grown significantly. So the question becomes: clearly, the problem is growing, so how do you look at it in terms of your success rate — okay? Now, in terms of prevention — I think that's a key area; what we're talking about here is prevention — there's one way of knowing whether or not…. You're only getting new members. You have to recruit them into gang activity.

If your prevention program is successful, clearly you're not recruiting gang members. Right now, if you're in a gang, there are only two outcomes. You're either going to be dead, or you're going to be in jail.

Either way, it's still going to end up, most likely, one of those two things — right? If you're taking people out, if your gang is being reduced by attrition by those two methods — you're either in jail or you're dead — then if your prevention program is successful, that supply of wannabes is being reduced.

So that's the question I'm asking. You must have some method, some targets, to say: "Okay, here's how we're being successful" or "Here's how we're not being successful." It could be something like a reduction in the number of people coming into contact with police, a reduction in the number of people being arrested for gang offences. Even though we're putting more money and more emphasis onto those areas…. Are you looking at measuring those things to determine the success of those prevention programs?

I think it's all well and good to talk about accountability, but there must be some way in which we know that the program is being successful. If they continue to function, and they continue to grow, then clearly they're not, given the fact that, as I stated moments ago — and I see the minister is nodding his head — the outcome of belonging to a gang is one of two or three choices, and none of them are particularly palatable.

Hon. K. Heed: At this time it's difficult to separate the outcomes of our programs, simply because, as we see, our investment in our youth to prevent these members from filling the void of these gang members that we take off the street will show in many years. We've been successful. I've advocated, as the member has said, for a balanced approach to this, and that's no surprise to everyone. I'll continue to advocate for a balanced approach to dealing with this.

The problem we have right now is that when we're successful in removing these entrenched gang members from our streets, the void is filled. We know that is taking place right now. We've been successful in dealing with some very, very prolific gang situations in British Columbia right now based on our strategies that we've put in place and the enforcement model we have put in place to put these gang members where they belong — in jail.

Where I'm going with this is: we're investing in the youth. We're hoping that when they reach that demo-
[ Page 2534 ]
graphic where they're actually attracted or going towards gangs, we will have prevented them and put them off in a different direction. We will be able to determine that, because once you get to that point, when you take these gang members out, whether it's through incarceration or something unfortunate — you know, death takes place or something like that — the void will not be as easily filled as it is now.

[1610]

M. Farnworth: Which comes back to my original question in terms of how big, which is the scope of the problem right now, in terms of the adequacy of the resources that we have in place to deal with, particularly on the prevention side of things, youth being attracted to gangs.

I think that one of the key things the ministry needs to be able to provide in terms of assurance to the public is that there's a sense of: "Okay, how big a problem are we dealing with? How many individuals?" You know, it doesn't have to be exact, but some sense of how many individuals are being involved, so that the ministry itself is able to say: "Okay, we have enough resources at the prevention side of things to ensure that that long-term goal, which we want to have in place, is in fact achievable."

Hon. K. Heed: I want to be as accurate as I can for the member, so we will provide him information on the number of gangs that we know of that are operating in British Columbia, the number of gang members associated to those gangs and the number of gang hang-arounds or gang associates that our law enforcement people, our intelligence people, know. We'll get the numbers to the member.

M. Farnworth: One of the areas around prevention that I think is important is that different gangs have different recruitment methods, different ways of recruiting. I mean, some gangs are very tightly knit — Hell's Angels as an example — compared to others who are targeting, you know, either vulnerable youth, ethnically based targeting….

I'm not singling that out separately, because I think the minister would agree that the stereotype that gang activity is — as many people think — ethnically based, in fact, is wrong. It's a much broader problem than that. There are ethnic gangs, but there are multi-ethnic gangs, and there are gangs that have been around for a long time, but there are different strategies they employ for drawing people in.

So my question is: do the programs that we have in place reflect that and recognize that, and are they targeted to that? And does the ministry take those different types of approaches in terms of recruitments and the sort of attraction, that variability that's out there, into the development of its programs and into implementing its programs?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, those are areas that we look at when we're talking to these particular groups that are offering these programs and that we expect, from an accountability point of view, they will be able to address with their various programs.

I have to talk about one program which still has a lot of success, and we're hoping we can replicate those results. That's the Surrey Wrap program, and that is actually taken into place. Although there is a strong ethnic community around that particular program, the ethnicity really doesn't come into play because there are some very, very common characteristics that youth are attracted to and that youth get involved in at a very, very young age, regardless if it's wanting to be a member of the Hell's Angels or wanting to be a member of the Independent Soldiers.

[1615]

M. Farnworth: So how is that accountability built into the contracts, and how is it reported out to the ministry? Then how does the ministry report that out to the public?

Hon. K. Heed: Each of the contracts has an action plan attached to them on what they're expecting to accomplish. They also have deliverables. Those deliverables are monitored by program staff, and those deliverables and the programs are reported as a best practice, if they're successful, through newsletters, etc. They're also reported out in the annual report in relation to the service plan. So they report out on the service plan, and the annual report — the upcoming one — will reflect that.

[1620]

M. Farnworth: In terms of accountability, the report-out is out. It's reflected in the service plan. Still, at the same time, we don't have, in essence, within the service plan itself, targets in terms of: "Okay, here's where we are now. Here's where we think we should be. Here's how we judge it for being successful — by the programs that we have in place." I see the minister nodding, so I will say that I think that that is a weakness that needs to be addressed.

I want to move on, because I am mindful of the time that we have here, and move from the area of prevention to some of the issues around current gang activity — dealing with those who are currently in gangs and our efforts in terms of fighting current gang activity and organized crime.

One of the areas I'd like to focus on right now is the issue around provincial policing resources that are available. I know the minister said earlier in February that the police, more than any other factor, are in a position to make a difference. We've shown, time and again, that if you invest in law enforcement and hold police leaders accountable, you will absolutely have a definitive effect on crime.
[ Page 2535 ]

I agree with that. I think that's the right approach. But in terms of the budget that was tabled in February, there was $284 million for policing and community safety. In the September budget that number is $283 million.

If more law enforcement is one of the keys, how many new police officers did we get with the $1 million reduction in community policing and safety — going from $284 million to $283 million? How does that jibe?

Hon. K. Heed: I'll make an assumption that the member is referring to the February 2009 estimate and the September 2009. There was a change, a decrease, of approximately $672,000. That was as a result of internal efficiencies. No front-line resources were affected with that reduction.

M. Farnworth: So there are efficiencies, but there are no new additional front-line resources, then, taking place in this — are there?

[1625]

Hon. K. Heed: There were 168 additional police resources added, and they were the result of police officer recruitment funding that we received from the federal government.

M. Farnworth: That's resources that came from the federal government. That's not additional resources coming from the province. Can the minister tell me: what's the net incremental increase over people who have left, over attrition, people retired, in terms of the actual number of new police officers?

Hon. K. Heed: We've added about 1,100 additional police officers to policing here in British Columbia, including provincial, municipal and federal resources. The 168 positions are on top of the positions that we had here in the province of British Columbia. It's an additional 168 positions.

Now, it's difficult to give an exact number of how many boxes — if I could use that term — are actually filled right now, because it fluctuates almost on a daily basis because you have people that are off on extended leave, people that are off on paternity leave, maternity leave, people that are on leave of absence — all of that.

[1630]

It fluctuates almost daily across the province, so it's difficult to give you an accurate number as to how many hot bodies are in those boxes, but we did add 168 positions.

M. Farnworth: I know the minister has made the comment about 1,100 police officers. Can he tell me what time frame they were added over? Was it, like, last year, the year before last or over the last…?

Hon. K. Heed: I'm advised that it would be over the last five years, the time when we added traffic fine revenues and gave that money back to municipalities.

M. Farnworth: So those are actually officers that were added by local government. It was local government that decided who to hire. It was local government that decided how many they were going to hire. It wasn't the province that made that decision on how many they were going to hire.

So when the province says that we've added 1,100, that's actually not correct. The fact is that local government has added that 1,100. Now we're saying we have 168, and I accept the issue around maternity leave — that it does fluctuate. But there should be a sense that — okay — through rates of attrition, through retirements, you know how many are new and how many are truly additional.

Let's, for a moment, focus on the 168, because that's what I want to talk about right now. How many of those 168 are dedicated to fighting gang activity? How many of those new 168 police officers are dedicated to fighting gang activity?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. K. Heed: Just before I answer the question that the member had right now, I just want to correct some information that he brought forward.

[1635]

The additional 1,100 officers were not all local government officers. The province provided money to local governments in order for them to hire police officers through the traffic fine revenue to put them on the street.

In addition, the province added 215 members to the provincial force, 110 members to the integrated road safety unit and 168 officers to deal with the gang situation we have in the province. We have a total of 368 positions dedicated to dealing with the gang situation we have in the province. Out of the 168 positions that were added, all of them are utilized to deal with the gang situation.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, it's nice to see you in place.

That's one of the key questions. It's like you're saying: "Forget the 1,100." When the government stands up and says 1,100, sure, there's money provided to local government. But that's their decision. That's their money. They make that decision on how many police officers they hire.

We now are at where we're saying: "We've hired an additional 110 for integrated traffic." Over what period of time were those numbers that the minister just mentioned hired? Was it last year? Was it five years? Was it since 2001?
[ Page 2536 ]

Hon. K. Heed: Over the last five years.

M. Farnworth: It comes back to the same question. Is that a net increase, or does that take into account attrition through retirement, for example, and people leaving those forces?

Hon. K. Heed: It's an actual increase in positions. As a matter of fact, when people retire or whatever, those positions are also filled.

M. Farnworth: We're digressing a little bit, and that's fine, because there are some additional questions that I want to ask in terms of where we are putting individual members. We're dealing with the issue of gangs and some of the resources that we're deploying and issues dealing with that. I'll finish on that, and then we'll come back to the resources the minister has just outlined that have been hired in terms of new police resources.

We're hiring new officers. I'll ask the same question I asked earlier in terms of youth gangs. Does the ministry have targets in place around how it's viewing success in terms of the battle against existing gangs? What are those targets? What's the accountability, and how are they being reported out?

[1640]

Hon. K. Heed: What we are actually going after with respect to the gangs…. I'll get into some quantifiable statistics that we look at. We go after the top echelon of the gangs. We've had some success with respect to that. We also go after the mid-level because a lot of these individuals are hands-on.

For example, in the drug trade we go after the street-level individuals because those are many of the individuals that frequent our licensed premises and cause problems and create a lot of dangerous activities at the street level.

We also go after the profit margin that these particular gang members are involved in — for example, the drug trade. In addition to that, we have a strategy in place to advocate for federal changes with respect to dealing with the problem.

From a quantifiable point of view, we look at the number of gangs that are operating in British Columbia. We look at the number of gang members that we have in British Columbia. We look at the number of known gang associates that we have in British Columbia. We look at actual gang members or associates that have been charged, the number of charges, the number of individuals involved. We look at statistics around violence on the streets and in our licensed premises with respect to these particular gang members, and we look at our accumulation of intelligence with respect to the activities of these particular individuals.

M. Farnworth: So we have all these things in place. Are they put in, for example…? Are they down in terms of targets and goals that the ministry has, so that they can measure the success?

Hon. K. Heed: A lot of this information is captured and tabulated through the criminal intelligence section of B.C., which is part of the criminal intelligence section of Canada. We've created what we've termed right now a fusion centre that brings in and accumulates all this information and really determines from an intel-led perspective who our targets should be and where our resources should be deployed as we go forward.

[1645]

So not only are we gathering and accumulating those quantifiable numbers; we're doing something with that in more of a qualitative fashion where we're taking those numbers, we're applying it to our intelligence, and we're directing our resources based on that. That information is all captured there, and it's reported out in various forms. Where it's reported out….

It's in our service plan where we talk about performance measures. We have violent crime, and you have our performance measures with respect to violent crime. We have other crime categories, such as property crime, listed here also.

M. Farnworth: But that's fairly broad in terms of saying violent crime. This is specific targets in terms of dealing with gang violence and how that's measured and how that's reported out — like, in particular, gang activity, reducing the number of gangs, reducing the number of people specifically related to gangs. I mean, I understand what you're saying in terms of violent crime. That's fairly broad. That's what I'm trying to get at through the ministry. Are those types of targets and reporting out…? Is the ministry doing that?

Hon. K. Heed: The official reporting out is in our service plan under violent crime. We do report out that additional information, especially when we remove some of the descriptives with respect to that. For example, you may have heard me in the last little while report out that since we've had our strategy, we've had 135 organized crime and gang members that have been arrested. They've been charged with over 350 serious offences.

So we do report it out in that particular fashion, but for an official reporting out under the service plan, we report out the violent crime rate. There are other avenues we utilize in — if I could use the category — unofficial reporting out of these statistics that I've mentioned.

M. Farnworth: I know, and I have heard the minister make those comments that X number of people have been arrested and X number of people have serious charges. The one statistic I'm still waiting to hear is that
[ Page 2537 ]
X number of people have been convicted and X number of people have been put away for X number of years.

I have not heard that yet, and I have been listening for that for quite some time. So I would say that that, I think, is one of the key pieces of information that the public is looking for. I think that only when that's in place are you really going to start to see some decline or potential decline in terms of gang activity.

We've yet to see that, which brings me to my next set of questions, and that is on the consequence side of things. I know the minister and the previous minister have made much about the issue around two-for-one sentencing. We support that, and we've advocated that.

I'd like to ask the minister: what other specific changes at the federal level has the ministry been advocating for to help us in the fight against organized crime and gang crime in B.C.?

[1650]

Hon. K. Heed: I just want to make a comment before I actually answer your question. I, too, am looking forward to conviction rates, incarceration rates, the length of time that we're able to keep these people in jail, and that's all part of where I'm going to with respect to what we've advocated. The previous Attorney General, the previous Solicitor General and I have carried that torch, if I can use that term, as we go forward.

We have to be aware — and I'm a fan of gathering that data and measuring our success — that we really started gathering that when the gang strategy, the organized crime strategy, was announced in February. So as we move forward, we will capture that data.

Areas that we've advocated for the federal government to get involved…. Of course, lawful access so we can deal with some of the wiretap, with the proliferation of new electronic devices that we have — for example, BlackBerrys. We've advocated for changes in the way we deal with the part VI, the information to obtain warrants. There are volumes of work that is required by officers to get their warrants.

We've advocated for changes around the disclosure rules because often police officers' time is just taken away simply because of the processes we have around court disclosures. At times that process is lengthier than the actual investigation leading to the particular charges.

We also went in and advocated for changes around body armour, but I'm happy to say we were able to do that within the province. Of course, as the member mentioned, bail reform…. We keep advocating for changes around bail reform, but a big plus was getting them to deal with the two-for-one problem we had on remands.

We also have been advocating for changes with respect to the illegal firearm problem that we have, which is not only prevalent in British Columbia; it's certainly prevalent all across Canada.

So that's where we will continue to push for changes from the federal level and, of course, moving forward on our provincial changes.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad…. Those are changes that have been asked for, for quite some time. Some of them have been achieved. Some of them have yet to be achieved. They will take, in many cases, particularly on some of those issues…. The government…. At the federal level, they're going to take quite some time, particularly redoing legislation around wiretap evidence. I mean, that's not something I think is going to happen overnight.

But I think there are other changes that we could be looking at. For example, has the ministry approached the federal government with regards to making it more difficult for gang members and convicted gang members to have access to passports so they can travel outside the country and pursue their illegal activity outside the country?

[1655]

Hon. K. Heed: Let me just lead up to the specific question that the member asked. We work hand in glove with the Canadian border security agency, with the U.S. immigration services. We are part of a national committee on organized crime. We're a part of the cross-border crime forum that looks at some of this cross-border activity between these gang members in criminal organizations.

Specifically with regard to the passport part of it, that's something that we would advocate for them to look at, at this particular forum too.

M. Farnworth: Well, it's one of those things that I don't think really takes a forum. I think it takes a province just to stand up and say, "You know what? It's just nonsense that someone involved in drug activity, trafficking in drugs, gang activity has the ability to access a passport and go to China or Vietnam or wherever."

We know they're doing it. I think that that's something we should just stand up and say: "You know what? That's wrong." It should be changed. It should become a priority of the federal government. It should become a priority of the province to do that.

That's one of the things I get concerned about sometimes. Things get caught up and end up being discussed and discussed and discussed, and here we are — you know, you're years later down the road. I think that that's something that I would like to see advocated very strongly, because I think that that would be another effective tool.

Now, I know that that's at the federal level and that that's not something the province can change, but I do think the province should be taking leadership on that. I do think that that is something that the province needs to stand up and say very loud and clear.
[ Page 2538 ]

I want to come back, for a minute, to some of the issues that we can be dealing with at the provincial level. The minister mentioned body armour. Well, yeah, that's finally been done, but only after, you know…. It was the opposition that stood up and raised the issue, and the government dismissed it and said: "No, we're not going to do that."

I'd now like to raise another particular issue that the government at one time considered and then said, "Oh no, no, no. We're not going to do it," after having indicated they would do it. That's the issue around gang colours and gang paraphernalia.

Is the minister open to doing what some other provinces have done in that area — for example, Saskatchewan and Manitoba — in making it an offence? I understand that the arguments are the same as around body armour, but making it an offence to display gang colours in public…. Is the minister prepared to reconsider his previous minister's decisions not to go ahead with that?

[1700]

Hon. K. Heed: Although I'm quite enjoying this discussion I'm having with the member opposite, I'm reminded that we are here to talk about estimates. But I'm enjoying this.

Let me just go on. In answer to your question, we do look at best practices, and we're aware of what some of the other provinces are doing with respect to gang colours and gang paraphernalia. I'm advised that there's only been one charge laid. That was in Manitoba, and that charge was actually stayed. There were some concerns around Charter issues. What we are doing is working with the federal government to ensure that we are dealing with those particular Charter issues.

M. Farnworth: No, we are talking about the estimates, and part of that is money that is spent on gang prevention. So I think it's appropriate to ask questions on — okay — where our money is being spent and what the priorities are, but also to raise things that I think are important that the government examine, particularly when the government has said in the past that it would look at these particular aspects in terms of fighting crime.

If it's been done in other jurisdictions, and looking at it here in British Columbia…. I would submit to the minister that just because there's been a charge somewhere else that's been stayed, has not been used, doesn't mean that it can't be something that could be used as a tool in British Columbia. Because I know that when it was discussed, there were, for example, restaurant owners who contacted me and said: "Look, we would appreciate something like this, because it takes the onus off of us as a business people, and police have the ability to deal with the issue."

I think what you're seeing in gang activity has been that growth in paraphernalia. I'll take the UN gang as an example, where they have specific T-shirts. You look at the logo. I mean, if I were the real United Nations, I would be looking at copyright infringements on the way they've got their design and the logo, because it's not dissimilar.

The point being is there has been a growth in the last number of years — for example, in paraphernalia — to mark out and to identify. I think that if there are other jurisdictions that have used it, it's incumbent upon us to look at that. I think that's something that the ministry should be taking into account, which brings me…. I am mindful of the time, and I know that there's an awful lot in this particular area that we could go to. Maybe we'll just have to leave that till next spring.

I want to come back for a minute to the question of resources in terms of number of police on the streets and the increase in the number of police officers and some of the areas where they've been deployed or not been deployed.

Can the minister tell me the current operational strength of the integrated child exploitation unit and the integrated sexual predator observation team?

[1705]

Hon. K. Heed: I am getting that information. If you'd like to wait, fine. I will have that. Or if you've got some other area you want to explore now, I'm willing to do that.

M. Farnworth: I'll be glad…. We'll go back to that particular issue in a minute. It actually in some ways leads into my next particular topic that I'd like to talk about, and that is the RCMP contract negotiations and regionalization.

If the minister needs any additional staff up front, now is probably a good time to take a five-minute break.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes. We'll come back at 5:15.

The committee recessed from 5:06 p.m. to 5:12 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. K. Heed: The member opposite asked a couple of questions regarding the strength of the integrated child exploitation unit and the integrated sexual predator offender team.

ICE is funded for ten positions. It is fully staffed — that's what I'm advised — with the exception of one member who has been on maternity leave. Okay?

ISPOT, the integrated sexual predator observation team, is actually operating — and this is what I'm advised — with 13 of the 18 positions filled. The RCMP has advised that they are actively recruiting members to fill the vacancies we have here. However, I am further advised that the team is fully capable of carrying out the
[ Page 2539 ]
necessary surveillance activities. Their operational capacity is still up to what it should be in order for them to do what they should be doing.

M. Farnworth: Some comments on this particular issue. I've raised this before in question period — this particular issue. The ICE unit, while it's fully funded, was initially intended to have significantly more than that. I think, if I'm not mistaken, it was intended, when it was announced….

I think that was just over, probably, two years ago. I may be a bit out of date on that because I remember that the last time I raised the question, I think it had been 18 months earlier. So just over two years ago, it had been funded and was supposed to be upwards of around 30 people. That was the expectation when the program was first announced.

My question — and I'd appreciate the minister's response — around that is: what was the program originally designed to be operating at, and when was it reduced down to ten individuals?

[1715]

Hon. K. Heed: We've explored this particular area. None of us…. Certainly, I'm advised that we're unaware of where the number 30 came from. When we look at the fact that ICE and ISPOT, which would equate to 28 members, are under the behavioural sciences unit of the RCMP, that still doesn't get us to 30.

We would have to explore that with the RCMP to see if in fact there were indications that the unit would be increased to that number. We're having difficulty at this particular time determining where that number came from.

M. Farnworth: Here's what I'd like the minister to do. As I said, I'm not exactly sure on the specific, on the 30. But I do remember, because I've asked the question before, that it was significantly higher than ten.

When the program announcement was announced by the government, it was intended to be significantly more than ten, but over time, since the announcement, it has been scaled back. I would like to know — and if the minister can get it to me in writing within the next seven days, I would appreciate that — what the initial announcement was in terms of when the program was first announced, what it was intended to be. The fact that it's ten is less than what the intent was. So if the minister would do that, I'd appreciate that.

The other question I have around the integrated sexual predator observation team is if the minister can tell me, because 18 and 13…. That's a significant vacancy. Almost 30 percent of those positions are vacant in what is an extremely stressful — and I'm sure I don't have to tell the minister this — type of work.

[1720]

So I'd like the minister to be able, if he can tell me…. How long have these positions been vacant?

Hon. K. Heed: We don't have that type of detail at our hand's reach right now, and that will be an additional piece of information that we will endeavour to get to you as soon as possible.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that, because the point that I want to get to on these particular issues is…. I think, and the minister will find, that these positions have been vacant now for quite some time and that there are issues around these two particular units that have not been addressed and that are causing problems and challenges right now in the work that the members on these particular teams are doing.

I think that these are and should be very high priority areas for the province. The ability to monitor and to track sexual predators, particularly those that prey on children, should be a very high priority. If there is an issue in terms of vacancies and positions not being filled for a particular length of time — and I think that if he looks into this, he will see that it has been a significant amount of time — there's a real problem there, and we need to figure out what it is and get it addressed.

Likewise, the same with the integrated child exploitation team, particularly around Internet pornography and child pornography. Again, the program was announced with a set of stated objectives that it was to achieve a certain size. If we're not doing that, I think that we need to be looking at why that is. If it's a question of resources, we need to be addressing that. But more importantly, if we're hiring additional officers, I think that this is one of those areas that we need to be focusing on.

One of the things that I am concerned about is that, inasmuch as we are…. Fighting gang activity, clearly, is a key priority. I want to make sure that what's not happening is that officers aren't being seconded from units such as this to other areas. That's what I'd like the minister to look into for me, and if you could get back to me on that, I'd really appreciate that.

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, as indicated, we'll get those numbers back to you, but I just want to make a point here. When we talk about these positions, they are not the only positions that are dealing with these horrific crimes that do occur related to youth. There are several other resources that are on an ad hoc basis that are dealing with this.

I'll go back to my experience. In Vancouver we had a separate unit that actually looked at the child pornography part of it, which was embedded in the vice unit within the Vancouver police department, and other municipal police departments also have resources that are available to them in-house to deal with this problem.
[ Page 2540 ]

We'll get back to you on the numbers there, but I just don't want you to believe that those are all that we have that look at this particular problem.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer. I know that there are other activities that go on and other resources that are available. What particularly concerns me is that when there are specific units that are tasked in dealing with a particular issue, and those are usually formed…. I think it's incumbent on the government that they are at full strength and that we have a plan in place if there is a problem to deal with that.

[1725]

Let's move now to the issue of the RCMP contract and issues around delivery of policing in the province of British Columbia. In the last set of estimates on this I raised a number of questions about: what stage are we at with regards to the renegotiation of the RCMP contract that is up for renewal in 2012? If the minister could tell me where we're at, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. K. Heed: We have moved beyond phase 1, which is this information-sharing back and forth with the federal government, where we would obtain information from them and, of course, exchange any information that they would like from us.

We've now entered what we call the negotiation phase. There are three themes attributed to that negotiation phase as we move forward. Number one is the relationship. We're viewed not as a client but more or less as a partner in the delivery of policing here in British Columbia. We're looking at improving the relationship we have with them. The second theme that we have here is around accountability, not only from an operational point of view but, certainly, from a financial point of view. The third theme that we have is cost containment. We can certainly look at the current costs and any future costs in relationship to this agreement.

What flows through these themes is an increased ability for us to audit the process with the RCMP. It gives us the ability to increase evaluation and judge our progress with respect to these three particular themes.

[1730]

As part of the discussion and negotiation is around the cost impact to us if, in fact, the federal government was going to go a particular direction or make a particular announcement or change something in particular — what that cost implication would be to the province here in British Columbia — we would now be engaged in a discussion with them with respect to that.

M. Farnworth: Last time there was sort of like, "Okay, we're engaged in some discussion and sharing of information but nothing," and so now we move to phase 2, which is actually into the negotiations. This opens up a whole range of questions that I think the public would like to know — where we're going in terms of policing in British Columbia.

The minister himself has made some statements around policing. In September the minister said: "At the end of the day I can't quite tell you" — don't you hate it when words get quoted back to you? — "what policing will look like in B.C. We are negotiating with the RCMP. If that contract doesn't work for all people in British Columbia, we will need to find something that does work."

That's a pretty direct statement in the sense that we're in negotiations, and if that doesn't work, then we've got to do something else. Okay, so I want to break this down into a number of components. Let's deal with the issues that you've raised in terms of negotiation. Then I'm going to go to: okay, where are we and what if? And then: what are the alternatives, and what work, if anything, has the province has done in those particular areas?

The minister says that there are three prime areas that they're focusing on in phase 2: relationship, accountability and audit, and cost containment, if I've heard the minister correctly. So in terms of the relation…. I think that this is one of the questions that people have. Okay, this contract is up for renegotiation — the first time in 20 years that that's happened — and there's a unique opportunity here to get changes not just in terms of how policing is delivered but in issues such as the relationship and those things that the minister has laid out.

The first question I'm looking at is this. Is the contract that you're busy negotiating…? Are you looking at either an extension of the existing, or are you looking at another 20-year contract? What type of term are you looking at?

Hon. K. Heed: Currently we're looking at a 20-year contract, a new contract with a five-year review of the cost base.

M. Farnworth: Within those three objectives, in terms of the negotiation that the minister has outlined, are there specific changes, as opposed to general, that the province is trying to achieve? Are there specific goals by which we can measure the success of negotiations around this contract?

[1735]

Hon. K. Heed: First, areas around partnerships. We no longer have Ottawa dictating to us — for example, changes in the way we deliver policing here in British Columbia. Now, with this partnership agreement — or the area around the contract that looks at the relationship as being a partnership — if they're changing an aspect of policing, they must have agreement from us in order to do that. They just cannot dictate the change to British Columbia.

It certainly gives us greater control not only in this particular theme but in all the other themes. That's all
[ Page 2541 ]
part of each section of the agreement as we move forward — in that we maintain control. It's not dictated to us as we rewrite this particular contract.

In other areas around the complaint process against police officers, the process would have to satisfy the provinces, and of course, it would have to satisfy British Columbia. It would have to be at the standard that we have set here in British Columbia for our municipal officers. It would be at the expectations that we have for our police officers here in British Columbia.

It's all around looking at some type of a harmonized or unified process, but we are negotiating on the principle that this process definitely has to meet our minimum standard here in British Columbia and the standard that we certainly have for all other police officers.

Another major part is ensuring that our costs don't go up, that we have some control over the costs for that particular agreement.

M. Farnworth: Just in terms of dealing with the length of the contract. I want to come back to the complaint commissioner in a moment, because I think that would be one of the key central issues that has to be dealt with in these negotiations.

But just some questions in terms of the length. Why 20 years? The minister mentioned the opportunity to review — one five-year review. Why not be able to review it every five years?

[1740]

Then, what about the issue in terms of…? The minister has mentioned, for example, cost containment. What about the ability for an independent audit done by the province, for example? Will that be part of what the province is trying to achieve and one of the things that it wants to accomplish?

Hon. K. Heed: The reason why we are negotiating or looking at a 20-year contract is that our partners in the negotiation are the other provinces and the other municipalities that do contract with the RCMP. They have certainly indicated that they would like some stability, some surety, as we move forward. That would be delivered through a 20-year contract.

The cost-based review would be done every five years, not just once after five years. The audit process — we would be looking at an independent audit here in British Columbia where we in fact would hire the people that would audit that particular part of it. It wouldn't be the RCMP auditing it.

M. Farnworth: Is the government planning any changes in the negotiations around the notice period to get out of the contract if the government so chooses? It's currently — what? — I think five years. Is the government planning on changing that?

Hon. K. Heed: It currently is two years, and that is what we plan on staying with.

M. Farnworth: The minister made some comments that I just want to clarify — and that is, in terms of the negotiation around other provinces. One of the things that I want to make sure we do not do is sort of sacrifice our goals or lessen our goals in what we're trying to achieve because other provinces may be reluctant, or they're not priorities of those particular provinces, because at the end of the day, we are the largest RCMP detachment in the country.

Frankly, it should be British Columbia that is setting the table. It's British Columbia that should be saying: "This is what our key interests are if we're going to continue around this contract." I would be concerned if there's any sort of hint that other provinces don't want to go down some of the paths that we feel are important.

We need to make it clear that, look, this is a contract. There are some very serious issues of concern in British Columbia around that contract. We want them to be addressed if we're going to continue with the RCMP model, and that that is very much part of the negotiations. Okay?

[1745]

Hon. K. Heed: We lead the negotiations. As a matter of fact, my assistant deputy minister is the lead negotiator on that. We have most of the analysis. That is, we have most of the experts around the negotiations on our particular team.

The other provinces have been looking to us for leadership with respect to that. We have most of the players at the table, and we have one-third of the RCMP force in British Columbia right now, so we are driving the program. The other provinces are following our lead and will continue to do so as we try and hammer out a negotiated agreement.

M. Farnworth: Just if the minister could clarify: who are the other partners?

Hon. K. Heed: The partners are the eight provinces. Quebec and Ontario are not on this particular one. We have the three territories. Each of the provinces has municipal reps that are part of it, and we have a municipal rep that sits on our team here in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: Who is that representative?

Hon. K. Heed: It is Murray Dinwoodie, and I believe that Mr. Dinwoodie is the city manager for Surrey. He also has a committee that my ADM sits on. That's made up of representatives from other areas in British Columbia with respect to municipal representation.
[ Page 2542 ]

M. Farnworth: We've got the goals around the relationship, and the minister has outlined some of those, and he's made it clear, okay, that we are taking a lead in terms of the negotiations in regards to other provinces — that they're looking to us to lead.

On some issues I can see that that would work fairly straightforwardly, but I'd like to come now to talk about, I think, the issue that is probably — I'm not going to say unique to British Columbia, but — where we have the most concern around the renewal of the contract. I think it's one of the key issues around policing in British Columbia, and that is the issue of police complaints and the fact that we still have in this province two different processes in place.

Previous ministers have said that they would like to move to a unified complaints process. I've said that we should have a unified complaints process. In fact, I think that we need to give serious consideration now to the Ontario model. You've got the Dziekanski case which is unfolding and a report coming down from that, which will no doubt make recommendations.

[1750]

A whole series of questions flows around this particular issue, and the minister himself has made some statements in this regard. The police chiefs came out and said that they want to see a more independent body, and if I recall, the minister says that he sees this as a starting point. So we have a whole series of things happening at the same time.

We've passed new legislation this term that deals with the police complaints process and the Braidwood recommendations. We have the negotiations with the contract taking place. We have the police chiefs having said the need for an independent body, and the minister has said: "Well, in terms of negotiations, what we're looking for is either a standardized process where the RCMP have the same standards" — and if I am quoting out of context, let me know — "and similar procedures to what we now have here in British Columbia."

My question on this is: look, what is it that we're trying to get in this set of negotiations? Are we trying to get just comparables, or are we trying to get a unified police complaints process? Or are we now at a point of saying: "You know what? It's time to look at the Ontario model, and that is going to be part of the negotiation"?

Hon. K. Heed: We're working on increased accountability here in British Columbia, and you've heard me say that we want the most effective, accountable and transparent police service here in British Columbia. A lot of that is around how we deal with police complaints.

We're certainly well aware that the RCMP polices about 70 percent of the people here in British Columbia. I've been, and members of my ministry have been very vocal about the fact that we want increased accountability here in British Columbia. There have been a variety of issues that have come forward and a variety of experts, or people that proclaim to be experts, that have come forward.

I must admit that Josiah Wood was an actual true expert that really explored the issue around police accountability and oversight here in the province of British Columbia. We're very pleased that those amendments based on Josiah Wood's recommendations were passed in this session as we move forward. And yes, I've made statements that this is a starting point on increased accountability here in British Columbia — for example, Dziekanski, Commissioner Braidwood and the excellent work that he continues to do there.

Part 1 — we accepted all 19 recommendations. Now, how that relates to what we do here in British Columbia as we move forward…. We want to make sure that there is just one process here in British Columbia regardless of the colour of your uniform. Whether that's a unified process or stand-alone process, that's all part of the negotiations with the RCMP right now. We're moving into a stage right now where they are going to look at some draft legislation from the federal side of it in working with Public Safety services in Canada to make sure that we have that.

[1755]

During the negotiations it appears that they're very, very open to this. I can tell you — and I'll make the statement again — that we truly believe that here in British Columbia we need a unified process, one that the people in British Columbia understand, regardless if it's someone that comes to their door or that they deal with that's wearing an RCMP uniform or if a municipal police officer comes to the door.

M. Farnworth: Has the minister directed, or has the ministry done, any policy work on, for example, a model similar to what Ontario has in place, for here in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Heed: The Police Complaint Commissioner, Stan Lowe, continually looks at not only what's occurring in Canada as far as police oversight, police accountability; he also looks throughout the world to determine what's going on. So in fact, we're continually looking at the different models that are out there with respect to the question.

M. Farnworth: He's an independent officer. The question I'm asking is: has the ministry specifically looked at, done any policy work around, for example, the Ontario model, or has the minister directed the ministry to look at that particular model?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes. The ministry continues to look at the various models that are out there. The ministry, in conjunction with Simon Fraser University, will be con-
[ Page 2543 ]
ducting a forum to discuss the various models that are out there with respect to oversight and accountability of the police.

M. Farnworth: Has the minister directed, or has the ministry done, any work in terms of, for these negotiations, how a unified complaints process — as opposed to two separate processes — would work?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Heed: We have indicated to the RCMP that we won't sign a contract unless the complaints process meets our expectations. So we are working with them, separate from the contract, to determine what the complaint process should be. That's how it's enshrined as we move forward.

[1800]

M. Farnworth: I want to be really clear on this because I think this is a really important part of the negotiation and what's taking place.

I want to make sure that what the ministry is doing, and what the minister is hopefully directing the ministry to do, is that we have worked up thorough policy that we can implement, depending on where we are, around a model that is a stand-alone model similar to Ontario, a model that is a unified process based here in British Columbia.

That's what I want to make sure of, that that work has been done. I think that if you're in negotiations, it's not enough to say: "Oh, okay. We're working. We've done some policy development with Simon Fraser." Rather, it's to be able to say in that negotiation….

Let's not kid ourselves. This is a federal organization and a province, and this is a serious, hardball, 20-year contract. It's: "Look, it's either this model, or we've got this model." But we're clear in what it is that we want, and we're clear in what our goal and objective are. If we don't get that, then we have the ability…. And they know we're serious. You know what? We're able to do something else.

I want to make sure that's what the minister has got developed in terms of policy around a complaints process.

Hon. K. Heed: I just want to point out a couple things here. What we do here in British Columbia is just not based on the contract negotiations. We have said here in British Columbia that we want an accountable, transparent process. Whether it's the RCMP or whether it's our own municipal officers, we want the process that affects them.

Certainly, we've added the accountability and the oversight through the amendments to the Police Act here, and as we move forward we'll look at various things. As a matter of fact, we look at recommendations that come from these inquiries. We look at what the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police have brought forward. We are continually looking at it to ensure that we have the most accountable, transparent process here in British Columbia for every police officer in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: The key way in which we do that is by ensuring that every officer is treated…. You know, the process works regardless of whether you're in an RCMP uniform or a municipal police uniform. There's a process that's the same. The appropriate time to do that….

The unique opportunity we have right now is the fact that a contract is up for negotiation, for 20 years. Now, I understand that that is somewhat separate, but at the same time it is one of the key things that the province has in terms of leverage to get a change. You know, it's like this is a big contract. This is one-third of the RCMP forces based here in British Columbia.

I want us to make sure that we are clear in what our objectives are, particularly around this issue, because as the minister knows, this is an issue that has shaken public confidence in how these issues are dealt with. We have a number of inquiries that are currently…. Well, I mean, we've got two very major, serious, important inquiries that have been underway that will come down with recommendations.

In terms of how those recommendations are implemented, the fact that the contract is up for negotiation again gives the province leverage in terms of implementing whatever recommendations do come down. I want to make sure that we are taking full advantage of that position.

I want to know that that policy work has been done, that policy work is in place. The question that I'll ask on top of that is: will the province, the government, be making those positions, or making their goal of what it is they want, public?

Will the public know — not just in a broad term of: "Yeah, we want to have a policy that's applicable to both"? Will the public, before the contract is done, know that, "Look, this is the specific model that the province wants to see in place" — before that contract is signed?

[1805]

Hon. K. Heed: Policy work is going to be ongoing, just so the member opposite is aware. We're going to continually look at matters that affect British Columbia because of the changing environment around policing and accountability. I think the member would agree that's the due diligence we have to do.

We'll also do our due diligence in how we deal with the RCMP. We're in the process of them drafting up legislation, and we expect that legislation will be out there before we actually sign an agreement here with the RCMP. As far as what that looks like and how we share
[ Page 2544 ]
it with the public here, I can tell you that what that has to look like from a minimum point of view is what we already have in British Columbia, which is public for all municipal police officers.

M. Farnworth: I don't disagree with that. We've made some changes, some improvements. But what has happened since that report has come down and formed the basis of the legislation we passed this year…. There has been the Braidwood commission. The Dziekanski case came down. Plus, there have been issues raised by the chiefs of police themselves, and a considerable amount of public debate has taken place. It is definitely an issue of considerable public interest.

I think where we are as a province and the standard that we've got…. Public opinion, even with the chiefs thing, has moved beyond that. There's a recognition that we need increased public oversight, accountability and all those things, particularly related to the RCMP.

I think that's a good thing from the police perspective in terms of having a system that people are confident in and in terms of accountability and transparency that's fair to the police, but also the public has confidence that they know exactly what's happening and what's taking place.

What I am concerned about and what I'm hearing is that we've said — previous ministers have said and you've said: "We want to go to that unified position." What I'm worried about is that we could still end up with two separate processes.

That's why I'm saying I think it's important that we have that model out there so that the public knows what it is we're trying to achieve. That's why I've asked about the Ontario model and why I've asked about the unified model. I think that if one of the key goals is to have public buying on this and public acceptance on this, you've got to have that out there.

You have to have that work done so that people can see that this is why this model has been chosen and that's why we're going down that particular path.

[1810]

If that's not done, I think that to some extent we'll undermine some of the work that the ministry is trying to do. As I said, I don't want to be repetitive on it. But I want the minister to know that I think it's crucial that that work is done and that the public have a strong idea about the direction the province is going to go in terms of these negotiations.

Hon. K. Heed: Hon. Chair, I can assure the member that we are doing that work.

M. Farnworth: This now brings me, with that statement, to the next part of the process. That is dealing with the issue of…. Okay, if we find that we're at an impasse or that we're not happy with what we're hearing or what we're getting back, what's the alternative?

At the last set of estimates I asked the minister what work had been done. Had there been any work done on regionalization? I was told there had not been any work done in the area of regionalization of police, particularly in terms of the Lower Mainland.

I'll ask the question of you as the new minister, because I know you've had opinions around regionalization before becoming Solicitor General. I'd like to know: what work has the ministry done around regionalization of police services in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Heed: The approach we're taking here — I'm sure the member understands that my perspective is a lot broader than it was in my previous role — is for more coordination within the province on how we deal with police matters.

We certainly respect, from a 24-7 point of view, the local accountability that many of the municipal forces and RCMP detachments have. But at a much broader level, from the Lower Mainland district, the RCMP have actually regionalized several of their resources. The examples that come to the forefront right now are around emergency response teams, dog teams, traffic analysts and forensics.

Those are some of the examples where it has been regionalized with the Lower Mainland district. There are municipalities, municipal police departments, that are now working together to deliver services across their jurisdictional boundaries.

M. Farnworth: The minister is saying that there has been regionalization of some services taking place. Some of that is new. Some of that is not new. There have been issues around cooperation, and we want to see that taking place.

In terms of, specifically, the ministry looking at how a regional police force could be implemented or could work, it sounds like that work has not been taking place. It sounds like nothing really in that sense, as regards the province's position or the work that the province has done, has changed since the last time we discussed this issue at the last set of estimates, which would have been last year.

[1815]

Hon. K. Heed: The province has said that if local governments wish to have a regionalized police service, they would look at that with local governments. We don't have local governments chomping on the bit coming forward and pounding their fists on the desks, saying: "We want you to regionalize. We want to work together." We don't have that right now.

We work with local governments the best that we can to ensure we're delivering a quality police service here in British Columbia. Albeit there's been some success in certain areas, and we talk about a different level
[ Page 2545 ]
of policing, but there is no ongoing study being done with respect to creating a regional police service — for example, Metro Vancouver.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer. One of the issues that I think certainly the public would like to see or would like to have a better understanding on, for example, is…. The minister's answer — what I can take from that is that there has been no work done — for example, in looking at the costs of the regional police force or the benefits and downsides study that looks at how a regionalized police force could work or how it would not work, what the costs and the implications would be. What the minister is saying is that work has not taken place to this point in time. I see him nodding.

Which will bring me to my next question, and that is: has this similar type of work been done in any way, shape or form around the establishment of a provincial police force in terms of how a provincial police force could look or what the benefits or costs associated with the establishment of a provincial police force would be? Has any work taken place on that particular issue?

Hon. K. Heed: There's no stand-alone separate work being done on creating a provincial force here in the province of British Columbia. We are working on coordinating and integrating our resources, whether it's RCMP or municipal police departments, across British Columbia. That's the approach we are taking at this particular time.

Of course, we're very hopeful that we will be able to, as a partner, negotiate an agreement with the RCMP. But then again, if there are significant problems that we cannot overcome, we would have to look at different models here in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: We're in negotiations on a 20-year contract with the RCMP — first time in 20 years. It's a unique, I think, opportunity for us to get improvements in a number of those areas — I don't disagree with the minister — in terms of accountability, relationship, cost containment. I think one of the most important areas, again, is around the issue of the police complaints process. Yet at the same time, we have said: "Look, we're not going to sign a contract unless it meets all the goals and meets the needs of British Columbians."

Does the minister not think that it would be wise, in terms of public policy, to have an examination of the public policy and an examination around the costs and benefits around those issues around the question of regionalization of police — for example, in the Lower Mainland — or on the issue of a provincial police force?

[1820]

It's not in the sense, necessarily, that that's the direction you want to go but in a sense of saying to the public: "Okay. Look, we've done our due diligence here. We recognize that this is a particular opportunity point in time where we can look at how we're policed in this province, and we're going to sign a contract." And we've done the work, and it looks at this alternative, and we've done the work that's this alternative. Does the minister not think that it would be appropriate to have that work done?

Hon. K. Heed: Several studies have been done with respect to regional policing. I think I heard the term "regional policing" over 30 years ago when I actually got into policing. Governments, academics and others have certainly talked about it and written about regionalization.

I can tell you that a lot of municipal governments that are on contract with the RCMP have told us that they're happy with the RCMP, and that comes from areas not only within the Metro Vancouver but certainly across British Columbia and in the capital region.

Areas around fragmentation in policing — the silo approach to certain parts of policing, which tend to lead many areas across Canada and North America to look at regional police models — have been addressed by the province — for example, how we deal with the records management part of it here in British Columbia with PRIME-BC so that we can share that information and intelligence across the province, how we deal with communication systems so that there's interoperable capability through our radio systems and our dispatch services, and how we deal with serious crime around the region.

We're looking towards creating more coordination on serious crime, gang crime, organized crime from across all of British Columbia and certainly across Metro Vancouver.

M. Farnworth: I'm going to move off this issue after I make a comment. The issue is really clear — in my mind, anyway — and that is that we are negotiating a contract with Ottawa. Most municipalities are happy with their police service — the RCMP police service and local police. Communities are often happy with theirs, but there have been a lot of questions raised.

[1825]

Your former municipality of Vancouver has been very outspoken on the issue of regionalization. Other police departments have been outspoken on the issue of regionalization. It's not a question of someone being happy or if everyone is happy or if there have been studies or work done 30 years ago. What the question comes down to is the role of the province, the leadership shown by the province in saying: "We're in negotiations with Ottawa on a contract with the RCMP."

I think that it would have been the right thing to do for the province to have also undertaken — the province, the ministry, to undertake — some work that looks at: "Okay, here are the alternatives that people have talked
[ Page 2546 ]
about. Here are some of the alternatives, and here has been some detailed policy work that we have in place before we embark on a final contract with the RCMP."

I think that is something that would have been an extremely positive initiative and a positive piece of work to have undertaken, and I think that it would have instilled a great deal of confidence in the public in terms of what the final decision is.

I mean, it may well be that we stay with a new RCMP contract. But I think at least the work should have been done on those other issues — on regionalization or provincial police force, on those alternative models that are out there and that are discussed — so when that final decision is taken, you can say: "You know what? Here's why it's done. Here's why it makes sense." When that's not done, I think that lessens the end product.

The next question. Some of my colleagues have time, will have some questions. I'm going to take of advantage of their asking questions to get something cleared away.

But the Davies Commission report into Frank Paul. The report has a number of recommendations, and I want to know: will the ministry be implementing the recommendations contained in the report?

[1830]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. K. Heed: I did reply to you at length in writing regarding the Davies recommendations, and I really don't want to go through all of that. I just want to talk from a more global perspective. A lot of what Davies actually brought forward certainly was captured by Josiah Wood in his review and his subsequent recommendations with respect to that.

One area that I'll point out, and I pointed out in that letter that I submitted to the member and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, is around the independent complaint process. That's the one recommendation that we did not move forward on. It is all part of our ongoing process to review the accountability and oversight of policing here in British Columbia.

R. Fleming: I want to ask a couple of questions to the Solicitor General just about policing issues in greater Victoria and in the city of Victoria in particular. The first question is around the con air Victoria program. This is a program that has received no funding this year from this ministry. I note that there was an agreement recently to supply a limited amount of funding to the city of Vancouver for their con air program.

This program has been successful in a number of instances and in a number of communities in British Columbia, mine included, and I want to ask the minister this. Does it not…?

I mean it's bad enough that in our school system parents have to fundraise for computer labs and textbooks and all the basic things in our education system. But have we really got to the point that now, to send criminals back to provinces where they are wanted on warrants, we literally have to have organizations like the Downtown Victoria Business Association hold bake sales so that criminals can be sent to places where they have evaded trial and potentially conviction for crimes that they're wanted on?

Is that the point, or will the Solicitor General review the con air program to date, see that it has been successful? Police agencies find it very cost-effective. They advocate for it. Mayors and city councillors want it. Our citizens want it. They feel that their cities are safer because of it, when violent offenders are sent back to where they're wanted. Will the Solicitor General just give the small amount of money that it has cost to run these programs and help local government and downtowns that are struggling to make their communities safer?

[1835]

Hon. K. Heed: We strongly believe in the con air program. It's a very, very successful program and ensures that criminals go back to their jurisdiction and are held accountable for their offences back in those particular jurisdictions.

These criminals do escape prosecution by fleeing to Victoria or Vancouver, which are the predominant areas in British Columbia where they seem to move to escape prosecution, so it has been a very, very successful program.

I am advised that VicPD, Victoria police department, did receive $10,000 for the con air program. I'm also aware that they were able to raise additional funds of somewhere in the area of $16,000. We have not discounted giving them more money for their particular program.

We have asked for an accounting of the moneys because we are led to believe that there still is $16,000 sitting in their particular account that they've earmarked for con air. When there is a financial need for additional funds, we've indicated to them that we would be open to their requests.

R. Fleming: I'll move on to another question, although I would comment that when a program like this has been successful on a trial basis and organizations and business people have to contribute to it out of their own pockets and people have to literally raise money by holding fundraising lunches, that suggests to me, for an interprovincial matter, an absurd way to do policing in this province.

I think it just begs the Solicitor General to go back and consider this a permanent program that has a multi-year funding commitment and that his ministry plays a role in administering, rather than passively receiving requests when the fundraised money runs dry. I think
[ Page 2547 ]
there's an obligation to take an interest in it and to help cities fund that.

I want to ask a question about the greater Victoria victim services organization. In 2008 this ministry did a review called the ViSDA review, the Victim Service Delivery Analysis review. It was 2008. I know that was two predecessors ago, but I want to ask this Solicitor General about that, because the premise for the review was that this ministry wasn't following its own internal funding policy for victim services in greater Victoria — that the amount of funding we got for staff was based on a formula of one FTE per 86,000 citizens, that we were underfunded to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Now government, rather than acknowledge that it wasn't following its own policies, held a review. That review again confirmed that the money should be enhanced to this agency, to this volunteer group, which has a couple staff positions. We've been through the Oak Bay murders. We've seen the demand on this service in this community. This organization is tapped-out. It's burning its volunteers out.

[1840]

They have been to this ministry several times. Mayors and police chiefs have pleaded the underfunding situation. Government has run out of stalling techniques, in my view. They have reviewed it. They promised they would look at it. They have a review in their possession. They're still underfunding Greater Victoria Police Victim Services, and I'm wondering if this Solicitor General is going to sit down and meet and fulfil the internal policies of his ministry and fund greater Victoria to the population level that it's entitled to run this service.

Hon. K. Heed: We're willing to sit down with whoever. We're willing to sit down to ensure that we have the right funding formula in place in order to look at the services that are required for that particular area. We're looking at various models. We are now one ministry that looks after, for example, the violence against women program, versus it spread out.

We want to make sure that there's a consistent delivery of services across, for example, the Victoria area. We want to ensure that the funding model addresses the needs within that particular region.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:44 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