2010 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 5

[ Page 5041 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Forests and Range and I had the opportunity to be a part of a very special celebration of the Haida reconciliation protocol. This was pursuant to a bill introduced into the House this morning.

We have in the gallery today a number of the leaders of the Haida people who were instrumental in the negotiation of that reconciliation protocol. I'd ask the House to join me in making welcome Guujaaw, the president of the Haida Nation; Chief Iljuuwaas, a Haida hereditary leader; Chief Gaahlaay; Allan Davidson; James Cowpar; Ken Rea; Carrie Carty — Carrie is not only a very talented singer and drummer but also a part of our aboriginal internship program here at the Legislature and in government; and Evan Putterill, chair of the Moresby Island management committee and electoral area director from Haida Gwaii.

Would the House please join me in welcoming all of our very special guests on this very special and historic day.

[1335]

G. Coons: I also want to echo the acknowledgment of our friends from Haida Gwaii — and acknowledge the protocol agreement and reconciliation act that was brought out today — and welcome them to the Legislature and wish them a safe journey home.

I do want to mention that Ken Rea has one of the finest coffee shops, the Haida Rose Café, in Old Massett. I would welcome everybody to visit there.

Statements

MESSAGES FOR
KATRINE AND ED CONROY

C. James: A member of the official opposition and member of this Legislature is going to be away from her duties for the next month. She's going to be away performing a much larger duty than I think anyone in this House could imagine as she goes away to give a kidney donation that is going to benefit a number of families but will also benefit a former member of this House, Ed Conroy.

On behalf of all members of the Legislature, I want to wish the member for Kootenay West and her husband and the families who are also going to be positively impacted by this donation a fast, speedy recovery. We look forward to her quick return.

Mr. Speaker: I know that all our prayers will be with the member for Kootenay West.

Introductions by Members

R. Cantelon: In the gallery today is a group of courageous and bold entrepreneurs. I refer to the directors and officers of Nanaimo Forest Products, who are visiting with us today.

Ladies and gentlemen, they were told it couldn't be done. They were discouraged, and in the courthouse it was quite a moment. They were told: "Give it up. Let it go. Let it go to the breakers." But these employees decided to put their money on the line, to put their houses on the line to save a very, very valuable industrial mill for the entire province and for Nanaimo.

Please welcome Paul Sadler, the CEO. We have Grant Brebber, the administrative manager; Kevin Kurylowich; Bob Smiley; Cam Milne; and, of course, Levi Sampson, who led the charge and was very instrumental in rescuing this mill and these jobs for the community of Nanaimo. Please make them very, very welcome today.

Hon. C. Hansen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a group of students who are here today from the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. On behalf of the Premier of the province, it gives me great pleasure to recognize four classes from Queen Mary Elementary School. I'll point out to those students that my wife is actually a graduate of Queen Mary Elementary School, but I won't tell you how many years ago that was.

They are joined here by four of their teachers: Maria King, Shelly Jones, Dana Aweda and Virginia Bowden. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome.

Hon. B. Stewart: It gives me great honour today to introduce to the House my son James Patrick Kildare Stewart, who is here with his grandfather Dick, who some of you will know is a longtime friend of former Premiers William Richards Bennett and W.A.C. Bennett. They're here in the gallery today with my brother Tony, who's in the precinct.

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the gallery are two longtime constituents of mine from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Anne Mclaughlin and Gordon Ells. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome as well.

Hon. P. Bell: Before I do my formal announcement, I too want to welcome everyone from Queen Mary, my old alma mater. I spent a wonderful…. Well, I won't tell
[ Page 5042 ]
you how many years I spent there. It was a while — some of the best years of my life. Grade 6 was so much fun I had to do it a couple of times.

[1340]

With that said, I would like to welcome Wayne Lintott from the Interior Logging Association, David Lewis from the Truck Loggers Association and Jacqui Beban, who is a fourth-generation logger with Frank Beban Logging Ltd. Would the House please make all three of those guests very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm really glad to hear that my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie admitted that it would have been a very long time ago that he was actually in school. He deserved that. I know the members of the opposition wanted him to withdraw, the other day, his remarks about me. Thank you for that help.

Today I'm really delighted to introduce my sister-in-law and her husband, who are here visiting from Prince George. Julia, I will get the name this time. I do know them. Julia and Bert Roberge are here from Prince George. Bert was actually born here and had never been to visit the Legislature. I know you will join me in making them very welcome after travelling from Prince George to visit here in the precinct today.

Statements

INTERNATIONAL DANCE DAY

S. Chandra Herbert: I wanted to acknowledge that today is International Dance Day. Celebrations are taking place all across the province. I see the Minister of Health trying his best dance moves — trying, I said.

International Dance Day is taking place at the Dance Centre in Vancouver. I'd like to thank Mirna Zagar and all the other people who work so hard to celebrate dance in British Columbia. Would the House please join me.

MESSAGES FOR
KATRINE AND ED CONROY

J. van Dongen: As the government caucus Whip, I would like to convey on behalf of our caucus to the member for Kootenay West our very best wishes to her and her husband Ed and wish them well as they embark on what is certainly an important issue in people's lives.

I trust that she has made suitable arrangements for the continuation of discipline in her caucus. I have enough problems maintaining discipline in my caucus, so I don't want to have to worry about hers as well. [Laughter.]

Tributes

DEAN EDWARD SMITH

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have learned that former Speaker Dean Edward Smith died yesterday morning at age 81. Speaker Smith served for four terms as a member for Peace River North. He was elected as the Speaker in 1976 and held that office until 1978.

With his wife Barbara, Ed was a resident of Fort St. John. On behalf of all members, I will send a message of condolence to Ed's family.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 1, 2010-2011, IT Continuity Planning in Government.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Forestry Service
Providers Protection Act

Hon. P. Bell presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Forestry Service Providers Protection Act.

Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 21 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Bell: Today I introduce Bill 21, the Forestry Service Providers Protection Act, which repeals the antiquated Woodworker Lien Act and replaces it with a modern framework for logging contractors.

With this bill, we're acting on our 2009 throne speech commitment to strengthen payment protection to logging contractors. The bill enables the establishment, as well, of a forestry service providers compensation fund. Forestry service providers, including loggers, yarders and haulers, will be able to apply to the fund for payment if companies that they provide services to become insolvent.

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

[1345]

Bill 21, Forestry Service Providers Protection Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 5043 ]

Bill 19 — Finance Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2010

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2010.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move first reading of Bill 19, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2010.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: Bill 19 implements two significant tax initiatives that were announced prior to Budget 2010 and a number of minor administrative and technical amendments to various tax statutes. As announced on February 3, the Income Tax Act is amended to implement the B.C. interactive digital media tax credit. This credit will provide a made-in-B.C. incentive package that recognizes the convergence taking place within the film, television and the increasingly important video game and animation sectors.

Changes to the International Financial Activity Act to expand and enhance this important program were announced on February 22. Effective July 1, 2010, the Social Service Tax Act and the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act are amended to transfer administration and enforcement of TransLink's parking tax to TransLink.

Amendments to the Land Tax Deferment Act will enable a homeowner to add their spouse to the title of their home without having to terminate their existing agreement and pay off outstanding deferred taxes. The Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2010, is amended to ensure that the longstanding requirement to pay a minimum amount of property tax under the homeowner grant program continues to apply to the new northern and rural homeowner benefit.

I move that Bill 19 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 20 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2010

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2010.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 20 amends the following statutes: the Civil Forfeiture Act, Coastal Ferry Act, Evidence Act, Forest Act, Gaming Control Act, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Mineral Tenure Act, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3), Police Act, Representative for Children and Youth Act, Safety Standards Act, School Act, Small Business Venture Capital Act, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, Tobacco Control Act, Transportation Act and the Vancouver Charter. It also makes some consequential clarifying amendments to a number of other statutes.

I can also advise the House that, absent any extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, today's legislation represents the balance of the government's legislative agenda. I'll be working with the Opposition House Leader to settle on a schedule for debate through the month of May and early part of June.

With that, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

TREK TO OTTAWA IN 1935

J. Kwan: The On to Ottawa Trek was a 1935 social movement of thousands of unemployed men. They were protesting the terrible conditions in federal relief camps during the height of the Great Depression. Their demands included work and wages, adequate first aid at camps, the extension of workers' compensation and the right to vote.

After a two-month protest in Vancouver, Mayor Gerry McGeer read the Riot Act across the street from Victory Square. Not satisfied with the federal government's actions, the protesters jumped atop boxcars and rode the rails across the country to Ottawa to make their demands in person. As they stopped through towns and cities, hundreds of others joined them in places like Kamloops, Golden and Calgary, but they were stopped when they arrived in Regina by the RCMP. They were only allowed to send a delegation of eight to Ottawa. In spite of that, a thousand people were waiting to join them on the trek in Winnipeg.
[ Page 5044 ]

When the delegation arrived in Ottawa to meet with the then Prime Minister R.B. Bennett, he called the protest leader, Arthur "Slim" Evans, a "radical extortionist." In turn, Evans called him a liar, and the delegation was escorted out of the building. By the time they got back to Regina, a peaceful Dominion Day rally was brutally attacked by the police. Though the trek was over, a few months later R.B. Bennett was swept from office.

We know today that those brave protesters from B.C. were some of the early pioneers that brought social programs to the country. One of the organizers charged with treason was George Black, the father-in-law of the member for New Westminster.

[1350]

This year is the 75th anniversary of the On to Ottawa Trek, and the On to Ottawa Historical Society will be placing a plaque on the Main Street overpass in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, where the trek began. This celebration will be held on August 6 at 1 p.m. at Crab Park.

As a symbolic trek, a delegation from the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike will be boarding the train to Ottawa to demand a national housing strategy, and they will be ending their year-and-a-half-long rolling strike on the steps of Parliament. I ask everyone to help celebrate this fabulous history.

JEANS DAY FUNDRAISER FOR
B.C. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

N. Letnick: I rise today in recognition of Jeans Day. Today, April 29, 2010, is the 20th anniversary of this event created to show support and raise funds for B.C. Children's Hospital Foundation All across British Columbia employees in small businesses and large corporations alike are wearing denim to show their support for the foundation's goal of improving the lives of sick and injured children.

The foundation's goal for raising funds this year is $1.4 million. British Columbians are supporting this cause by donating $5 for a Jeans Day button or $20 for a pin. The funds raised are a lifeline to the province's only full-service acute care hospital dedicated to the care and treatment of children across British Columbia. With the continued support of donations, B.C. Children's Hospital treated over 72,000 children last year.

The B.C. Children's Hospital does more than just diagnose, treat and care for children battling illness and injury. They provide an environment where children can feel safe while removed from the familiarities and comforts of their homes. Healing is a big part of the process at the B.C. Children's Hospital, but the fun, laughter and strength the children get is very valuable.

I urge any member who is able to support this foundation to do so. When the focus of any cause is the well-being of a seriously ill or injured child, I think we can all agree it is a worthy one.

ANNIVERSARY OF GRAPPLER SINKING
AND DEATHS OF CHINESE WORKERS

G. Gentner: Today is the anniversary of the sinking of the Grappler, a steam gunboat dispatched by the admiralty to B.C. in order to secure law and order in 1858. After some military work, including the deplorable shelling of a First Nation village on Kuper Island, the Grappler was refitted as a tug and coastal trader.

On April 28, 1883, the Grappler departed Victoria, heading up-coast with a cargo of supplies and over 100 passengers, most of whom were Chinese cannery workers. It was 127 years ago tonight, about four miles from Seymour Narrows, that a fire was discovered beneath the boiler. It quickly burned through the hemp ropes connecting the wheel to the rudder, rendering the steamer unmanageable. One of only two lifeboats and a small skiff were successfully launched.

Of those that survived, 21 were white. Surprisingly, Captain Jagers gallantly tried to stay with his flaming ship but somehow made it out alive, along with the cannery owner, John McCallister, who heroically saved himself by pulling himself onto one of the boats. He escaped, to describe the inferno steamer as "going forward and backwards while passengers were shrieking and yelling for assistance."

We hear much of the loss of the 29 on the Edmund Fitzgerald, but when do we in B.C. intone the loss of 90 Chinese canners? Their names were never recorded. Somewhere below the frigid waters and treacherous currents of Discovery Passage lies evidence of a legacy of exploitation of those who came to B.C. to find a better life, those who helped build this province, those whose story must be told.

Somewhere out there, 30 fathoms or more, lies the Grappler untouched and almost forgotten in troubled waters, where we are fearful to disturb.

CANADIAN ROLE IN KOREAN WAR

H. Bloy: I rise today to acknowledge the sacrifices of 26,000 Canadian soldiers who fought in the Korean War. I will be travelling to Korea this June as a guest of the Korean government to recognize the 60th anniversary of the Korean War.

This anniversary often goes unnoticed, and this war is often referred to as the forgotten war. These 26,000 brave Canadian soldiers travelled across the world to help protect a country that they'd never dreamed of visiting and a people that they had never met before. Canada quickly began playing a major role in the war and was instrumental on nearly every major battlefront.

[1355]

These actions will never be forgotten by the Korean people, and they are forever grateful. The Korean people
[ Page 5045 ]
are extremely fond of Canadians because of the role we played in securing their freedom.

The Korean community in Burnaby raised over $250,000 towards a peace memorial at Burnaby Central Park. This government and the Korean government each donated $100,000 towards this memorial. Along with true Canadian war heroes, I dedicated this memorial for future generations.

Today in Ottawa, as we speak, Senator Yonah Martin is proposing that the Canadian government recognize July 27 as our national Korean veterans day. I am proposing that our government proclaim July 27 each year to be British Columbia's Korean War veterans day. I would ask that all members of the House take time to remember this war and the Canadians who were part of it, and recognize July 27 and its significance.

ELEANOR GATTAFONI ROBINSON
AND SUPPORT FOR
KOOTENAY BOUNDARY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

K. Conroy: There are so many amazing people in my constituency, people who work together to ensure that good things happen in the Kootenays. That couldn't have been more obvious than in the last few months as people from all walks of life and political stripes collaborated together to save the operating room at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital.

Seeing doctors working with nurses, with support staff and with thousands of residents from throughout the region made me proud to be from such an incredibly caring and active community. When it comes to health care, we have had our differences in the Kootenays. But when the regional hospital was threatened, voices were heard across the entire region from Nelson and Kaslo to Nakusp, Grand Forks and of course Castlegar and Trail.

Thousands signed petitions and publicly rallied, and they were successful, because not only did they voice their opposition to the closure; they worked together to offer solutions for a positive outcome.

I do want to thank the doctors who showed their true compassion and concern and worked with whoever they could, including local, provincial and federal politicians, community activists and the Interior Health Authority to ensure that services continued to be provided. Again, amazing people in Kootenay West — so many that it often makes the job of choosing the citizen of the year in different communities a really difficult one.

I do want to acknowledge one of those people, who was the choice as the Trail-Warfield citizen of the year. Eleanor Gattafoni Robinson is one of those incredible people who make our communities so good. Eleanor has lived her entire life in the area and has always been involved in one way or another. The list of communities, organizations and events she has been involved with starts in the early '80s and involves over 30 different groups. She is well known and well liked by people of all ages and is thoroughly committed to the area.

Today as a city councillor for Trail, one can find her continuing to advocate on behalf of the citizens of Trail. Eleanor is indeed a truly deserving candidate for this recognition. I want to finish by quoting her nominator, Chris Piva. "It is people like Eleanor that make our city a great place to live."

MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION

D. Barnett: Today is World Wish Day in honour of the first wish ever granted by the Make-A-Wish Foundation. As the largest wish-granting organization in the world, in 35 countries celebrations will be taking place honouring the magic of a wish.

For 27 years Make-A-Wish B.C. and Yukon has shared the power of a wish with over 1,300 special children across the province. The Make-A-Wish Foundation believes that all children should be free to dream, and we know that some children need their dreams to come true today.

Last year 129 wishes were granted, the most ever and the most ever in Canada. This year we are on target to surpass this. Again, at any moment Make-A-Wish B.C. has over 200 wishes on their docket.

I ask the members of the House to join me in thanking the Make-A-Wish chapter and their supporters, partners and volunteers for helping them share the power of a wish.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON SMALL BUSINESS

C. James: Mr. Speaker, a survey of small businesses shows that over 70 percent of the respondents believe that the HST will increase the price of goods and services. Only 5 percent think it will help.

[1400]

For decades B.C.'s small businesses have been the lifeblood of our economy. As we know, after the recession, small businesses' success is critical to our recovery. But the HST will hurt small businesses. It will hurt consumers.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. When will he listen to small businesses, listen to the public and get rid of the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is wrong. Actually, the elimination of the provincial sales tax, which we will do pursuant to Bill 9 in this province, and the adoption of the harmonized sales tax will be a significant net benefit for the vast majority of small businesses in British
[ Page 5046 ]
Columbia. That is exactly why the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has been encouraging the provincial governments to adopt a harmonized sales tax going back into the mid-1990s.

I know that in small business workshops around British Columbia, the chamber of commerce has been endeavouring to make sure that the small business community gets access to factual information about how the HST will impact on them and their consumers. But the bottom line is that the HST will be a benefit to the small business community in British Columbia.

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

C. James: Let's look at the facts. Restaurants, tourism industry, bike stores, wedding planners, veterinarians, newspaper and magazine stores, car washes, safety equipment, energy-saving appliance stores, yoga classes, accounting services, food supplement stores — these are just some of the businesses who have stood together and said they're against the HST.

Business after business has come forward to say no, and so have B.C. families in every community in this province. Again, my question is to the minister. When will the B.C. Liberals do the right thing and scrap the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: The HST is actually a big benefit for the vast majority of small businesses in British Columbia. That's why the Institute of Chartered Accountants is 100 percent in support of the harmonized sales tax. That's why the Certified General Accountants of British Columbia is in support of the harmonized sales tax. That's why the Retail Council of Canada, B.C. branch, is in support of the harmonized sales tax. That's why Shelfspace British Columbia, representing literally tens of thousands of small business retailers in British Columbia, is in favour.

I would add that one of the things that this government has done…. This government has done more to support the small business community than any government in the last 20 years. While under the NDP government of the 1990s they saw their tax burden go up, saw their regulatory burden go up. Under this government they saw their small business tax rate go from 4.5 percent down to 2.5 percent, and next year it's going down to zero.

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

C. James: The Finance Minister and every other member on that side of the House can close their ears, but the public is speaking loud and clear and saying no to the HST.

I want to quote a small business owner in my own community. Legends Comics and Books store in my community has said they'll see half of their annual sales hurt by the HST. Here's what the owners say: "Our store has just experienced the worst six months of sales in five years. The people who shop in my store are already struggling because of the recession. The HST is going to have a significant percentage of sales lost to my annual income. It could cause my doors to close."

Again, my question is to the minister. Why are the B.C. Liberals hitting small businesses when they can afford it the least, and why won't they scrap the HST?

[1405]

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting that the member should use an example of a book store. Book stores today are exempt from PST, and they will be exempt from the 7 percent provincial share of the HST come July 1.

I can tell the member that every book store in British Columbia is going to wind up being better off. Why? Because all of the PST that they have to pay on all of the costs of operating that book store will be…. Today they have to eat that and pass it on in the cost of their books. After July 1 they will actually wind up being able to get rebated on all of that amount. Their costs are coming down. Therefore, they should be able to pass on even better prices to their customers.

B. Ralston: In addition to the direct and negative impact that the HST will have upon small business, small business retailers will also lose thousands of dollars when they lose the right to collect PST commissions after July 1. Those are commissions that small business receives for collecting PST sales tax on behalf of the government.

Here's what Mark Startup of Shelfspace, the Association for Retail Entrepreneurs, had to say at a recent conference: "Loss of PST commission is serious for many small retailers. Small retailers rely on those funds."

My question is to the minister. Will the B.C. Liberals do the right thing for B.C.'s small business retailers and stop the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting that the Finance critic should raise this particular subject. We do provide a commission now for retailers to collect and remit the provincial sales tax. We will not be doing that after July 1 because there will be no more provincial sales tax.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting to watch the contortions that the official opposition are going through as they oppose a bill that will eliminate the provincial sales
[ Page 5047 ]
tax. Even this morning we saw the official opposition vote against a clause in the bill that would actually allow the director to give a rebate if a tax was inappropriately charged. I noticed the member for Delta South actually read the clause and voted in favour of it, because it's appropriate. The official opposition voted against it.

We also know that in British Columbia today there is $150 million of compliance costs that small businesses and businesses alike pay in compliance cost, with the existing provincial sales tax. As of July 1 that is $150 million that the small business community and the rest of the business community will enjoy in terms of reduced costs as a result of getting rid of the provincial sales tax.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister can make light of PST commissions, but it was sufficiently important for the government back in October 2008 to include doubling those PST commissions as one of its ten points, so-called points, in a recovery plan. That's how important it was back then. Now 20 months later — wiped aside.

Mr. Startup is very clear…

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: …in his presentation entitled "HST Impacts for B.C. Retailers." He says that small retailers will "be particularly disadvantaged by the cancellation of PST commissions" — again during a time when, he says — "it's widely recognized by consumers that their costs are going up." HST is going to hurt business. It's going to hurt retail small business because of the cancellation of the PST commission.

My question is to the minister. How many more reasons does he need to cancel the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: The reason we doubled the commission is in recognition of the $150 million of compliance cost that the business community was facing to comply with a very onerous, complex and outdated provincial sales tax that we have in place today. As of July 1 that provincial sales tax will be eliminated in British Columbia, and that will reduce the compliance costs to the business community by $150 million.

IMPLEMENTATION OF
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

D. Donaldson: This is a tax that was conceived in secret by the B.C. Liberals, and now it's being delivered in a deceitful way. They snuck it in, in the middle of the summer.

Mr. Speaker: I just remind the member to be careful with his language, please.

D. Donaldson: Noted, hon. Speaker.

They snuck it in the in the middle of the summer. Now they want B.C. businesses and consumers to simply accept it and move on, but I can tell you that that is not going to happen.

Here's what Bruce Cran of the consumers association had to say about that. "This tax was spoken of during the election. We were told it wasn't coming in under any circumstances, and then what? Forty-eight hours later they're off on a tangent, implementing it as fast as they can go."

Again to the Finance Minister: will the B.C. Liberals finally stand up for the people of this province and put an end to the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: Perhaps I can share with the member some quotes from the forest sector, which I know is so vitally important to his constituency. This is actually a memo that the president of the Council of Forest Industries put out to forest workers around British Columbia.

He says: "We must be cost-competitive if we are to maintain and grow market share. If we can do so, then the industry will continue to provide employment and incomes for thousands of workers in dozens of communities." He goes on to say: "Will it greatly assist economic prosperity, job creation and wages? Absolutely."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, the legacy of this government is mill closures around the entire province, and Stikine included. The people in the province and small business experts have made it clear, and the minister has ignored them over and over again. The HST will drive business away.

He's heard it from the restaurant industry. He's heard it from the tourism industry. He's heard it from consumer associations. Just recently he even heard it from this government's own former Finance Minister, Carole Taylor, who said that the HST will be bad for consumers. That's just a few of the people he's heard it from.

My question is to the Finance Minister. Why won't he and the B.C. Liberals stand up in the House today and say no to the HST?

[1415]

Hon. C. Hansen: The question I would put back to the member is: why doesn't he stand up for his constituents who are looking for job security and jobs in the
[ Page 5048 ]
forest sector? Why doesn't he stand up for his constituents who are looking for jobs in the mining sector and ask the question of why it is that the Mining Association of British Columbia is such a big proponent of HST? It's because it's going to create jobs in the northwestern part of British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: Well, answers like this explain exactly why all of 2 percent of British Columbians agree with that minister's position, and he speaks like people in the communities don't understand what's going on. Will restaurant meals cost 7 percent more? Yes. Will tickets to the Kimberley Dynamiters cost 7 percent more? Yes. Will a round of golf at Greywolf cost 7 percent more? Yes. Will a haircut cost 7 percent more? Yes. Will a trip to the museum cost 7 percent more? Yes.

Will all those increases come to almost $2 billion? Yes. Do over 85 percent of British Columbians not want the HST? Yes.

Did the B.C. Liberals deceive the people of British Columbia to get elected? Yes. So why doesn't the minister do the right thing, listen to the people of British Columbia and scrap the HST?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: And will more British Columbians have jobs as a result of HST? Yes. And will low-income British Columbians have access to HST tax credits to offset income tax? Yes. Will families have more money in their pockets as a result of the income tax reductions that we brought in? Yes.

There is a wide range of benefits to the harmonized sales tax. We have every leading economist in Canada of any note supportive of the harmonized sales tax. It is absolutely the right public policy for us to pursue at this time in the history of British Columbia, and it will be a net increase in the amount of jobs that British Columbians will have available to them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON COASTAL COMMUNITIES
AND FERRY SERVICES

G. Coons: It is obvious that this HST is a truth-or-consequences moment for this government. They haven't told the truth, and they will suffer the consequences.

This government is forcing the HST on a province that has clearly rejected it. What's worse, they announced it without first studying the full impact it would have on families, on First Nations and industries in British Columbia.

At B.C. Ferries alone, the HST will add $6 million on to the government-owned corporation's operational budget, and guess who will pay for this spike? B.C. coastal communities through higher fares and reduced service.

My question is to the Finance Minister. Why should residents up and down the coast pay for this government's dreaded HST?

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Coastal communities in British Columbia will benefit from the jobs that'll be created. A lot of coastal communities have been suffering because of the competition that they're facing in terms of international markets for products that are produced from coastal communities.

That's why the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association is such a big supporter of the harmonized sales tax. It's going to mean that our products that we are shipping overseas…. Whether it's fisheries products that are going into Asia or whether it's forest products that are going into Asia or into the United States, those products will be more competitive. That means more jobs for that member's constituents.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: It's pretty embarrassing if this is all that this minister has to offer to the 82 percent of British Columbians who reject this government's HST.

A few weeks back we heard about a huge privacy breach at B.C. Ferries for people who pay with credit cards. It hasn't been fixed yet, but it's expected to cost almost $600,000. Right there on the budget document for the project is almost $60,000 for the HST alone. Add to this the $6 million I just talked about, and again, coastal communities will have to pay for it through higher fares.

Again to the Finance Minister: why should coastal B.C. residents pay even more for ferries because of this government's ill-conceived HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: Ferry fares in British Columbia are today exempt from GST, and they will be exempt from HST.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member is making exactly the point of the kind of taxes, like PST, that com-
[ Page 5049 ]
panies are facing today, under a PST system today, that they have to pass on to their ultimate consumers.

Because B.C. Ferries is exempt from GST and they will be exempt from the harmonized sales tax, they don't get to actually get the input credits that all companies that are not exempt will get.

If the member took the time to understand how a value-added tax system works for those companies and those services that are not exempt, he would realize the great benefit that HST will bring to the vast majority of companies in B.C.

IMPLEMENTATION OF
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

J. Kwan: The point is this. The B.C. Liberals deceived British Columbians during the election about the HST, and overwhelmingly, they don't want to have the HST. The Premier won't admit it — that British Columbians are against the HST…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: …but government members know very well that their constituents are against the HST. They know in their hearts, and they see it in the community, and then they hear it from their constituents. Referring to the blowback from the HST, the MLA for Kelowna–Lake Country said: "I have never been called so many names in my life, and I don't like it."

On this day….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

J. Kwan: The government members have a chance to stand up for their constituents for a change and to say no to the HST and stop ramming the HST down their throats. Does anybody on that side of the House have the courage to do just that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

ELECTIONS B.C. RULING ON
HARMONIZED SALES TAX MAILOUT

S. Simpson: Now we've learned that Elections B.C. has said no to the desperate Liberal scheme to put out campaign literature at taxpayers' expense to oppose the citizens' initiative. It was a desperate and irresponsible act when the minister suggested it, and we're pleased that Elections B.C. at least put this government back in its place.

Will the minister tell us: is he going to respect the ruling of Elections B.C., and if so, will he tell us how much money he wasted on this desperate scheme?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The government will fill two obligations. One, we will obviously respect the law. We will respect rulings that are handed down, and we'll do what we can within the ambit of the law to ensure that British Columbians have accurate information upon which to….

But this might be my chance to ask something that I've been dying to ask. What's it like to be an NDPer working for Bill Vander Zalm? I just want to know how lifelong members of the NDP feel….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just a minute, Attorney. Take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: There seems to be a sensitivity around the fact that NDPers are working for Bill Vander Zalm. Maybe he's not a very good boss. I don't know. What's he like to work for? Is there an incentive program? Are members of the NDP going to tell us? Can you earn a Faye Leung hat if you're at all…? Are they going to get a shovel? I just want to know, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Attorney.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Member.

Members.

IMPLEMENTATION OF
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

M. Farnworth: What's it like to work with British Columbians in every corner of this province to fight to defeat the HST? It's fantastic, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

[1430]
[ Page 5050 ]

M. Farnworth: You know, I'm a caring person. I'm really concerned about some of the members opposite, hon. Speaker, and I think the Finance Minister really needs to help them out. You know, it's bad enough watching Gordon Brown insult a pensioner, but when I hear some of the members opposite say that they're getting many, many e-mails, more than they can tell you, about the HST and that all of them are extremely emotional and that all of them lack any substance whatsoever, I think it's high time that the Minister of Finance stepped in and stopped his colleagues from insulting their constituents.

If he doesn't want to scrap the HST because British Columbian families know it's going to cost them more, at least scrap the HST so his colleagues stop insulting their constituents.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I have a prediction. I predict that that question is going to earn the member a gold shovel from Bill Vander Zalm.

The member did mention e-mails, and my point, actually, in asking the question, related to some e-mail traffic that the boss — the other boss, or the real boss — Mr. Vander Zalm….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Twenty-five members that I'm aware of have signed up to work for Bill Vander Zalm, and they may want to know the kinds of things that Mr. Vander Zalm is saying in e-mails. In this particular e-mail he's criticizing social workers promoting safe sex, and he's saying: "The province needs to degrade itself more and sink further into a mindless, immoral state with its sad and dire consequences."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: There seems to be a genuine sensitivity around answering for what the boss is saying. The boss….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The head of the campaign that the vast majority of the members of the opposition have signed on to work for is telling people that…. He is saying: "The province needs to degrade itself more and sink further into a mindless, immoral state with its sad and dire consequences for the people."

Now, I'm not entirely sure what that means, but then again, I haven't signed up to work for Bill Vander Zalm and disseminate false information to the people of British Columbia. We'll give them the facts, and we'll create a policy that creates jobs for British Columbians, as we always have.

[End of question period.]

L. Popham: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

L. Popham: I have a petition signed by 916 strata owners in British Columbia who, with this petition, hereby notify this government of their reasoned opposition to the HST and their anger over the heavy-handed way in which it's being introduced.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.

[1435]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

M. Sather: I have here a petition signed by 1,220 people in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows calling on this government to scrap the HST.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Families — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 9.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate
and Transition Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

Section 30 approved on division.

On section 31.
[ Page 5051 ]

D. Donaldson: This section's topic is "Refund in accordance with Nisga'a Nation Taxation Agreement." I have a number of questions on this section for the minister. First off, subsection 31(1) talks about the taxation agreement between the Nisga'a First Nation and the province of B.C.

If the minister could elaborate on the intent of section 31(1), which says that the Nisga'a Nation taxation agreement tabled in the Legislature on November 30, 1998, is represented here "but does not include any amendments made to that agreement after that date." Could the minister elaborate on the intent of why no amendments since 1998 are included?

Hon. C. Hansen: What this section does is actually put in place the exact same wording that was in the social service tax. The intention is that we continue with the same benefits and privileges that existed under the provincial sales tax.

D. Donaldson: Could the minister describe the amendments made since 1998 that this section would not apply to?

Hon. C. Hansen: We don't have that with us. The intent on having this wording in this legislation in this way is to make sure that the exact same wording continues as is applicable under the Social Service Tax Act.

D. Donaldson: I have a number of questions for this section because it relates to the Nisga'a Nation as well as First Nations in general. It goes back to some of the discussion my colleague from Surrey-Whalley was initiating around used vehicles.

[1440]

Could the minister describe the situation, as he sees it…? If a used vehicle was bought off reserve by a First Nations person and then registered on reserve, would it be subject to the provincial portion of the HST — which is a new 7 percent tax, as he knows, on the sale of a used vehicle?

Hon. C. Hansen: If a vehicle was purchased on reserve or if the seller delivered the vehicle to the reserve — so therefore, it would be purchased on the reserve — then the purchaser would not be subject to this transfer tax.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. To add some clarity here, because where I live, there are many First Nations reserves and as well…. The village of Hazelton, actually, was carved out of one of the First Nations reserves, so we have lots of transactions back and forth between Gitanmaax, for instance, and Hazelton, as well as the Gitxsan Nation in general. I'm sure the situation applies elsewhere.

If there was a used vehicle being transferred through a sale between two people on reserve, would the new provincial portion of the HST apply to the sale of that vehicle?

Hon. C. Hansen: There would be no change in the application of this tax between the way it is dealt with today or the way it would be dealt with in July. If two individuals both lived on reserve and one was a purchaser and one was a seller, they would be able to transfer the vehicle to the purchaser without the application of this tax.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. The next series of questions revolve around….

Well, the Nisga'a Nation, for one, is one of eight First Nations in B.C. who have implemented a First Nations GST. There are some concerns there and concerns amongst the other seven First Nations, as well, including the Tsawout, the Akisqnuk, the Lower Kootenay Indian band, the Shuswap First Nation, St. Mary's Indian band, Tobacco Plains Indian band and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation — as well as the Nisga'a. These are all First Nations who've implemented the First Nations GST.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is very, very concerned about how the HST will impact this First Nations GST, for instance. They've asked for meetings with the minister and have not been able to get a meeting with him about their concerns.

They've said in news releases: "Consumption taxes such as the HST are regressive as they disproportionately affect lower-income households, and proposed HST rebates for low-income individuals and families will not offset the increased taxes." That's their view.

In regards to section 31, again, they have some major concerns around the consultation that they believe is required, especially when it comes to First Nations GST. They — being the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — passed a resolution at their annual AGM in November. The resolution called for meetings with both levels of government — they haven't, as I said, been successful in their request to have a meeting with the minister — and time-specific commitments to develop appropriate information packages regarding the application of the HST to first nations.

[1445]

Again, this resolution had inclusion of specific non-derogation language regarding the preservation of section 87 of the Indian Act tax exemption and continuing rights of First Nations taxation rights under the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and the First Nations sales tax.

My question in regards to this is to the minister, and it is: is there a B.C.-Canada technical working group that is in place or established yet that First Nations have
[ Page 5052 ]
been invited to have a presence on in regards to some of the issues we see in section 31 and the First Nations GST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would just start by pointing out to the member that his question is not in any way related to the section that we're debating. This section is solely about the vehicle transfer tax that would be applied for the private sale of vehicles.

But I will elaborate a little bit just to inform the member that there was a letter that was sent by the First Nations leadership addressed jointly to myself and to the federal Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty. Minister Flaherty responded on behalf of both of us, as the application and the administration of the HST is a federal responsibility. But as I understand it, all of the benefits that First Nations have today with regard to the GST agreements continue to be in place and will apply to HST in the way that they apply to the GST.

I have no doubt that the CRA has working groups within the Canada Revenue Agency that would be tasked with looking specifically at implications for First Nations, but because it is CRA that's responsible for that administration, it does not directly involve us.

I would also point out to the member that I saw some income numbers recently for First Nations individuals in British Columbia. The vast majority of First Nations in British Columbia will be eligible for the HST tax rebate that an estimated 1.1 million British Columbians would be eligible for. Certainly, even for First Nations individuals who were living off reserve, that would more than cover any incremental costs that HST may cause them — any incremental impact on their household budgets that the HST may cause.

D. Donaldson: Well, I appreciate the minister's comments, but the intro to this section references the Nisga'a Nation taxation agreement, and the Nisga'a Nation is one of the First Nations in B.C. with a First Nations GST, along with seven others. You know, this is a place, within this section, to have a discussion around that. They haven't been able to have that discussion.

I'll ask another question in these regards. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has said that the First Nations GST has the same basic operating rules as the GST-HST. On lands where the First Nations GST applies, the rate of tax imposed on taxable goods and services is the federal portion of the HST, which everyone has to pay regardless of Indian status.

But what they say is that it's unclear what will happen with the provincial portion of the HST. In fact, they've said the Canada Revenue Agency has stated publicly that the details have not yet been worked out.

Could the minister elaborate on the details so that there will be some more certainty for these First Nations in this situation?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I will emphasize that this section has nothing to do with the question that the member just asked. This section pertains to the 12 percent transfer tax that applies for the private sale of used vehicles in British Columbia.

The administration of the harmonized sales tax, whether it's the provincial portion or the federal portion, will be administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, and they will be responsible for developing those rules and processes. My understanding is that the privileges and the benefits that First Nations have in British Columbia today with regards to the goods and services tax will continue for both the federal and the provincial portions of the harmonized sales tax.

[1450]

D. Donaldson: Well, I appreciate what the minister is saying. Perhaps if the HST had been introduced in a more transparent manner, these questions could have been addressed in a public forum. I'm going to ask one more along these lines, because I do believe that it relates to the taxation issues in section 31.

That's the First Nations sales tax. There are actually a number of First Nations in B.C. — nine — that have implemented a First Nations sales tax. What they've said is that they're wondering, from this government, and they've been told…. The Canada Revenue Agency has advised that the Ministry of Finance in British Columbia is currently working through the issues and will be advising them shortly of the rules for application of the First Nations GST and First Nations sales tax in an HST environment.

No other First Nations and provinces that have HST have chosen to implement the First Nations sales tax or the First Nations GST. They're saying that the Ministry of Finance is working through the implications of this. Could the minister describe what his staff in the Ministry of Finance are discovering, so that these First Nations have some understanding of what situation they're going to be facing?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned, this section pertains to the transfer of vehicles. The staff with me are fully up to speed on all the implications of what this section is about. I can't address that member's specific question, because it is not relevant to this section or any other section of the act.

Section 31 approved on division.

On section 32.

B. Ralston: The minister has said that in accordance with section 3, the Social Service Tax Act is being repealed, but it appears that it's going to live on in a number of sections in this bill. Will the minister con-
[ Page 5053 ]
firm that section 32 is in the Social Service Tax Act as section 82.11? We appear to have life after death. The Social Service Tax Act continues on in various forms.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct.

D. Donaldson: Section 32 says that a tax treatment agreement means an agreement among a treaty First Nation and British Columbia and Canada. The previous section referenced one specific First Nation. Would the minister be able to tell us what the other treaty First Nations are that would be subject to section 32?

Hon. C. Hansen: This would include all of the First Nations treaties that have been signed and implemented subsequent to the Nisga'a agreement. It would include Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth. I'm not sure if there are others that I'm missing.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. Would there be a difference between some of the treaties that you've just referenced — a difference between what would apply under section 32 and the fact that they don't have a Nisga'a-style taxation agreement under section 31?

[1455]

Would there be any differences between what applies to the Nisga'a Nation under the previous section and what applies to the First Nations that would come under section 32?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm certainly aware that there are different tax measures in the various treaty agreements that have been ratified. What this does is simply continue the existing language that we see in the Social Service Tax Act in exactly the same form and exactly the same words.

Section 32 approved on division.

On section 33.

B. Ralston: Can the minister briefly explain the purpose of this section? It appears to be a mirror image of previous sections about claims for refund, and it doesn't appear there's anything unusual about it in relation to when a comparison is made to other similar sections. But if there is, could the minister advise?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is nothing unusual about this particular section. It is standard language that's used in consumption tax acts, and it is simply a provision that sets out the process for claiming a refund.

Sections 33 and 34 approved on division.

On section 35.

B. Ralston: Section 35 initiates a new part in the bill entitled "Administration." These appear to confer rather broad powers on provincial authorities to inspect, to audit, to assess and to order penalties and notices of assessment. Can the minister explain the purpose for these broad powers and how they relate to the provincial aspect of the HST, which he has said repeatedly is a federal statute?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, this has nothing to do with the administration of the harmonized sales tax. The collection of that tax and the administration of it is 100 percent the responsibility of the Canada Revenue Agency pursuant to federal statutes.

This particular section pertains to the other issues — for example, the vehicle transfer tax we've talked about earlier but also with regard to the point-of-sale rebate that would apply on home energy, which is a provincially administered rebate program and not administered by the CRA. This language that is in section 35 is the exact same language that appears in the Social Service Tax Act, with the exception of subsection (3).

Subsection (3) is new to reflect the fact that the transfer tax for boats and airplanes changes slightly in that in the past we had required that vendors be responsible for collecting this. We are now actually saying that it is the Ministry of Finance that will take responsibility. It relieves a compliance and paper burden workload from vendors of cars and boats.

B. Ralston: Section 35(5) appears to authorize the issuance of a warrant to enter a business premise and, I suppose, if the place of business is also one's home, a warrant to enter one's home.

[1500]

Can the minister advise, since he says this exists in the present Social Service Tax Act? In the case of someone not paying the transfer fee, the additional 7 percent on a used car, would it be within the realm of possibility that that person, if they didn't agree to have their business premise or their home searched, could be the subject of a warrant and have their house or business searched under the authority of a warrant?

Hon. C. Hansen: This language is identical to the language that currently exists in the Social Service Tax Act, and it does not allow for a residence to be entered without the consent of the owner or an appropriate warrant.

B. Ralston: I'm looking at subsection (5). That appears to be the exception to the consent set out in section (4). Section (4) is: "The power to enter a place under subsection (1) must not be used to enter a dwelling occupied as a residence without the consent…except under the authority of a warrant under subsection (5)." The reading seems to be that if a person doesn't consent
[ Page 5054 ]
to a search of their residence, then a warrant could be applied for.

So if you don't remit your tax on a used car, you could, at the end of a chain of events, be the subject of a search by warrant of your residence. Would the minister confirm that that's an accurate reading of the section?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

B. Ralston: Section 35(2) refers to…. There's a reference in sub (1) about a business premise. It says: "…the premises where the records of the person are kept," and this person must produce all records, as required by the director — this is before taking the step of applying for a warrant, presumably — and "answer all questions of the director regarding the matters referred to in that subsection."

Can the minister confirm or perhaps provide an answer that would suggest that this has been vetted by lawyers in the Attorney General Ministry and passes the usual tests of concerns that some people might have about providing answers under compulsion? A clear reading of the statute would suggest that that's what's required — a mandatory answering of all questions of the director. Sometimes courts rule against and strike down sections like that.

Can the minister just advise: what's the legal opinion that he's received on the authority of the province to pass this legislation, and has the similar or identical legislation in the Social Service Tax Act ever been tested in a court?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is language that has been in the Social Service Tax Act for a long time. There have been no successful challenges to the language, but as we develop Bill 9, we work closely with staff in the Attorney General's ministry.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise, then — and perhaps staff would have this knowledge: how many cases in the recent past, say in the last five years, has the director, in pursuit of answers under the inspection and audit powers that are in the Social Service Tax Act, which are going to apparently live on, despite section 3 that repeals the act…? These powers under the Social Services Tax Act are going to live on. How many times has there been an application for a warrant in these circumstances?

[1505]

Hon. C. Hansen: I can add that this language that has existed in the Social Service Tax Act is common language that is there in other consumption tax acts that we have, as well, in the province. It is certainly a power that, if it has been used, would be used in a very limited way. I don't have precise information as to whether there has been a case where a warrant has been requested and, if so, how many.

B. Ralston: Obviously, there's a purpose in having this, presumably. I mean, one can, according to the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation, assume that this is necessary.

Is it something that's not used at all and is merely included here in the statute as pro forma, just for the sake of appearance, or is there a history of having to resort to these powers and an intention to use them in the future if necessary? I think that's the question. Otherwise, one would wonder why the section was necessary.

Hon. C. Hansen: Having these provisions in the consumption tax acts certainly is an important power. The objective, obviously, on the part of the director would be to not have to use it. But having this language as backup certainly would result in more voluntary compliance with the need for inspections, and if necessary — if there was an egregious violation or egregious withholding of access to the information necessary to enforce tax collection — the director would have this tool at his or her disposal.

B. Ralston: Just to perhaps retreat, then, from the more extreme power of seeking a warrant and entering a premise under the power of a warrant or under the authority of a warrant, can the minister advise: in the recent past, given that this is an identical section to the Social Service Tax Act, how many times, say, in the previous five years has the director had to use the provisions in section 35(1) or 35(2), the equivalent sections and the old Social Service Tax Act, which is living on in this section after it's been repealed?

Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of what I think the member's specific question is with regards to subsections (1) and (2), these are the audit powers always used by the director in an investigation, and they would be used on a regular basis.

B. Ralston: Certainly, my experiences operating a business would be that the social services tax authorities might direct a letter — particularly if you're so unfortunate as to be late in filing, even by a day — and assess a penalty, usually beginning at 25 percent of the value of the tax owed. But the instances that I am personally acquainted with where the director entered, at a reasonable time, the business premises occupied by a person where the records are kept to inspect, to audit and to examine records or inspect and examine designated property…. I haven't heard of that.

If they're used all the time, is there no publicity given to the entry of those people employed to enforce the act, or are there no statistics kept of entries on premises
[ Page 5055 ]
under these fairly strong powers to enter into business premises to take and inspect records? There's subsection (7). It prohibits…. "A person must not (a) hinder, molest or interfere with a person doing anything that the person is authorized to do under this section, or (b) prevent or attempt to prevent a person from doing anything that the person is authorized…."

[1510]

Presumably, a violation of that would constitute an offence under the Offence Act. So these are pretty strong powers. I'm not necessarily disagreeing that one needs those as backup, but I think, given that they are there, that the minister has, in his wisdom, decided that this is necessary to include in the statute for the purposes of administering this transfer tax.

I'm wondering if the minister can advise us, to get a sense of how these powers have been used in the past, of how frequently that's taken place in, say, the last five years. I think that's a reasonable period of time, and I think that's a reasonable question that deserves an answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned, these powers are used all the time. When a PST auditor goes out today to engage in an audit, the first thing they do is enter the business premises.

I know that in my previous life as a small business owner, the PST auditors were welcomed and treated very kindly, given access to the coffee machine and everything else, and they did a very comprehensive and thorough audit. This was way back before my days as an elected official, but they were certainly treated with all the courtesies. I think that is the experience that the auditors have in a vast majority of cases. In fact, at the end of the audit they found virtually no discrepancies. They were actually extremely minor — the things that they were able to identify.

That being said, there are certainly other times when PST auditors are not welcomed into a business, and it does become a rather tense relationship in some cases. It is important that these powers be there to allow the auditors to do their job and at the same time to have the assurances that they can fulfil their job without undue interference.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm really not disputing anything the minister is saying. I'm just interested in some statistical overview, just to get a sense of how frequently this takes place. Certainly, my experience and my understanding are that it's relatively rare for social service tax personnel to enter the premises and formally audit it. Usually they function on voluntary compliance, self-disclosure and the occasional stern letter if you're late in remitting.

I'm interested in a sense of…. I'm sure those people who may be subject to this might like to get a sense of it. It may even have a salutary effect in terms of encouraging compliance. If the minister is able to produce some statistics to show that this is used frequently and effectively, others may be encouraged to comply. So I don't think it's an unreasonable question.

If the minister doesn't have that answer available here, then I think that's regrettable, but perhaps he can furnish it at a later time, although as he well knows, the guillotine is coming down here at five o'clock. All debate on this bill will cease at that point, as he knows. But given electronic technology, perhaps the advisers there have some means of communicating with someone back in the office who could provide that information in very short order.

Hon. C. Hansen: I do not have that statistical information with me about the social service tax, nor would that kind of statistical information be relevant to this particular section, because we're talking about a totally different environment.

When you look at the audits that are being performed on the provincial sales tax, that is obviously on a great range of goods and services to which the PST applies today. This section only pertains to those elements, those things that the province will continue to have responsibility for administering. It is just the private sale of used vehicles and the point-of-purchase rebate for home energy. Those are two of the provincially administered things that will continue after July 1.

[1515]

The audit provisions that are there today under the Social Service Tax Act would not be relevant to what we would anticipate or to the experience that we will undoubtedly see and the stats that we will see under this particular section. Having said that, I will certainly see if we can get the member some of that information today. If not today, I would be pleased to share it with the member when we get to estimates.

B. Ralston: I have a question about section 35(3). The minister mentioned that this wording was new, in contrast to what was in the Social Service Tax Act, so although it's being repealed, it appears to be living on in slightly new forms. It refers to the power to enter a place. It must not be used "to determine whether an unnamed third party has complied with this Act" unless the place is…. And then there are a number of business premises: "…a person who operates a marina, shipyard…or other premises…."

Now, is this intended? Sometimes that kind of information or those kinds of inspections are referred to as fishing expeditions, in the sense that authorities may receive some information confidentially — a tip, as it's sometimes known. It's not certain who may be failing to remit the tax, but this would authorize that kind of entry to a marina, a shipyard, an airport or other premises. So is that what this section is intended to empower?

Hon. C. Hansen: These are really powers just to make sure that everybody who should be paying a tax pays a tax.
[ Page 5056 ]
This ensures that the auditors, inspectors, can actually get access to the information they need to ensure that everyone has paid the taxes that they are obligated to pay.

If I can just read a bit about the reason for this amendment. "The specific authority with respect to compliance of unnamed third parties is necessary to ensure efficient and effective use of audit resources, given that tax payable in respect of boats, aircraft and unregistered vehicles is self-assessed and there are no obligations on the vendors under this act."

So unlike cars…. In fact, I think earlier I might have made reference to cars and boats. I should have said boats and planes. It is easy for us to ensure compliance in the transfer of a registered vehicle, which is a car, which is registered through ICBC. It is more difficult for us to ensure compliance in terms of boats and planes, and these powers will ensure that those who should be paying the tax in fact pay the tax.

B. Ralston: Was there a specific decision, then, made not to burden, if I can put it that way, those who sell boats retail? I mean, there are a number of recognized dealers who sell boats along the coast and in various cities and towns in British Columbia, whether it's on lakes or on the salt water.

Why, if that's the requirement…? It seems that there may be just some objection taken by some to the fact that those businesses, unlike others, aren't obliged to do that. In the case of those who are not registrants I can see some need for that, but it would seem that this gives fairly sweeping powers to enter, on the basis of a tip or confidential information, onto a wide number of business premises in the province, which seems to be a fairly sweeping power, at first blush.

[1520]

Hon. C. Hansen: Because the brokers, for example, of planes or boats are currently GST registrants — and they will be HST registrants — anyone that buys a boat, used or otherwise, through a GST registrant will in fact be paying the HST. It will be collected through Canada Revenue Agency. They will in turn send the province our respective 7 percent share of that. This pertains to the private sale of boats and the private sale of airplanes, for which having that relationship with dealers would not be of benefit to us.

Under the existing system, where there is in fact a PST charged…. That made a difference today, and it was important for us to have that requirement and that relationship with brokers to collect that tax. That will no longer be the case because this only applies to the private sale of boats and planes.

B. Ralston: Are this section, then, and its fairly wide powers motivated by information that's available to the branch that there is a huge or a sizeable market in the sale of boats or planes in this particular manner that aren't sold through registrants or dealers? Is there likely a sizeable return of tax to the provincial treasury? I'm wondering what motivates this section. Is it just a matter of administrative tidiness?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are a significant number of private transfers of boats and planes in British Columbia. It's estimated that it would be in the millions of dollars of tax that will be collected under this — certainly not something that the province would want to forgo. We obviously need those millions of dollars of revenue.

V. Huntington: You may wish to guide me on whether the question is in order. It certainly has to do with Bill 9, but with how the Social Service Tax Act is presently and how your staff are presently treating audits prior to the introduction of Bill 9.

I've been advised by seven small businesses now that they are presently undergoing unexpectedly aggressive audits. The question is whether or not there is a program or a feeling underway within the province that there can be an aggressive audit on existing PST compliance prior to the introduction of the HST. Is there any indication, from your point of view? Certainly, there is from the business point of view — that there is an aggressive audit going on in that regard.

[1525]

Hon. C. Hansen: While not directly pertaining to this section, certainly there is no change of policy with regard to audits that I'm aware of. What this provides for, really, is that those audits can continue. It's not like suddenly on June 30 there's going to be some magical thing happen to curtail the ability of the auditors to audit for PST compliance, for the PST that should be collected and remitted up to and including March 30 of this year.

So those audits will go on, possibly for as long as four years. It does actually have a hard end to it after four years, but there's nothing in this transitioning from PST to HST that would require any more aggressive audit process than has been the case in the past.

Section 35 approved on division.

On section 36.

B. Ralston: Well, this relates to the general theme of part 7, which is administration. Perhaps this would be a useful place just for the minister to confirm, as I understand it, that the power to audit, to assess penalties will continue under the Social Service Tax Act until these provisions expire — in 2014, I believe.

If anyone should think that, in the transition to the HST, their obligations under the PST are going to end,
[ Page 5057 ]
there's a lengthy period for that compliance to be ensured and pursued by the Ministry of Finance until the ultimate expiry of most of the sections, although we've learned today that some of them will continue on in Bill 9. They're too good to let go, apparently.

Hon. C. Hansen: These sections that we are dealing with right now do not deal in any way with PST audits or PST compliance. I think the question the member is asking should more properly be posed when we get to part 17.

B. Ralston: Let's have a look at section 36(4). "Subject to subsection (5), in making an assessment under this section the director must not consider or include a period longer than 4 years before the date of the first notice of assessment." That gives a power infinitely in the future to authorize assessments over that period.

I gather that the minister is not going to respond to the general question, which is really too bad, because I think the public might be assisted by that. But the guillotine will come down at five o'clock, and this debate will have to cease, however important those questions might be. I suppose we'll have to wait until after July, when the minister puts out his brochure at public expense, perhaps, to get some answers for the public then.

Perhaps the minister could confirm that section 36(4) mirrors provisions in the Social Service Tax Act.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that's correct.

B. Ralston: Will this power to assess…? Perhaps the minister could just enumerate the programs that it will be directed to, other than the automobile, boat and aircraft transfer tax and the energy tax credit. In what other programs would these powers be available to be used in assessing?

[1530]

Hon. C. Hansen: This would only apply to the energy rebates for residential home energy and the transfer of private vehicles.

D. Donaldson: I wonder if the minister could elaborate on the difference between 36(4) and 36(5). This has to do with the director making an assessment on a rebate or reimbursement that was in excess of the amount due to the person. In subsection (4) the period that the director has goes four years back before the first notice of assessment, and in subsection (5) that's limited to two years on an energy allowance. What's the difference between those four years and two years?

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: In sub (5) this actually allows for a circumstance where someone received an energy rebate who was not entitled to it. It means that we have two years to actually issue an assessment to recoup that money. Section (4) actually pertains to the other issues where we have an obligation or a right to collect, and that would be four years.

The two years is only for a situation where someone has received an energy credit, an energy allowance that they were not entitled to. We have only two years to issue that assessment.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. So subsection (4) doesn't deal with any rebates. The only kind of rebate that this section deals with is in regards to energy allowance. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned that this section is copied directly from a section in the Social Service Tax Act. I think that's section 115. What also is contained in the Social Service Tax Act is the power to assess against a director of a corporation. That doesn't appear in this section nor in any subsequent sections in this part, unless I'm mistaken.

Is it the expectation that there will never be a need to pursue the director of a corporation because they would not be a person conducting either the sale or receiving an energy rebate, and it's only individuals who would fall into that category? Or is there some other reason?

Hon. C. Hansen: The director's liability that is in the Social Service Tax Act actually only applies to the provincial sales tax that a company was obligated to collect. In these cases, as we're talking about the private transfer of vehicles and the home residential energy rebate, that would not be applicable.

[1535]

B. Ralston: Well, I'm looking at section 115.1 of the Social Service Tax Act. It says that the commissioner — and I take it that's the equivalent of the director in this legislation — may assess the director of a corporation for "the amount assessed under section 115…for the corporation's failure to collect or remit…as required during the term of the director, including penalties." The minister said it was a failure to collect. It also appears to encompass the failure to remit. I wonder if that makes any difference to the minister's previous answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: In the cases that we're talking about — the point-of-sale rebate for home energy and the tax on the private sale of vehicles between individuals — there would not be a case where there would be a tax collected. Therefore, there would not be a tax remitted.

Section 36 approved on division.
[ Page 5058 ]

On section 37.

B. Ralston: This is entitled "Penalties." I'm looking at the penalties section in section 117 of the Social Service Tax Act. That section is entitled "Penalty and Interest." Is there any particular reason why? I don't see, in my review of this section, any reference to interest. Can the minister explain why that might be?

Hon. C. Hansen: The same wording exists, but it's just been separated into two separate sections. Where you'll find that wording now is in section 40.

Section 37 approved on division.

On section 38.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain…? I'm again looking at the Social Service Tax Act because it's rather striking how this Social Service Tax Act is going to live on in this bill, although the minister claims it's going to disappear. It seems that it's going to live on in a number of sections here. Looking at what I take to be the same section, "Notice of assessment," is that the same as section 116.1 in the Social Service Tax Act?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the most important part of this section is the requirement for the director to issue a notice of assessment on making an assessment or imposing a penalty. This language is slightly different from the Social Service Tax Act. I think the member said…. There is certainly language or wording from the Social Service Tax Act that lives on. What's really important is that the social service tax or the provincial sales tax itself does not live on.

This is language that actually is used through a variety of pieces of legislation regarding consumption tax. In this case, in this particular wording of this section, we've been able to take advantage of some of the updated wording that appears in some of the more recently written consumption tax acts.

[1540-1545]

Section 38 approved on the following division:

The Chair: Can I ask all members, please, to keep their voices down.

On section 39.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise just which section in the Social Service Tax Act this is copied from?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is similar to subsection 116.1(2), but it is actually language that is drawn from several different consumption acts, so it's not the identical language that was in place in the Social Service Tax Act.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm looking at that section in the Social Service Tax Act. That appears to be wording that's identical to subsection 38(3). It doesn't appear to mirror the wording in section 39 at all. Perhaps the minister could just check that.

Hon. C. Hansen: My error. I should have actually referenced section 116(7), which reads in the Social Service Tax Act: "An estimate made by the commissioner under this section must not be varied or disallowed because of any irregularity, informality, omission or error on the part of any person in the observation of any directory provision up to the date of the issuing of the notice of the estimate."

As I say, it's not exactly identical but actually reflects language in other consumption acts as well.

[1550]
[ Page 5059 ]

The Chair: Can we have silence when the division is read, please.

Section 39 approved on the following division:

[1555]

The Chair: Would members please either stay and be quiet for the committee or take their business outside.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Les: It's my pleasure this afternoon to welcome to the precincts 30 grade 11 students from Highroad Academy in my riding in Chilliwack. They are here this afternoon watching the proceedings in the House. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Julie Lade, and five of their parents are here with them as well, volunteering to look after them and chaperone them around Victoria. On behalf of everyone in the House, I'd like to make the students from Highroad Academy very welcome in the precincts.

Debate Continued

Section 40 approved on division.

On section 41.

B. Ralston: This section initiates a new part called "Appeals," and the scheme of appeals is set out. Can the minister advise whether or not this differs in any way from the appeal process that's set out in the Social Service Tax Act? It appears to be the same, but perhaps the minister could confirm that.

Hon. C. Hansen: The structure of this section is roughly the same. The process is the same. What is unique is simply the specific application of it.

B. Ralston: We may get to this. I think this is probably dealt with more properly in section 43, but in terms of this part, the general rule in PST litigation is that the person who's disputing the assessment or owes the money is still obliged to pay. The obligation to pay doesn't cease even though an appeal is ongoing. This is to be distinguished from Canada Revenue Agency where, as I understand it, if there's a litigation or a dispute about an amount owing, the obligation to pay is frozen at that point while the litigation continues.

This would appear to continue the same in section 43. As well as in the general legislative scheme, it would appear to follow the precedent of the Social Service Tax Act. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is true in section 43, not in 41.

[1600]

B. Ralston: Sorry, I didn't hear the minister's entire answer. Perhaps he could just repeat it.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's true in section 43, not in 41.

Section 41 approved on division.

On section 42.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister can just advise, if the staff there has this available…. In the Social Service Tax Act, can he advise of the number of appeals, approximately, on an annual basis? I take it this is relatively
[ Page 5060 ]
rare. But can the minister give some sense of the…? I appreciate this is a much diminished range of possible subjects of appeal, so obviously it would be prospectively fewer. Can the minister advise what the present volume is?

Hon. C. Hansen: We don't have that information with us as it would pertain to the old PST. I think the member is correct. It was similar to the discussion we had around the number of warrants issued under this new act. The scope is so much more limited that these would be few and far between.

B. Ralston: I suppose the motivation for the question is that the minister has said, in part of his presentation on the PST, that it's outmoded and difficult to interpret. Therefore, one might have expected, if it were lacking in transparency and unclear, that that would have given rise to disputes that might have been resolved in court. Generally, if there's badly drafted legislation, sometimes that's what results.

I'd be curious to know whether those assertions are supported by any objective evidence of a large number of people resorting to the courts to get solutions to their interpretive problems in their dealings with the branch.

I'm wondering if the minister will agree to…. Obviously, the guillotine is going to come down here at five o'clock, and all debate will cease on this bill. If the minister could make a commitment to provide that, notwithstanding that debate on these sections will end at that time.

Hon. C. Hansen: As was the case with regard to search warrants, we will certainly endeavour to see if we can get those stats before the end of the session. If we can't get it today, I will undertake to provide it to him at the time of the estimates, as I did with the stats on search warrants.

Section 42 approved on division.

On section 43.

B. Ralston: The minister, in an earlier response, made a distinction between the subject matters of section 41 and those subject matters of section 43, the principle being that it was a requirement, notwithstanding that there was an ongoing appeal, to nonetheless satisfy the payment, interest and penalties or any liability for payment that might exist. Can the minister set out those points or those issues that would be affected by section 43?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is a standard provision in provincial legislation. The member is correct, that if someone files an appeal, it does not, in itself, affect their responsibility for paying what is due.

Sections 43 and 44 approved on division.

On section 45.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise the circumstances when the director might issue the certificate that's referred to in section 45?

[1605]

Hon. C. Hansen: The issuance of a certificate is just one of the tools that the director would have at his or her disposal. There is not a circumstance that would dictate that a certificate must be or should be issued. It's simply one of the collection tools that could be used. This language that's in here is essentially the same as exists in the existing social service tax and the other consumption tax statutes that we have.

Section 45 approved on division.

On section 46.

B. Ralston: This section is entitled "Alternate remedies," and it refers to remedies available to the government that may be exercised "separately, concurrently or cumulatively." Can the minister explain what that is intended to mean?

Hon. C. Hansen: All this section does is…. If the director or the government has pursued one collection action, it doesn't preclude them from pursuing other ones as well. For example, if there is a lien that is put on a piece of property, that does not preclude the director from also pursuing, for example, a garnishee. This is language that is common to all of the consumption tax statutes.

Section 46 approved on division.

On section 47.

B. Ralston: This section is entitled "Attachment of funds," and it appears to give authority to the director to collect funds from a taxpayer. It makes no reference to corporations or directors of corporations that I have noted in this section. Can the minister, then, explain briefly the purpose of the authority that's granted to the director by virtue of this section?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is essentially a garnishee and, therefore, would have to be applied to an individual. In this case, because we are talking about payments that would be required with regard to those subject
[ Page 5061 ]
areas we discussed earlier that actually fall under the scope of this act, this would not apply to directors of corporations.

[1610-1615]

Section 47 approved on the following division:

Hon. C. Hansen: I just want to clarify the comment I made prior to the division being taken. What I should have made clear is that while we don't have the ability to garnishee a director, we do have the ability to garnishee a corporation if that is required.

On section 48.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that clarification.

This section is entitled "Lien," and it appears to authorize registering a lien against real property. That is land and personal property — which would be chattels, I guess. But my question is related to subsection (7). It appears to be an exception to the confidentiality provision set out in section 55, which we may or may not get to, given that debate will cease.

The guillotine cutting off debate in this chamber comes down at five o'clock, and any further debate will end at that point, notwithstanding that there may be a number of outstanding questions and a number of sections in this bill to give the scrutiny that this kind of statute deserves.

Can the minister explain the motivation for section 48(7)? It would appear to be an exception to the confidentiality proceedings. I'm not sure that it's not reasonable, but perhaps the minister could explain the motivation for that.

[1620]

Hon. C. Hansen: If a taxpayer has a lien put against their house, for example, then that taxpayer — in other words, the homeowner — can make a request to the director to release this information. It would be an example of where the homeowner may be trying to renew a mortgage or extend a mortgage on the house and there is a requirement for the disclosure of liens. The homeowner would have the option of requesting the director to supply that information.

B. Ralston: Well, my grasp of property law may be slightly rusty, but if a lien were filed in the property registry against the title of a property, surely in a search the lien itself and the dollar value of the lien and the amount owing would be disclosed in that search.

I may be wrong, but that's certainly my understanding of it. I'm happy to be corrected if that's the case. That's why I find this provision a bit unusual and requiring explanation. Perhaps the minister could just confirm whether that's an accurate description of a lien against real property in this circumstance or not.

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, a search of the registries would reveal the fact that there was a lien in place and that the lien was initially of a certain value. It may be that the taxpayer, the homeowner, has already made certain payments to draw down the debt owing. This would allow the director to disclose the amount, the balance that would be still owing under that particular lien.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister's answer, and that seems very logical, although the wording of the section is that "the director must disclose in writing whether a lien is registered against the personal or real property of the named person." So it appears as though there's some kind of confidentiality provision that prevails over the simple fact that a lien is filed. Then it goes
[ Page 5062 ]
on to talk about the amount of the lien and the date of its registration.

Again, could the minister clarify the meaning of that particular part of the subsection?

Hon. C. Hansen: These liens would be registered pursuant to subsection (2). Those are, of course, publicly accessible. What is not accessible would be the amount still owing on a lien, and this is what gives the director the authority to release that information in spite of the confidentiality provisions of section 55.

[1625]

Sections 48 to 50 inclusive approved on division.

On section 51.

B. Ralston: This part refers to administrative agreements and appropriations. This section authorizes the minister to enter into an agreement with the government of Canada.

Given that the minister has already entered into an agreement with the government of Canada on this issue, and that would appear to be part of the general powers of a provincial government in a federal system — to enter into agreements with the federal government — I'm wondering why there is any further legislative authority required to authorize entering into those agreements.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is power under regulation for the CITCA agreement to be signed, which is the sales tax agreement referenced in this section. That requires an order-in-council and direct approval by cabinet.

In the case of administrative matters, those would be…. This provision here actually allows for the minister to enter into those agreements and would mean that they would not have to go to Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

B. Ralston: It's really, then, more a matter of administrative convenience because the authority is already there. It's simply the way in which that authority has to be confirmed by order-in-council. This would enable the minister to make a delegation within the ministry to carry out and execute any administrative agreements that might be required along the way.

Is that a fair summary of the authority that this statute or this section is granting? It seems to me that if the authority's already there, this is almost unnecessary. But perhaps…. It certainly gives greater clarity to the delegation of that power.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct.

Section 51 approved on division.

On section 52.

B. Ralston: This section is entitled "Appropriations," and it's under this part 10, which is simply two sections. Can the minister explain the purpose of this section? It makes reference to the provincial government and payments from the consolidated revenue fund, but perhaps he could explain the authority that would be conferred by the passing of this section.

[1630]

Hon. C. Hansen: What currently exists is that government ministries have exemption certificates so that they can purchase goods and services exempt from the goods and services tax.

What we're saying is that starting July 1…. For administrative simplicity and, really, to take some of the paper burden and compliance costs off of suppliers to government, what government ministries will do after July 1 is be subject to the same HST provisions as everybody else and the same federal and provincial shares of this.

What this appropriation allows us to do, in part, is to ensure that those ministries are then kept whole. Yes, it is charged. Yes, we collect it back from the CRA as our share of the provincial portion of the HST collections. This gives us the power to actually ensure that the ministries can be kept whole, at the end of the day.

Also with subsection (3), that actually provides for the ability to pay for charges that may flow pursuant to, for example, the administrative agreements that we just talked about in the previous section. It may be a Stats Canada data run or something like that for which the province would be obligated to pay. This gives us the authority to pay those bills.

B. Ralston: Subsection (2) of section 52 and subsection (3) make reference to the Financial Administration Act. The Financial Administration Act basically sets out that no payment out of the consolidated revenue fund is authorized without authority. Section 21(3) says that if the Supply Act or any other act "contain an appropriation for the same purpose, money must not be paid out under the other Act unless the amount appropriated by the Supply Act has been exhausted."

This would appear to circumvent the need for a specific appropriation before making payment out of the consolidated revenue fund. If that's correct, can the minister confirm that?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is essentially correct. What will appear, for example, in the spending authority in the estimates as they are presented to the House on budget day will be the appropriation, ministry by ministry, for the base cost of those ministries. What would not be reflected in the appropriation to the ministry is
[ Page 5063 ]
the cost of the HST on things that would be subject to HST, like anybody else would be.

The ministries will be paying that. They will recoup it. This gives them the authority to spend that money over and above what would be in their appropriation, knowing that there is this vehicle for them to be reimbursed.

Section 52 approved on division.

On section 53.

B. Ralston: This section initiates the new part which gives general powers. The section that we're dealing with authorizes the minister to appoint a person as director for the purpose of administering this act.

Would that person be analogous to the commissioner under the Social Service Tax Act? I think we've had some previous discussion earlier in consideration in the definition section. First, I want to confirm that. Second, what would be the powers and the scope of the duties of the director?

[1635]

Hon. C. Hansen: The position and role of the director is certainly analogous to the role of the director currently under the Social Service Tax Act, and the powers of this director really are set out throughout this act. I think, as the member knows, the powers of the director have been referenced in many of the sections that we've already covered.

Section 53 approved on division.

On section 54.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise when this section comes into force? My reading of the section at the end of the act is that it comes into effect on May 1, 2010. Can the minister confirm that? If that's so, is it anticipated that the minister will be appointing a director either, I suppose, tomorrow or…? When might the director be appointed in order to administer the act?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. The individual has been identified and will be appointed tomorrow.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise if that's a position that has gone through the Public Service Commission and that there's been a competition for? Or is that simply taking the existing commissioner and merely changing the title?

Hon. C. Hansen: The person that will be appointed is the executive director of the consumer tax acts, and this individual is currently responsible for the administration of the hotel tax act, the Carbon Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act.

B. Ralston: Then it seems as though this is a person who is in place, administering a number of acts, and this responsibility for this act will be just be merely added to their existing duties. It's not a new position in that sense. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

B. Ralston: In the administrative scheme of things, obviously, this person, given what the minister has said, is responsible for administering a number of other acts. How much of that person's duties will administering this act occupy? Is there any sense of that at this point? Or is that something that will only become apparent when the duties are assumed and we're some time further in, assuming the legislation passes, as it seems likely as time approaches five o'clock, when this debate will be forced to end.

Hon. C. Hansen: There would be a slight increase in workload, but a lot of the activities that this individual, the director, would have to oversee are already part of the day-to-day operations of this person's office.

[1640]

For example, the administration of the point-of-purchase rebates for home energy is dealing with the same set of suppliers that we're currently dealing with under the carbon tax, so it would be some increase in responsibility but, certainly, part and parcel of existing responsibilities. As the member will note from section 54, this person, of course, has the ability to delegate workload as required.

Section 54 approved on division.

On section 55.

D. Donaldson: This section deals with confidentiality and how, especially in section 55(d), there can be government-to-government agreements regarding control of information and confidentiality.

My question to the minister is…. Under the new relationship that there's been with First Nations, there's been recognition and reconciliation wording, and I know that there's been talk at the negotiations table of government-to-government basis in dealing with First Nations. Subsection (d)(i) alludes to a government-to-government agreement. Would First Nations be considered under this section as a government?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is, in the various agreements that we have with First Nations…. For example, with regard to the sales tax act collection agreements that we
[ Page 5064 ]
have with First Nations, there are provisions in some of those agreements for information-sharing.

That's what would actually drive that information-sharing, depending on the various agreements that would currently be in place. It would be set out in those agreements — what the powers and the ability would be for the sharing of information that would otherwise be kept confidential.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. Section 55 is about the sharing or not sharing of information, except as follows. It says: "under an agreement…between the government and another government." Just to be clear, does this government consider First Nations another government in this province?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are certainly recognition agreements that are in place that would provide for the recognition of First Nations governments in the circumstances that would be set out in those agreements. This actually allows, where there are those agreements in place, for this information-sharing to take place.

[1645]

B. Ralston: It's now quarter to five, and as the Chair knows, the debate will be forced to end. The government members have decreed that it will end at five o'clock, and if there's another division — which I sense there may be — prior to five o'clock, I may not be able to ask any further questions.

At the outset of my speech on second reading, I did suggest that this act was misnamed. Since then, I've been provided by a number of citizens with some likely names for this act, rather than the rather very modest Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, which really doesn't describe very accurately what this bill did. If I might just offer a few of the names that have been suggested: the hard-to-swallow sales tax act, the highly suspect tax act….

The Chair: Member, one moment.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a section that pertains to the name of the bill. There is a vote that gets put on the title of the bill. That would be put at the end, and that would be the appropriate time for the member to raise this.

The Chair: Member, we are discussing section 55 at the moment.

B. Ralston: As the minister well knows, in the next 15 minutes or ten minutes, we won't get through the remaining hundred and fifty sections, so that's….

The Chair: But Member, we are discussing section 55 at the moment. If the member has a question on section 55, please could he…?

B. Ralston: No, I don't.

[1650]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Section 55 approved on the following division:

Hon. C. Hansen: I had endeavoured to try to obtain information for the Finance critic in one of his questions earlier and promised that I would report it to the House if I could secure it before five o'clock. I did get one element of that, and that was with regard to the number of PST appeals.

There are 385 PST appeals to the minister per year. About ten to 12 of those are further appealed to a court. There were 4,108 PST audits performed last year, and we have an audit staff currently of about 240.

[1655]
[ Page 5065 ]

On section 56.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that assistance, and with that, Madam Chair, I'm assuming we're moving to section 56, then?

This section is entitled "Demand for information." Can the minister explain the purpose of this particular section?

Before he answers, given that it's five to five and debate will end at five o'clock, I'd note that we're on section 56. There are a total of 213 sections in the bill, leaving 157 sections to go. It's regrettable that the government has chosen to proceed in this manner, because there are a further 157 sections, and while not all of them merit questions, certainly there is more work to do. That, I think, is an important part of the legislative process.

The opposition's duty is to scrutinize legislation that comes before the House. Given the rather capricious decision that's been taken by the government to end debate at five o'clock, the public and those who might seek to interpret this legislation in the future, either in the course of their professional duties as business people or in the courts, won't be able to have the benefit of the minister's interpretation of those 157 sections.

It's regrettable, indeed, that the government is proceeding in this manner. They seem bound and determined. I won't engage in any more political rhetoric or invective at this time, because I'm certain that in their heart of hearts, particularly the backbench government members, they know just what this bill — and the manner in which they've treated the public in this endeavour — is doing to the political support for their party and for their future political prospects.

Hon. C. Hansen: Noting that we are on section 56, we actually…. When you look at the time that we would have to be able to fully debate section 56 and all of the subsequent sections of this bill, this is a piece of legislation that has been before the House longer than any other piece of legislation in the last decade. I think we have certainly seen the entire month of April being devoted to the consideration of this bill.

Quite frankly, we would have had more time to deal with section 56 in this chamber if the opposition members had sought to utilize the second reading debate in a more expeditious manner, to allow for a more fulsome consideration under the committee stage of this bill.

Even today we've actually got through 55 sections of this bill. We're now on section 56. Given the amount of time that was consumed by divisions that were called throughout the day yesterday and today, we probably would have had more time to devote to the consideration of section 56.

M. Farnworth: Speaking to the section and noting the hour — that we only do have a few more minutes on this section — I couldn't let the minister's remarks go without commenting that yes, we have spent a lot of time on this particular bill and on key sections because this is a bill that will impact British Columbians.

The government made this a cornerstone of its Speech from the Throne, yet for such an important bill, we did wait and wait before it was introduced into the House. Even though we started at the beginning of April, we were actually back here in mid-March. Had we been here debating it in mid-March, when the government was back after the budget, we could probably have gotten through a lot more of this particular piece of legislation.

Had we followed this bill till the session ends, the third of June, or had we stayed and had the implementation perhaps been made June 1 as opposed to May 1, we could have gotten through even more sections and had an even more thorough and exhaustive debate on how this particular bill and its sections will impact upon British Columbians.

[1700]

That aside, we have worked diligently, and the opposition…. The member claimed he's concerned about the fact that division bells have rung. Well, I believe and the public believes it is important, on this bill that impacts British Columbians, that it is on the record.

Sometimes that is time-consuming, and I just wish that perhaps the government had taken that into account when looking at how much time we're spending on this. We did not have to be in the situation where we are right now, where debate is about to, in a sense, be guillotined on an important piece of legislation that many British Columbians oppose and have an awful lot of questions on.

The Chair: Hon. Members, pursuant to the order of the House adopted Monday, April 26, 2010, and the agreement announced by the Speaker on Wednesday, April 28, 2010, all necessary questions for the disposal of committee stage of Bill 9 will now be put.

Shall sections 56 through 213 and the title pass?

An Hon. Member: Division.

The Chair: Division has been called.

[1705]

Sections 56 to 213 inclusive and the title approved on the following division:
[ Page 5066 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:07 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1710]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate
and Transition Act

Bill 9, Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 11.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2010

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nanaimo. [Applause.]

L. Krog: I had no idea my popularity amongst my colleagues was so high.

[1715]
[ Page 5067 ]

Going back to where I was the other day, in dealing in particular with section 148, this particular provision, again, transfers a regulation-making power from Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to the minister and provides the minister with additional regulation-making powers.

As I mentioned the other day, this continues a very disturbing trend, particularly under this government, where more and more authority is not given simply to cabinet under regulatory powers but is now being given to the ministers themselves. I cannot imagine that the efficiency of modern government requires this continuous transfer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, it's difficult to hear the member for Nanaimo. If you've got other duties to attend to, please do so quietly.

Hon. Member, continue.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I cannot believe that modern government requires this continuous transfer of authority from not just cabinet now but to the actual minister responsible for various statutes.

There are a number of other sections in this bill that raise great concern. In particular, I make reference to section 166, which falls under the Ministry of Health Act, which will now authorize the collection, use and disclosure of personal information; authorize information-sharing agreements in relation to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information; and provide regulation-making powers consequential to the enactment of sections 9 to 11 of the bill.

It provides in section 10, for instance, that "if the minister" — not cabinet — "is satisfied that the collection, use or disclosure of personal information is reasonably needed to fulfill a stewardship purpose, the minister may (a) collect personal information from a public body, (b) use personal information, and (c) disclose personal information to a public body."

Now, that may in fact provide for some positive use of information. I don't know that that's the case. But the fact is it does provide for a significant disclosure that is quite remarkable.

The minister, it says, can't collect or disclose that personal information of the section through a health information bank, etc. But it is fairly clear, I think, that what is being prescribed here is quite dramatic. It's particularly dramatic when you take it in conjunction with section 11, which says: "Without limiting section 3, if the minister is satisfied that the collection, use or disclosure of personal information is reasonably needed to fulfill a stewardship purpose, the minister may enter into an information-sharing agreement with any person."

Any person. A person at law, by definition — and I don't think the act, unless I'm mistaken, provides some new definition — would include a corporate body or literally any individual.

Now, that's a fairly disturbing matter. Surely, surely that kind of sharing is not something that should be given simply to the minister. It does provide, I note, that regulations can be made by cabinet as well. But again, what's the purpose of this? What's the value of it? How is it going to improve the delivery of health care in British Columbia?

Is this simply a matter of convenience? Is this a matter that the health community has cried out for? Has B.C. Civil Liberties been consulted? Have the health unions been consulted? Have those who have an interest in health care been consulted generally?

When you look at these sections, when you consider that we are literally in this chamber in the process of hiring a new freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner, when you consider that the concerns around privacy are incredibly important to British Columbians and are becoming much more of a concern as time passes, one has to be very, very disturbed by the provisions that are set out in the act.

There are several other sections as well that give me pause. In particular, section 171. Now that allows "the director of commercial vehicle safety to cancel an inspection authorization or designation based on information and profiles compiled under section 216." It also allows regulation to be made permitting the sharing of information with other governments or agencies for the purpose of road safety.

[1720]

Now, it's not that the opposition is opposed to the concept of ensuring that people who are negligent or chronic law offenders shouldn't be duly punished. But again, sharing that information has to raise some concern, because the statutes and the provisions in any respective province may, in fact, be different. So what may be a black mark on your record in British Columbia is inconsequential in another province, or what is inconsequential in another province may, in fact, be a black mark on your record in British Columbia. We don't know.

Again, there's talk of keeping this information in prescribed form, etc., but at a time when we're talking about privacy, we appear to be building up a greater and greater bank of information. Moreover, section 175 sets out that: "For the purposes of section 216, the director may (a) authorize a person to inspect vehicles, and (b) designate a person, including the government or a municipality, to operate a designated facility," etc.

"Authorize a person." Now, I'm not sure why we have a section that says "authorize a person." Are we keeping this within government, or are we not? Is this a loophole for further privatization? That's a very good question, it
[ Page 5068 ]
seems to me. In other words, what is the exact purpose of that section?

If it's something quite innocent, so be it. But if it is to allow for further privatization at the very time we know that the province of British Columbia is committed to significant contractual obligations — I believe the figure is rising from something like about $55 billion to $90 billion over long-term contracts in the next ten or 15 years — again, that is a matter of concern for the opposition.

Also, section 183 "allows the Registrar of Passenger Transportation to consider whether an applicant for renewal of a licence is a fit and proper person to provide the service and to refuse to renew the licence…who is not, and extends the currency of the licence for the purpose of the consideration." I didn't hear the Attorney General. I'm sure we're going to hear, but what's the point of that? What is the value of that section?

Overall, with respect to Bill 11, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, I think it is, as is often the case with the government, a question of: what exactly is the driving force behind this?

Has there been the kind of consultation that is appropriate? Are we, in fact, going to be improving the state of the law in the province of British Columbia? Are we making up for past mistakes because we didn't spend the time in this House debating legislation appropriately, because we didn't spend the time in committee stage on various bills?

More importantly, and the theme of my remarks — and I don't wish to sound repetitive: are we moving further and further away from the concept that this place has a value for British Columbians? Because the thrust of many of the provisions in this bill is to not simply allow for the creation of regulation; it is to allow for the minister responsible to make regulation.

In the busy modern world — and legislators are just as subject to the busy modern world as everyone else is outside of this chamber — sometimes convenience is great. A drive-through instead of sitting down to eat a meal, a transaction with a bank card instead of talking to a teller. We all understand how the world has changed. But what we are talking about here in this chamber is the law.

It is the creation of the rules that govern what British Columbians are allowed to do or not allowed to do every day, every week, every year in the province. When we continuously remove the public scrutiny which this chamber is designed to do and shift it into the hands of a minister — not even cabinet, not even with the benefit of his or her cabinet colleagues to offer criticism or comment — then it seems to me we are going down a path that is simply not in the interests of British Columbians.

[1725]

We have continuously seen this since I returned to this chamber in 2005, and I'm the first to acknowledge that maybe in what the government benches refer to as a dismal decade, hon. Speaker, and I….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

A. Dix: We're speaking on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2). I think the Government House Leader and people out there will understand that there are provisions of this bill for which the opposition has grave concerns, but in the case of a miscellaneous statutes bill, we don't divide on these bills, in general, at second reading. We divide on those provisions of the bill that we are opposed to at committee stage.

I did want to make a couple of points at second reading, both to put the government on notice as to areas where we're going to be raising issues at committee stage and to express a little bit of concern that I know has been expressed.

If one reads Beauchesne and other documents that govern our life in the Legislature…. There's a little bit of concern about the provisions of this bill related to the privacy of health information, which I think are very serious provisions, very important provisions, provisions that have been commented on at length by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

To put it in context, the use of a miscellaneous statutes bill to deal with these serious issues around the privacy of health information…. While we will follow the format of this discussion and have a detailed debate at committee stage, those sections, in my view, deserve recognition in their own act for a couple of very significant reasons: (1) they are so serious and so fundamental, and (2) essentially, they provide, at least in part, an end run around privacy protections that this Legislature voted on when we passed the E-Health Act two years ago.

In fact, as you'll recall at that time, hon. Speaker, there were serious concerns about privacy protection for British Columbians around the E-Health Act. There were discussions between the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the day and the province. The provincial government, the government across the way in this Legislature, passed amendments that reflected some of those changes.

Now effectively, what the government has done in this piece of legislation is to exempt itself from privacy protections which the people of British Columbia might rightly think that they have.

In fact, I would argue that this makes these very serious provisions of the bill serious enough to raise here at the second reading stage, and certainly, they're provisions we'll be raising later on. In fact, what we have here in those provisions — and I'm going to speak about a couple of the other provisions — is a government that has decided that others may follow the law, but the government itself will exempt itself from the law. When
[ Page 5069 ]
those laws are related to privacy protection, this, I think, is a serious matter.

I'd highlight, for example, the comments of the acting Information and Privacy Commissioner in a letter to the Minister of Health, a letter that was singularly, I might say, dismissed by the Minister of Health upon receiving it. When this legislation was tabled, the Privacy Commissioner said, and I am quoting him accurately: "With respect, I recommend that these amendments be immediately removed from the miscellaneous bill so that our offices can continue to discuss the proposals and so that the serious privacy concerns raised by the proposed data-sharing are properly and completely canvassed before any further legislative proposals are introduced."

Now, we have a session coming up in the fall, and it seems to me, given the importance of these provisions both to the Privacy Commissioner and to the members of this Legislature, and the issues involved, that that would be the right thing to do — to defer consideration of those sections till the fall. I hope the government, by allowing us to defeat those sections, will allow that to happen.

It's almost — and we wouldn't normally do this with respect to a miscellaneous bill, as you know, hon. Speaker — worthy of a hoist, because here we have the Information and Privacy Commissioner, on an issue fundamental to British Columbians, telling the government to withdraw the legislation. Not only does the minister dismiss that and say, "Well, we're not even going to consider that; we're not even concerned about that…." That's what the minister's response to it was.

[1730]

We have on this issue, where the Privacy Commissioner played a central role in the development of e-health legislation, where the Privacy Commissioner plays a central role in protecting the privacy of British Columbians…. We have in this case a government, in a miscellaneous bill, which is seeking to weaken the privacy provisions that protect all British Columbians….

Let's be clear. I mean, there's a sense sometimes in which these things are seen in opposition. In the case of electronic health records, in the case of our most personal private information that government holds, it is essential to the success of what the government wishes to do on the e-health initiative that there be public confidence.

When the government takes steps to essentially exempt itself from its own responsibilities in that regard, it undermines that confidence and weakens a very important initiative, the e-health initiative, which might well help us and help the health care system not only to provide better services to British Columbians but, in fact, it would provide us with improvements to our health care system.

I just want to read to you, hon. Speaker, on these questions the conclusion of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Here's what he said this section contained. The Information and Privacy Commissioner, the acting commissioner has said:

"We are strongly opposed to the proposed Ministry of Health amendment provisions because it is not consistent with the privacy protection in either FIPPA or the E-Health Act for personal health information. In our view, the E-Health Act protects the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information appropriately. If the ministry chooses not to apply that legislation to the relevant databases, then the separate legislation should at least provide an equivalent standard of privacy protection."

So here we have a case, and what the commissioner is saying is that we passed legislation. The government, to get that legislation passed, given the very strong objections at the time, of the Information and Privacy Commissioner…. We passed an e-health bill, and the government, in this piece of legislation hidden in the miscellaneous statute bill, chooses to essentially exempt itself and its data banks from that process.

That is not appropriate. It is certainly, in my view, not appropriate stuff for this bill. If they want to go out and make these changes that are fundamental to the privacy rights of British Columbians, if they want to do that, they have every right to do that. They have every right to do that, but that debate should happen in a piece of legislation brought into this House by the Minister of Health, and we should have that debate and that discussion on that issue.

I don't think — it's my view, and I've expressed that view and I know that the Government House Leader will disagree with that view — that this is the appropriate way to do that. I think there is quite a bit of historical support for that position, especially given, as I say, the strong position of the independent officer of the Legislature whose role it is to protect privacy.

I just want to make this final point because, of course, we know that in his report on Vancouver Coastal Health, which provoked a lot of this, the acting Privacy Commissioner, or the Privacy Commissioner, went out of his way to state that a number of practices at the time were patently illegal and they should have been carried out through health information banks. The government not applying the standard of the health information bank to its proposal is part of the discussion on this legislation.

He recommended that these banks be declared health information banks by regulation under the E-Health Act. You know, we've seen this before in previous legislation, but what happened in terms of the Coastal Health case is very informative because the Privacy Commissioner issued a report in this case. When the Coastal Health board realized or was informed that the collection and transfer to the Ministry of Health were illegal, they acted to stop it.

The Minister of Health of the day issued a directive to require the flow of information to the government
[ Page 5070 ]
to continue regardless. Effectively, what happened was that they were forcing the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority not to follow the law. Now we come to this House and find the government exempting itself and giving itself the power to declare almost anything, and we know this government — that they're taking almost anything to be defined in the broadest sense possible as being for a stewardship purpose. That's what the law does.

The government has allowed wide exemption from the e-health law and a different standard if they use it for what they call a stewardship purpose. Well, as someone said to me about this: "Just because you said it doesn't necessarily make it so."

[1735]

I do not understand why the E-Health Act that we passed in this Legislature and the privacy provision contained in this act…. Why is the government of British Columbia not prepared to follow that standard on something so fundamental that the Minister of Health, contrary to the detailed view of the Privacy Commissioner, is prepared to run over those interests in such a profound way?

Needless to say, we will be asking in committee stage, and we will be opposing those sections in committee stage for that very reason, because we think that this is not…. I say it's not the way to go. We should be having a full second reading debate on this, but absent that, we'll be having this debate at committee stage on those sections and raising the very strong opposition of the Privacy Commissioner to these initiatives at that time and going through that in clause-by-clause debate.

In support of that, I'd just say, finally, that I think on those sections of the bill…. I think that we are at a point in the e-health process where public confidence has been profoundly shaken. It's been profoundly shaken.

The actions of the government here — to say that it's too difficult for the government to follow its own laws, to follow its own diktats and that we have to give the government an exemption they could drive a truck through — are another blow, in my view, to public confidence in a broad section, in the government's ability to manage and to deal with and to improve health information systems.

Like I say, this may seem arcane, but it's not. These are the most intimate details of our lives that the government holds. They tell us whether we have certain diseases, what we're doing, what our lives are about, what our physical health is about, potentially what our mental health is about.

We have to take the privacy considerations contained therein with the utmost seriousness. This doesn't meet the bill. Running over this act, running over the objections of the Privacy Commissioner, not following your own commitment to the previous legislation doesn't meet the standard.

We know right now that there are problems. The government is years behind on the e-health project, for example — years behind where they said they'd be. We have a very serious situation involving the authors of that plan and e-health in the courts here in Victoria.

We have bidding processes that went awry, and public confidence in the system is low. We've had repeated investigation by the Auditor General and the Privacy Commissioner about what's going on. The Privacy Commissioner raised some of the very issues dealt with in this legislation in a report highly critical of the government and Vancouver Coastal Health.

What does the government do? Do they follow the advice they receive? No. They exempt themselves. Their answer to being offside the law is to change the law, to move the blue line. There's no longer a blue line for them. There's a blue line for everybody else; no blue line for them.

I think — just so that people understand, therefore — that these provisions of the bill are provisions that on the face of it, like the Privacy Commissioner, we oppose. We think that the government in this case should sit down with the Privacy Commissioner and work those things out and bring those provisions back in the fall.

We hope that these processes in this House will allow that to occur at committee stage, because there are, of course, other provisions of the bill which may be worth passing and others which we have concerns about. We hope that that will happen in this process — notwithstanding our concern that those provisions are contained in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act.

We will be expressing our opposition in a formal sense to those provisions at committee stage. Therefore, so that people understand out there, our decision not to vote on these provisions and to vote them down at second reading stage is a reflection of a bill that contains many measures, some of which one might support and some of which one might oppose. To oppose all of them in principle wouldn't make sense. There is not one principle to this bill. We will be addressing those issues at length at committee stage.

I thank the Speaker and the House for their indulgence, and ask those people who might be listening who are concerned with personal privacy to contact us as well and to express their views.

[1740]

This bill is likely to come forward to committee stage in the week that follows, and we think that the issues here are fundamental. We hope that individuals who are concerned with the protection of personal privacy will make their views known to the government.

S. Fraser: I'll take my place in the debate of second reading on Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2010.
[ Page 5071 ]

You know, I realize the necessity for omnibus bills in many cases, but I always have a little bit of trouble with them because until you get to committee stage, the devil's in the details. A lot of things can be put into a bill that look innocuous, and it's very difficult to suss those out until you do get to committee stage. I will keep my comments brief, considering the time.

Section 4 is a section dealing with community and rural development amendments. I'm the critic for community and rural development. I'll be wearing that hat in these discussions.

I'll note that the section is fairly large. There are many, many what appear to be small changes that range from the Community Charter, Environmental Management Act, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, Hospital District Act, the Islands Trust Act…. Amendments, a large number of amendments, pages' worth, dealing with the Local Government Act, and then some sections dealing with the Vancouver Charter also — so quite a sweeping number of topics under the part 4, which is the community and rural development.

Now, I've made a few phone calls — this bill was just introduced a few days ago — to city managers, administrators, a couple of mayors, asking them about the bill, if they have any concerns about it, as my job is critic. To a person, none of them were aware of the bill or the changes or the potential significance of some of these changes, so it's with that in mind that I'm going to be speaking today.

I understand that, according to the government press release on the section dealing with community and rural development amendments…. For those watching, that's section 4 again.

It says here: "Changes respond to land use and development concerns raised by local governments and the development industry." Well, so far, from local governments…. I haven't heard of any discussion that happened with local government over this. That might narrow down where we're getting the changes made, might narrow down where it is, to the development community.

I don't want to seem cynical there, but they talk in the press release about streamlining. "Streamlining" is often used as a code word for cutting regulations and deregulating, and in many cases, historically, with the B.C. Liberals, these types of words often lead to stripping of rights and authorities of local governments. With that in mind, I have great concerns.

I'm just getting a note here just to make sure…. Okay. The Liberal government has brought in…. Historically, it brought in TILMA, which, again, was done behind closed doors. It affected local governments potentially — certainly. But there was no discussion.

So in this case, with Bill 11, we appear to have had no discussion with local governments, so we see a very draconian previous legislation brought in, dealing with trade laws that would detrimentally affect local governments. I wonder if there's anything in Bill 11 that will further strip local governments as the TILMA has.

Further to that, as we all recall, in 2007 there was Bill 36. That's the TransLink restructuring bill. That removed the democratic control from the hands of local politicians and put it in the hands of unelected experts.

Of course there was Bill 30, independent power producers — states that the authorization of independent power producers, as provided under the Utilities Commission Act, is not for superseded or impaired by anything in or done under the Community Charter or the Local Government Act — again, taking away the rights of local governments. I hope that's not what this section of the bill is doing.

I guess we'll find out with the devil in the details when we go into committee stage. With that, hon. Speaker, I will conclude my comments.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General closes debate.

[1745]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am obliged to all of the members who made a contribution to the debate. I will simply say that I take a different view of a number of the provisions that have been referred to but accept the fact that members have brought their arguments and will want to pursue them in the committee stage of this debate. I am obliged to them for identifying the sections that engage their particular interest and look forward to a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions as the bill proceeds from second reading to committee stage.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2010, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1750]

Mr. Speaker: Members, if you would remain in your seats. I understand that the Lieutenant-Governor is either in the precinct or almost here. He'll be here shortly.

Members, please take your seats. The Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct.

[1755]
[ Page 5072 ]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the House:

Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this act.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,333,693,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. We're doing the budget estimates on the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

M. Karagianis: Just before we broke from this morning's session, we were talking about the programs — the Child in the Home of a Relative and the extended family program. I believe that the minister said that the extended family program was not a direct replacement for the Child in the Home of a Relative program. I guess, again, that in a hairsplitting kind of way that might be true, but the reality is that the Child in the Home of a Relative program is no longer available to families. Should they want to choose that particular kind of service option, they'll no longer have that.

The minister talked about the extended family program. We do know that there are lots of barriers there to many families accessing that, certainly to grandparents and to a disproportionate number of aboriginal families and grandparents who are raising grandchildren. It disturbs me greatly that the options that the minister outlined for families, other than the extended family program…. If they don't qualify for that, there is no longer going to be an intake for Child in the Home of a Relative.

The other program that the minister referred to, or the other options, were not the kind of straight-up services that many families have been asking for, where a grandchild, a niece, a nephew or some other family member moves in with a grandparent or an aunt or an uncle or other family members. All they're looking for is a small bit of financial assistance. They're not looking for anything more than that. There are no options for that, according to the minister's comments.

She talked about foster care and other options. That's not what families necessarily want, and the Child in the Home of a Relative served a very specific purpose. I'm disappointed to see that the minister has said that the extended family program is not a replacement for that, so in fact there is no replacement for that specific kind of program.

I guess it goes hand in hand with some of the other disappointments I have had here. I had hoped this morning and yesterday that I would have come away with a full understanding of the CAPP program. I sadly have not come away with any greater understanding of what the CAPP program is now than I did going into this process.

I am disappointed that the consequences of cuts on agencies and other services here are either not being acknowledged or not being tracked very well, and I can only gather that either the ministry is loath to explain properly what CAPP is and all of the consequences of it — either can't or won't.

Perhaps the minister herself does not fully understand it, because I know she alluded to the fact that you have to be some kind of professional to understand it. I don't think that's true at all, so I want to register that disappointment here.

I have not had a chance to ask about the lack of performance measures at all on the Strong, Safe and Supported document, which seems to be another basis of this new practice mode. There are no performance measures in here at all. The performance measures that the government has come up with seem in some way not connected to some of the real things that are happening here.

[1445]

I want to register my disappointment in those various areas. I do have other members here that wish to ask
[ Page 5073 ]
questions. It has been very frustrating to try and seek this information in the current environment, where our questioning has been broken up. I'm sure it's just as frustrating for the minister, but it has, unfortunately, eaten up so much time on the clock that we have not resolved any of the questions here that I wanted to have answers to.

I have no more clarity coming out of this than I did going in, and that's really unfortunate. We have not had a chance to fully canvass the impacts of cuts and how that will diminish services for families and for children across the province. We haven't talked about community living. We haven't talked about youth justice. We haven't had a chance to talk about many of the aspects that are not clear to me that are going to be dealt with by this new CAPP program either — or CAPP practice, as the minister has advised me to call it.

I am very frustrated by that, but at this point I will turn the floor over to my colleagues who have questions and then to my colleague and deputy critic who will be talking about child care.

Hon. M. Polak: I appreciate that it has been a difficult estimates process both for myself and for the critic, with the constant interruptions. I just want to address a number of points that the member left us with.

First off, I know that the member was unable, no fault of her own, to attend the briefing that we provided on the Child in the Home of a Relative program. It did deal with many of the issues that have been canvassed here today. I want to make it clear. There are no barriers for grandparents to the extended family program. The question that was asked earlier with respect to those who are 65 and receiving old age pension, Canada Pension Plan — that in no way affects their eligibility for services through that program, none at all.

[1450]

In line with that, there are also no barriers to those who are aboriginal. They have equivalent access to those services as well. There's absolutely nothing that changes for them.

In terms of the examples I've provided, they were just that. They were simply examples, but there's a whole range of other options that can also be pursued. There are kith-and-kin agreements that can still be put in place. In terms of a family where they have taken in a child and the only thing that they are looking for is financial assistance, based on their income, they would be able to receive financial assistance through Housing and Social Development.

Nevertheless, the difference is that under the current program of Child in the Home of a Relative there is absolutely no income test, so regardless of the family's income, they would still be entitled to financial assistance. Even in a case where they were quite wealthy, they would still qualify for that.

Also, there was no assessment of whether or not this was an appropriate placement for the child. I would have to say that from my perspective, and certainly the perspective of the professionals with whom I work on the front lines, that's a very important matter to all of us — to ensure that there is safety and that we have proper supports in place for any child.

With respect to CAPP and practice change, we have had a briefing. I've had one individually; we've enjoyed one together. I'm disappointed if the member did not gain a full understanding of that. I think one must be recognizing, from a layperson's perspective — and I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with the member — that when it comes to practices that people train for years to be able to engage in, in terms of their work, it would be ridiculous to expect that we could fully understand and comprehend the very many facets of that. That just doesn't make any sense at all from a layperson's perspective.

That's one of the reasons it is so important that we do have dedicated professionals, both on the front line and in leadership in a ministry, who are able to manage and promote best practice and practice change in a manner in which we are….

In terms of performance measures for Strong, Safe and Supported, again, I would remind the member that we have not dropped any performance measures. In fact, we have actually added new ones, and Strong, Safe and Supported is our operational plan for the entire ministry. Our ministry, like every other, is governed by a service plan in which we have performance measures. We also report out on many other performance measures on our website, and any that are not reflected in the current service plan are retained in public reporting on the website. We have not dropped any of those.

Last, I would also just remind the member. She was disappointed to not speak about community living. Community living is not a part of MCFD's programming.

B. Routley: Thank you for this opportunity, Minister, to raise an issue important in the Cowichan Valley. I want to talk for a minute.

Certainly, our Cowichan region is very familiar with the fine work that Cindy Lise is doing in the Cowichan Success By 6 and Children First. She's the coordinator of that program. As a result of her work, our region has been working extremely hard in raising awareness of the importance of early childhood development and education.

They have provided a free community drop-in centre for young children and families and, in Chemainus, a mobile early childhood bus providing programs to children and families in remote First Nations communities. There are a whole host of other areas. They've leveraged additional funding. I don't need to go into all of the things that she's doing, but it's amazing work, and it's been well received by the community.
[ Page 5074 ]

I would like to note that I've received a letter from her outlining the fact that MCFD Children First funding has been cut by 50 percent until September 2010 and then by 100 percent following that date, and Success By 6 has been cut by 100 percent as of March 31, 2011.

The Cowichan Valley community…. We have one of the largest First Nations reserves on Vancouver Island in the Cowichan Valley region, with all of the Cowichan Tribes, the seven different Cowichan Tribes, impacted, as well as other regions in Lake Cowichan and surrounding Lake Cowichan that are showing….

[1455]

There's a map that illustrates the level of areas that have poverty and are in need of programs to help children.

As a community, we're hoping to continue the work to reduce the staggering 25 percent of children that are not ready for school. As a result….We know that it will have impact, if we don't do this work, on the criminal justice system — policing and social support and other costs in the future.

My question to the minister is: exactly how does the minister justify cuts to programs which are clearly in desperate need in the community, and will she reconsider these harmful and drastic cuts?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to Success By 6 and Children First, certainly there's a linkage there. I should advise the member that the Children First tables will remain in place regardless. Insofar as Success By 6, subsequent to the original announcement, as we neared the end of our fiscal year we were able to identify funding that has allowed us to return to Success By 6 and engage in discussions with respect to the potential to engage them in a baseline budget process so that they are part of our annual budget.

This would allow them to continue in future years, albeit it would be on a more limited basis. We also want to discuss with them the direction and focus of their programming, such that it would be aligned with other services that the ministry provides and with the priorities we're going forward with. It's too early to say what the results of that will be.

We are engaged in discussions with Success By 6 now. I think it's fair to say that both sides are hopeful that we can arrive at an arrangement that will give them some certainty around their funding and also will allow the continuance of many of their programs, but it's too early to say specifically which those might be.

With respect to Cowichan Tribes, there is a great deal of reason to be optimistic about the potential for seeing improved services, particularly being delivered in conjunction with Cowichan Tribes. We are working very directly with them right now, and that, of course, is being conducted under pillar 4 of Strong, Safe and Supported. But again, there's every reason, I think, to be optimistic about what we might be able to achieve together with them, as we have with other First Nations.

K. Corrigan: The early childhood development table in my community of Burnaby has asked that I bring some questions to the minister. This relates to the 15 by 15 strategic goal wherein the B.C. Liberals aimed at increasing school readiness by 15 percent between 2008-09 and 2015-16.

[1500]

I would point out, particularly in Burnaby, that the early development instrument, which is administered regularly in Burnaby, has determined that the trend is that approximately one-third of the children in the Burnaby population are vulnerable as they go into kindergarten, on at least one scale of development, in '08-09.

I would also point out that one of the neighbourhoods that I serve, particularly, in my constituency — Deer Lake — in the most recent results had 49 percent or nearly half of children vulnerable on at least one scale of development.

The table and the board of trade also asked me to point out today that the Burnaby Board of Trade recognizes the importance of early childhood development as well. They submitted a resolution asking the federal government to fund and assist the development of a provincially delivered early childhood development program to increase Canada's long-term productivity by investing in a better-educated, more highly skilled workforce. The importance of early childhood development certainly continues to be one of the Burnaby Board of Trade's key priorities in 2010.

Given that wide-based support in Burnaby, the question that the Early Childhood Development Roundtable asked that I would ask the minister is this. They would like to know how the government will keep its commitment to the 15-by-15 promise, and when will they implement the recommendations of the HELP, or the human early learning project?

Hon. M. Polak: I thank the member for the question. I had the privilege of meeting with the Burnaby Board of Trade and discussing the resolution that they put forward. I made it clear to them that I was encouraged by the fact that so many civic leaders are now addressing the issues of childhood vulnerability and are taking on the matter of the socioeconomic realities of their constituents.

[1505]

In the past, municipalities have very often been nervous about taking that on as a role that was appropriate for them, so I was encouraged by that and have been by many other communities.

I've also met with Dr. Paul Kershaw to discuss his 15 by 15 report. It was commissioned by the business council. One of the things that I find encouraging about the
[ Page 5075 ]
15 by 15 report is that not only does it align with government's stated goal of reducing childhood vulnerabilities by 15 percent by 2015, but it also broadens out the discussion to go beyond a simple look at child poverty as that of economic status. It instead reminds us that in order to address this, we must get at the root causes.

I note that in recent media comments, when I listened to Paul Kershaw discussing this, he stressed the fact that we must go beyond a simple view of this, beyond simply economic circumstances.

To that end, we know that it's important for us to have the research that the human early learning partnership provides. That is precisely why the human early learning partnership — and, therefore, the early development instrument — is funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport, and the Ministry of Education. It is our funding that allows them to do the work that they do.

With respect to the kinds of services that we provide, because we know we need to get at the root causes…. For example, this year there is $24 million for early childhood development initiatives. That includes support for early childhood development planning tables across B.C.; another $600 million for special needs programs, which includes infant development; and nearly $300 million for child care programs, including subsidies.

There are also, across government, more than 200 StrongStart B.C. centres that have been put in place, with an additional 100 that are opening this year — very important. StrongStart centres were an outgrowth of discussions on how we might further address those early vulnerabilities of children and cause them to be more school-ready.

We also are, of course, investing $151 million over the next two years to implement full-day kindergarten starting this September and then completing the full implementation in the following year.

All told, these examples represent, this year alone, an expenditure of more than a billion dollars in those areas of early childhood development, child care and children and youth with special needs. We need to always be looking at how we can reflect a priority for children in government policy. We aim to do that. We aim to continue to be working across government through our integrated framework for children and youth to ensure that government policies are aligned in favour of supporting youth and children as a priority.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to go to another area. I just wanted, also, to mention, just get it on the record — and there may be a response to this — that members of the Early Childhood Development Roundtable also said to me: "We feel it's shameful that Canada's investment in early childhood development is dead-last among developing nations and ask the government to adopt some of the initiatives that bring such success to these other countries."

I certainly understand that the minister may want to respond. But my question next will be…. I'm going to go to another area. I've had a request from the transition houses — various organizations, and that would include the Dixon Transition house society in my community.

There are some questions about the level of funding, not for the houses themselves — I fully understand that the funding for the houses comes through the Ministry of Housing — but I believe there is some money that is attached to this ministry that is directed to counselling and other programs that are offered within the transition houses.

The question that my local and some of the provincial service providers wanted to ask was: what is the level of funding that is being provided through this ministry to the transition house programs, and how does that compare to last year?

[1510]

Hon. M. Polak: We currently don't fund services through transition houses. Those are typically provided for through the Solicitor General and some through Housing and Social Development. There may be an anomaly where we have a contracted agency through which we're providing some individual program, but we're not aware of it here today.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'll go back to the people I was speaking to. We'll put it in writing and get some more clarification on that.

I wanted to go to a little series of questions for which I am better known, which are a couple of Olympic questions. I think what I'd like to do in this case is just read the questions in, and perhaps I could get a response later from the minister and the ministry to those questions. It's completely up to the minister, but given the time pressures that we have, I'll just go through and quickly let you know what they are.

I was wondering if the minister could let me know what Olympic tickets the minister received that were paid for by taxpayer money, either the minister or ministry staff or guests, and what the value of those tickets were and who went to those events. Of course, when I say the Olympics, I mean Olympics and Paralympics.

Hon. M. Polak: I'll give just a brief response to the quickest part, and then the rest of the detail we can provide to you. For myself, I attended three ticketed events. One was the pairs figure skating long program, and two were medal ceremonies at B.C. Place.

K. Corrigan: I also wanted to ask about the employee loan program, which was the program whereby ministry staff or private sector companies or individuals were
[ Page 5076 ]
loaned to VANOC. That was the call made last summer for up to 1,500 people.

I'm wondering if the minister could let me know how many people were involved in the employee loan program and what the cost was to the ministry — what the associated cost would be for the time and benefits. That's one question. That would be being seconded under that formal program called the employee loan program.

The other question I had was the volunteer program where government employees were afforded the opportunity to have one week paid — a secondment — if they would volunteer a week, as well, to the Olympics or Paralympics. I was wondering if the ministry could let me know how many people were involved in that, what the hours were and what the cost associated with it was.

The final thing I wanted to know was what other Olympic costs were associated with this ministry through hosting, hotels, rooms, travel, meals or anything like that for anybody being hosted by the minister or ministry — finally, any other costs generally that were associated through perhaps people working full-time on the Olympics, being seconded to the Olympics. So all those costs I'd appreciate having, and I'll sit down and be….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: That would be great. Thank you so much.

[1515]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here. I've got a few questions.

I just wanted to start by saying that a few weeks or a couple of months ago, I raised some issues, using various mechanisms of the Legislature, around Angel Magnussen and Niles Brick, two children in my constituency in the Alberni Valley who had lost their supported child development program funding. I just wanted to acknowledge and thank the minister and her staff for reversing that decision.

I'd also like to acknowledge the front-line staff, the Port Alberni Association for Community Living — everybody. I wanted to acknowledge that, and I just wanted to also say that I did make those acknowledgments to the press following the reversal. They didn't necessarily cover it in print, although the TV news may have, but I did make the same sentiments there. I wanted to go on record in case that didn't get through. I'd just like to touch on that.

This supported child development program. First of all, I did forward a couple of other issues to the ministry during the meeting that I had with your staff. It was Glen and Janice Garrett-Goronge in Port Alberni. They have a big problem. There's a gap, it appears, between 18 and 19.

I may not be directly associated with this ministry, but I did turn it over to your staff because there's a problem there where Community Living B.C. does not provide assistance until 19. There seems to be a problem there, which I'm sure is not unique. If it's happening to the Goronges, I'm sure it's happening elsewhere. That's one issue that I'd like to get an update on.

The other one has to do with the supported child development program. There are other children in the province who also lost access to that critical one-on-one care, and as we know with Angel Magnussen and Niles Brick, it was critical care. That one-on-one is needed to keep the children safe, so a big problem there.

It's happening elsewhere. I've been contacted. Again, I pass this on to your staff. Cynthia Stark — she lives in Burnaby now. Her child Kieran is only 11, and he's on a waiting list for the supported child development program. I did a little bit of research, and it appears there's been an increase in subscription to that program by…. I think I've got it figured at 120 percent in the last three years, but there's been no funding increase to address those needs.

In the Alberni Valley the two issues we're dealing with are with children that were over 12. Again, I thank you for reversing that decision and reinstating the supports, but now I've got an example of a child under 12 who requires the supported child development program, yet there are insufficient resources to make that happen. By the time Kieran, I would submit, turns 12 or 13, which would maybe make him ineligible for that program, there may be nothing for him there, based on what happened to Angel Magnussen and Niles Brick.

A bunch of questions, but a program that obviously is very useful. There are gaps before 12 with insufficient funding in some regions. There are gaps certainly post-12, 12 to 18, where there is no real program for replacement except for a few one-offs here that we've seen, and then there's a big gap at 18 to 19. I won't go beyond that, because that's beyond the purview of this ministry, I'm sure.

[1520]

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you to the member for some of his comments. I appreciate that.

I want to first of all just talk about supported child development and some of the challenges that we have faced in the past. Supported child development is a program that's intended to be for children up to the age of 12, and it's intended to be primarily in order to support children so that they are able to attend child care programs.

There are some exceptions, both in terms of age, which the member and I have talked about…. When there is a low enough uptake for the program in the under-12 category, then there's often room for agencies to provide that service beyond age 12. It's conducted on an exception basis, and the manner in which the program is
[ Page 5077 ]
delivered is in some cases, by exception, altered to better meet the needs of those young children.

[1525]

There is something, though, that has occurred within the ministry in the last year or so. That is that beginning in October of '09 — I'm sure the member is aware of this — the Ministry of Children and Family Development became once again responsible for services for children and youth up to the age of 19 who are receiving special needs services.

As the member can appreciate, I'm sure, this is now a new set of circumstances for us. One of the reasons this change was made was that we recognized the very many challenges there are with respect to transition for children, in particular at that post-19 stage.

We have now, as a result of that transition, developed a new protocol with Community Living B.C. We are very hopeful that means that as the future unfolds, we will see far fewer of those challenging and problem cases, but that instead we'll be able to be on top of that and be working to develop appropriate plans for children, beginning even as early as 14 when we know they're going to age out of the services we provide.

With respect to the 12-to-19 category, while there isn't one specific program, what we do is service those children through our child and youth with special needs services. That is based on an assessment to determine what types of supports those children would need and what the family would need, and we therefore bring to bear whatever services would be available within the range.

Now, some of those can even look very similar to supported child development programs, and that was part of the dialogue and eventual success that we had in working with Angel's family and again with Niles's. Again, those services are there.

We are also thankful when we hear from members about the challenges that may be faced in their communities. It allows us, as we go through this transition year, to be able to determine where there are areas in which we need to assist staff or assist agencies as they adjust to the new reality that in MCFD we are now taking on that responsibility for the under-19s.

With respect to supported child development and wait-lists in the area mentioned, I should just point out that for supported child development overall, we have seen consistent budget lifts. To date, since '01-02, that budget has increased from $35 million then to now $58 million. But it is dependent on enrolment. Of course, the member's example actually illustrates why sometimes it's a challenge to provide for those exceptions when we have an increased demand in the 12-and-under category for supported child development.

Nevertheless, we do attempt to place those children with supports from other areas of the system, and we also try to work with agencies to ensure that children are aware of those services perhaps through other agencies. Again, it's always a challenge to meet increasing demand and to plan our services accordingly.

M. Elmore: Thank you very much to the minister and staff for the opportunity to ask some questions.

I'd like to start with child care. I've been hearing a lot of stories from parents who have told me they're quite desperate, looking for adequate child care spaces — number one, affordable spaces and also quality day care spaces right across British Columbia.

My question to the minister is: can she please outline the funding breakdown for the child care budget — the total budget around $300 million and then the accompanying line items with CCOF subsidy; SCDs, supported child development; as well as the minor capital grants and major capital grants; and the breakdown, as well, for the federal portion?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

[1530]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to spaces, there are currently in British Columbia approximately 90,000 spaces that are funded through the child care operating funding. That's an increase of about 6,500 spaces since 2003.

With respect to the federal portion, the federal contribution this year is currently at about $80 million. The child care subsidy program is budgeted this year at $154.2 million. Child care operating funding is at $65 million. The child care capital program is at $1.1 million. The child care resource and referral program is at $9.6 million, and supported child development is at $58 million.

M. Elmore: Is there any allocation for major capital grants? I'm just wondering. You were referring to the grants. Is that the minor capital grants? Is there anything for major capital grants and the expansion of spaces?

Hon. M. Polak: There is no new major capital program this year. However, there are previously approved projects. The $1.1 million represents $500,000 from minor capital and $565,000 from major capital. There are currently some major capital expansions still taking place as a result of the fact that they were announced and are still in process of construction.

M. Elmore: I'm just trying to add the numbers up here. Could I, if I've missed it, have the total again for child care? Also, in terms of the federal total, I think I had that at $80 million. Could I have a specific breakout of the federal? There seems to be a difference from last year. During our estimates the federal number was $33.61 million.
[ Page 5078 ]

Then in terms of the total for child care, that budget. Then, as well, the total for the federal component of it. Then in terms of the total for subsidy. For our last estimates the total for subsidy came in at $162 million.

I just wanted to confirm if that's accurate to the current subsidy total of $154 million. Then just noting that's a reduction from 2009, so maybe some clarification.

[1535]

Hon. M. Polak: The total budget for child care this year is approximately $300 million. With respect to the federal amount, the $80 million, I was putting together the federal funding as well as the ELCC framework money, which is also federal funding. So probably the amount the member is referring to is the 2007 federal funding, and that's $35.1 million as a portion of that $80 million.

I'm not sure about the subsidy numbers. The number that we have for 2009-2010 for child care subsidy is $148.2 million and then this year rising to $154.2 million.

M. Elmore: Thank you for the clarification. In terms of the federal $80 million, I'm also interested in the breakout with the…. Just to clarify the amount this year in terms of the federal allocation to child care and also the specific — if you have that — number for early learning out of that $80 million. I'd appreciate that.

Hon. M. Polak: For the early learning, that is the $45.7 million, and the federal funding is $35.1 million. That all goes into our child care budget.

M. Elmore: So to be correct, the subsidy total for our last budget was $148.2 million. This year it's $154.2 million. Is that correct? I have a difference of $6 million — if I'm correct on that. Okay. That's a difference of $6 million in terms of subsidies. Is that correct? I know there is an announcement that there is a $26 million increase in the subsidies. That's projected over next year as well. Okay, over three years. Thank you very much.

Maybe, if we're on the numbers, you can also break down the allocation to early learning. I have, in terms of the federal allocation, $45.7 million for early learning that's consolidated. I have the number, as well, previously in terms of early learning — $24 million in terms of ECD funding. So $24 million for ECD; the $45.7 million from the federal transfer. Can you also outline for me the other investments in terms of early childhood development or early learning?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We'll have a recess until the end of the vote.

The committee recessed from 3:40 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: I hope I am covering off what I recall from the question we had before two interruptions.

I must apologize, because the $24 million that I quoted with respect to the list of different things that we fund for early childhood development out of the ministry was for '08-09. It was not for last year. So I apologize for that.

I'll give you the list. From '08-09 our budgeted amount was $23.9 million. Our actual expenditure was $27.4 million. In '09-10 our budgeted amount was $22.8 million. Our actual expenditure was $27.7 million.

[1600]

This year our budgeted amount is $22.2 million and, of course, until the end of the year we don't know what the actual will be. These have been part of the STOB 80 reductions that we've discussed previously, or that I've discussed with one of the other members.

With respect to the ELCC amount from the federal government…. The way the current agreement works, there is no breakout of those dollars, so I believe it is the $45.7 million that we spoke of earlier.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister for those clarifications.

I'd just like to note in terms of the subsidy issue…. It's been raised with me. Of course, it's always a positive when we can see an increase in the budget. Although subsidies do increase accessibility for families, they don't address the overall need in the system for more spaces. What I've been hearing stories of are wait-lists and also a shortage of spaces. I'm disappointed also that there isn't a provision for capital grants in terms of expanding spaces. I'd just like to have that on the record.

I was hoping to get a little bit of a breakdown, a more comprehensive breakdown in terms of the early learning expenditures, but I think, just considering the votes that are going on today, I'll move on to some other questions in terms of getting those down. Maybe if we have a chance, we can come back to those other numbers.

My question has to do with the importance of child care — certainly, not only to families and to kids looking for spaces but also the benefits to the economy, with parents being able to participate more fully in the workforce. It's providing quality learning experiences for children and having that support and those benefits that we've seen — well-documented benefits to the economy or long-term productivity.

So my question has to do with: is there an assistant deputy minister that's designated to look after the child care file? And also, what other leadership staff are assigned to child care?

[1605]
[ Page 5079 ]

Hon. M. Polak: We have gone to an integrated leadership team. So, for example, we have a chief operating officer responsible for policy and legislation. That includes child care. We also have an ADM responsible for integrated quality assurance. That includes child care. We do have an early-years policy team that reports to the chief operating officer and also an operations team that reports to one of our assistant deputy ministers.

M. Elmore: I think I'd like to ask a couple of questions and just revisit, if we can fit it in…. I'm interested in having a breakdown of the…. It's pretty clear that in terms of the budget for child care, it's $300 million — consistent, also, from last year's $300 million.

Just to note, as well, that it's been raised to me from the child care sector that CCOF is remaining constant, if I'm correct, from last year to this year as well. Just in terms of inflation and operating costs, that's actually a decrease, and that's felt by the child care sector. That's been raised to me in terms of a concern that they have in terms of covering the operating costs and also the pressure onto parents — that they're forced to raise fees, and they're not happy to do that. So I'd just like to register that.

In terms of breaking down the expenditures…. I have the 24 for early learning; from the federal government, $45.7 million; then the budgeted 2010, 27.7; and budgeted 2011, 22.2. The minister mentioned earlier the overall number of $600 million that's attributed to special needs, and I would assume that that's combined with early learning. I'm wondering if it's possible to have a breakdown of that.

Also, I know there have been discussions of an early childhood plan, an early childhood framework that has been in process or being developed, and I'm just wondering what the status of that is — if there is a framework, an early childhood framework or plan and if it's possible to have a copy of it.

[1610]

Hon. M. Polak: It is true that the child care operating funding remains the same. The subsidy has increased. That's always a balance that we're attempting to strike. Both, of course, help to offset costs for parents in attaining child care, and the choice we often have to make is whether we raise one, lower the other. But there's an ecology there.

[The bells were rung.]

CCOF represents 12 percent to 14 percent, on average, and I'll get to the others when we get back.

The Chair: We'll recess again for another vote.

The committee recessed from 4:11 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The Chair: We're in the middle of an answer by the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the cross-government expenditures on children and youth with special needs, that amounts to $600 million across government, some of which, of course, is through ministries such as Education and Health.

Within MCFD it breaks down like this. You have medical benefits at $19 million; regional child and youth special needs therapies, etc., at $121 million; nursing support at $12 million; and autism funding at $46 million — for a total of $198 million.

With respect to the early-years plan, that is something that we had begun to develop. But in light of there not being additional government revenues for new expenditures, that plan is currently on hold.

M. Elmore: It's been stated earlier — the reports from the human early learning partnership, the benefits from investing in the early years — certainly that it's a good investment. It's a good return on investment. They're projecting even up to a six-fold increase in terms of the money that goes into the economy, benefits to the economy and benefits to the labour productivity for the parents and also for the children in terms of their participation and completion of post-secondary school.

I was at the symposium on innovation in early learning in Vancouver. There was a presentation from Virginia Greene about the benefits of investing in the early years. The statistic that stuck with me that she mentioned was that from 2007 to 2017 they are projecting a creation of 900,000 jobs in British Columbia, and 60 percent of those will be through retirements of baby boomers. The remaining 35 percent will be from the creation of new jobs, particularly in the knowledge-based economy.

With the projections in terms of the economic development, studies from the Business Council are projecting an increased need of post-secondary education required for 85 percent of folks needing to transition into these jobs. Currently it's about 60 percent.

In terms of the benefits from the investment in the early years, and specifically during a recession or a downturn in the economy, it's a very good investment in terms of the benefits. It's a wise time to make those investments. That was the recommendation from Paul Kershaw. The results from the excellent research that they've done are also echoed by members from the Business Council.

I'd just like to be on the record that it's a good time for making those investments. Also, in terms of developing an early-years plan, I think it's certainly needed at this time. It's something that can, looking forward, be a bene-
[ Page 5080 ]
fit to us, to society, to supporting children, supporting working families and also the economy.

Is there a time frame or plan in terms of expecting completion of such a plan or when that would be coming forward? And is that also going to be integrated with looking at a plan for child care?

[1625]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, we see early childhood development as a priority. It's one of the areas of prevention and early intervention that for us form part of Strong, Safe and Supported and certainly part of the continuum that we see as supporting children and families to be in a much more resilient situation than they may currently find themselves.

It is important to note, though, that while we are awaiting, as all ministries are, the return of government revenues to more of a typical state, at which time we'd be able to make more new investments, nevertheless, government is making new investments into early childhood development through the expansion of StrongStart programs and through the implementation of full-day kindergarten.

As I've stated before, this year alone across government we'll spend more than a billion dollars on early childhood development, child care, and children and youth with special needs — so certainly a priority for government, an area where we are making new investments into early childhood development.

You know, it is part of a much larger need in society, for us to shift priorities toward prevention. Of course, that takes in changes that we need to be making to the health care system in order to ensure that we have the capacity to make investment in prevention across government.

If you were to take the increase to the health care budget in the three-year budget cycle, there's almost enough there to create two entire ministries of Children and Family Development. So there's also a societal issue there, where we need to be discussing the need to get costs for health care under control if we're going to be making those very important investments into early childhood development and other areas of prevention.

M. Elmore: Yes, I agree in terms of the necessity to focus on the social determinants of health, particularly in the early years. That's been shown to significantly reduce costs — and it's been documented by the human early learning partnership — certainly in the health care system and across other social services as well.

Given the current economic situation, I think it is still a very valuable investment. As well, the importance of having a plan and having an integrated framework through which to implement a comprehensive program of early learning and child care is a necessity in terms of trying to set down some timelines and benchmarks and also to measure the progress, particularly around the goal to reach the 15 percent vulnerability by 2015.

I'd just like to recognize some of the comments from, particularly, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce — a child care resolution that was passed. They quote: "Quality child care is no longer just a social issue. The business community of B.C. now views child care as one of the key factors in addressing the labour shortage in B.C. The ability to recruit and retrain workers in all industry sectors is underpinned with a worker's ability to secure quality child care that meets their needs. A comprehensive strategic plan for the child care system in B.C. is critical to staying competitive in today's global economy."

I heard a presentation by Warren Beach, the vice-president for Sierra Systems, an information technologies firm, talking about the challenge of recruiting and retaining qualified staff. It's certainly a very competitive industry. The challenge of workers and employees…. One of their top concerns is having access to child care in terms of their consideration for being employed in different firms. He commented that that was one of their top priorities.

[1630]

Recognizing the needed support for readily available child care in terms of the ability to recruit and retain qualified staff is a big concern and shared as well by a number of other industries, particularly the knowledge-based sector in British Columbia. The concern around the productivity in terms of having support of child care so that employees, parents — often the mothers — have the ability to…. Once they feel that their child is being looked after they have that confidence to continue their career uninterrupted.

From the employer's perspective, that brings increased productivity to a company in terms of that ongoing training component and also for those employees being able to contribute more to the company in terms of innovation.

There's certainly a need for that, which I've heard from leading business executives. I think pretty much the majority of boards of trade are in support of that. Certainly, reports from parents as well. I think it also points to the need for, really, a comprehensive plan to address child care and early learning and to really implement, to bring in some substantive changes.

I know that the numbers now are at 20 percent — the total number of children who are in licensed spaces. That only meets the needs of 20 percent of families who are applying, so there is a great need for more spaces.

The need is also much greater in terms of infants. Only 8 percent of families looking for quality spaces for infants are able to find those licensed spaces, so certainly, there's a crisis in the system currently. There's a need for more spaces — affordable and accessible spaces — as well as ensuring that quality child care is delivered.
[ Page 5081 ]

In terms of the benefits to the economy, I think that we need to act now. We need to implement a plan and make significant investments in such a plan.

Maybe I can ask you for a little bit more detail about your plan to address these concerns and priorities.

[1635]

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course we share many of the same concerns that the member opposite has raised. With respect to workplace attachment, we have attempted to make policy adjustments as we go that do respond to some of the changing needs that parents have. For example, one of the changes we've made recently was with respect to the qualification for children who were under the age of six, which of course is a higher amount of funding.

We recognized that with the increased need for before- and after-school care for those who were five years old, if they were to turn six in the middle of a school year, that presented a big problem for parents. So instead we altered that policy so that regardless of whether the child turned six or not during that school year, they would nevertheless be covered with the same funding as though they had remained five throughout the school year. That's one example. There are a number of others.

Because of the concerns that we share in those areas, we have been working with our Provincial Child Care Council. We have asked them to consider child care in the context of full-day kindergarten and StrongStart. We have asked them to consider some of the 21st century issues that we need to be dealing with in terms of our child care policy and also the appropriate breakdown around child care operating funding and subsidy.

I do think it's important, though, to note that the philosophical approach we bring to this as a government is one of recognizing that, first of all, these are private operators. There is a role for broader society and for business, also, to play in the child care field.

We also emphasize choices for parents in that not all parents are wishing to involve their children in licensed group care. Some are interested in licence-not-required opportunities. To that end, currently we now support 50,000 unique children through child care subsidy. Many of those are not in licensed care but instead are in options where a licence is not required.

In terms of major capital, again, we are always pleased to be able to invest in major capital programming that would allow the construction of more spaces. We do that when we have the funding to do that.

In terms of the overall approach we have taken — certainly as we've watched other ministries with major funding reductions — unlike other jurisdictions, we have protected the funding for child care and, in fact, increased the subsidy precisely because we know that there is a great need for us to maintain that investment during a challenging time such as this.

M. Elmore: I'd just like to also read in some quotes in terms of recognizing the importance that we're hearing from the business sector now. These are new voices that are coming forward, playing a key role, I think, in momentum in terms of moving forward child care–early learning policy in Canada. Certainly we're seeing that in Ontario. They've recently introduced legislation there.

[1640]

Some of our business leaders in British Columbia — Virginia Greene, president, Business Council of British Columbia: "Business leaders recognize the importance of investing in early childhood development as an effective business strategy to create a strong, knowledge-based economy of the future. The evidence is compelling. Investing in early childhood education is the foundation for creating the skilled workforce our province needs to prosper and grow in the future."

Again from Warren Beach, and he's the executive vice-president and CFO of Sierra Systems: "Families need communities and governments to provide a range of supports, including early learning and care services."

As well, quotes from Tamara Vrooman, CEO of Vancity, and Yuri Fulmer, CEO of Mr. Mikes Steakhouse and Bar and chair of the United Way of the Lower Mainland board of directors, also lending support in terms of investment in early learning and support for children — certainly, the benefits of that.

I still come back to my initial question. I've heard from business leaders, and we're hearing through reports, as well, of the necessity and the need for child care spaces. My question to the minister: what are the specific plans to really address some of these concerns that parents have, that community organizations have and, certainly, that business leaders have in terms of the dearth and lack of spaces for their employees, for working families having access to adequate child care?

What is the plan in terms of expanding spaces and addressing the critical shortage in child care here in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: It's important to point out that while government over the years has contributed to the creation of spaces through major capital funding, very many spaces are created without the aid of government capital funding. One of the areas that we're quite proud of in British Columbia is the fact that when operators open new spaces, we fund them. There is no cap on that. We don't have a limit that says that this year we will only fund this many. If they open tomorrow, we fund them tomorrow.

That is a very important aspect of child care funding in British Columbia, but we do rely on the private sector
[ Page 5082 ]
and the non-profit sector to be the ones who put forward the proposals, who make the plans and who build the spaces. Many of them will seek funding through major capital plans when we have those in operation. Some years we do; some years we don't. As it happens, with the revenue drop we don't this year, but nevertheless, we fund every space that opens.

M. Elmore: My question still remains. What is the plan? What plans does the ministry have, recognizing that there's a desperate need for child care in this province, that employers say they need that in terms of being able to recruit and retain qualified employees?

A very compelling argument that I heard from Virginia Greene was that there is a necessity to invest now in terms of a child care and early learning system to provide the boost to our economy. Now, the earlier we get the investment in, the more benefits we will see in the long run. Not investing now is creating a compounding effect in terms of a drag on our economy with the projected retirement of baby boomers and the projected shortages in staffing, in employee levels in terms of labour shortages projected.

[1645]

Child care would meet the need of allowing working families and parents to participate more fully in the workforce. Also, there's a multiplier effect in terms of benefits to the economy, growing the economy. The long-term options of not investing now will be magnified much greater in the future. Certainly, there's a pressing need now. We're hearing voices coming forward from the business community echoing these.

The question I have is: what is the plan to address this shortage, specifically? Where will we see new spaces? How will we see them brought in? How does the ministry plan to address the critical need for spaces?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, we agree that this is an important and valuable area in which to invest, and that's one of the reasons we are investing now. That's one of the reasons that we now see the number of child care spaces at 90,000 funded spaces, which is an increase of 40 percent since 2001.

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll finish my answer when we get back.

The Chair: I recess the committee until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 4:56 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: I was just finishing my answer, and forgive me if I have forgotten some of it. We can always begin again on Monday.

Yes, certainly, we recognize the importance. We have made the investment in spaces, but it is the private and non-profit sectors that indeed are the ones who construct the spaces. We do provide capital investment when we have finances permitting. But in addition to that, and probably more importantly, whenever there are new spaces that come available, we do fund them.

We also are making other investments in early childhood development, because we recognize that that is a critical area. That's why government is making new investments into full-day kindergarten, into StrongStart centres. We've also invested in neighbourhood hubs. These are all very important investments that do expand our capacity to provide early childhood development services.

With that, Mr. Chair, and noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:58 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 © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175