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, May 20, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 5

[ Page 5621 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm just looking for my guests. I think they're probably still making their way in, but I have the great pleasure of introducing several members of the Treaty 8 First Nations, who will be joining us in the House today.

They are West Moberly First Nations Chief Roland Willson; Prophet River First Nation Chief Lynette Tsakoza; Doig River First Nation Chief Norman Davis; Treaty 8 Tribal Chief Liz Logan; Prophet River First Nation Coun. Laurette Kaiser; and the negotiations and implementation director for Treaty 8, Diane Abel.

[1335]

Earlier today these three Treaty 8 First Nations signed four resource management agreements and a final agreement with the province that will provide greater certainty around economic opportunities, resource development, land stewardship and heritage conservation in the traditional territory of these Treaty 8 First Nations. I'd ask all members of the House to please make them welcome on this very special and historic day.

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce to this House my very good friend, Scott Lunny, who is an assistant to the director in district 3 of the Steelworkers. He's also a vice-president of the B.C. NDP.

Along with him is a special guest from the U.K., Louisa Bull. She's a deputy branch secretary of Unite, a union that represent over two-million-strong workers in the United Kingdom. Please help me give them a real warm welcome to this beautiful place here.

Hope your journey is great.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House today Coun. Richard Chang, a councillor in the city of Burnaby. With Richard are Katherine Shieh, CEO, and Bill Tulloss, the vice-president of StructuRad, a company out of Encino, California, who are here meeting with several members of the opposition to talk about their company, which offers teleradiology solutions and image-sharing networks. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

T. Lake: We're very privileged to have working in the B.C. Liberal caucus someone from a very proud and prominent Kamloops family, Stacie Dley. Today she is joined by her partner, and first time to be introduced in the House, Mr. Steve de Jong. Would the House please make them both very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I'd like to welcome a friend and supporter, Silvester Law. Silvester is up there in the gallery, and he's been a great supporter of ours over the years. We really appreciate him coming to visit.

Welcome, Silvester.

S. Hammell: I have the pleasure of introducing three teachers from Surrey. Stephanie Argent is a teacher-librarian at Holly Elementary, an inner-city school in Surrey. She combines her teaching degree with a background of library, community recreation and learning support in her role as a teacher-librarian in a multicultural school with 40 languages.

Patricia Baisi has been a teacher-librarian in the Surrey school district since 1999. She has chaired the Surrey schools Book of the Year program for the last two years and currently works in two libraries.

Kathy Leko is a teacher in Surrey school district for 23 years, has worked in small rural schools, inner-city schools and large suburban schools in primary and intermediate grades. Could the House please make all these three fine teacher-librarians welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: From time to time in the House my colleague from Prince George North and I like to recognize special people. I'd like to do that today. I'd like to recognize Mrs. Brenda Bell. Today is a very special day in the Bell household. It is actually their 32nd wedding anniversary. I think anyone who could be with the member from Prince George North for 32 years deserves a special commendation in the Legislature today.

D. Thorne: I also have the pleasure today to introduce two teacher-librarians. I'd like to introduce the House to Maureen Mcdonough, who has been a teacher for 18 years and a teacher-librarian for the last three. She's currently the teacher-librarian at Laronde Elementary in Surrey. In addition to her teaching degree, she has a master's in education in curriculum and instruction and a certificate of teacher-librarianship. She is also one of the coordinators of the preschool literacy program Parents as Literacy Supporters, otherwise known as PALS.

[1340]

I would also like to introduce Lisa Domeier de Suarez, who has been the secondary teacher-librarian at Clayton Heights Senior Secondary in Surrey since 2007. She previously taught English and Spanish for seven years. In addition to her teaching degree, she has a BA in Spanish, Latin American literature and Portuguese and is a graduate of the UBC teacher-librarian diploma program.

I would like the House to welcome them, along with the three teacher-librarians from Surrey my colleague introduced — highly educated, wonderful parts of our
[ Page 5622 ]
education system. I'd like the House to make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Hawes: I'd like to introduce 35 grade 11 students from Heritage Park Secondary in Mission. They will be arriving just about when question period starts. They are with five parents and their teacher, Ms. Holly Mayo. They are here to take a look at what's going on here in the buildings. I would ask all members…. I'm pretty sure you'll want to be on your best behaviour for these grade 11 students, who I'm sure would like to see a very normal, quiet debate, and I'm sure they will. With that, please welcome them as they arrive.

Tributes

JENNIFER HAO

R. Lee: I would like to take this time to congratulate a grade 10 student at Burnaby North Secondary School in my constituency. Jennifer Hao won first place with an essay in Canada's Greenest School competition. Jennifer herself will receive a $3,000 scholarship, $500 in green school supplies and, most impressively, a $200,000 hybrid school bus for her school. Would the House please join me in congratulating Jennifer and all the students who took part in this impressive green inner-city program.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: Some members of this House may have noticed there was a gathering of the Clan MacRae at the Legislature today. I would like to pay special note to some people here. Marigold MacRae, Gracious Lady of Eilean Donan Castle of Scotland and president of the Clan MacRae Society of the United Kingdom, is here. The Baroness Miranda MacRae–Van Lynden, 24th constable of Eilean Donan Castle; the Rev. Dr. Robert MacRae, president of the Clan MacRae Society of Canada; and several members of the Clan MacRae Society are here to meet for their AGM and to attend the Highland Games and Celtic Festival. Will the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

RON BUTLIN

Hon. I. Chong: All members will know that on Monday we celebrate one of our statutory holidays. Here in Victoria we have our annual Island Farms Victoria Day Parade on Monday morning, starting at 9 a.m. I know those members who are local will attend it, as well as those who may arrive Sunday night. I hope that they will participate in this.

I wanted to pay special acknowledgment and recognition to an individual, the parade chairman, who has been doing this on a voluntary basis for the past 20 years and does an incredible job. I know he would be here watching us today, but I'm sure he's watching on his television. I would ask the House to please recognize and acknowledge Ron Butlin, parade chairman.

Introductions by Members

J. Rustad: A couple months ago, I had the great pleasure of going and visiting the Rainbow Christian School in my riding. Today there is a school group that has come down here to visit us. They aren't in the precinct quite yet, but they will be shortly. It's a group of 16 grade 8 students, accompanied by 12 adults. Mr. Mark Durupt is the head of that group here. I just wanted to make them all welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Serenading visitors to the Legislature today is a group of fiddle students from Whitehorse in the Yukon, on an exchange program with young fiddlers from Victoria. Both the Yukon fiddlers and the Victoria-based fiddlers are led by my brother-in-law Daniel Lapp, who is out on the steps of the Legislature playing for tourists today. Would the House please welcome all of the students from both Victoria and the Yukon.

[1345]

D. Hayer: We have one special guest here today, Owen C. MacRae. He is the Canadian director of Clan MacRae Society of Canada and one of the hardest-working residents of Surrey. I would like to welcome him and thank him for all the work he does for Surrey. Will the House please make him very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CRESTON VALLEY BLOSSOM FESTIVAL

M. Mungall: This May long weekend presents a big weekend for the Creston Valley. The 69th Creston Valley Blossom Festival kicks off Friday, May 21, with both the Party in the Park and the opening concert featuring the Doug Arden comedy show.

Not to be outdone by Friday, Saturday shows up with fun-packed activities, most notably the Blossom Festival parade that features marching bands, floats, clowns, horses and the local MLA throwing candy to both kids and kids at heart.

There's also a street fair in Creston's downtown Spirit Square, events saluting the Creston Museum, the Classic Car Show and Shine, a soccer tournament, events at the Creston Valley wildlife management area, a spike-driving contest, a dunk tank, a climbing wall at Millennium Park, a chili cook-off and so much more. So you see what I mean when I say "big weekend."
[ Page 5623 ]

But a big weekend just wouldn't earn that title without one key ingredient. That, of course, is the pancake breakfast. The Creston Valley Blossom Festival not only hosts one such pancake breakfast, where festival-goers get to line up and get their share of syrup and flapjacks, but you will find three pancake breakfasts where you can enjoy friends, family and neighbours over a cup of joe and a stack.

Now, if all that isn't enough to get you running over to Creston for the weekend, the festival theme this year is: "New pool? That's cool." Celebrating the grand opening of the Creston Valley's new swimming pool and updated community rec centre, the festival is ringing in this community resource with style and great fanfare.

So come for the pancakes, come for the parade, and come for a dip in the pool, but whatever you do, don't miss out on Creston Valley's 69th Blossom Festival.

ABORIGINAL AWARENESS WEEK

M. Dalton: This is Aboriginal Awareness Week in British Columbia. I am proud to be Métis, and I'm proud of the progress that aboriginal people have been making over the past number of years in terms of economic development and treaty agreements with the province.

There are over 130,000 First Nations people and 60,000 Métis in the province, comprising approximately 5 percent of our population. They are a fast-growing and youthful people, which contrasts sharply with the aging demographics of the general populace.

The increased participation of aboriginal people in our workforce is becoming increasingly important as time progresses. As was evident in this year's Olympic Games, aboriginal peoples are a vital part of not only Canada's but British Columbia's social fabric and heritage.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the signing of the historical Nisga'a treaty. In just the past year we've signed treaties with six First Nations, including the first urban treaty with Tsawwassen First Nation. These treaties bring reconciliation and increased economic opportunities for First Nations people as well as for all British Columbians.

Though we have made significant positive steps together, there remain many challenges, which will only be resolved with determination, vision, cooperation and time. I make special mention of Shawn Atleo from the west coast of Vancouver Island, who was elected National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations last year. I also recognize the chiefs and elders throughout the province who work to improve the condition of native communities and their people.

British Columbia's aboriginal people are facing a brighter future, and I know we all share the desire to see more progress to close the social and economic gaps.

100th ANNIVERSARY OF PRINCE RUPERT

G. Coons: "Sold out." That's what the sign says at the headquarters of the Prince Rupert 2010 Homecoming. Two years of intensive organizing, planning and prepping have culminated in a fun-filled long weekend starting today, May 20, and continuing until Sunday, May 23.

[1350]

This is Prince Rupert's third homecoming. The first was in 2000 to celebrate the millennium. It attracted about a thousand people. The second was in 2005, with about 1,800 participants, and this weekend has 2,000 Rupertites partaking, with an amazing 1,100 coming from all parts of the globe — some as far away as Alaska, South Carolina, Texas, Germany, Norway, Dubai and Australia.

What's unique about this homecoming is that Prince Rupert is the only city in the province celebrating their 100th birthday. It's going to be a great weekend, with the usual hospitality rooms, the pancake breakfasts, the wagon rides, the golf scramble, the chauffeur-driven visits to local establishments, the five grad reunions, and the infamous gala and dance.

For Prince Rupert's 100th, there were a couple of intriguing projects. The Rupert Songs CD is a compilation of 15 songs to celebrate Rupert's centennial. It highlights unique interpretations of the town's spirit, landscape and the infamous weather and was done by current and ex-Rupertites. Homecomers will be entertained by some of these local performers, including Ray Leonard, Cynthia Pyde and Kate Lines.

Also in celebration of Prince Rupert's centennial, a musical production was created, Raven's Story, The Dream Lives On, a musical based on the history of Prince Rupert. It was written by Peter Witherly, Rudy Kelly and Chris Armstrong, produced by Crystal Lorette, directed by Alison O'Toole. It has over a hundred people from the community participating on and off the stage, including their local MLA.

I must acknowledge and thank the eight-member homecoming committee for all the hard work and energy they put into organizing this event and also, as Barb Gruber, says: "Rupert is a place that you just don't forget; it's always on your mind." This will be the best homecoming yet.

VISIT TO SHANGHAI

R. Lee: This week we celebrate Asian Heritage Month in the Parliament Buildings. It reminds us of the deep connection of our province to the Asia-Pacific region. Also this week the Premiers of our three western provinces are visiting China and Japan to promote education, trade and investment.

Last week, in my capacity as the Parliamentary Secretary for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, I had the opportunity to the visit the 2010 Shanghai Expo, which will
[ Page 5624 ]
last for six months with an expected 17 million visitors. "Better city, better life" is the theme uniting the exhibitions of 246 countries.

I attended the opening of the Canada Pavilion and the opening of the Vancouver Pavilion, both pavilions an example of wood in action, as the structures as well as the displays inside are made from wood. Perseverance and efforts like this are behind the success in our efforts to export wood to the Asia-Pacific markets.

I'm sure we are all pleased with the recent announcement of Canfor's mill re-opening and Tolko's agreement with China, which will support 555 direct jobs.

On this trip, together with the Shanghai Business Association of Canada, I met with the vice-mayor of Shanghai; provincial and state ministers; consuls general; independent news and institutes, including the Wenhui-Xinmin United Press Group; Shanghai Women's Federation; and Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

I shared information about the Sunshine Coast, Burnaby Board of Trade and the province with many of the people I met. It was an opportunity to help connect the B.C. delegation with Shanghai entrepreneurs, government officials and our trade representatives in China.

I witnessed strong intentions of cooperation in media, agriculture, tourism, education. I'm sure the members would welcome the trip to Shanghai in September if they want to join the trip organized by the Burnaby Board of Trade.

ALICE MAITLAND

D. Donaldson: At the North Central Local Government Association annual meeting held in Smithers earlier this month, there was a celebration to mark 40 years of municipal politics for Hazelton Mayor Alice Maitland. I'll say that again: 40 years, 34 as mayor.

I spent a decade with Alice on Hazelton council. She is a friend and a mentor and has an incredible impact on many leaders in the north, especially as a role model for women in municipal politics, and in this chamber as well.

What was honoured was not just her longevity but her quality of service, integrity and relentlessness in defending rural communities. Many speakers took the stage in what became a very emotional tribute. You could hear a pin drop when former Smithers mayor Jim Davidson said to Alice: "You were right; we were wrong. Those of us in this room did not support you. We didn't think we could fight government."

[1355]

He was referring to an unjust government decision in the late 1980s that allowed timber previously designated for the Hazelton mills to go to Prince George instead. With the support of Hazelton council, Alice battled that decision in the courts and won, but the judge ruled it was too late to reverse the path chosen by government.

The lesson Alice taught all of us, though, was not lost. It was to stand up and fight when resource extractions decisions by government run counter to what is best for the small communities where we live.

Despite that feistiness, that fearlessness, Alice also brings a very strong sense of compassion to her public role, and her ability to compromise when it is needed to get a better situation for the community is very inspiring.

So congratulations, Alice. As her husband, Bill, says, it hasn't been a cakewalk. I know there's been a lot of personal and financial sacrifice, but you've created a legacy of strength for the rest of us to look up to. And the best thing is, as Alice said that night, we aren't getting rid of her yet.

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH FIRST NATION
OLYMPIC LEGACY CELEBRATION

J. Thornthwaite: The Tsleil-Waututh Nation, or people of the inlet, live on the north shore of the Burrard Inlet. They are a small but growing community of almost 500 people. On April 26 while I was here in Victoria, my constituency assistant Carol Dawson attended the Tsleil-Waututh Nation Olympic legacy celebration that recognized all the partners that helped create the success of the 2010 games and for helping the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation reach centre stage.

Last week at the Tsleil-Waututh Nation community centre I was honoured when Chief Justin Sky George wrapped me in a blanket that signifies warmth, love and the willingness to work and help each other. I was also presented with a plaque which reads: "Our memories of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games will always remind us that when we paddle together as one, we can achieve great success. Our hands are up to you in thanks and appreciation, thanking all of you honoured ones."

Local First Nations leaders remarked that since the games, a new model for aboriginal participation has been created for a platform of new solutions. Chief Justin George has said: "We see this as a model for how we can collectively come to the table. Rather than focus on problems, we focus on solutions. It's not going to happen overnight, but this will be seen as a building block for the future."

Dennis Thomas, who welcomed the world to Vancouver wearing a wolf pelt on his shoulders during the Olympic opening ceremonies, remarked that this is the first time an indigenous group has been acknowledged as an official partner in the games. So I, too, raise my hands in thanks and appreciation for the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and agree that when all of us do paddle together with our First Nations partners, we achieve great success in British Columbia.
[ Page 5625 ]

Oral Questions

WAITING TIMES FOR
MRI AND DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

A. Dix: Ironically, my question to the Minister of Health is about wait times. If your doctor's office calls on your behalf and books a regular, medically necessary MRI at Vancouver General Hospital today, there's currently a 14- to 18-month wait time. In Abbotsford it's 18 months. That's November 2011. In Surrey it's 18 months. In Nanaimo it's 14 months. In Burnaby it's 18 months.

In many communities wait time has almost tripled since this minister became Minister of Health. Does the minister think it's acceptable for people in pain to wait well over a year for medical services in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, first of all, I want to make something very clear. Any British Columbian that requires an urgent diagnostic, whether it's a CT scan, an MRI or an X-ray, will receive that — full stop. The issue is with elective, non-urgent procedures, and there is a wait. The member is quite correct to point that out.

The number of MRI machines in British Columbia has gone from nine in 2001, when we first got elected, to 24 today. The number of diagnostics that we do is up 170 percent, the number of MRIs that we're doing.

Even in spite of those increases, there is still a challenge. So we are looking at the non-urgent MRIs and making sure that we do everything we can — looking at how the system is delivering it, the appropriateness of the referrals — to deal with the virtually unlimited demand for MRIs.

[1400]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the only innovation this minister has come up with is to cut 11,500 MRI procedures in Vancouver Island and Vancouver Coastal Health — 11,500 according to the health authorities themselves — and to see a dramatic increase in wait times.

Oh, yeah, there was one more. They stopped publishing the wait-time data on the website. That's a real innovation from the Minister of Health.

The reality is that an 18-month wait time is completely unacceptable, and it's directly the result of the policies of the Ministry of Health. They did more MRI procedures before the election than after the election. That's what that was about, hon. Speaker. When will the minister do something about unacceptable wait times across British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is interesting that the Health critic brings up the issue of wait times, because I notice he never talks about the wait times that CIHI talks about — the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which said, actually, that British Columbia is number one for cardiac wait times; surgical wait times for hips, for knees, for cataracts. He never talks about that — number one.

Now, you know, I know that the Health critic likes to be selective. He's now talking about MRIs. Granted, there is no standardized measuring process across the country for MRIs. I acknowledge that. But what I can tell the member is that we have gone from nine MRI machines and 37,000 tests done in 2000-2001, when his government was government, to today where we've got 24 MRIs, over a hundred thousand procedures being done. I get that we continually have to try and improve.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: It's impressive. After a year of study the minister has discovered that every health system in the world is doing more MRIs today than ten years ago. The Health Minister has discovered, apparently not discovered, 18-month wait times. All of the procedures we're talking about, every single one of them, are medically necessary.

Now, Mr. Cruz — he's a patient in Vancouver. He was involved in a terrible hit-and-run. He was the victim of a terrible hit-and-run. He was told that for the diagnostic procedure he requires on his legs he would have to wait until July. That's July 2007. Can the minister explain to us how that was now or ever acceptable in a public health care system?

Hon. K. Falcon: He refers to a gentleman, Mr. Cruz, that did spend one week back in February at Vancouver General Hospital. The member should know that during that time he did receive urgent diagnostics. He had two CT scans for his neck and for….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Excuse me. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'll start repeating because the member interrupted me.

Mr. Cruz was admitted to Vancouver General Hospital back in February where he spent approximately a week. During that time Mr. Cruz received a number of urgent scans: two CT scans for his spine and his head as well as an ultrasound and seven different sets of X-rays.

Subsequent to being discharged a week later, he has been an out-patient and received out-patient treatments. I understand that he does have a non-urgent MRI for a knee that his doctors referred to. The member should know that for non-urgent MRIs there is a wait-list, and we are very concerned about that. We're doing everything we can to try and address those situations, not just for Mr. Cruz but for British Columbians right across the province.
[ Page 5626 ]

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, my constituents are now waiting 18 months — 18 months — to undergo a medically required MRI at Surrey Memorial Hospital. When this government's electoral prospects were on the line, resources were allocated towards reducing MRI waits in Metro Vancouver. That funding has subsequently been withdrawn, and now by sanctioning layoffs of MRI technicians, the number of tests the public health care system performs is even further reduced. Treatment cannot proceed without diagnostics.

On those grounds, will the minister reverse this course?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: It's interesting that that member asks the question, because of course, that member was a cabinet minister during an NDP government when Fraser Health had only one MRI machine for the entire Fraser Health. In fact, it was a common practice in Fraser Health that they would ship their patients to Vancouver to receive the MRIs.

Well, I can tell you this. In Fraser Health the number of MRI procedures from 2001 to today are up 528 percent. But you know, even with a 528 percent increase, the demand is virtually limitless. That's why we are actually trying to find different ways to deliver those procedures to increase productivity and to try and ensure that British Columbians waiting for non-urgent MRIs can receive them as quickly as they rightly deserve them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: This member has a lot of time wandering in the past, but this decade is on his watch. Surrey Memorial is not only my community hospital, but it also serves the Minister of Health's constituents of Surrey-Cloverdale. His decision to undercut their access to diagnostic tests leaves them waiting for over a year for treatment. The minister knows that this should not be the standard wait time, nor does it have to be.

Will the minister at least restore MRI volumes in the Lower Mainland to pre-election, May 2009 levels?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I can tell you that what residents in Surrey are really proud of is the fact that there's a $240 million out-patient hospital being constructed right now in Surrey. I'll tell you what else they're proud of. They're very proud of the fact that there's a new $600 million Surrey tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital being constructed in Surrey.

You know, the challenge for British Columbia is a challenge right across the country with MRIs. It's that the explosion of requests for MRIs for non-urgent procedures is virtually unlimited. What we are trying to do is deal with that in a thoughtful way that looks at the appropriateness of referrals, that looks at how we can try and deliver those MRIs more efficiently for non-urgent MRIs. It is a challenge for British Columbia, but we are working on a number of solutions to deal with it.

D. Routley: My constituents are referred to Nanaimo Regional General Hospital for diagnostic tests. This Liberal government, through VIHA, in the lead-up to the last provincial election announced additional funding for MRIs. That was before the election. After the election VIHA was forced to cut thousands of scans.

The wait time is now more than tripled, to 14 months. My community, like others in B.C., has invested, through their tax dollars and through donations, in these MRI machines and these procedures. Will the minister stop wasting our investment in public health care?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's important to point out to the member opposite that actually the largest investment in public health care is occurring right now under this government and has been…. I want to remind the member opposite that actually the health care budget is going up 15 percent over the next three years. That's over two billion additional dollars just for operating.

[1410]

As you know and as I've said before, that doesn't even include the additional $3 billion in capital, including the new Royal Jubilee Hospital that just recently received international acclaim and that's under construction.

Really, the challenge is this. The challenge is that even in spite of those massive investments in Canada and, indeed, in British Columbia, we still have virtually unlimited demand. So the responsibility of governments is to figure out how we can do more with the dollars, the record dollars, we're already pouring into the system.

The NDP approach is: don't change anything; just huck more money at it. Our approach is to actually try to look at doing things innovatively, differently, and that's what we're going to continue to try and do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: On the one hand, the minister boasts about spending, and then he accuses this side of only asking for spending. He talks about the cost-efficiency.

Through the chair, Minister, it is not cost-efficient…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: …to let this equipment sit idle. To allow wait times to grow exponentially is not cost-efficient. In fact, it creates a bottleneck in the system. It does not reduce health care expenditures. Instead, it accomplishes the complete opposite because patients deteriorate. Why is the minister continuing to make decisions that
[ Page 5627 ]
put more strain on Vancouver Island patients and their health care system?

Hon. K. Falcon: How refreshing to finally hear the words "efficient" and "efficiency" come out of the NDP. That's got to be a first. Let's record that one in the history books.

I can tell you that when we do other changes in the health system — like, for example, when we move towards joint procurement where all the health authorities are purchasing together, saving $150 million — they are opposed to it. Every single change we've made that improves efficiency, the NDP are hysterically opposed to. So it is surprising that that member, of all members, actually lets the word "efficiency" cross his lips.

The fact is that they're opposed to change. They are opposed to innovation. We have always said that we embrace innovation. We embrace change. We embrace the challenge of trying to deal with a health care system that in spite of record funding increases, still faces challenges. We'll continue to innovate on this side of the House.

SELF-EXCLUSION PROGRAM
FOR PROBLEM GAMBLERS

S. Simpson: Governments have a responsibility to have effective programs in place to deal with addictions. Yesterday we heard about the failure of the voluntary self-exclusion program for people with gambling addictions. This is a program, as the government will know, that looks to exclude problem gamblers from casinos after they self-enrol.

We heard about Shannon, who registered for this program in 2008 and then proceeded to gamble away $40,000 in casinos, including $4,000 in one 18-hour stint. Her physician, Dr. Jennifer Melamed — an addictions expert, as well — has called the program a sham and has stated: "If you say you're going to keep them out, then keep them out. If you're saying it's a scam and a farce and it's not going to work, then tell the patients upfront."

My question is to the Health Minister. Will the Health Minister commit today to work with his colleague the Minister of Housing and Social Development to do a third-party assessment of the self-exclusion program and to fix the problems with the self-exclusion program?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll take the question on notice on behalf of the Minister of Housing.

[1415]

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS

J. Brar: If the B.C. Liberal government continues to ignore the people of British Columbia that elected them, on July 1 we will see the HST add a new tax on a whole range of health care products that help keep people of British Columbia out of health care: vitamins and supplements, over-the-counter medications and remedies, fitness memberships, bicycles — just to name a few. That is completely contrary to the B.C. Liberal promise to promote healthy living.

My question is to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. Has the Minister of Health Living met with the Finance Minister to let him know that the HST damages the very goals her ministry is responsible to promote?

Hon. C. Hansen: What is clear, I think, to British Columbians is that the vast majority of goods and services, 80 percent of goods and services, will not be affected at all by the introduction of the harmonized sales tax or, in fact, some will actually come down in price.

We recognize that there are some things that are going to be more expensive. That's exactly why we have put in place an HST credit for British Columbia families, and 1.1 million British Columbians will get a cheque in the mail every three months to help offset some of those incremental costs.

The other thing that I think is important for the members opposite to pay attention to is that in British Columbia today we have seen a significant increase in the take-home pay that British Columbians enjoy because of the changes that we've made to personal income tax.

For example, the take-home pay between 1990.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the members might want to get their pencils out and write down these numbers, because I'm sure they'll want to use this in their speeches. Between the years 1990 and 1999 the average take-home pay in British Columbia dropped by $1,525. Between the years 2001 and 2008 the average take-home pay of British Columbians increased by $4,482.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: It's very clear that the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport is not even allowed to stand up and defend her own policies for this government.

This is a story of an individual that talks about the damage the HST has done to that person. Phillip Gabel called us today. Mr. Gabel lives in 100 Mile House. He's a paraplegic because of a car accident six years ago. He takes vitamins to keep his body strong. He needs massage therapy services, and he also takes over-the-counter aspirin as a blood thinner. These are all going to go up under the HST, and Mr. Gabel is very angry with the B.C. Liberals, and rightfully so.
[ Page 5628 ]

My question is again to the minister. Can the minister explain why these health products necessary to keep Phillip Gabel well are going to cost more, completely contrary to Liberal policies?

Hon. C. Hansen: The hon. member will know that the vast majority of products and services that a family needs in their household budget, the core things that people rely on for their families, are either exempt or are not going to change at all as a result of HST. That includes things like home energy. It includes things like basic food and groceries. It includes things like gasoline for their automobile.

I have a question back to the member. When that constituent contacted him, did the member actually tell that constituent that he may be eligible for this HST credit in the form of a cheque in the mail that will arrive? The first of those cheques — by the way, to the member — is arriving in the first week of July. Those cheques will help offset the cost of HST for the vast majority of low- and modest-income British Columbians.

[1420]

IMPLEMENTATION OF
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

B. Ralston: The restaurant and food services industry asked both major parties during the last election: "Will your party oppose harmonizing the GST with the PST in British Columbia?" The B.C. Liberal response in writing was: "It is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal election platform." They continued: "We have no plans to move on harmonizing federal and provincial sales tax."

Why won't the Finance Minister acknowledge what everyone else in British Columbia knows — that the B.C. Liberals broke their promise not to bring in an HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I stand by what I have said in this House. I have outlined for the members opposite the timing and the sequencing of the decisions around the harmonized sales tax, and I will not stand here and have the Finance critic for the official opposition question my integrity in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The truth is that voters were betrayed, and the minister's responses are embarrassing to the people of British Columbia. Will the Finance Minister pluck up his courage and stand up in this House and admit the truth that everyone in British Columbia knows — that the B.C. Liberals made a promise not to bring in the HST, and they broke it?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we promised British Columbians in the election last year was that this was a party that was going to build the economy of British Columbia. It was going to create jobs, and that is exactly what we are delivering.

We are now seeing evidence that British Columbia is going to lead Canada in terms of economic growth this year, according to the Conference Board of Canada. We see where British Columbia is leading Canada in terms of job creation and an unemployment rate that dropped in one month from 7.9 percent down to 7.3 percent. Just this morning one of the three big bond-rating agencies in North America, Standard and Poor's, reconfirmed British Columbia's triple-A credit rating.

After a decade in the 1990s, where we saw British Columbia go from a have province to a have-not province, where we saw consecutive year-after-year downgrades of British Columbia's credit rating, we have now seen a decade of growth, a decade of positive economic outcomes, a decade of strong growth in our credit rating, to the point that we now have a triple-A credit rating. That's what British Columbians elected last year in May, and that's what we are going to deliver.

D. Donaldson: Well, the Minister of Finance brings up integrity. No one's questioned his integrity. What we're questioning is his decision not to tell the people of B.C. he was bringing in the HST before the election.

British Columbians know the HST was a broken election promise by this Liberal government. These absurd excuses are just, plain and simple, not good enough. Is the Minister of Finance saying that a declaration in writing by the B.C. Liberal Party isn't worth the paper it's written on, or will he honour what was written before the election and reverse the HST before it's implemented July 1?

[1425]

Hon. C. Hansen: That's coming from a member who campaigned on a platform of opposing a carbon tax. How many days did it take for the official opposition to flip-flop on their carbon tax after the election?

We were elected….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: We were elected on a platform of making sure that British Columbia led North America in economic recovery. We are seeing that evidence today. We know from the commentators and from the leading economists in North America that if we want to truly
[ Page 5629 ]
maximize the opportunities for B.C. families, to maximize jobs all around British Columbia, the adoption of the harmonized sales tax is the single biggest thing we can do to make sure that British Columbia continues on the path of strong economic recovery that we have seen over the last 12 months.

J. Kwan: This charade reminds me of the old game show, Family Feud. What are the two worst broken promises by this Liberal government? The survey says the sale of B.C. Rail and the HST. The first issue is before the Supreme Court of B.C., and the second issue is before the courts of the people.

Will the minister save his colleagues from the wrath of the electorate and just admit that the B.C. Liberals betrayed British Columbians and scrap the HST?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is coming from a member who was actually part of cabinet in the late 1990s, when we saw a net out-migration.

Interjections.

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

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is coming from a member who was part of the cabinet in the NDP government, when we saw 50,000 British Columbians leave this province in search of jobs in other parts of Canada. That was their approach to job creation, but the problem is that they weren't creating jobs in British Columbia. They were creating jobs in Alberta and other parts of Canada.

We have set out a positive agenda. We have set out a competitive tax regime that is actually attracting investment. It's attracting the businesses that are creating the jobs for B.C. families.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Community Development — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 14.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

The Chair: The Minister of State for Mining seeks leave to make an introduction.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Hawes: It gives me pleasure to introduce a number of students — I think there are 35 — from Heritage Park high school in Mission, a great school. They're here with their teacher. I had her name here a moment ago. Holly…. She's waving, anyway.

They're here to watch what's going on. I hope they enjoyed question period. It was, well, probably different for you. But enjoy your trip to the Legislature. I'm sure you're going to learn lots here today. It's a great school. Could the House please make them all feel very welcome.

[1435]

Debate Continued

On section 19 (continued).

M. Farnworth: We're on section 19, which is a fairly long section that deals with the changes taking place, moving from not just .08 but down to .05, and the prohibitions that now arise when one does blow or register a blood alcohol content of between .05 and .08 and the changes that take place.

One of the issues I would like to ask at this particular point…. What is happening is that, in essence, we are tightening up the discretionary part of the roadside suspension from 24 hours — it's now if the light goes orange, there will be. I think that's an important change.

What we've done in this province historically is that there has been a significant CounterAttack program that has been accompanied by ads and education programs around that.

Is it the government's intent to ensure that in keeping with these changes, people are made aware of them — that there is an educational component, that there is a campaign component that will drive home the message that there have been some significant changes now in British Columbia and that the yellow light is the same thing as a red light? It will mean significant penalties and significant changes in the way that people who are driving impaired will be treated.
[ Page 5630 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for his comments. I think there is a case to be made for drawing the public's attention to the changes that these provisions represent. I think they are significant enough to warrant that.

There are, over the course of the balance of the year, I believe, two CounterAttack campaigns that would normally be advanced, and they would be provincewide. They would include both print and broadcast components. I think it is appropriate, as the member has suggested, and the intention would be to adapt those campaigns to take into account and publicize the changes that these provisions represent.

M. Farnworth: The effect of the driving prohibition under section 215.41 introduces the following three categories: three days in the case of the first prohibition, seven days in the case of a second prohibition or 30 days in the case of a subsequent prohibition.

What was the basis for the determination of that length of time? Was it done on the basis of a legal opinion? Was it done on the basis of consultation with the police? Was it done on the basis of any jurisprudence? What was the basis for the determination that these would be the lengths of time?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope members will excuse me. I did not this morning or as yet this afternoon introduce the able staff that are helping to guide me and us through these provisions. Tyann Blewett, Brad Gerhart and Dan Kazmiruk are here.

[1440]

There are two components, I think, to the member's question around the genesis for this. The first relates to the fact that they are escalating penalties, and I should just take a moment and say that that is deliberate. It is built around the notion and belief in best practice that the best way to alter behaviour is to ensure that the sanction that accrues as a result of improper behaviour increases through the repetition of that behaviour.

The specifics as it relates to three, seven, and 30 are consistent with and, I suppose, to a certain extent modelled on what has been in place in Ontario since May of last year.

M. Farnworth: We're basing this in part on what has happened in Ontario since May of last year. Has there been any jurisprudence or legal issues arising out of the new legislation that they passed in Ontario that we've had to either adapt in British Columbia or potential decisions that may impact on this particular legislation that we're aware of?

Hon. M. de Jong: Not yet, but we will be watching with interest, and of course, this will be one component of the challenge that will likely arise in Ontario and, ultimately, I expect, here in B.C.

M. Farnworth: Under subsection (4): "For the purposes of subsection (1), a prohibition is (a) a first prohibition if a person has not been subject to a previous prohibition under that subsection within the 5 year period preceding the prohibition."

The way I read that is that if today I had a prohibition and I had five years of a clean record, then five years and a day later, that would be treated as a first prohibition. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct.

M. Farnworth: Once this legislation is now introduced, will it take effect from, let's say, today? So you will not be looking back. If someone had a 24-hour roadside suspension, let's say two weeks ago…. If they got one once this legislation would be passed, that would be passed as the first prohibition. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is also the case.

M. Farnworth: I would just ask for the rationale behind that. Is it a legal issue or is it just: "Okay, we are now introducing the new legislation so everyone knows that this is how it functions from now on. It is this way"? Or is there a legal impediment to saying: "You know what? We have a new change in place, but we're not able to look back to determine whether that applies to your driving record in terms of a prohibition or not"?

Hon. M. de Jong: Probably three parts to the answer, the most important being that it was a purposeful decision to create a regime, moving forward. To do otherwise would have been possible. It would have undoubtedly complicated the legal instrument before us. I just posed this question to the experts, and I don't want to overstate this, but it may have been one of those features that would have rendered the amendments more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge as well.

[1445]

B. Ralston: Can the minister confirm, though, that the superintendent will retain an overriding jurisdiction to assess each individual driving record on its own merit as he or she does now and can use the fact of 24-hour suspensions, however they're treated, to continue to use those in the same way going forward? Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I think I understand the question, the answer would be yes.

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm or understand. In some ways, I think one can make an argument to continue to count. If you have a prohibition for driving, then five years later you have a prohibition for driving plus a day — so it's your first — and then five years later
[ Page 5631 ]
than that…. There's clearly a pattern there. Is there an ability to take that into account, to say: "You know what? There is a pattern here"?

The reality is that either it's treated more as a longer suspension or there is the ability, as the superintendent, to say: "You know what? You need either remedial training, or you need an interlock or something of that nature." Is there the ability to take that into account?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes. The difference, of course, would be that the automatic escalating provisions would not kick in, and it would be an exercise, as the member for Surrey-Whalley has pointed out, of the superintendent's discretionary authority elsewhere in the act.

B. Ralston: I just wanted to ask some questions related to the definition of "fail" and "warn" that are set out in the act. Sometimes in some statutes…. As I understand it, for the approved screening device, what will be displayed will not be a numerical reading but will be a colour of a light — a yellow for a warn and a red for a fail.

So when this is translated into a statute, it's not exactly the same thing. In some legal interpretations I'm aware of or I recall, that may pose a difficulty in sustaining that interpretation of what it means to be given a warn or to be given a fail. Given that this is a statute with some fairly serious consequences in terms of loss of licence, it might be likely to be challenged in the courts, as the minister has pointed out.

Has that issue — that the legal equivalent of the display of a light, the colour of a light on the approved screening device, equals a certain numerical value of impairment — been considered?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's question. Again, he's right about the seriousness of the consequences here, so these are relevant matters to canvass.

I think procedurally what would need to occur upon any sort of judicial review exercise, or possibly even an administrative review, would be the need…. Whether or not the screening device is lights or the word "fail" or "warn," it would be incumbent to present evidence that that orange light or red light or warn or fail equates or relates to an instrument that has been calibrated in a certain way — so between .05 and .08 being the warn, and above .08, the fail.

[1450]

I think at that stage of the process, there would be an obligation to present a factual basis for what the lights or the words equate to, from the perspective of a calibrated instrument.

B. Ralston: I think this is an important point. When one looks further down, let's say at section 215.43, the words used are "where an approved screening device registers a warn." Perhaps my knowledge of statutory drafting is not what it could be, but I would have thought that one would want to clarify, in the definition section of "warn" — I'm thinking of some parking statutes, even, where the wording is very specific that the expiry means a flashing light on such and such a device — to specify it more precisely. Because you won't be able to bridge an evidentiary gap with such a definition which doesn't include this. It may not be possible to do that.

I just want to express that concern about the way in which the definition has been drafted, because I fear that it may be something that won't bear the weight of judicial scrutiny that it might receive in the future.

M. Farnworth: In this section you get a driving prohibition for either three, seven or 30 days. There's also the 90-day provision. The other angle, or the other aspect, is the additional consequences of a monetary penalty. If the minister could just outline what those monetary penalties are, because I have a couple of questions, and it will flow from his answer.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member for Surrey-Whalley: I was not meaning to be disrespectful earlier. I note his observation and didn't think I had much to add to the exchange.

To the member: two sets of fines. One relates to the fines that are imposed, where it's a warning, within the warning range — so .05 to .08: first time, $200; second time within five years, $300; and third time within five years, $400. In the fail range it is a $500 fine — yeah, a $500 amount.

M. Farnworth: In section (2) of 215.44 it goes: "The monetary penalty must not exceed the amount prescribed by regulation" — which is clearly either the $200, $300, $400 or $500, but then it goes on to say — "and in any event must not exceed $500."

My question is: what is the purpose for putting on the cap? Are you not limiting the ability to sort of quickly respond to changes? For example, if it's deemed that the reality is a stiffer financial penalty after a year or two years or down the road, you're having to bring things back to the House.

So why has that not been taken into account here, and what's the purpose?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the short answer is legal advice, and this relates to something that we have been discussing throughout this debate on this bill. We were very sensitive to the amount of the fines. The advice is, again, to insulate against what we think will be the inevitable challenge — having a statutory cap.

The member is right. Any change will require the government of the day to come before the House and seek
[ Page 5632 ]
permission and approval from the House to make the change. But its presence in the body of the statute relates to the advice we received around protecting against the constitutional arguments that we think will flow about penalty provisions.

[1455]

M. Farnworth: Then does this mirror what is in existing Ontario legislation? Are the penalties that they have the same as this, or are they different?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm just reminded that the Ontario penalties are significantly lower. We believe, based on memory, it's $150 across the board.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer.

Also in 215.44, under section (1): "A person who has been served with a notice of driving prohibition under section 215.41 is also liable to pay, no later than 30 days after the date the notice is served, a monetary penalty" — that's the penalty that we've been talking about — "in the amount prescribed by regulation." The question I have is: why the period 30 days? Again, is that a statutory one?

More importantly, I think there's an element of ability to pay here, in that if you have a high income and are financially secure, you can pay that in 30 days and that may not be a problem. But if you're not as financially sound or as financially secure, this can put a considerable hardship. While I agree that the message is clear — we don't tolerate drinking and driving — there is an issue, I think, of fairness here or in the ability of someone to be able to pay the fine.

That fairness isn't there, on the basis that someone with a higher income is able to pay, and someone in a lower income is not. Within this section I don't see an area or the potential for relief or the ability to pay over a different period of time. If the minister could address those two issues, I would be grateful.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll begin by acknowledging the observation that the member has made, which I have heard from other sources. That is that depending on one's financial circumstances, penalties of any sort and particularly penalties that could run to the hundreds of dollars…. Of course, we are only talking now about one aspect of a broader fiscal sanction that they will visit, with varying degrees of harshness, upon people, and that is a reality.

I think the same can be said of the consequences of a driving prohibition or a vehicle…. To have a vehicle impounded when it is the only vehicle your family owns and operates is a different matter than to have a vehicle impounded if it is one of three vehicles that sit in the garage of a family. So that argument has some application and goes to the seriousness of the consequences.

In this specific case we have tried to take account of at least two things. First of all, in the case of, let us say, a three-day driver's prohibition, one could have taken the view that before getting your licence back, you had to pay your fine. The determination was made that no, there should be some period to pay.

What should that period be? Well, if you get a speeding ticket, you've got 30 days to pay that. That is equal across the board as well, so we thought that to align it with that time-to-pay period seemed to be, I'll say, a reasonable rationale. But I don't want to dispute what the member has said — that for a family earning $30,000 a year, these fines will have an impact far different than a family earning $100,000 a year.

[1500]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that question, and I agree. It is a broader issue, and it is one that applies to a whole host of things. That's why I raise it, because these are new, important prohibitions and penalties coming into place. I think what it comes back to is the importance in terms of the government educating the public, educating drivers, doing a campaign like CounterAttack. It's like: "Look, there are some significant changes here, and they have some very important consequences."

People need to understand that and recognize the importance and the significance of these changes because they will impact them, not just in their ability to use a vehicle but also in the pocketbook. Given the disparity in income and the ability to pay, I think it's important that it's just reinforced — what role that I think the government needs to be taking on.

One of the additional consequences, apart from the monetary, is the remedial program in place. "If a person is prohibited from driving for a period of 30 or 90 days under section 215.43, the person must register in and attend any remedial program required by the superintendent under section 25.1."

My question is this. First off, is the attendance mandatory? What's the level of discretion? And second, who will decide? Will there be, I guess, in essence, a registry of acceptable programs, or will that be just up to the discretion of the superintendent?

Hon. M. de Jong: As per the section, of course, the requirement is a mandatory one. But I can alert the hon. member to the fact that the program is in existence now, so there are drivers today that are referred to it. It may get a little busier. We hope, actually, not too much busier. But it may get a little busier before these provisions have the desired effect.

The member didn't ask, but I suspect he will. The individual driver will cover the cost of attending that program, and my recollection is that it is about an $880 charge for attending and completing that program.
[ Page 5633 ]

M. Farnworth: Yes, the minister was anticipating my next question. The follow-up question to that, then, is: will that be a one-off or will it be: "Okay, clearly, you didn't get the message this time, so the next time you get a prohibition — guess what — you're going to be going back to school again."

The requirement can be each subsequent time, but also, if additional other factors in the record indicate to the superintendent that there is a problem here, additional remedial action or education is required. Is that the case?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, that's the case.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the impoundment of the vehicle, there's the three-day, and then there's the seven-day. I think that's fairly straightforward in terms of what takes place. Is the requirement to have the vehicle impounded, or is there the ability to just have the vehicle out of use?

[1505]

The reason I ask that question is sometimes you will get two or three people in the car. The driver, particularly now that you've got the fail-safe, thinks that they're fine. You blow the warning. You blow orange as opposed to red. You get the three-day prohibition. But somebody else in the vehicle is perfectly sober and capable of driving.

Is the purpose to actually impound the vehicle or just to get it off the road? So that person would be able to drive the vehicle either to the registered owner's place of residence, where it's not used or, you know, out of the way.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct about the manner in which the section is worded. It does provide…. Here is where, again, the notion of discretionary authority on the part of the police officer comes into play, because whilst some of the other sanctions are mandatory, the police officer has a choice here.

I don't think that choice extends to, for example, ordering the vehicle disabled onto the side of the road. I think the officer, he or she, has the option of ordering the vehicle impounded or not. In that case if there was another driver available to take custody, care and control of the vehicle and drive off, they would have that option, if the police officer chose not to have the vehicle impounded.

M. Farnworth: I think this is an important point that I just want to ask a few more questions on. I think most people accept the fact that if you've got a prohibition, your vehicle is impounded. You will not get any argument from the public on that. I think where the question on the issue of discretion becomes important…. And I think it's important that in this debate back and forth that there is an issue of looking at some of the intent of the legislation.

One of the things that I think we should be concerned about is the potential of putting individuals in a potentially dangerous situation. If you're away — if you're on a dark road, for example, or you're a fair distance from your place of residence or where the other people in the vehicle are going…. For example, there may be minors involved or younger people.

If there is someone in the vehicle who is capable and who is not impaired — is sober and not impaired — and they have the ability to take that vehicle to where it should be, including the other passengers in there, then that is an appropriate discretionary action to be taken by the officer who has issued the prohibition to the individual.

I'm thinking of cases where you could have, let's say, three young teenagers — 18, 19 — a fair distance from home, maybe no public transit in the area. It's not a question of, you know: is a taxi readily available? And you tow the vehicle away. Then it's, like, okay, they're stuck somewhere, and that's not exactly the most ideal situation.

So it's not a question of lessening the severity of the consequences but recognizing a reality that we should err on the side of caution, if the minister understands the point that I'm trying to make. I'd appreciate his comments on it.

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm reminded that we are going to come to a section in the vehicle impoundment sections that deals specifically with obligations around ensuring the safety of people in a case where a vehicle is impounded, and I have the member's point.

It is neither the objective nor would it be prudent to create a situation in which the three teenagers are left at 2 a.m. in the morning on the side of Highway 1 with traffic whizzing by. There are provisions that speak to that later in the bill.

But I should also say this, in response to the scenario raised by the member. The police officer will have the option of deciding whether or not to order impoundment. Whilst that decision will rest with the police officer, I don't want people to garner the impression that if they make this mistake — if they do this, but they've got someone with them who actually should have been driving in the first place — all of this is going to be a little easier because they'll just ask the person who's sober and able to drive to take the vehicle. They will still risk having their vehicle impounded and all of the requisite costs that go with that.

I think the point about ensuring the safety of the individuals…. Nor, by the way, do I anticipate or expect, nor does the act, the amendments, contemplate an officer saying to the occupants of a vehicle: "The driver is
[ Page 5634 ]
being issued a prohibition. I understand that the passenger has not been drinking, so I am going to impound the vehicle but let the passenger drive the vehicle to the impound yard." That won't happen, either. There will be a tow truck, and those two individuals will have made a bad choice. But for that bad choice, they wouldn't be in the fix they're in.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying. I just want to be clear that, again, it's because we are moving from where there was discretion — you know, you've got the 24-hour…. Now we're moving to a three-day, and I want to make sure that we recognize that there are circumstances and situations that arise. Not to take away from the prohibition, not to lessen the penalty, not to lessen the impact of the legislation, but to recognize that we want to make sure that there is that flexibility that deals with those situations, whether it's Highway 1 at two o'clock in the morning or somewhere out, you know….

If you're from Port Coquitlam, and you're out in rural Abbotsford, and you have no idea where you are, we're able to deal with that and not place an additional danger to the one that has been prevented by the prohibition on the individual. So if I've got that assurance, then that's one of my concerns addressed.

B. Ralston: I had a question just about the interaction of a couple of sections. In 215.43(3), a notice of prohibition under this section "takes effect immediately on service of the notice of driving prohibition under section 215.41." As the Attorney General may be aware, under the current provisions for the 90-day prohibition, the prohibition doesn't come into effect for 21 days, and there's a seven-day period in which one can file for an application for review.

So in the case of a three-day prohibition, other than, I think, the possibility that on the evidence that's shown at the review…. The person asked for a second sample, and that was denied, and then the prohibition may be overturned retroactively.

[1515]

It seems to me that as a practical matter, a person who gets a notice of prohibition for three days or for seven days will be obliged to serve that prohibition, although they may be seeking review. Is that correct or not?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that's a fair, practical analysis of what will happen.

B. Ralston: On the administrative side, will there be any…? The superintendent's office…. At least, my information is that there are often delays due to the volume of applications that they receive. There are not that many review officers. So what's the present time that it takes to deal with an application for review under the current 90-day prohibition system?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can refer the member to section 215.5(6), which statutorily requires the review to take place within 21 days.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

M. Farnworth: Section 20 deals with the issue of seatbelts. It "eliminates the ability of a person to obtain a certificate from the superintendent of motor vehicles or from a medical practitioner exempting the person from the requirement to wear a seatbelt."

Despite my comments that the only people who would choose not to wear seatbelts live in fly-over states in the U.S. and attend tea bag conventions, I'd like to ask the minister: what were the current existing sort of medical conditions that one could choose to try and say: "I don't need to wear a seat belt"? What are the currently existing examples of the types of excuses used to not have to wear a seatbelt?

Hon. M. de Jong: I always think of the story about Muhammad Ali — speaking of flying places — where he apparently got on board an aircraft, and when the light came on to buckle up, the Great One said, "Superman don't need no seatbelt," to which the flight attendant replied: "Superman don't need no airplane."

There have been a variety — the ones that you might, perhaps, expect: abdominal injuries, back injuries, people claiming claustrophobia. The bottom line is that in some cases there may actually be a genuine belief on the part of the person that the seatbelt is problematic. The submission and the evidence and all of the material and the requests from the medical profession are built around their conclusion that there just isn't a medical basis for any of those arguments. Therefore, the exemption….

[1520]

I think in part what was happening, I am advised, is that as long as the exemption applied, people were going to their physician, pressuring them to take advantage of it and give them the letter or give them the basis for the application. So on the strength of the medical position and the medical evidence, that option will no longer exist.

M. Farnworth: I think it's important to get that on the record. This is not about a civil liberties issue, taking somebody's right away. This is about common sense. This section is in here based on medical recommendations, sound medical research and sound medical advice. I think it's important that that is on the record for this section.
[ Page 5635 ]

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

M. Farnworth: Section 21 deals with the reporting requirements of health professionals in relation to the ability of their patients to drive. I think this is an issue that is of increasing importance as we have an aging population. If the minister could explain how this section and the changes that this section will make are different from the existing legislative requirements around physicians and of conditions affecting the ability to drive.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the changes can be categorized in the following four ways. It broadens the list of health care professionals who are required to report in certain circumstances. So nurse practitioners, occupational therapists are added to that list of medical professionals.

It creates the authority to specify in regulation the medical circumstances that trigger the requirement for medical professionals to report, and again, it will specify by regulation the nature of the information that must be reported in those circumstances.

It also provides a mechanism by which medical professionals can, on a discretionary basis, report to the superintendent, even where the mandatory requirements or circumstances are not there.

So if a medical practitioner comes to the conclusion that even though one of the specific thresholds has not been hit that requires them to report, they have concerns about the overall ability of this individual to operate a motor vehicle safely, it affords that medical professional the protection they need to know that they can make that report, albeit a report that may lead to their patient having their ability to drive limited or withdrawn.

M. Farnworth: There are a couple of issues that this does raise, and one fully understands the reasoning behind it. The discretionary area, I think, is one that I have some concern around, in the fact that in deciding…. It's pretty black and white, when there's a particular medical condition that's reached a particular stage, to say: "You know what? That means you're no longer safe. It's inappropriate that you drive."

[1525]

On the discretionary side. Is the intent to look at, in essence, a cumulative effect of a number of potential disabling illnesses that are compounding on each other — that each have a cumulative effect that is leading to an impairment, an inability to drive? Neither one by itself is an impairment that would result in a reason to pull a licence, but collectively, together, they actually indicate: "You know what? It's probably best that this individual is not driving." I'll see if I can give an example.

A case of arthritis, coupled with someone who is in perhaps not an advanced stage but, certainly, in early to intermediate stages of macular degeneration, for example. They're not at a point where their eyesight is completely gone, but coupled with the other conditions they've got, it's best that they're not on the road. Is that what is anticipated under the discretionary part of this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member was going through his question and the example, I leaned next door and was told that that is precisely — multiple medical conditions for which the accumulative effect…. It's where no one single medical condition was perhaps a bar, but the cumulative effect of those medical conditions was such as to cause a medical practitioner to question the ability of that person to operate a vehicle safely.

I think this is — and the member has been an MLA long enough to know — going to become a pretty challenging area as our population ages. If we haven't had it in our own families, we've certainly had constituents come in, and it's pretty traumatic for someone that's driven for 50 or 60 or 70 years. Physicians are part of that; medical professionals are a part of that.

The short answer to the question, though, is yes. I'm not as brave, I fear, as the member. I won't even venture an example, because for every example, someone is going to say: "I know someone with that, and they can still drive perfectly well." But that's why we try to provide the protection that the medical experts need to provide as sound a report as they can to the superintendent.

M. Farnworth: Then is part of the reason for this change…? In essence, if someone is involved in an accident and it's determined that the cause of their accident is really their inability…. They should not have been on the road because they have a series of medical conditions.

That allows…. It's to protect the physician or the medical individual who has been treating the person for those conditions, in the sense that: "You know what? You should have reported this." Is that one of the issues that this is designed to address — so that there in essence is no redress or no liability on the part of the medical professional?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the legal protection afforded by this section is slightly different than that which the member has described. What we're trying to do is that in situations where there is a positive obligation…. It's either a mandatory obligation on the part of a medical expert to report, or in exercising their discretionary authority, they do so in good faith.

That report leads to testing on the part of the superintendent and could ultimately result in the patient, citizen, losing their licence. There's no ability on the part
[ Page 5636 ]
of that patient to come back to the doctor and say: "You have really complicated my life. I believe that you violated the doctor-patient confidentiality, and I want to seek redress from you." That is, in effect, the legal protection to the medical professional that is afforded by this section.

[1530]

B. Ralston: The obligation to report is in the previous section, and as the minister said, this does broaden the number of professionals to whom that obligation applies.

I suppose the difficulty might arise in subsection (6), where they are proposed to make regulations setting out the medical conditions or functional impairments that oblige those professionals named in subsection (1) to report and setting out the circumstances when the duty to report does not apply.

I would expect it would be so. But is this something that, before that regulation is drafted, the respective professional colleges, College of Physicians and Surgeons, would be consulted on? It does involve some fairly fine distinctions that are attempting to be drawn here. As the minister says, and I think I understood him, the issue of patient-physician confidentiality does arise, and that's protected in law very strongly in a number of ways. This is a departure from that. Is that the plan in terms of drafting the regulations?

Hon. M. de Jong: Not just the plan. It's actually taking place as we speak.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

M. Farnworth: Section 22 permits a person who has been convicted of an alcohol-related driving offence and participates in a remedial program during the balance and participates in an ignition interlock program to have the prohibition period is shortened.

Can the minister explain how this is going to work and the impact? Again, the discretionary is based on the factors of the number of prohibitions, the nature of the prohibition, the length of the prohibition and the programs that the individual has taken to address whatever issues the superintendent has determined — let's say alcohol or drug counselling or other issues that the superintendent feels are appropriate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't like to generally bore members by reading the notes, but the member has asked a lot of stuff. Why don't I alert him to the summary note I have, which I think covers a lot of what he's asked?

The first thing is that the section is being amended to align with provisions of the Criminal Code. Those Criminal Code provisions presently allow for a specified reduction in the court-ordered prohibition if the person convicted of that alcohol-related motor vehicle offence complies with the conditions of a provincial ignition interlock program. So that's the first thing.

With these amendments, the person will be able to apply to the superintendent for a reduction to their licence suspension to three months in the case of a first conviction, six months in the case of a second conviction and 12 months in the case of a subsequent conviction. That is to align with the Criminal Code provisions.

The approval of the superintendent is subject to the person equipping the vehicle they operate with the ignition interlock device and registering for and participating in the remedial program and the ignition interlock program to the satisfaction of the superintendent.

Yes, there are costs associated. We've covered the remedial program, and yes, there are costs associated with the interlock program. They are, I'm advised, estimated at $1,500. So the means exist by which you can apply to reduce to 90 days, but in so doing, you have to register and take these programs, and the interlock program will cost you another $1,500.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

On section 24.

[1535]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the amendment to section 24 standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 24, in proposed sections 253 (6) and (8) and 262 (1), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

253 (6) Subject to section 255 (5), a motor vehicle impounded under section 215.46 (1) is to remain impounded for a period equal to the period that the person referred to in section 215.46 (1) is prohibited from driving under section 215.43 (1) (a) or (b).

(8) If a driving prohibition is substituted, varied or revoked under section 215.5, the superintendent must,

(a) substitute or vary to the same extent or in the case of a substitution of a 3-day or 7-day prohibition for a 30-day or 90-day prohibition, revoke the corresponding impoundment imposed under section 215.46, and

(b) in the case of a substitution of a 3-day prohibition for a 7-day prohibition, vary to the same extent the corresponding impoundment imposed under section 215.46, if any, or

(c) in the case of a revocation, revoke the corresponding impoundment imposed under section 215.46,

and (b) subject to the lien described in section 255 (2), and to the expiry of the period of impoundment in the case of a substitution or variance and the expiry of another period of impoundment, if any, under section 251 (1), order the person who has custody of the motor vehicle to release the motor vehicle to the owner or a person authorized by the owner.

Early release of motor vehicle on grounds of economic hardship

262 (1) A person who

(a) is the owner of a motor vehicle impounded under section 215.46 (2) for a period of 30 days or under section 251 (1) for a period of 30 or 60 days or, if
[ Page 5637 ]
not the owner of the impounded motor vehicle, a person authorized by the owner, and

(b) has a valid driver’s licence and is not prohibited from driving,

may, within 15 days after the impoundment of thea motor vehicle begins under section 215.46 (2) or 251 (1), apply to the superintendent under subsection (2) of this section for the release of the motor vehicle.]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: The amendment that I've just moved off the order paper is designed to address what I think was, in complicated drafting, an error. We wanted to make sure that the discretionary authority that we spoke of with respect to impounding vehicles existed for the three- and seven-day impoundments. But for the amendment, there was some question about the discretionary authority and it being mandatory.

That's the nature of the amendment that has been moved. It is to ensure that impounding vehicles in the case of three- and seven-day prohibitions is discretionary.

Amendment approved.

On section 24 as amended.

M. Farnworth: The issue around impoundment…. I mean, it's pretty straightforward in terms of what we've been discussing around impaired driving, either through alcohol or through drugs, but this also encompasses, and the definitions deal with, the issues around racing and stunts. So this is different in the sense that it encompasses all those other things, such as street racing, which people are concerned about.

I want to confirm that it would also encompass criminal activities, such as a vehicle that's impounded in relation to, let's say, gang crime investigation. Would it include that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. The authority that this creates is related to driving offences. I don't want to suggest that we have found a clever way to circumvent the more onerous civil forfeiture proceedings. Street racing would be an example, but they are driving-related offences that would give rise to the authority to impound. I should say, as well, that in terms of trying to alter behaviour, I think the mounting evidence is that for many people, the loss of their vehicle is perhaps the best way to bring home the need to alter that behaviour.

M. Farnworth: I agree with that. I just want to come back to it, because I want to make sure I'm not missing something here. I'm not talking about the civil forfeiture of a vehicle, but rather…. We've dealt with legislation in session that's dealt with the hidden compartments, for example, or a vehicle that has been armour-plated illegally. This would not capture any of that. That's my understanding.

Okay, I wanted to be clear on that, because if it did, then I had some issues around that that I was going to want to see addressed.

Hon. M. de Jong: No. Thank you; that's helpful. The authority for the seizure of that vehicle in those circumstances exists via those statutory instruments, not this one.

[1540]

M. Farnworth: That now brings me to the issue that the minister has stated, which is that one of the effective ways is the loss of the vehicle. Once it's impounded and the loss, are there provisions or an ability to say…? Does the Crown at this point have the ability? Does it have to go through other legislation to say, "You know what? You're not getting it back" — let's say, in the case of a street race — or can that be done through this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: No This is a temporary impoundment of the vehicle. If the Crown wishes to expropriate ownership of that vehicle, it would need to do so via other means.

M. Farnworth: This is a topic…. My colleague the member for Surrey-Whalley may have additional issues, and those are around the question of economic hardship. If the minister could outline what steps are in this to ensure….

Again, I think it's that issue of fairness, whereby it's something that's impounded and someone has the ability to pay or the ability to wait. They are able to get that out, as opposed to someone who doesn't have those resources and is, in essence, also penalized in a much more significant way.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll begin by referring to two very specific provisions that contemplate an application to address. One is at 262, which is "Early release of motor vehicle on grounds of economic hardship." And 263 relates to compassionate grounds, which might relate to health conditions. Those provisions are here.

I have — as I'm sure the member and others have — heard from people who ask about their exposure in cases where a child or a friend has borrowed the car. Yeah, that becomes an added risk. Whilst some provisions exist by which people can bring that application, most people I know these days are pretty busy, and this is not something that happens by itself or is automatic.

I'm hoping — and, I think, all of us in our own ways are hoping — that over time this will provoke a realization that when you pass your car to someone, you are
[ Page 5638 ]
entering into either an explicit or implied agreement, and if that person abuses your generosity, the consequences can be felt in fairly profound ways.

Anyway, I'm lecturing. I don't mean to do that. There is, in a very specific way, a realization that people can bring an application to retrieve their vehicles on grounds of economic hardship and on the grounds of, under 262, compassionate grounds.

M. Farnworth: I just want to pick up on that. I mean, I understand what the minister is saying.

[1545]

It's one thing to, for example, let a friend…. It's very easy to make that implicit: "You're taking it; you're responsible." That's one thing. A child in a family is completely different. There, the idea that there is an implicit responsibility is…. You know: "Dad, I'm taking the car" and "What? Ask your mother" — right? It's, "Oh yeah, Dad said," and out you go.

Those are completely different sets of circumstances, and I think that we need to recognize that in this section. I think we need to recognize the intent when we're putting this forward, particularly with family situations. They are often complex; they are often not straightforward.

We need to be able to bring some common sense in ensuring that someone…. It's not to take away from the consequences, but there's a way to deal with them that recognizes the complexity of family relationships and the reality of how in families sometimes decisions are made. I hope that that is part of the intent in this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: That would certainly be part and parcel of the consideration at play with respect to section 263.

B. Ralston: Just a couple of questions. Section 262(1) refers to a person who is the owner or, if not the owner of the impounded vehicle, a person authorized by the owner. So that's not intended to be the person who…. That refers to the authority to make the application, not to the person who might have been authorized by the owner to drive the vehicle whose actions led to the impoundment, I take it. I think that's relatively clear. Let me just leave that as one question.

The second suggestion is…. It's clear in section 262(3) that this appears to be where the vehicle is used in a small business and is used for the purpose of operating the business in some way. But one often encounters, of course, people who are employed and work for wages who make similar arguments about economic hardship.

I don't read section 263 in that way, although I may be misreading it, because it refers more to compassionate grounds: "…the eligible person to suffer a loss or curtailment of employment…."

Is that intended? The person whose vehicle is seized and lives 40 miles outside of Fort St. John on a farm — there's no public transportation, no way of getting back and forth to their employment in the town — would be an eligible person? Or a person who lives, say, in remotest Abbotsford and has a job in, say, North Vancouver that they commute to — there's, again, no effective public transportation — and requires the vehicle. Is this section contemplated to allow that person to seek a review?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the example the hon. member has given, if I understood it correctly, the individual would not be availing themselves of section 262(3). They would more likely be availing themselves of section 263 in bringing the application that the member spoke of.

B. Ralston: I just want to be clear, because in my past life, certainly, that was a concern that was expressed by many. In the previous legislation, as the minister may know, despite many protestations of economic hardship from a number of people, there was no avenue in the legislation, and the courts, on review, were just obliged to reject any effort to assess that reality.

[1550]

Compassionate grounds does mean, then, and could be used where a person's employment is jeopardized, and this would be a method of seeking a review and a shortening of the impoundment of the vehicle on that basis. I just want that to be clear on the record.

Hon. M. de Jong: It was with that in mind that we included 263(2) with the specific reference to the "loss or curtailment of employment."

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm that section 265, "Owner's right against the driver," even despite…. Okay, your friend has taken a car. The vehicle ends up being impounded, and the Crown is assessing the penalties in the impound. You're not losing your right to be able to recover that from the individual who caused your vehicle to be impounded.

Hon. M. de Jong: I just made the observation. I would have thought that the right would have existed in the common law, but this makes it abundantly clear that there is a right to recover.

B. Ralston: Section 269, the power to make regulations, refers back to section 255(2). I think, if I understand the section correctly, it authorizes the superintendent to set, by regulation, fees for storage charges. Often one of the results of having one's vehicle impounded is that you're required to pay storage charges, and sometimes those can be, in the view of some, fairly exorbitant.

Is it the intention, then, to draft a regulation that would set a daily maximum storage fee for the tow yard that was storing a vehicle that was impounded under these sections?
[ Page 5639 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes. They are presently regulated. They will hereafter, pursuant to these provisions, be regulated by the superintendent.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

Bill 14, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2010, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

Bill 14, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2010, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 10.

[1555]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Veterinarians Act

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 3:57 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Popham: I have one question on section 2. It's on (4). There was a need to state that the Business Corporations Act does not apply to the college. My question is: why not? Why was that necessary to put into this act?

Hon. S. Thomson: What we're doing by creating the college is creating a corporation, and all the rules and provisions that are in the legislation and that will be in the bylaws apply. We felt that we didn't need to have the Business Corporations Act and all those additional requirements for a corporation apply specifically to this because it was covered in the legislation and the bylaws.

The next section. We can direct certain provisions of the Business Corporations Act to apply if necessary, but it wasn't felt that it was necessary to have all those provisions of the Business Corporations Act apply to the college.

H. Bains: I have some questions about this section. Section 2(1) says: "The British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association is continued as a corporation under the name College of Veterinarians of British Columbia." Then it goes on to say: "The college consists of (a) members of the council, and (b) registrants." Perhaps the minister could explain what is being changed here. There used to be the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association.

[1600]

Now we're saying, according to this, that it will continue to go on but the name is being changed to College of Veterinarians of British Columbia. Can you explain what the purpose is here?

Hon. S. Thomson: What is happening here is that the association is being renamed as the college and refocused under the new provisions of this legislation, this bill, to focus on the regulatory responsibility of the college, the regulation and oversight of the practice of veterinary medicine.

The other activities that the association previously performed — things like membership, development, advocacy, those kinds of roles — will potentially be carried on by another society or organization representing those interests.

The college will focus specifically on the regulation and the oversight of the practice of veterinary medicine. It's a refocused initiative, and it's being renamed as the college.

H. Bains: It goes on to say: "The college consists of (a) members of the council…." Perhaps the minister could explain: what is the difference between the council and the college? And how are the members of the council appointed or elected versus the college members? How
[ Page 5640 ]
does that work between the two? Are they two separate entities — college and council? Or they are one entity, but they are named differently?

Hon. S. Thomson: The council is the governing body, or the governing set, of the college. The council members, a number of them, will be registrants and can come from the registered body, who will be the individuals who are certified as registering as a member of the college.

As we get to the other sections, you'll see that there will be up to four appointees by the minister as lay representatives who will form part of the council. They're not to come from the pool of registrants. Those will be in addition to the council members who would be elected from the registrants.

The council becomes the governing…. The board of directors is the governing part of the college, and the college is the summation of the registrants who are certified by the college.

H. Bains: That I understand, this House understands and those members who are affected by the change understand. Right now I guess the best way to do that would be to describe what is there today and what it will look like tomorrow, after this has passed.

Today the members of the veterinarian association elect their executive. That's how the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association executive was created. Then they ran the affairs on behalf of its members on a day-to-day promotion of the membership, and the licensing and disciplinary part was done by the same executive, if I may call it that, who were elected by the members. I don't know what their term was, but after a certain term they were elected, and they go for re-election.

So there was one body. I don't know what the officers are — a president, probably vice-presidents. Then they would be hiring the staff, and they will be managing the affairs on behalf of the members.

That's what it is today. If you could draw a picture for us, how will it be different under this act, if this act is passed?

Hon. S. Thomson: Under the existing act, it was called the council. All the members of the council were elected from what would be, under these circumstances, the registrants — other than one. There was the provision for one provincial appointee, one lay representative, to be appointed to the council.

[1605]

Now, under this new bill, there would be a minimum of three, I think it is — I'll just get this straight — elected from the registrants, up to a maximum of five; up to four appointees appointed by the minister by ministerial order; and additional provision for one additional appointee to the council, which, as you said, would be the executive or the directors representing animal health technologists or other certification that may be envisaged under the bill.

So three to five registrants elected by the members or by the registrants of the college, then up to four appointees appointed by the minister, and one additional spot, for a maximum of ten.

H. Bains: As I understand it now, today there is a council, and then there is an executive. Are you saying, then, that the only difference now is that under the new structure, it's who appoints them? Under the current act, it was the membership entirely appointing, except one that the province could have appointed. But now it is three to five coming from the members and up to four by the provincial government. One, as I understand, was the technical person that could be appointed.

So there will be a council, and then there's a college. It's separate, and the council is separate. Council will be the one that will actually be running and directing, monitoring the affairs of the college. Is that how it works?

Hon. S. Thomson: Well, the college is the overall body. The college would refer back to what the association was, so that's been renamed as the college. That's the overall body and the membership, registrants. The council is the equivalent to the council that currently exists under the legislation, with a different structure in terms of election and appointments, as different from what is currently under the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association.

The college is the overall body. The council is the governing body, and we're implementing a different structure for that. The purpose for that is to ensure that there is greater public oversight, additional lay representation, which was one of the recommendations that came through the public consultation process when we undertook the consultation. I think it's fairly straightforward in terms of…. The college replaces the association. It's the overall membership. The council is the governing portion of the college.

H. Bains: I think my description was correct, then. The only difference now, under the new act, is the makeup of the council members. Now the government or the minister can appoint up to four, and the college will be appointing up to three to five. Is that the only difference, then?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is essentially correct. That is the difference as far as the structure of the new college. There are others, and we'll get to those when we deal with other sections in the bill. There are other differences between the powers and various other aspects of the operation of the new college compared to the previous act and the previous association, but in terms of structure, that is the difference.
[ Page 5641 ]

J. Brar: As I understand this, to make it very clear, now we have the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association. But under this, once this act becomes the law, then basically, we'll have the college of British Columbia veterinarians — whatever it's called — and the college will have a council, which will be the governing body. We understand that the makeup of that will be different than the council we have under the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association.

[1610]

I think the question I just want to ask the member is: how will the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia be different than the current B.C. veterinarian medical council? If the minister can put a little light on there. What will be the difference between these two bodies, and what will be better when we move to a college from the current medical association?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I respond to the member opposite, I didn't introduce the staff that are here with me when we got started. So I just wanted to introduce them for the record.

Beside me is Tom McReynolds, the legislative analyst with the strategic policy and legislation branch in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Behind me are Grant Parnell, assistant deputy minister with the Crown land administration division, and Joe McBride, who is the solicitor with legal services in the Ministry of Attorney General. Thank you for the opportunity to do that.

To respond to the question… I think the member is looking for what the change is. There are two main elements of the change. One is a refocused mandate to focus primarily on the regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine and some other provisions that potentially bring in certified technicians and things as part of that.

I think the other change in the structure is with the provision now for additional lay representation or lay appointees by the minister to the council. In our view, that was in response to some of the consultation that we received. We will be able to appoint specific skill sets through those lay appointees that will strengthen the operation of the council, will provide additional expertise beyond the specific expertise in terms of veterinary medicine.

But things like legal background, governance, other medical background — that kind of additional strength of skill set to the council will be what is envisaged there, ensuring that the overall practice in the work of the council is done in terms of protection and regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine and in the best public interest.

J. Brar: The one thing I like in this act is the makeup of the new council under the college, which has a maximum of five members from the profession and then five members who are appointed by the minister, which includes four members from the public, which is a nice balance. But I think it will only make sense if that balance is always maintained. There may be a time when there are three members on the council from the profession, and it will be good to have at least three members from the public.

I just want to understand the perspective from the minister's point of view. There must be a clear cause or purpose to have that balance. Is the intention here that the minister will maintain that balance, appoint public members so that they have public input, which can provide input for a better quality of care in the council and also provide some balance for making some important decisions for the people of British Columbia?

The Chair: If I might suggest, Member, these questions are better directed under section 4 of the bill, on the council. If the minister chooses to respond in this section, that's fine, but they are specifically about section 4.

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: I can respond here. Maybe that'll make section 4 go quicker.

Just to say that the provisions that were here — minimum of three, maximum of five from the registrants in the college, up to four by the minister…. It doesn't say exactly four. It's up to four, and one, potentially, from the certified technologists.

I think you can see clearly that the intent is to maintain that balance, and I think I can say that that was part of the rationale for the way it was structured in terms of providing that range, but keeping that range both in the number elected by the registrants and the number appointed by the minister.

I think that our goal is to ensure we continue to have that appropriate balance between the expertise within the registrants that look after the key principle of a self-regulating organization but also that balance of ensuring we have that strength in the lay representation to ensure that that is done in the public interest.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

H. Bains: I have a few questions about the duties and objects of the college. I think that is what is listed in here. It goes on to say:

"In carrying out its objects, the college must (a) protect the public interest, and (b) exercise its powers and discharge its responsibilities under this Act in the public interest. (2) The objects of the college are as follows: (a) to establish the requirements for registration of an individual as a registrant; (b) to establish, monitor and enforce standards for the practice of veterinary medicine."

My question is…. That was in place under the current act, and those duties were vested in the British Columbia
[ Page 5642 ]
Veterinary Medical Association. Now those duties will be of the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia. Is that correct? Are there any duties and objects changing, or are they the same as what we have today?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think, in responding, that it's important to look at the provisions under the objects under the previous bill, which simply said: "The general objects of the association are to promote and increase knowledge, skill and proficiency of its members in all things relating to veterinary medicine and to the veterinary profession." That was the object under the previous act.

What I think we've done in this act is provided, through these objects, for the refocusing of the work of the college in terms of focusing on its regulatory mandate in terms of the oversight and ensuring the correct conduct of veterinarians, the ethical practice of veterinary medicine — all of those kinds of things. And it brings in a specific reference to doing so in the public interest.

But it doesn't cover off those areas which I mentioned earlier, which was about promoting advocacy — those kinds of things which are now being separated. I know work is underway within the community for an association or organization that would cover off those interests. Things are changing under these new objects to clearly focus the work of the college on the regulatory oversight of the practice of veterinary medicine.

[1620]

H. Bains: As I understand it, currently the BCVMA…. Part of their duties were to promote and enhance the interests of their members and, at the same time, to receive and investigate complaints, and also to monitor the veterinary medicine. The licensing and monitoring and maintaining of the licence were also vested within their body, although they may have different committees.

That's exactly what is said here. Now it says that it will be "to establish and maintain a continuing competence program to promote high standards for the practice of veterinary medicine." I think that is the responsibility of the BCVMA today. Whether it was in written form listed in the act or not, that was essentially what they did. Maybe the minister can correct me if I'm wrong.

Then it goes on to say: "to receive and investigate complaints against registrants and former registrants and to deal with issues of discipline, professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming a registrant, incompetence and incapacity."

I think all of those rights were vested in BCVMA. Now they will be carried out by the college. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I think that's correct.

H. Bains: I think the issue here is…. I think it was brought to the minister's attention, and there has been a lengthy dispute going on. I'm trying to figure out if the BCVMA…. They carried out their duties under the current act, and we have the mess that we have before us. Now the college…. Simply the name changed. They still have the same rights and duties vested in the college, and these are the same members.

The minister has said on many occasions that part of the reason to bring in and update this act is to deal with the issues that the members are facing between BCVMA and the members. So how does that change under this act?

Hon. S. Thomson: I've been clear in the comments so far. We are changing over from the association to a college, providing for a different governance structure. There are also a number of other provisions, as you will see when we go through the balance of the sections, that ensure we put standards and principles in place in terms of how the college administers its responsibilities under bylaws in terms of registration, investigation and discipline throughout the balance of the bill.

Essentially, the provisions are very much the same in terms of what the association did previously. It is a self-regulating association. We're making sure that we provide them with the tools necessary to operate as a self-regulating profession consistent with other self-regulating professions, and we've provided for a different governance structure. In combination with a number of the other provisions of the bill, we expect that they will provide for that appropriate and strong oversight of the practice of veterinary medicine in British Columbia.

[1625]

H. Bains: So far what we've seen is that the difference between the current act and this act is the makeup of the council. The college structure remains the same, although with a different name. It was BCVMA, and now it's the college. How those members are appointed or elected continues to be the same process.

The only difference so far, if the minister could confirm, is the structure of the council. Even there, the only difference is that now the minister will be appointing up to four members plus one layperson, as the minister puts it. Is that the only difference we have seen so far with sections 2 and 3?

Hon. S. Thomson: We're going to go through the other provisions of the bill, I expect, but the differences that we have seen so far are the association transitioning in name to a college and the governance structure. There will still be a council. The governance structure in terms of the structure of the council will be different than in the previous act.

As we just discussed, the duty and objects provided for in this bill strengthen the focus of the role of the college on the regulatory oversight of the practice. The broader
[ Page 5643 ]
provisions that were in the previous legislation around promoting and those areas will be done separately, so that this college will strictly focus on its regulatory role. Those are the differences that we've seen so far.

H. Bains: If I read 3(2)(f), it says: "to establish and employ registration, investigation and discipline practices that are transparent, objective, impartial and fair." Could the minister explain how that is different than how BCVMA is governed today — under this particular section?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the important thing to note is that the objects being referred to here are the broad principles. They set out the broad principles of a self-regulating organization. I think they're at the high level. That's what you want to see in a self-regulating profession. You want to see these principles and these objects maintained and adhered to as the college does its work.

The detail that I think you're looking for in terms of the specifics of how those are achieved are in the following sections of the bill — as we get into the various specific components of this bill and the other sections, in terms of how those objects will be achieved, in addition to the change in the governance structure.

H. Bains: The language that we are talking about now, 3(2)(f) — is that any different than what the act has today?

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: At the basic level, the provisions that are incorporated in these objects are many of the same provisions that were in the previous act in terms of laying out the responsibilities of the association and being a self-regulating organization under the previous act.

Clearly, in this one, one of the principles that I think we've achieved in defining these objects here and with some of the separation in terms of the other role in terms of promoting…. By having the change in the governance structure, the perception of a self-interest function changes under the new governance structure — the perception of conflict of interest.

We're broadening the governance of the college through the new structure of the council to deal with those perceptions and those concerns. We're laying out in the objects a clear set of principles under which the self-regulating organization should operate.

I think they're all principles that we would agree are important, and it's what we would want to see in a self-regulating organization when we look at things like, as you mentioned, fair, transparent, objective and impartial. Those are principles that we would all want to see in a self-regulating organization overseeing a professional service.

At this point I think the basic changes are the change in structure and the appointment of the laypersons, a more focused set of objects in section 3 and incorporating all of the objects that were in the previous act in terms of a self-regulating association.

H. Bains: Again, my question to the minister…. If this is the same language that is carried over from the current act to the new act, which is very, very important…. It talked about "establish and employ registration, investigation and discipline practices that are transparent, objective, impartial and fair."

I think this is the crux of this whole dispute before us that the members and the associations are going through. I just want to ask the minister. Currently if this language is still there…. There were members who were on the disciplinary committee. They were heard and were actually on record. They would make comments about the accused, as I call it, before they go to the table or the panel to hear the complaint, showing their bias.

I mean, they seem to feel there's no remedy available to them under the current act. What I'm looking for now is: is there a remedy available to the members facing these disciplinary hearings, who may feel or may have evidence that there is a panel member on the disciplinary committee who is biased? They have evidence to show that there is a bias expressed by that member. Is there any extra avenue available, any remedy available to the registrant facing these disciplinary hearings? Or is it the same as what we have today?

The Chair: Member, I'd suggest that some of these issues are going to be coming up in other sections of the bill. If we can move on to the other sections of the bill, this member might be able to get some of the answers that you're looking for.

B. Ralston: Just looking at the present act — in the "Objects" — there's one sentence which reads: "The general objects of the association are to promote and increase the knowledge, skill and proficiency of its members in all things relating to veterinary medicine and to the veterinary profession." Obviously, this proposed section 3 is a substantial expansion of that one-sentence description of objects in the previous statute.

[1635]

Will the minister confirm that part of the reason to expand the objects and specifically enumerate some of the ones that the member for Surrey-Newton has referred the committee to is to provide some assistance to potential legal interpretation should these matters — and we would certainly hope that would not be the case — go to the courts, that having this broad description of objects and some very specific provisions, such as (e) and (f) in particular, would assist the court in deciding on how to interpret the statute should it become necessary?
[ Page 5644 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: What we were attempting and what we have done in this section, section 3, is to clarify the objects of the college, to strengthen the objects, to make it clear for the members of the college and the council, which will be overseeing this, what their role is, what the key principles that they need to do are in terms of undertaking their responsibilities as a self-regulating profession.

We have made these objects consistent with other self-regulating professions. It was an attempt to broaden those, to make it more clear and to make the role of the college focused in its efforts to ensure that we got the administration and the oversight of the practice in the best public interest.

H. Bains: The Chair ruled that this, the question that I asked earlier, is dealt with in further parts of this act, perhaps. I went through it, and the question that I asked under 3(f)…. I don't see any other place in this act that would deal with the question that I asked.

The question that I asked was: currently, if this language exists in the act today, how is it that the complainants feel that they have no remedy available to them in case the panel members hearing the disciplinary procedures are found to have made comments that are biased prior to going to the hearing?

Maybe the minister could help me. Where is that section to deal with that for the complainant or the person who's going through the hearing on disciplinary matters, if they find that one or more of the panel members have shown bias prior to the hearing taking place? If there's another section, then I'll wait. Perhaps the minister could help us with that.

[1640]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think what the member opposite is looking for…. What we have done is put it in the new bill — strengthen the objects of the college. We've put in place processes and principles to have that transparency, that objective fairness and impartiality. There are new provisions in dealing with the operation of discipline that's in committees and the bylaw processes that will all be determined.

The remedy that I think the member opposite is looking for is…. Those remedies exist currently, and those remedies will exist under the new bill. Those remedies are the courts. We haven't written into these provisions dealing with the issue of, specifically, the bias that the member opposite is referring to.

What we have written into these provisions is to establish the council or the college with the governance that we expect will bring in these principles under the objects. We'll operate in that manner. But if, during those processes, there are those concerns, then the remedies exist outside this legislation, outside this bill as far as remedies to the court and other avenues, just as is happening currently.

H. Bains: So there is no other section that deals with the question that I asked. I got the answer. I appreciate that. The remedies are the courts, as they exist today.

I guess my next question would be…. Under this section, if the college is found to be, or the members feel that they are, making bylaws or changing bylaws as they did in the past — for example, the language proficiency test…. If they come up with that kind of bylaw again, the only remedy available to the members today, which they would feel…. In the past they felt that it was systemic discrimination to keep certain members out. As a result, they went to human rights, and finally the BCVMA realized that that was not the right thing to do, so they withdrew that. So that language proficiency test is no longer there.

Right now, if the minister could confirm that that scenario is still there — that if the members feel that this college is coming up with bylaws that may be discriminatory in their eyes, the only remedy they have is human rights or the courts. Is that correct?

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: The principles and the objects require the processes to operate and the bylaws to operate in the public interest, to be established so that the college operates in the public interest. Obviously, discriminatory bylaws would not be in the public interest.

If you've read through the new bill, you will note the provision that there is the authority for the minister to amend or alter bylaws in the public interest if required. I'm not expecting that, and I am hoping that would not be a provision that would have to be used. But in the event that there was a theoretical situation where something like that was potentially happening, that authority exists in this legislation.

J. Brar: Yes, I just want to ask one last question on this one. The members for Surrey-Newton and Surrey-Whalley have asked a number of questions. And just to get clarification on one particular area, I want to ask the last question on that one, so we have absolutely clarity on that one, particularly 3(f) — "to establish and employ registration, investigation and discipline practices that are transparent, objective, impartial and fair."

Keeping in mind that the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association is to continue as a corporation under the name of College of Veterinarians of British Columbia, and keeping in mind the history of this dispute, which the member for Surrey-Newton has mentioned, I would like to get assurance from the minister as to when the same members who have been part of that conflict will be rolled out as the members of the new college?

How are they going to abide by these objectives or duties of the college under which they have to establish new rules, particularly for the disciplinary hearings,
[ Page 5645 ]
which are objective and transparent? There's a historic bias. There is organizational memory there. So what checks and balances will the minister put in place to ensure that it is done that way?

[1650]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the main response to this is that first of all, when we move to the new legislation, we'll be able to appoint as quickly as possible and transition the additional lay representation to the council. We have, throughout the provisions of the new bill, more description and prescriptive processes around how the functions are to run under discipline and investigation and those aspects of the role of the self-regulating profession.

If you look well ahead in the proposed legislation as well, you'll see the provision where the minister has the responsibility or has the ability to set an election process in the transition period. That will allow the membership and the registrants to choose members of the council from the registrants.

All of those provisions will take place in the transition to the new college, and with the refocused definitions of the objects, with the additional lay representation in terms of the governance, it's my expectation that the college will manage its role as a self-regulating organization in the public interest.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

H. Bains: Section 4(1) — the language says here: "The council must govern, control and administer the affairs of the college in accordance with this Act, the regulations and the bylaws." Perhaps the minister could explain what powers under this language the council has over the college. What, on a day-to-day basis, will the council be doing as, it says, it is governing "the affairs of the college"?

What will be the duties of council? The rest of the section talks about the makeup of the council, but this is the only one that talks about what their duties are. Can the minister explain how they will be governing the affairs of the college?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, section 4(1) — simply, I think it's very straightforward. What it says is that the council, who are the elected members from the registrants and the appointees that will be appointed as the members of the council through the lay appointment process…. This simply says that, in conducting their work, they have to do it in accordance with the act, with the provisions of this act, with any regulations that'll be in place and within the bylaws that'll be established.

That's very basic. That sets out the role of the board — essentially, the board of directors — or any other governing structure in a membership-based organization. So I think it's pretty straightforward. It just says that one of their responsibilities as the council is to govern in accordance with the act, with the regulations and with bylaws that'll be established by the membership.

H. Bains: It says: "The council must govern, control and administer the affairs of the college." So how does the council control and administer the affairs of the college? Is there some…? If you look at the college, there are duties and objects of the college. They are clearly defined. There's a whole section here. But under "Council," it hardly gives anything other than the general statement.

[1655]

What powers do they have over the college? That's what my question is, because I asked the question previously. The minister can make bylaws under section 28 if the minister feels that that is in the best interests of the public. But does the council have certain powers when the council members feel that the college is making bylaws that may not be in the best interests of the public? Do they have those powers? Or do they simply make certain policies and then let the college run the way they want to run according to these regulations and these bylaws?

I'm just trying to figure out what powers the council has over the college when you talk about controlling and administering the affairs of the college. Can they actually direct them that their actions are wrong? Can they actually say: "The decisions you made in your last meeting are not according to the act and the regulations, the bylaws"? Do they have those powers?

Hon. S. Thomson: The council undertakes its functions by adhering to the act, to the regulations and to the bylaws. We've got, coming up in the next 25 sections or so, all the provisions of how the council does that. The council makes bylaws to establish committees. The council sets bylaws in place for approval of bylaws. The council sets in place bylaws which are voted on by the membership for the election processes and things. That's how the council undertakes its governance role — by adhering to the act, by setting the bylaws by which the college will operate.

H. Bains: That clarifies a little more than what we had before.

I'm looking at the structure of a company. There's a board of directors. They are in overall charge of the company. They hire a CEO, and the CEO runs the affairs.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

So I'm looking here. Is it a similar structure here — that the council will hire the registrar or the executive
[ Page 5646 ]
director, that the executive director will report to the council, not to the college, and that the registrar will run the affairs of the college as a full-time officer or staff member? I'm just trying to compare the company structure. If this is the same here, perhaps the minister could explain that to us.

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: The college is the same as any other self-regulating profession. It's set up as a corporation. The council is essentially the board of directors. The board of directors will establish the bylaws and the processes.

The balance of the bill talks about how those bylaws are approved. Presumably, the council will establish officers of the council — president, vice-president — as part of those bylaw processes. The council will engage the registrar and staff for the college. The membership, which is the college, in the majority of the cases approves the bylaws that the council will establish.

J. Brar: I just want to ask one question on this section as well. The minister may appoint four lay members on the council. So the minister has those powers. I just want to ask the minister: what will be the guiding principles for appointing those members? Will there be a gender balance? Will there be people from the ethnic community? And will there be regional representation when the minister makes the decisions about those members?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I mentioned earlier, the approach to the lay representatives will be managed through the board resourcing office, and that'll be the merit-based approach to the appointments. I talked about the need to have the skill set that helps ensure that the college operates in the public interest. I talked about just some general things like legal background, like ability and strength in governance, things like a good background in dispute resolution processes — those kinds of things. But that will be managed through the board resourcing process on a merit-based approach.

B. Ralston: In discussing matters with his staff, I notice that the minister was also consulting with the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who appears to be in the group of officials who are advising the minister now. I understand that the member is a former member of the College of Veterinarians, and I'm just wondering if the minister could advise whether he is satisfied that that's within the bounds of propriety for a member of the House.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify. You will know that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson spoke in the second reading of the bill. He's a non-voting member of the association. In speaking to second reading of the bill, he did check with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner to ensure that that was appropriate and received that approval.

[1705]

I'm new to this process, so I will take the advice of the Chair that if there is anything inappropriate in terms of his participation here currently, that will be at the direction of the Chair. I was not intending to do anything inappropriate here.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

J. Brar: Section 5: the council may "by bylaw establish a registration committee, an investigation committee and a discipline committee." I just want to understand: what is the difference between the investigation committee and the discipline committee?

Hon. S. Thomson: The investigation committee as established here under this section — that's the step that looks at and investigates any complaints and then would make a determination on whether it would move to a discipline hearing or not. The discipline committee is the process that would undertake that discipline hearing if the investigation committee recommended that that was the step that needed to be taken.

J. Brar: If I'm clear about that, there will be two stand-alone committees. That's what I understand from the comment made by the minister. One will be an investigation committee, and the other will be a discipline committee.

My understanding, as I think it works, is that there is a stand-alone discipline committee, and as needed, that committee or the council establishes an investigation committee for a particular case. But the minister is telling me something different here — that there will be a stand-alone investigation committee. That committee will do the investigation and then hand it over to another subcommittee, which is the discipline committee of the council. If that's what it is, I would like the minister to confirm that.

Hon. S. Thomson: If the question is if there are two stand-alone committees, the answer is yes.

J. Brar: Thank you for the clarification. Can the minister tell us how many members will be on each committee, and will those committees have a public member as well?

[1710]

Hon. S. Bond: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.
[ Page 5647 ]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: On behalf of my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie, I wanted to take the opportunity this afternoon to welcome a group of students who have made the long trek from Prince George. We don't often get to welcome students to the Legislature. We wish we had that opportunity more often, but it means a very long bus ride for this group of 27 students.

They are not only great students; they're great musicians. They are here on a band trip. They've just finished their tour of the Legislature and now wanted to see the Legislative Assembly in action. It's a much quieter time of the day. Question period is earlier in the day and much more — what should I say? — energetic than it is this afternoon, but we're very pleased to have you here in the precinct.

We want to take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Toyata, their teacher, and the other adults that have accompanied you here to Victoria. We're glad that you've done that, and we hope you enjoy your stay and wish you a safe journey back to Prince George on that long bus ride tomorrow. Thank you for coming; we're glad you're here.

Debate Continued

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

L. Popham: Section 6 deals with bylaws regarding council elections: "The council must by bylaw…(f) provide for the remuneration and expenses of council members." My question is: how much will the council members be given for their election process? Is there a spending limit for this election, and will members be able to provide their own financial assistance for the election?

Hon. S. Thomson: Before I respond specifically to that question, I think that I didn't get a chance to answer the question on section 5 quickly before we moved to there. Just to very quickly respond to that one for the member opposite…. The composition of the committees will be established by bylaws, and there's nothing that would prevent a non-registered member to be part of one of those committees, but the council will establish by bylaw the composition of their committees.

On section 6, then, the remuneration and expenses of council members…. That refers to the remuneration and expenses for serving as a member of the council once you're elected.

Sections 6 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

[1715]

L. Popham: "The council may by bylaw do any of the following in relation to the registration of individuals as registrants: (a) establish requirements for registration or reinstatement of registration, including requirements respecting…." The third bullet is: "the provision of evidence of good character." I'm just wondering how that will be established.

Hon. S. Thomson: Those provisions, all the provisions referenced there — the standards, the competencies — will be established as part of the bylaw that the council will develop and that will be taken to the membership.

Sections 12 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

L. Popham: "Inspections, Complaints, Investigations and Discipline." What would be the criteria used in appointing a person or persons as inspectors?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the question from the member opposite was: what would be the qualifications of the inspector? I think that when the council are hiring an inspector, they would look for somebody who understood the business, knew the work of the council, the work of veterinarians.

It would be the same as any other inspector hired to do building inspection or other processes like that. I expect that they would develop some qualifications that an inspector would have and would recruit and hire accordingly.

L. Popham: As far as the bylaws go, I'm wondering: would there be any more public consultation before the bylaws are finalized?

Hon. S. Thomson: The matter of developing the bylaws will be the responsibility of the council. They may or may not wish to do some further consultation in developing those bylaws. That's not the responsibility of the government or the ministry. It will be the responsibility of the council to establish the bylaws that are required under the new legislation.

[1720]

L. Popham: Will there be conferring with the minister before establishing those bylaws as permanent?

Hon. S. Thomson: It's not required, but we would expect, I think, that we would have a working relationship at staff level with the council as they're developing their bylaws. They know ultimately the ministerial authority
[ Page 5648 ]
with respect to the bylaws, so my expectation is that there would be a working relationship at our staff level as they develop those. But it's not a requirement in the legislation.

L. Popham: I guess I'm wondering if the minister will be requesting availability of those bylaws and if he feels that it's necessary to sign off on them before they're finalized.

Hon. S. Thomson: I think, as I referenced in the response to the previous question, we expect that we would have a working relationship at the staff level as they develop the bylaw. In some of the provisions that we've just approved in passing the previous sections, there are notification requirements, posting requirements, for the bylaws.

In terms of if I would be signing them off, the answer would be no, but the expectation is that we would have that working relationship as their bylaws are developed.

L. Popham: I'm moving to (4): "An inspector may exercise powers under subsection (3) in respect of premises used as a private residence only if (a) the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that the private residence is being used as business premises by a registrant." I'm bringing this one up because I think inspecting a private home is a very serious matter. I'm wondering how "reasonable grounds" is defined.

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think it's important here to note that there are two provisions to this section. One is the test of reasonableness and reasonable grounds. The other is that the powers are exercised with the consent of the occupant. If there isn't consent, then there wouldn't be the search. But I think the test of reasonableness goes back to…. There has to be an honest belief. It has to be on an objective basis and be seen to be reasonable. It's important to note that there is both that and requiring the consent of the occupant.

L. Popham: My understanding of reasonable grounds…. If we're moving ahead to section 53(2), I think that it seems to contradict part (4) in section 49. I'm wondering if you could comment on that.

Hon. S. Thomson: I wanted to make sure I was clear which further section the member opposite was referring to. Section 53 and 53(4) deal with search and seizure with the requirement of a court order. Section 49, which we're dealing with, deals with inspections.

There's a difference between inspection where you have reasonable grounds to do an inspection and it requires the consent of the occupant, as opposed to moving to the section on search and seizure, which is where there is a clear view that there is an issue and action needs to be taken. That needs to be taken under court direction. They need court approval before doing that.

L. Popham: I do want to discuss section 53(2), because it relates to the one I'm doing now. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to discuss that. Can I discuss that now to help clear it up?

The Chair: Okay, proceed.

[1730]

L. Popham: In section 53(2). I'll read it to you: "Unless the court otherwise directs, an application under subsection (1) may be made without notice to any person and may be heard in private." I guess I'm understanding from the previous answer that that's simply under court order that that would happen, but if you could clarify that for me — how it doesn't contradict the previous section.

Hon. S. Thomson: Go back again to section 49, which is the inspection process, which is, you know, where, as part of the investigation…. We're thinking that there's something we'd like to look at. We have reasonable grounds to think that it's something that needs looking at. It would require the consent to come in to do it as part of an investigation process, in responding to a complaint to see whether there is justification for it, to see whether there are further steps required that may move things towards a disciplined hearing or those sorts of things.

When we get into the next section, that is a situation where there are reasonable grounds, that there is something that you need to enter a premise to deal with. It does require court approval to do that. You would have to go to the court with all the grounds and the justification for why that action needed to be taken. So the sections deal with two different things.

Sections 49 to 81 inclusive approved.

On section 82.

L. Popham: I would like to move an amendment on section 82.

[1735]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the proposed amendment is out of order with respect to Standing Order 67, as it potentially would generate public expenditure.

Amendment ruled out of order.

J. Brar: Madam Chair, this is about the transition. I think the key issue, which we believe should be taken care of once this legislation becomes law, is that there
[ Page 5649 ]
has been ongoing conflict that we hope this will take care of, and in the future that there's a better mechanism and better communication between all the members of the new College of Veterinarians of B.C.

Under the transition of this act, the old council, basically, will become the council of the new College of Veterinarians of British Columbia. I would like to ask the minister under that as to what assurance the minister can give that the bias or the perceived bias, which is there already among the members…. How will that be taken care of?

What checks and balances will the minister put in place to ensure that that bias or the organizational memory does not carry on with the transition from the old council to the new council?

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think I've addressed the answer to this question at length in the early part of the debate on the clause-by-clause sections of this bill when we were talking earlier about the structure of the council, the steps taken to add the lay members to the governance, the steps taken to clarify the objects, the steps taken within the more prescriptive nature of the provisions around investigation, inspection, discipline, all the sections that we've dealt with already under the bill.

In transition, the assurance that I can give the member opposite is that we have thought very carefully about transition in terms of providing the transitionary clauses here. We will move as quickly as possible. You have to recognize that we want to do this in an orderly manner in terms of transitioning to the new college and transitioning in the new structure and some time to get the bylaws established. But we will move as quickly as we can in an orderly transition to the new council.

We believe that the legislation, or the bill that's being proposed here, provides for that ongoing governance structure under the self-regulating profession, as I mentioned earlier. We expect that they will operate in the public interest moving forward, and we think we've taken the steps to ensure that that will be the case.

J. Brar: As I understand section 82, it says: "… until 3 council members referred to in section 4(2)(a) are first elected under this Act, the council consists of (i) the members of the former council, and (ii) the individuals, if any, appointed by order of the minister under the former Act or under section 4(2)(c) of this Act…." It's sort of confusing for me. If the minister can give clarification.

My understanding from this, by the way, is that until the election of the college takes place — I don't know how much time it will take — the current council of the BCVMA is going to continue as the new council of the college. If that is true, my concern in that situation is that that is the council the minister is giving the powers and responsibility to, to establish the rules, including the rules for disciplinary hearings, including setting up a committee to continue hearings under the discipline procedures.

My concern is that if the same council member, even in the absence of four appointed members which the minister has the power to appoint under this law, and that may not be there…. So it will be basically exactly the same council which is there now, and that will basically be the transition council until the election takes place. So clearly, if you look at the history of that council, the test-for-English requirement is a clear indication about the mindset and the paradigm of thinking of that group.

Having said that, my question, again, to the minister is: what checks and balances will the minister put in place to ensure that the old memory from the old conflict does not just move on with the council transition when we move from the old council to the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a timing issue, essentially. The transition provisions that are provided here are meant to be transition, meant to be temporary. The minister does have the authority in this section to appoint the lay individuals as quickly as possible, so that could happen before the first election takes place. So we can move to add that lay representation as quickly as possible.

The current lay representative also provides for the provision that the current lay representative that we have appointed to the council can continue. As you'll note in the section, the minister also may by order specify the date for that election to take place.

[1745]

As I said in response to the earlier question, we will work as quickly as we can in this transition. But we do want to make sure we do it in an orderly manner and make sure we don't have any gap in the regulatory oversight of the college or the association now transitioning to the college. We will move to do this transition as quickly as we can but in an orderly, thoughtful way.

B. Ralston: The act confers upon the minister fairly broad discretionary powers, including the ability to approve bylaws or not and the power to appoint public members and also to intervene more broadly. I suppose the concern that's being expressed by my colleague, if I could add to what he said, is that…. I think he's seeking an assurance that in this transitional period, where complaints that were previously before the old council will be continued….

Is the minister prepared to give the assurance that should this legislation pass, which appears to be imminent, he will commit to, within the bounds of the new statute, making sure the complaints process is conducted fairly? I think, rightly or wrongly…. I know there are those in the profession who disagree with this, but there are certainly
[ Page 5650 ]
strongly held views on both sides — the minister is familiar with the history here — that intervention or at least the prospect of intervention by the minister or the possibility may encourage a more orderly and I suppose less conflict-ridden resolution of the complaints that are currently before the council.

Hon. S. Thomson: The act and the provisions do not authorize the minister to intervene in a specific case. That would be inappropriate. What I have said is that we will, based on the transitional provisions, move to transition in an orderly manner and as quickly as we can and as reasonably under the circumstances in moving from one association to a new college. There are the provisions to move as quickly as we can to appoint additional lay representation in terms of the governance structure in the council.

We can make sure that things happen in a manner as quickly as possible because we have the ability to establish the date of the first election to elect the new council. But I think it's important that we do that in consultation and cooperation with the existing association. They're professionals. They've done a good job in self-regulating.

We're giving them a bit more prescriptions, a more focused approach, more focused objects. We need to do that as quickly as we can to get the new council and the new college operating, and we need to allow the membership to have that election process that would establish their registration on the new council. The assurance I can give is that we'll do that as quickly as we can in an orderly manner.

B. Ralston: I wasn't suggesting that the minister intervene in any specific complaint. But if the minister's view becomes the way in which the previous body of complaints is being adjudicated, as I understand the objects of the legislation and the powers that are given to the minister, there is the power to intervene. Is that a correct interpretation of the jurisdiction that's conferred upon the minister in this act?

[1750]

I would say I have every confidence that that will be exercised fairly by the minister in this case. As we know, the history here is a very vexed one, and I think we're all looking forward to happier relations within the association.

Hon. S. Thomson: The assurance that I provided is that we will move in the transition as quickly as we can to put the new governance structure in place and to work with the association. To do that, the transition provisions do provide for the situation where…. There may be a couple of current cases, and the provisions that we have there deal with those. Unless the decision has been made, then it moves to the new structure.

I think my efforts, following passage of this bill, will be to make sure that we do that. My focus will be to make sure that we do that transition as quickly and as efficiently as possible, in consultation with the current association, to put the new governance structure in place and the new provisions of this bill.

Sections 82 to 104 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Veterinarians Act

Bill 10, Veterinarians Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. P. Bell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

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

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $302,121,000.

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. We're doing the budget estimates on the Ministry of Community and Rural Development.
[ Page 5651 ]

If I could remind all members in the gallery that they can't use any portion of their audio equipment and they cannot talk with members. That blue ribbon across the front is like an invisible glass, so you'll have to send them electronically or meet them out in the hallway.

Minister, do you want to make opening statements or introductions?

[1435]

Hon. B. Bennett: First of all, there are a number ministry staff over here that I'll introduce as they come up here to help me out. Sitting beside me is, of course, Deputy Minister Dale Wall, and behind me is Assistant Deputy Minister Shauna Brouwer.

I'm actually not going to make introductory remarks about the ministry. I think time is fairly short. I'd rather give the time to my colleague across the way to ask questions, if it's okay with him. I think he knows what we do in the ministry, so I think we'll just turn it over to him.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister, and welcome to your staff and your deputy. I appreciate the fact that we didn't do the opening statements with any length, because we have only this afternoon, I believe. The ministry is a far-reaching one in many ways. There are many issues and many responsibilities that we will not have time today, I believe, to actually get into. There will be a few times where I have just a couple of colleagues coming in to ask some specific questions, but for the most part, I guess I'll be running the show on the critic's side here.

I've been attending the local government annual meetings that have been happening throughout the province. The minister has been travelling, of course, throughout the province with those, too, so our paths have crossed quite a few times lately. I've certainly been following the comments that the minister has been making as we were coming up to this estimates process, and I appreciate his providing the information to local governments. Of course, that's a key part of this ministry.

I note that there are some significant service transfers, funding transfers, to the ministry — this year only, for the most part. There's an increase of, I guess, just under $160 million since September. That's transfers in services to the ministry. It's sort of a one-time thing, one-year thing. Can the minister explain the rationale for that, please?

Hon. B. Bennett: I might have to do this in pieces, so I'll give the best answer I can. I'm not sure that I fully understand where the member got the $160 million figure, so we may have to go back and forth a couple of times to get at what the member has asked.

Our budget for the ministry has actually increased by 72 percent this year. It's roughly $130 million, and that gets you up to the $309 million total. To explain what that consists of, there's $195 million for infrastructure that includes enough funding to fund all of the $165 million in projects that have to be completed by March 31, 2011. There's also $41.1 million that is known as the strategic community investment fund, which is the traffic fine revenues and the small community grants.

There's also a larger number…. Well, probably if I give the member those two numbers, that would give him a sense of where the increase is coming from — so mainly, it consists of infrastructure funding and then the final strategic community investment fund payment, which was the $41.1 million.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Well, my understanding, if I read it correctly, is that $32 million of the money that's transferred is coming out of the Rural Secretariat.

[1440]

Is that just a straight change of ministry, or is it just a change of authority over that money? Sometimes when the moneys change from ministry to ministry, it's hard to track what services are going with it and what the rationale is for that move. Let me just go to that one specifically, then.

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the $30 million number that the member is asking about is coming out of the Rural Secretariat component of the ministry. It has to do with the province's matching money for the community development trust — you know, the job opportunities program, etc. The feds put in $30 million, and we put in $30 million, so that's our $30 million showing up there.

S. Fraser: I'll probe the community development trust maybe a little later in this session here. But in my understanding, wasn't it $47 million that was from the federal government? Wasn't that their portion that's on the table there? I'd calculated it at $32 million from the Rural Secretariat and about $47 million from the federal government. There's quite a discrepancy there. Can the minister comment?

Hon. B. Bennett: You know what? I'm going to have to guess — not at the numbers, because I know what the province put in to match the federal money. I also know what the federal component was, and it was $30 million, so it was $30 million each.

My guessing is about the increment above the $30 million. I think the member used a number of $40-some-odd million. What I would guess is that that probably is a carryover from the earlier part of the community development trust program. It was a $129 million program over, I think, about three years. Some of that money was still being spent when we got another $30 million from the feds, and we put $30 million in ourselves. That's probably where that number comes from.
[ Page 5652 ]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

Local government services and transfers have increased by $159 million since September. Some of that — $58 million of that, if I read it correctly — is for a one-year commitment. I don't think that's expected to extend beyond 2010-2011. The way I read it, by 2011-2012 the funding for local government services and transfers would again, in essence, be cut by $89 million for 2011-2012.

Essentially, the budget increase that the minister is referring to, this 70-plus percent, is like a one-shot…. It's an anomaly as such — is it not?

[1445]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the member is referring to the restated estimates — what was stated last spring and what was stated more recently. There's roughly a difference of $160 million. The explanation for that is that there was an increase — a considerable increase — in funding and then there was a decrease in some parts of the budget. I'll just tell the member what the increases were and what the decreases were, and he can do the math. It will come out to roughly $160 million.

In terms of the increases, there was $169.5 million for additional infrastructure stimulus expenditures. That included things like the Building Canada fund communities component. It included a big number within that $169 for the Building Canada top-up and the infrastructure stimulus programs. Those are the programs where the projects have to be completed by March 31, 2011.

It also included $17.5 million to complete the Towns for Tomorrow program, and it included $2 million for additional planning and procurement of the CRD sewage treatment plan.

Those items make up the increase. The decrease is constituted by a reduction of $17 million that is related to the small community grants and the traffic fine revenue-sharing grants, plus a $12 million reduction in the infrastructure programs and the B.C. community water improvement program due to the maturity of those programs. If you take the increases and subtract the decreases, you'll come up with a $160 million overall increase in the budget.

S. Fraser: The Building Canada stuff — that's federal dollars. So this is an amalgam of federal and provincial dollars. The sourcing of this is…. The province has a role to administer, but they're not necessarily the providers of the money. It's more of an administrative role. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm pleased to inform the member that he's not correct about that. That's all provincial money. Most of these programs — not all of them, but most of them — are…. The major infrastructure programs are a third-third-third. These are provincial dollars. These are not flow-through federal dollars. These are provincial dollars that we use to match with the federal dollars.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. If we move to the 2011-2012 fiscal, the numbers drop dramatically. I think it's showing about $89 million. That's in funding for local government services and transfers. There's quite a significant drop from this fiscal to next. Can the minister elaborate and explain that, please?

[1450]

Hon. B. Bennett: To the member's question, same sort of answer as to the question before, with different numbers. There is not a deduction, but there is less money in the budget in the fiscal year 2011-12 generally. But there's some new money that year as well. I just want the member to know what the difference is.

Essentially, the bulk of the decrease is due to the fact that most of the infrastructure money will have been paid out by then — not all of it. Not all of the program money will have been paid out, but a lot of it will have been paid out, and that constitutes a good share of the difference.

There's also…. The traffic fine revenue program and small community grant program will be paid fully, 100 percent. That'll be a little higher in that year. So that's going to go up a little bit, but the infrastructure dollars flowing through the ministry will be down considerably.

S. Fraser: The funding, the drop…. I mean, this is stimulus money that's in there right now, whether it's the Building Canada money or the…. Arguably, it's for stimulus for local governments and communities. You know, in these tough economic times you can't argue that. So that stimulus, that portion will be used up. That will be finished with next year.

Are there any thoughts from the minister regarding what impact that drop will have on stimulating the economy and stimulus to the communities?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a good question. I do think that the timing of the infrastructure program that we announced over the past — oh, goodness — year and a half, I guess, couldn't have been better, actually. I think the federal government's timing was good as well.

There were a fair number of infrastructure projects announced a little more than a year ago, prior to last spring's provincial election. Then, of course, this past fall there were a huge number of infrastructure projects announced. In fact, it was the single largest infrastructure program in the history of the province announced this past fall.

The member is right to suggest that that was intended to stimulate the economy in all of the regions of the
[ Page 5653 ]
province, and I think it is doing that and will continue to do that. A lot of public dollars are being spent in small towns, villages, regional districts and big cities, and that will continue for the next couple of years.

Those kinds of investments by government, by the provincial government and by the federal government, aren't the kinds of investments that any government can afford to make year after year after year. They're done in unusual circumstances, I think, and done as quickly as you can get the projects organized and evaluate them and then get the money paid out.

Then the belief of government is that the private sector will start, as the economy improves, to pick up the slack in terms of the investment that will then stimulate our economy in the province and across the country.

I would say, with some caution, that there's lots of evidence right now indicating that that's exactly what's happening. As the public infrastructure dollars do what they're intended to do, the private sector is coming back, I think, fairly steadily now, and you'll see a lot of private sector investment in British Columbia over the next several years. That will, I think, fit very nicely, timing-wise, with the timing of the expenditure of these public dollars.

I guess the only other thing I would say to the member's question is that there are regularly joint infrastructure programs between the provinces and the federal government. I have no doubt that there will be another one when the federal government is in a position to put forward some of their dollars. We will, as we always do, match them and put forward a program to local government and give them an opportunity to invest in their roads, sewer systems, water systems and the rest of their infrastructure.

[1455]

Typically, if you look at the history of these programs, there are always two or three or sometimes even four years between these programs, so I wouldn't expect anything for the next couple of years. But there will be another one.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. He was actually heading down where I was going with this, with the infrastructure grants. The one-third, one-third, one-third model has been used extensively, certainly as the federal government's transfers have changed since a few decades ago.

It's often, as the minister knows when he talks to local governments, that you've got three levels of government, two of them recognized constitutionally — the federal and the provincial governments. As partners on the one-third, one-third model, they have the ability — all of the powers of taxation and the legislative powers — to raise money and to run deficits if necessary. Those are not options largely available to local governments.

Has the minister had any discussions with local governments about the challenges of coming up with their third as a level of government that I don't think is even recognized constitutionally? I mean, even if the infrastructure projects are vital to the communities, especially small rural communities, often great challenges are there for them to actually come up to the table and match the fiscal might of the provincial and the federal governments. Can the minister comment, please?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct in the way he characterizes the situation, with the federal and provincial governments being constitutionally supported at levels of government, whereas the local government is a delegated form of government.

I think he also makes a fair point that some local governments, particularly smaller ones, are challenged to come up with the one-third that they are obligated to come up with on some of the major infrastructure programs. Of course, that's exactly why this government created the Towns for Tomorrow program, where local governments with a population base of 5,000 or less only have to pay 20 percent of the infrastructure project, and the province will pay the other 80 percent.

Communities that have 15,000 or less pay 25 percent of the cost, and the province pays 75 percent of the cost for those communities. When you get above 15,000 population — and it's always difficult to know where to draw the line — the theory is that you get to a critical mass of opportunity for local government in terms of property taxes that allows them to raise the money they need to pay the one-third of the infrastructure project cost.

I would also suggest to the member that the Municipal Finance Authority has been a great partner for local government in allowing them or enabling them to access the funds they need to gather up the one-third.

Having said that, the member's question is: do you talk much with local governments about their struggles to come up with money for infrastructure projects? Absolutely. They tell me all the time that it's a struggle, and sometimes I tell them that it's a struggle at this end, as well, to come up with money to do the things that we want to do. So we all struggle, I guess, at every level of government.

But I do think the Towns for Tomorrow program is a great program. We've got another $17½ million that will be going out this year through that program to those smaller communities. So I think that's good news.

S. Fraser: That's $17½ million this year for Towns for Tomorrow to offset some of the costs for infrastructure. That $17½ million — that's the entire province. That's the communities below that critical mass. That has to be spread out amongst the entire province. It's actually quite a small amount, compared to the number of municipal governments out there that would, potentially, qualify.
[ Page 5654 ]

That being said, I guess I'll finish off this sort of direction of questioning with: has the minister engaged in any discussions with his federal counterparts about…? He's mentioned the likelihood of seeing the infrastructure funding happening immediately again. But considering that we're still in a very fragile economic time, certainly, in the province and in the country, and the continuation of these grants will still be of….

[1500]

The need for stimulus of the economy may still be there in the next fiscal year. I don't necessarily believe that the private sector is going to fill up the gap that quickly.

I'm just wondering if the minister has been lobbying or would consider lobbying the federal government to ensure or at least to put our word in that this would be a valuable program to continue for at least two years in a row and that the funding could be made available through Towns for Tomorrow and such, to ensure that funding might be available for valuable infrastructure projects throughout the province as a form of not just providing valuable infrastructure but also to continue the economic stimulus that those programs provide.

Hon. B. Bennett: I do want to just clarify for the member's benefit that the Towns for Tomorrow program was not just a $17½ million program. That's what is left in the program now. It was actually $57½ million over three years. There's $17½ million left. By the time it's over, it will be almost $60 million that's gone out to small communities, and the province will have paid either 80 percent of the cost of the project or 75 percent.

There's also the LocalMotion program, which put money out into smaller communities, which was very successful. There are also the small community grants, which the member would be interested in knowing that we doubled, actually. We doubled the size of the small community grants from the days that his party was in government.

We are also paying out 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to communities that collect them. I believe that when the member's party was in government, it was 10 percent. We now pay out 100 percent.

There are a number of examples like that, where there is actually more money going to local government today than ever before. Not to minimize their challenges, because it's very challenging being in local government, just like it is being in provincial government. I can list off for the member many, many examples of money going to all sizes of communities in the province over the past several years that they've made good use of.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the increase in traffic fine revenue for the municipalities. Besides their ability to levy property taxes and control the mill rates and such, local governments have very, very limited access to revenue streams. Along with maybe an increase in traffic fine revenue, there have been fuel tax increases that are paid by local governments. There are MSP premiums for municipal staff. Of course, these are significant, and they've been increasing in a significant way.

Property taxes have been capped on major ports, in some industries, although we'll talk a little bit about that, I would hope, regarding the work the task force is doing on that. ICBC and B.C. Hydro rates are paid by municipal governments. Courthouse closures result in loss of revenue, actually, for local governments as well as higher policing costs and, of course, some of the costs associated with some of the changes made on policing. The per-officer costs have gone up too.

I want to put into context that it's not all good out there. There have certainly been, under this government, a lot of extra costs levied on local governments. I've certainly heard that, and I know that the minister has too. I believe there was a resolution, a strongly worded resolution, about off-loading and downloading at the recent UBCM conference in September.

That's an ongoing issue. I know the minister is aware of it, but I just wanted to get it in context that yes, there may be some moves made to increase revenue availability to local governments, but it certainly doesn't offset the great costs that have been downloaded and off-loaded onto local governments.

I'd be happy to hear a comment in return on that. Then I'm going to just move over, because we're going to go to community development trust questions from my colleague, if that's all right, as I warned the minister earlier.

[1505]

Hon. B. Bennett: I actually don't doubt the member's sincerity when he suggests that perhaps we're not giving as much money to local government as we should, but I am obligated to give him the facts.

I can tell the member, in general terms, that over the past nine years local government has ended up with over $3 billion in new incremental revenues that they didn't have when we were first elected. That's a lot of new revenue, and that's in general terms.

Again, we doubled the small community grants. That's about $227 million annually. We are giving communities 100 percent of the traffic fine revenue. That's accounted for about $250 million since 2004.

We have invested in places like Cranbrook, where I come from, $33 million in a hospital; in Kamloops, $28 million in a hospital; in Nanaimo, $39 million in a hospital. We've invested in 33 different airports across the province, many of which are not in big cities. In fact, most of them are not in big cities. We've invested in colleges and universities and seniors homes. In the Kootenay region, where I come from, there is at least
[ Page 5655 ]
one new seniors facility in just about every community that exists in the Kootenays.

Again, it's not to suggest that local governments have it easy or that they have lots of money to play with. They don't, and neither does the province. We're constantly working with local government to try and figure out how they can deal with the challenges that they have to deal with.

They do an absolutely magnificent job of budgeting, in my opinion, for the most part, so we work with them carefully and respectfully. If there are ways to provide them with other revenue-generating means, we're always open to that idea. I think, generally, that over the past nine years local governments would say — in a quiet moment, when they wanted to be fair — that they've been well-treated by this government.

B. Simpson: I would like spend a few minutes canvassing the community development trust. Just for the record, the community development trust was established two years ago now — it's got one more year left — predominantly as the result of the federal government's $1 billion package for stimulus. British Columbia got a portion of that. The government put together this community development trust. It was mostly designed for forest workers, so I have some questions around that.

I wonder if the minister could just clarify, for the public record, the total funding contributions to the trust, and by source.

[1510]

Hon. B. Bennett: For the member's benefit, I'll break it down into the three components of the community development trust. The transition program had or is having $85.5 million go through it, the tuition component had $17.25 million go through it, and the job opportunity program had $88.25 million go through it. That includes the original $129 million that went into it, which was federal money. It also includes the subsequent $60 million that went into it, $30 million of which was provincial and $30 million of which was federal.

B. Simpson: I have the total figures. I think the minister actually was giving the numbers assigned to each of those envelopes, not necessarily the numbers that have actually come out of those envelopes. I have the totals sitting in front of me, the totals that have already flowed from the three envelopes.

One of the things that we've indicated, of course, is the matching contribution that occurred with the second contribution to this fund — the $60 million, where the province put in $30 million. We had indicated that we felt, as other provinces did, that the provincial government should have matched the $129 million, the original allocation, to stretch this as far as possible.

I wonder if the minister could indicate whether that thinking has occurred and whether or not the province is looking at contributing further to this fund, because the fund does wrap up, or the trust wraps up, on March 31 of 2011.

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me start, first of all, by agreeing with the member that this has been a terrific program. For the member's benefit, this program has maintained 504 recreation sites across the province. There have been 4,716 kilometres of trails created or upgraded. Ten parks have been made safer or more accessible.

There have been 2,572 hectares of forest treated for fuel management — which the member, coming from Quesnel, knows is an important thing out where we live — making communities safer, and silviculture treatments on 15,200 hectares. There have apparently been 8,363 mountain pine beetle–affected trees that have been felled and burnt with this program.

This program has actually helped close to 9,000 resource workers in British Columbia since its creation. I think there's probably an ideological difference between the way the members on the other side look at the fact that we got this federal money….

I think, from our perspective, we're proud of the fact that we have the kind of relationship with the federal government that allows us to get that kind of money from the federal government. There was a time in this province when the provincial government here in British Columbia fought constantly with and was a thorn in the side of the federal government.

We decided early on that you do better on behalf of your taxpayers, on behalf of the people you're accountable to, if you try to get along with your partners, and the federal government is a partner of British Columbia's. British Columbia has done extremely well by the federal government in terms of the money that they've provided to us for infrastructure funding and so forth.

With regard to whether we're going to keep this program rolling along, it was never intended to be a program that would last over the long term. It was intended to help resource workers in our communities during a time when the forest industry was suffering, when the U.S. economy took a nosedive and the housing industry crashed. It's done that. We've helped, as I say, upwards of 9,000 resource workers in the province.

As I said earlier, it's unfortunate that the member missed what I said a bit earlier about how the private sector is now starting to reinvest in British Columbia and to create jobs.

[1515]

There are all kinds of signs that the forest industry is coming back and that other businesses are feeling more confident. They're starting to invest, as I say, and create more jobs. That the timing of the infrastructure stimulus, the timing of this particular program and the fact
[ Page 5656 ]
that the infrastructure program with the federal government and our own infrastructure programs like Towns for Tomorrow, plus this community development trust, are going to take us into that point where the private sector will take over I think is either good luck or good management. But either way, the timing is actually pretty good.

B. Simpson: It's always interesting to get answers in estimates to questions that were never asked, but first and foremost, I'm not quite sure where the minister is going with ideological divides when I just simply asked if the provincial government had contemplated adding more money to his funds.

Yes or no? Is the provincial government contemplating adding more money to this fund and looking at carrying the community development trust forward?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll try to do a better job of explaining what I meant when I said that there may be an ideological difference between the ways we look at the money we get from the federal government. What I meant, for the member's benefit, is that we think it's actually a very positive thing if we can get the federal government to pay a greater proportion of the costs of programs that are going to benefit British Columbians. We don't see that as a problem. We actually see that as a real win for British Columbians.

Why wouldn't you rather have the federal government pay more rather than have them pay less? So that's what I meant by that, and obviously, we will agree to disagree on that.

I did actually answer his question about the future of the program. I said that I think that the completion of the program is timed very well with the re-emerging strong economy in the province, and this program will come to an end.

B. Simpson: Is the transitional assistance program still available for applications?

Hon. B. Bennett: The transition program was always intended to be paid out, actually, in the first year. We paid out a lot of it in the first year. There were some funds left in the program, which we used to pay out in the second year.

I might predict, perhaps, what the member might ask about the change of the age threshold. In the second year we changed the age threshold above which you would qualify to apply from 55, which we used in the first year, to 60. Maybe anticipating what the member might be interested in, we did that because there was a discrete, smaller amount of money left, and we wanted to make sure that the money went to older workers.

The industry told us quite clearly that that's what their preference would be. If they have a choice, they would rather have the 55- to 60-year-olds still available to work when the industry came back, as opposed to the workers who were over 60, and that's why we made the decision.

B. Simpson: Again, an answer to a question I didn't ask or have intentions of asking. So the transitional assistance program is closed. Again, we all have individuals who have come in ever since this program closed asking for more transitional assistance.

The minister's rose-coloured glasses with respect to the industry are just that. The minister knows that, down in his neck of the woods, where the industry is still struggling. It's still going through fundamental restructuring. There are still a lot of older workers who would like the opportunity to transition out, which is what this program was designed to do.

So is the community development trust still getting significant numbers of requests for transitional assistance and for help? Do they have applications in excess of what the program was able to meet?

[1520]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I'm going to try my hardest to only answer the questions that I'm asked. I definitely don't want to provide more information than the member wants.

The transition program, as I said already, ended after the second year. It was supposed to end after the first year. It ended after the second year. That program is done. I wouldn't make a big thing of it, but we haven't actually had any contact from people who are interested in the transition program since after the second year. Having said that, I know there are people out there who would like to avail themselves of the program.

I can tell the member that the focus of interest by resource workers seems to be more on the tuition assistance than on transition at this point. There's a much greater interest in that.

I do feel that I need to respond to the member's comment about my area. Actually, my area's forest industry, generally speaking, is doing way better than it was doing before. Tembec is operating. The pulp mill is operating. The sawmills are operating. Galloway is just about to go back to work. There was an announcement, I believe, last week or the week before that the mill in Slocan City in the West Kootenay is going to get up and running. I know that Wynndel Box and Lumber is running full steam — at least two shifts, maybe three.

It's not perfect, and the prices are still low. You know, the Canadian dollar went down today a little bit, which is good for them, and the price of lumber went down, which sort of cancels out the decrease in the value of the dollar. Nonetheless, there are more people working in the forest industry today than there were a year ago, and that seems to me to be a good trend line.
[ Page 5657 ]

B. Simpson: The tuition assistance program — how long will it continue to accept intakes?

Hon. B. Bennett: You must be registered in the program by December 31, 2010, and you must be in an actual course at a college or some sort of training institute by, I think, March 31, 2011, to qualify.

B. Simpson: I want to just canvass a job opportunities component, but I just wanted to clarify that, as I understand it, the final application process for that has now closed. Is there an intent to have more applications, or was that in fact the final application window?

Hon. B. Bennett: If I don't get all the information out for the member, he can remind me of what I missed, but there's close to $40 million of job opportunities program money that will be out there between right now and next spring.

In terms of new money, that window closed in late January. There's roughly $10 million available — high interest, as the member would expect. There will be a joint announcement by the federal government and the provincial government coming sometime fairly soon with regard to some of those new projects.

[1525]

B. Simpson: Is it fair to say that the interest far exceeds the ability of the fund to support with dollars?

Hon. B. Bennett: That's a trick question. Well, of course it does. It always does.

There's always more interest in any program that government has. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about job opportunities or whether you're talking about building new sewers and water systems and sidewalks and roads or anything. There's always more interest on the part of the general public, local government, the private sector, even those of us in the provincial government. We never get as much money from the federal government as we would like to. So yes, there's never enough money to give everybody the money they want.

B. Simpson: Are there any discussions with the federal government to see if it's possible to fund this last round of entries? Again, it was designed for communities that are in transition, designed to put people to work during their own personal transition. So is the minister having any discussions with the federal government about looking for opportunities to fulfil the requests that are there as the program winds down?

Hon. B. Bennett: I have actually had discussions with members of the federal cabinet, not only about this but about infrastructure funding, about the pine beetle money that they promised a few years back and, again, about this kind of program. You know, I'm hopeful. I'm optimistic that as the prospects for the federal government improve with the improving economy, we'll once again be able to partner with them on a variety of programs.

B. Simpson: Is there a requirement on the part of the federal government for match funding in this case? Will the province be required in any future funding from the federal government to match, as they had to do in the second allocation here but didn't do in the first allocation?

Hon. B. Bennett: The practice of the federal government is to advise provinces at some point that they have money that they would like to spend in the provinces.

Of course, provinces are always knocking at their door asking for help, but with regard to whether or not it's a matching program or a program where they simply transfer money to the province and allow the province to use the money, it depends on the specific program and the terms of reference that are negotiated by the province and the federal government.

[S. Cadieux in the chair.]

Even within the short time that I've been in the provincial cabinet I've seen a number of different provincial and federal funding programs. You just give it your best shot as a province to negotiate the most favourable terms you can with the federal government. Sometimes it's a one-third, one-third, one-third. Other times they will pay the full shot, and other times they want it 50-50. There's no way to predict what the terms of reference will be in the next program, no matter what program we're talking about.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that and understand the nature of that dialogue.

One of the reasons why I was asking the minister to stick to the questions is that I have very limited time, as the minister well knows, and hence had some questions that needed to be done. I've only got two more, and I'll do them together.

It is the ongoing dialogue with the federal government around incremental silviculture for the province of British Columbia. Are there any discussions with the federal government? And we were asked to ask this, Minister, by the Minister of Forests, so I don't want to be punted back to the Minister of Forests, because he punted it forward to this ministry.

[1530]

In the past we used to have forest and range development agreements with the federal government in which we were able to fund significant incremental silviculture to meet Crown obligations. I'm not talking about
[ Page 5658 ]
the legal obligations of licensees post-harvest. I'm talking about Crown obligations on land that have been disturbed. Are we having discussions with the federal government about the possibility of a large incremental silviculture program?

The second part of the question is very specific to First Nations. First Nations, during the Olympics, issued a press release with a specific ask, and it had to do with their concern about threats to their communities because of interface fire. They believed that they were promised by the federal government $20 million each year for ten years.

Are there any discussions by this minister with the federal government to address First Nations' concerns around wildfire and around community interface work that needs to be done to protect those communities against wildfires? So two different programs that the minister may be discussing.

Hon. B. Bennett: This is a multifaceted answer, actually, to the question. I would assume that the member asked the Minister of Forests about the UBCM program and the dollars they have around fuel management projects. I don't have the numbers on what's left in that program, but I think it's significant.

Through the job opportunities program we actually focused, in the past year, on silviculture, fuel management, and ecosystem and range restoration. We spent a lot of money in those areas. I won't bother going into the percentages or the numbers, because the member didn't ask me specifically for that. There has been and will continue to be in this next round…. I would guess that a lot of the $10 million will be spent in the job opportunities program on fuel management and silviculture, probably some ecosystem restoration as well.

Then there is, thirdly, the matter of the $800 million that the federal government will be transferring at some point to the provincial government, probably in increments. That's the $800 million that is left over after the first $200 million from the billion they promised that relates to pine beetle. There's that money. There is the money at UBCM. There's the money through the job opportunities program. There are also the line items in the Minister of Forest's budget for silviculture.

B. Simpson: The critic is allowing me just to close this off, especially given the minister's last comments. The nature of the investment, as we canvassed it in the Ministry of Forests, is that it's a quarter-of-a-trillion-dollar asset. Under the Ministry of Forests program for Forests for Tomorrow, all that's being invested is about $40 million, at a marginal investment.

Historically that investment was in the $200-million- to $250-million-a-year range. If you roll up all that the minister has indicated, it doesn't come anywhere close to that. What's intriguing is the minister's comment about the $800 million that's missing from the promised billion from the federal government.

[1535]

I would like the minister to clarify for the public record: does he have indications from the federal government that that $800 million is still real, still potentially on the table? If so, what is it that this provincial government has to do to get that? Secondly, is there a guarantee that First Nations will get what they believe is their fair cut of that, which was 20 percent of that fund?

So two parts, very specific. Is that $800 million still in play, and if so, what do we have to do to secure it? Secondly, will First Nations get the 20 percent they believe they were promised?

Hon. B. Bennett: For the member's benefit, he may dismiss the value of the job opportunities program. I certainly don't. I don't, frankly, think that the people who had projects and who worked on those projects would dismiss it as insignificant. I think it was very significant in their lives, from everything that we hear from them.

So 12 percent of that program went to First Nations. First Nations did get quite a few projects, actually, throughout the province for silviculture and fuel management. I don't know where the member gets the 20 percent number from, so I can't really respond to that.

I can tell the member that we do believe that the federal government was sincere when they said that they would pay B.C. $1 billion related to pine beetle. They did so with the $200 million. I believe that if we keep working with them and if we're reasonable…. We have been reasonable partners with them, and if we continue to be reasonable partners with them and we keep advocating strongly on behalf of British Columbians, they will come through.

I think this is something, actually, that both sides of the House share — a desire to encourage the federal government as strongly as we can to meet that commitment as quickly as they possibly can, given their circumstances that are not that different than our circumstances and other provinces, where they're in a deficit position.

B. Simpson: Just for the public record, no one on this side has ever dismissed the work done under job opportunities, but I would suggest the minister might want to go back and see what his people did in opposition with respect to the same kind of work under Forest Renewal B.C. and the dismissal and the way they tried to make that work a laughingstock. There's a double standard there, to the minister.

Secondly, I will get the minister the documentation from the First Nations Forestry Council so that the minister is clear in his discussions with the federal government about the tacit promise to First Nations about 20 percent of that money. I'll make sure the minister gets that documentation.
[ Page 5659 ]

S. Fraser: Madam Chair, welcome to the session here at the wonderful Ministry of Community and Rural Development. I'd like to move on to some governance questions, being mindful that we have so little time here.

One came to my attention quite recently. I haven't really prepared much on this, but it appears that Sun Peaks will be electing their first mayor and council. Now, this is a new development. Is this the result…? I'm going to go back. I believe it was Bill 11. Is this a governance model that has developed through the introduction of Bill 11 — I don't know — a couple of years ago now, or several years ago?

Hon. B. Bennett: The short answer: yes.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Now, I have a few questions about the model of governance here. Maybe this was identified in detail with the introduction of the bill at the time. I don't recall it, though.

My understanding is that the model here…. There will be a mayor elected in June, and there are three council seats available besides that. Is that the model? It's like a small municipal governance model. Some towns have three councillors and a mayor; some have seven councillors, including the mayor. Have I got that correct? How's this going to be working?

[1540]

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I think the member was correct. Just to go over it, though, to make sure that it's correct in the record, the mayor is elected, three of the councillors are elected, and one of the councillors is appointed. That approach mirrors, I am advised, exactly what took place in the '70s in Whistler.

S. Fraser: Is there an appointed councillor in Whistler?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yes, hon. Chair.

S. Fraser: Who makes that appointment?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm just not sure which word the member used to ask the question about the appointment of the councillor in Whistler. But there was a councillor appointed in the '70s to the Whistler council. That appointment lasted for about ten years. Then, as more people moved into the community, they had no need for that, and everyone was elected. Just so we're clear on that point.

What was the other question?

S. Fraser: Who appoints…?

Hon. B. Bennett: Oh yeah. The minister appoints the councillor.

S. Fraser: To the minister, you get to appoint a position that's normally, in local governance, an elected position. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member, I'm sure, must be aware that through this legislation, we were attempting to create something new — a way to create a resort municipality. It's similar to what happened in this province, certainly, with Whistler but also similar to what happened in some of the other communities that were created essentially out of thin air. I have a couple where I come from. Sparwood and Elkford were created basically out of nothing.

This was an attempt, legislatively, to set the rules and the terms of reference for how you would do that if there was an opportunity and a need for a resort community to be created. Is it the same as a regular election where everyone is elected to council? No, it's not, because you have that appointed councillor. But that is a transitional approach in these communities. As it was with Whistler, it will be with Sun Peaks as time goes on. There will be less and less of a need to have the appointed councillor there, and ultimately, all members of the council would be elected.

S. Fraser: How many residents are in this new community? What's the population base, and what's the numbers on the electorate? Ballpark is fair enough.

Hon. B. Bennett: The approximate number is 350 residents. If most of the condos and suites were full on a busy weekend, there would be roughly 2,000 people there.

S. Fraser: All right. Thanks to the minister for that. Now, through Bill 11, if I recall, this is sort of mandated from the minister or ministry, the creation of this new town. It doesn't require the assent of, or meaningful consultation with, local government, the regional district. So this is created literally out of the air, and it can be done around the wishes and advice of local government. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll see if I can respond to all those points. If I don't get them all, the member will remind me what they were.

[1545]

First of all, there was a vote by the people who live at Sun Peaks, so this wasn't done to them. It was done with them and because of their request for government to do this. There was a vote. People had an opportunity to vote at Sun Peaks on whether to do this or not. The vote passed with, I think, 73 percent voting yes. It was also with the approval, I would say — I might even say enthusiastic approval — of the regional district.

These things don't happen totally independent of local government neighbours, and they don't happen totally independent of First Nations neighbours.
[ Page 5660 ]

Despite the fact that there is still concern on the part of some First Nations in the area, there was a lot of consultation around this particular file. The regional district talked about it for a long, long time. So did the folks at Sun Peaks talk about it for a long, long time before it ever happened; otherwise, the province wouldn't have done it.

S. Fraser: The minister referred several times to the necessity for an appointed member. There are 350 residents — 2,000 sometimes. What would be the rationale for having a non-elected member?

Hon. B. Bennett: There was a committee of folks, including the local electoral area director from the regional district and folks from Sun Peaks. They called the committee the restructure committee. The restructure committee worked for a long time on this matter, this issue of creating a resort municipality.

It was their recommendation to government that one of the councillors be appointed, in acknowledgment that this is a very small community but a community that is likely to grow.

The province wants to still have its finger in the pie, so to speak, by having an appointment on that council, to make sure that provincial interests are considered and to make sure that this venture is successful, and that's why this transitional appointment is made.

There certainly are no nefarious or conspiratorial things going on here. It's just an issue of wanting them to be successful. One of the ways they can be successful, and they agree with this, is to have one appointment there for a number of years.

S. Fraser: To the minister, then: what criteria will he use to choose an appointment, and has he made that decision? If so, who is it?

[1550]

Hon. B. Bennett: We have consulted and continue to consult with what I referred to before as a restructure committee, which is sometimes also known as the incorporation committee. We're continuing to talk to them. We're also talking to the resort company as well. Between the incorporation committee and the resort company, they'll no doubt have a suggestion for us as to who should be appointed, but ultimately, as I've said already, the final decision on that is made by the minister.

S. Fraser: I know the minister suggested there's nothing nefarious, but it's quite a sweeping bit of power the minister has. I mean, this is a municipality, essentially a town, and chartered municipalities can be created. They do happen. But there's a position that would normally be elected through a democratic process.

The minister has unilateral power over one-quarter of the council members, essentially. He hasn't laid out…. He didn't answer the question about what criteria. He did confirm that regardless of the suggestions that come from the community or the developers, it's his decision to make alone. What would be the basis for that decision?

Hon. B. Bennett: It is a serious responsibility. The member, you know, is making a good point. I can tell you that I don't take it lightly, nor do I take it lightly when I receive bylaws for signature from every regional district in the province. There are a number of opportunities for the minister to exercise the authority of the office. I've never thought of it as power, frankly. I just haven't thought of it that way. It's an obligation, a responsibility and, really, a great opportunity to be in my position to deal with these kinds of things, and I take them very seriously.

With regard to the member's question on how you make the decision as to who should be the appropriate appointment to that council, I will weigh very heavily the recommendation from the incorporation committee and the resort company, particularly if it's a joint submission to the ministry — you know, they come up with one name. I'm going to have to give that great weight, and it's likely that that would be the person. But because I have this responsibility to make the decision, I'll have to take a look at it and decide if that person is the right person.

In terms of how I would make that decision, we have a new municipality, or we're about to have a new municipality. We're going to have a new mayor and council starting out with this new municipality. They have 350 people, roughly, who live there, but they are visited regularly by a couple of thousand other people.

This is a venture that's going to take some energy and commitment. I want to have somebody on there and I know the provincial government wants to have somebody on there who is going to be constructive; who would have some experience, perhaps some financial experience or business experience; who understands the resort business I think would be something that would be nice for that person to bring to the table; and, obviously, somebody of considerable personal integrity and, again, experience and education.

S. Fraser: I don't disagree with that vague criteria the minister is suggesting that he would use. Surely that would be something best left up to those people that can vote. An appointment is, I think….

[1555]

I mean, the minister has the opportunity here to allow a full democratic process, and a quarter of the council will be picked by him. I'm not meaning to suggest anything, but the minister could make this just a pure, raw political appointment, and there would be nothing to stop that. That may or may not be in the best interests of
[ Page 5661 ]
the community. That would be best left to the community to decide. That's, I think, the basis for democracy.

I'll just throw this out — a question: will this new local government have a seat on the regional district board?

Hon. B. Bennett: I have to say to the member that he's in a minority in the fact that he thinks it's a bad idea for the province to appoint somebody to this inaugural council at Sun Peaks. There is, apparently, one person with a blog at Sun Peaks who doesn't like it. That's fine. That is that person's democratic right, and I encourage that person to blog away.

But you know, the regional district has no objection to this. The other 349 people who live at Sun Peaks, I am advised, have no objection to this. It was done in Whistler. The member is within his rights to try to make a big political issue out of this, but frankly, he's in a pretty small minority when it comes to this. Most people think this is a pretty good way to do this.

With regard to the regional district, I'm sure the member is curious, and it's a good question to ask. Would the appointed councillor, he or she, be qualified to sit on the regional district? The answer is no. It would be one of the elected people, either the mayor or one of the three elected councillors.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. There is some controversy with the resort. There were First Nations issues. There were consultation issues. Will the minister consider a First Nations appointee?

Hon. B. Bennett: Again, a good question and, I think, an important question. I mentioned earlier that there are some First Nations people who are not yet comfortable with the idea of a resort municipality. The province's position is that there was adequate consultation done, and we continue to talk with First Nations. I know that so does the resort municipality itself.

However, we've done more than that, actually. In the letters patent we've actually included a whole section on a First Nations advisory body that this resort municipality will have to comply with for all time, as long as these letters patent are in place.

I won't use up a bunch of time reading what's in the letters patent, but I would refer the member to page 4 of 13 of the letters patent. It's section 8, and it's called the "First Nations advisory body." The community, the municipality, the local government is obligated legally to create this advisory body and to do certain things to make sure that First Nations have an opportunity to be part of this venture.

S. Fraser: On the letters patent, will the new municipal government, including the one appointee from the minister, be deciding on who sits on that advisory committee? Also, are First Nations in the area allowed to cast a vote in the upcoming June election?

[1600]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the last part of the member's question first. You have to live in the municipality or own property before you get a vote. So if they live within the Sun Peaks municipality boundaries or own property there, they would get to vote.

In that section that I referred the member to a minute ago, section 8, "First Nations advisory body," it makes it quite clear that the council must invite the various First Nations — and they spell out the specific names; they are all bands in this case — who have to be invited to provide a nominated person to the First Nations advisory body. So these folks from the First Nations will be chosen by their First Nations communities and their First Nations governments.

S. Fraser: Time. The clock is going too fast. Can the hon. Chair slow that down a bit?

Okay, I could continue on this, but I actually hadn't planned on spending this much time there, although I'm fascinated by this model. I would note that this is not new. We have, under a new Liberal bill, a new resort community created where one-quarter of the council members who are normally elected are appointed by the minister, which again, I believe is quite a sweeping power that's not based on democracy. It's an appointment.

If you compound that with what we're seeing proposed at UBC, we have a similar situation where there's potentially a large community, not 350 residents. We're talking thousands of people that will essentially have, you know, an appointed board, and the minister who appoints the board will essentially be the oversight on it.

So again, this is not exactly a democratic model. So we're seeing now two instances where the minister is being given powers that would normally in a democracy be handled through a democratic process. Does the minister not find that ironic — that we've got two instances here of, really, the minister giving himself quite extraordinary powers around a democratic process that would normally occur, really, anywhere else in the province, anywhere else in the country?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm going to resist the temptation to respond to that comparison. We actually have a miscellaneous statutes bill before the House right now dealing with the topic of UBC and Metro Vancouver and, therefore, my understanding is that we're not to discuss that here, so I won't do that.

I will respond this way, though, to the member. When you look at what they have today at Sun Peaks, they have one electoral director on a regional district who represents those 350 people and, as well, those other couple of thousand visitors that come and go.

What we're going to, as a result of, as the member has stated himself, this B.C. Liberal legislation…. We're actually going to a situation where you're going to have three elected councillors and an elected mayor — four
[ Page 5662 ]
elected people in the beginning; it will eventually be five. We're going from one elected representative to four elected representatives and an appointed representative. In terms of democracy, I think that the numbers are in favour of the resort municipality.

S. Fraser: I guess we can agree to disagree. You know, partial democracy is, I guess, better than no democracy, if I'm understanding the minister correctly. But having full democracy would probably be the better way to go, in my opinion, and the minister says that I'm in the minority.

[1605]

I would suggest that maybe the 350 people in the new community agree with the minister, but I would suggest that if the question was put to what model of governance would be considered the fairest and most democratic in the province, I think the majority of British Columbians would side with me in my opinion that a complete elected model would be a preference. So we won't follow that.

I hope the minister's not literally saying that right now before the House we have Bill 20. If we are at section 4, I hope we're not missing it, because that would be, I presume, a section that he and I will be able to probe and go back and forth on the particulars of the UBC decision. Am I missing anything? Is he saying this is happening right now?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, you've asked me a question that I don't have the information to allow me to answer. I don't know if Bill 20 is up in the House right now. I don't think it is. I'm pretty sure it's not. I wouldn't want to say on the record that absolutely it's not, but I don't think it is.

S. Fraser: All right, I'll take that. The minister said that right now there's a bill before the House. I was taking the minister literally, but you're figurative. I know Bill 20 is there. I wasn't sure on the rules of the House as far as us probing. I know there are rules around question period when they're on bills that are before the House, but I wasn't sure if the rules applied during the estimates process.

I'm just going to move right on to the task force. If I'm not mistaken, this is the last day of the task force on electoral reform. Is today the last day scheduled? That's on the website. I think today is. Is that report finalized at this point?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: Gary Paget is just leaving his chair, and Nicola Marotz is just coming in. Gary Paget, actually, is a long-serving public servant in the government of British Columbia and has served with great distinction. He is one smart cookie, and he seems to know everything. It's a great, great pleasure to work with him, and I know members on the other side enjoyed serving with him and working with him as well.

Today we had a meeting of the Local Government Elections Task Force. It lasted a few hours, and it will be probably the last face-to-face meeting we'll have. We'll do a lot electronically between now and May 30, a lot over the telephone.

In answer to the member's question, "Have we decided on our recommendations?" — I don't know if he used those words, but I think that's what he meant — yes, we have.

S. Fraser: Hi, Gary and Nicola. Both your reputations precede you. Thank you for being here.

Well, I guess I won't ask you to report out on the recommendations, but I understand that there's timing for that. The end of the month, I believe, was the deadline that you would have to present to cabinet or to the Premier. I'm not sure. Can the minister maybe give us a hint as to when those recommendations may be made public?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think May 30, which is the date that we are obligated to have this report in to government. It goes to government and UBCM, not to cabinet or to the Premier. That was the original request of us. As I say, our obligation is to have the report done and in to government and UBCM by May 30. I think May 30 might be a weekend day, so we'll have it done, completed and in to UBCM and the government by the last Friday in May, which I think is May 28.

[1610]

S. Fraser: Thanks for the clarification from the minister on that. Just for the record, there was a flurry of court challenges, criminal charges proposed and many things that led to this task force being created, and many concerns. There was an attempt to do some stuff in 2008, I think, by the government around electoral reform that was, arguably, lacking. I'm not casting blame here, but from what happened in the 2008 election we saw that there were still significant problems, certainly.

I know that just on Central Saanich there were 19 charges recommended by the RCMP. I know there were many communities where there were considered to be electoral discrepancies, problems, campaign financing issues and non-disclosure issues. There was a whole raft of things. Then, of course, there was a whole list of other things that the task force was mandated with.

Now, Daphne Bramham, I believe, wrote this in early May. Her quote was: "The B.C. election task force was flawed from the beginning with a timeline that was too short, a mandate that was too broad and a membership that was too narrow." Now, I mean, that's her opinion. As
[ Page 5663 ]
the minister knows, I had a problem with the makeup of the task force. We've discussed this in a previous meeting, and I certainly voiced that publicly, as we have in the opposition.

What was the rationale, considering that the issues around local governance and the changes that are being contemplated are quite sweeping, very broad? There was a very short timeline, and yet the minister chose a model that specifically, purposely excluded a large number of the elected representatives in this place, in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Now, the model, I'm saying, of the legislative committee system — the special committees, the standing committees — allows for all members of the House, who are elected to represent their constituents, to be a part of these amendments.

Can the minister explain why he excluded all of us? And I would include the independent member for Delta South in that. She's not able to be with us here today, but we have discussed this. These should not be partisan, political positions on the task force. It should have been done through our committee system.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I'm going to take a moment to answer the member, because the member has criticized this process consistently over the past several months. I recognize that the member has a job to do as the critic and that the member is in opposition. He has a job to do, and I know that opposition members are there to criticize and to try and find ways that they can make the government look bad. That's the nature of opposition. I understand that.

I should say for the record and for the member's benefit, as well, that this is the most constructive, positive, enjoyable, satisfying process that I've been involved in, in my nine years as an MLA. It's been a wonderful process. Now, that's not just me; I'm not the only person that believes that.

We shared that today — all the members of the task force. That includes four members of local government. That includes Chief Harry Nyce of the Nisga'a. That includes Robert Hobson, the former president of UBCM. It includes Mary Sjostrom, the mayor of Quesnel, and it includes Barb Steele, who is a councillor with Surrey. We all agreed that this was a very, very good process. I believe that the result, the report with the recommendations, will speak for itself.

The second point I want to make is that it is a mistake, and it is borderline disrespectful, I think, to…. And maybe the member wasn't suggesting this, so I don't want to suggest that he was. But it has been suggested in the media that the local government elections process is somehow or other dysfunctional, just out of control.

[1615]

I probably contributed to that in the early days, I think before we even had our first meeting, by using a phrase that Daphne Bramham had used in one of her articles: "the Wild West." I wish I hadn't said that, because it's not true.

A Voice: Don't quote reporters.

Hon. B. Bennett: Yeah, exactly. Don't quote reporters.

You know, what I learned, and I think what all of us learned through this process…. And we had dozens and dozens of hours of meetings and discussions and interviewing people, like the Leader of the Opposition and the critic. What we learned was that local government elections are administered very, very well by local government. Their chief administrative officers are usually their chief electoral officers. They do an excellent job.

You know, the member refers to some problems in the 2008 election. Absolutely. We know all about those problems in great detail. We've analyzed them. We've tried to come up with recommendations that will fill those gaps in the process. But you know, we're talking about a half-dozen communities. We're not talking about something that's endemic throughout the whole municipal world or the whole world of local government. I think that's actually demeaning and disrespectful to local government. There aren't those kinds of widespread, dysfunctional problems.

Having said that, there were some issues that came up in 2008 that needed to be addressed. You know, the member might want to bear in mind that the changes that were made in 2008 were actually quite positive. What we're doing is building on top of those changes that were made. In any case, what we've done is identified the gaps that we think exist in the local government elections process, and we've made recommendations to fill those gaps.

Now, the member suggests that the process wasn't somehow democratic or fulsome. Well, what would've happened if we had struck a legislative committee, as the member has suggested? Well, the first thing that would've happened is that UBCM members wouldn't have been able to sit on it — only members of the Legislature, MLAs.

I don't think that we're the only people that know about local government and local government elections. I know that the member has been a mayor. I have never sat on a local government council or a regional district board. Government wanted to have UBCM membership on this task force, and the only way to do that was to create the kind of task force that we created. So I think that the member hasn't thought this suggestion all the way through.

With regard to how democratic it was and how fulsome our consultation process was…. I mean, we had over 10,000 people say things to us as a task force. We met with the Leader of the Opposition and the critic. Actually, they made…. You made a very good presentation. I enjoyed what the Leader of the Opposition had to say.
[ Page 5664 ]

I believe that the recommendations we're making are going to be largely consistent with what the NDP has asked us for — largely consistent, actually, with what the mayor of Burnaby has asked us for, of all things. I don't know whether folks will say that after the report comes out, but in any case I think that we're on the right track.

We met with the B.C. school trustees face to face. Who else did we meet with? We met with some academics who spent a couple of hours with us telling us what they thought we should do — some academics with a lot of experience.

We had a meeting on March 12 in Richmond. We invited every single local government person in the province to come down to Richmond. A bunch of them came down — I think about 100, maybe 150 of them. We spent all day, nine o'clock in the morning till about four or five o'clock at night, just talking about nothing else except for local government elections. People from all over the province were there. It was a powerful experience, and it was well worthwhile.

I think I've covered most of the ways that we have tried to get out there. We created a great website. I'm sure the member's been on the website. It's localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca. If the member hasn't been on there, he should go have a look.

We published all of our discussion papers. It was suggested that we do that. We decided that that was a good suggestion, despite the fact that it was a heck of a lot of work for staff. We've done that. We've tried to be as transparent as we possibly can be, and I think we have been very transparent.

We've tried to bring people into this process in a non-political way. The member says: "You know, it shouldn't have been so political." Well, it actually hasn't been political at all. There's been no partisanship involved in this process. Had it been a legislative committee, it would have been political. We wouldn't have been able to have UBCM members on it. It would've had NDP, B.C. Liberal…. It would have been, just by its very nature, combative and political, and we didn't want to do that.

[1620]

We wanted to have more of an academic process, almost, where we asked people to give us their thoughts in writing. Instead of standing up at a microphone and giving a speech, whatever might come to mind, we wanted them to think about this. We wanted them look at the discussion papers that were posted on the website, think about these complex issues and then tell us what they think in writing.

We believe that was the right way to go, and we're really proud of the process, and we're proud of the report that is very quickly shaping up.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I got a roundabout answer there. I don't know if I actually got the answer. This is an issue that is important to all British Columbians.

Every MLA here is elected. Every MLA has a duty to represent their constituents, and you did not open that opportunity up to the independent member for Delta South nor the opposition members. As being part of the process here that we're supposed to be involved in, it would be a natural to involve all members of the House to ensure even the appearance of non-partisanship and for it to not be political. So I disagree, and others disagree also.

I just believe that can taint the process — no matter how much fun the minister had by not having members of the opposition on that committee. I guess that's good, but I think that it would have gone a long way towards more credibility for the recommendations that will be coming out. I hope that they'll be worthwhile recommendations and significant changes that will close some of the gaps.

Again, I believe that it's a role that all Members of the Legislative Assembly should have, because of its non-partisan nature. The issue should be non-partisan, should have involved a bipartisan — tripartisan, actually — setup. So we'll agree to disagree on that.

The issues were significant. Now, police conducted investigations in West Vancouver, Central Saanich, Langley, Summerland and Gibsons following the 2008 election, and they recommended charges in many of those cases. I don't believe any charges came about out of that, despite RCMP recommendations. So the Crown did not proceed, obviously.

As the minister said, you looked, in the task force, at this very, very carefully. How was the decision made? Who made the decision for no charges to be laid against anybody out of that 2008 election problem?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the way that enforcement is done today is…. I think that it's fair to state my own personal view. I don't think that it's adequate. I think it's really difficult for members of the public and local government folks to have an investigation of something done.

Under the current rules, essentially, you go to the RCMP, they decide whether they're going to take the file to the Crown prosecutor, and the Crown prosecutor decides whether they're going to lay charges. In this case, there were certain situations where the RCMP decided that there wasn't criminal intent. In fact, in many of the cases they decided that there wasn't criminal intent, and so they didn't take the file further to the Crown prosecutor.

Where they did, and the member referenced a situation like that where they did, the Crown prosecutor decided not to take the issue to court, to lay charges. I don't know…. I wasn't there when that decision was made, and I have no way of knowing on what basis the Crown prosecutor's office decided not to go any further with it. I have some inklings as to…. I could guess, I suppose, but I'm not going to do that.
[ Page 5665 ]

So that's how the process works, and certainly, the government, the minister, has nothing to do with that.

[1625]

I do think the fact that these half a dozen situations that emerged in 2008…. I think the fact that nobody, as I understand it, ended up going to court is a signal that the system recognized there wasn't criminal intent here in these situations, at least for the most part. I don't remember all of the situations, so I'm not going to say that there was no criminal intent anywhere in any of these situations in 2008. But the vast majority of them were situations where people had either misunderstood the rules or didn't take the time to know what the rules were and got themselves into a jam.

Police looked at it. In some cases the Crown prosecutor looked at it and decided that these folks are not criminals and shouldn't be taken to court, that they should be admonished and sent on their way so that they do a better job next time.

We think we can improve that whole process, and you will see recommendations that will deal with that process at the end of May.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. So the charges were dismissed. Were these charges reviewed by the task force? The rationale for dismissal of all charges — was that discussed? And thirdly, was it one single Crown prosecutor that made the decision to not proceed with any of the charges?

Hon. B. Bennett: I learned a long time ago not to call judges, and I've added Crown prosecutors to that list. I have no idea what the rationale was.

To the second part of the member's question, what the rationale was for the Crown prosecutors…. There were two cases, two communities — West Vancouver and Central Saanich — where the RCMP actually gave the file over to the Crown prosecutor. You know, they would have analyzed it on the basis of whether there's a likelihood of conviction. They made a decision. I have no way of knowing, nor would I even consider asking, why they made that decision.

Our job as a task force is to look at those situations in those half a dozen communities and figure out whether or not there was a gap in the process. For example, was there a gap with how education is done? It's not all about investigations and penalties and enforcement and taking people to court. That should be a last resort.

The member knows this, and I'm sure everyone on the other side agrees with this: 99.9 percent of the people that put themselves up for election to local governments are good people who are doing it for all the right reasons. We shouldn't be going after them from a point of view that they're criminals or something. We should try and figure out: why didn't they follow the rules? And a lot of times it's education.

So you may see some recommendations in the report. I can't say for sure, but you may see some recommendations around education. You may also see some recommendations going to, I think, a more thoughtful and useful compliance and enforcement regime as well.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

Can he tell us who the Crown prosecutor was? Is there any way to, like, track what the rationale was? I mean, if the task force doesn't do it, is that something that's available to a citizen? Is that something they can look up if we know who that was? Maybe that's something… I can check court records myself.

I'd be curious to see. I've had a lot of questions put to me as critic as to why those charges were dropped. That rationale, I would have thought, would have been discussed at the task force level, since you're going to be making recommendations. A task force that was created out of these cases, at least in part…. So is that something that can be made available?

[1630]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, as I said earlier, I'm not going to be contacting the Crown prosecutor's office. However, the member could contact the Crown prosecutor's offices in Central Saanich and West Vancouver. I don't know what the response would be, but certainly, that would be where he could go. He could ask them, you know, why they made the decisions they made not to lay charges.

Contrary to what the member has suggested, our purpose at the task force was not to do specific investigations and analysis of investigations that the RCMP did. Our purpose was to look at those situations to determine whether or not there was a gap in the local government elections process, either on the administrative side — dealing with ballot boxes and who can vote and the lists and that sort of thing — or more on the financial disclosure, campaign finance side.

That's where we focused: what are the gaps, if any, in the local government elections process? We used those cases, certainly, to try and identify those gaps, but we didn't get into specifics of legal investigations.

S. Fraser: Thanks, I guess. I mean, the hope is that out of this task force we'll get recommendations that will go to the heart of some of the flaws and weaknesses in the electoral process at the local level. That, I would suggest — and I'm sure the minister would agree — is to make sure, hopefully, that the process isn't tainted, wrongly or rightly, and that those involved in local governments can do so with maybe more security and more knowledge. I agree with the minister in his submission that education should be a part of that, so hopefully, we'll see that coming forward in the recommendations.

However, I guess we will never know the deliberations that happened that the task force was involved in when
[ Page 5666 ]
making these decisions. The minister here in estimates is not giving me any details about what charges were contemplated, what the rationale was from the RCMP to do multiple charges, what the rationale was for the dismissal of all charges.

Those are things that, without the public knowing, without us legislators knowing, we won't know if you've closed the gaps, if the recommendations will have dealt with those issues at all. I would put that to the minister that that would be…. Again, it could bring some skepticism to a process that should have been a lot more open and a lot more inclusive.

The minister, at the Lower Mainland Local Government Association…. I know it's still before he's making the recommendations public, but he did allude that their recommendations may not include contribution limits. Now, I guess, that's the prelude to this question. The minister might be surmising this. I've led up to this by trying to get some details about the rationale for the RCMP-recommended charges and the subsequent dismissal of those charges.

I mean, that whole issue out there, if it's involving contributions, which is surmised by many, and how that contribution process happened and the appearance of impropriety, at the very least…. If the minister says that they didn't look deep enough into those charges to know really what was going on, and he's already suggesting to the Lower Mainland government, the municipal association, that there will be no contribution limits contemplated in the recommendations, how do we know that gap is being closed, if there is a gap?

What issues were there in the charges that were deliberated by the minister and the task force to lead to recommendations that include no contribution limits?

[1635]

Hon. B. Bennett: My staff is looking up the specific situations that the member has referenced from the 2008 local government elections. You know, I have to disagree quite vehemently with what the member has indicated. I get that he's in opposition and he has to say these things, but I mean it's just nonsense to suggest that the task force didn't look at the situations where people were accused of wrongdoing in the last election. We looked very, very seriously at them, and my staff is looking up the list of those situations now.

No disrespect intended to the member, but it is bizarre for him to continue to suggest that I, as a minister of the Crown, should know why the Crown prosecutors made the decision they made to not lay charges. It actually would be completely improper for me to contact the Crown prosecutor's office and ask them why they didn't lay charges.

It would also be, in my opinion, improper for me to contact the RCMP and ask them why they made their decisions. That's just not appropriate conduct for a minister of the Crown. For the member to suggest somehow or other that our process is faulty because I didn't want to breach these very, very standard rules of conduct for a minister…. I'm not quite sure where he's coming from.

I would suggest that the member consider going on the website and having a look at the papers that are there. You know, set the politics aside. If he truly wants to understand all the work that was done on this task force, to understand the complex issues that were dealt with by this task force, go on the website and have a look at these papers. I don't know how many, because they're not numbered, but there are at least a dozen fairly extensive, detailed papers on all of the different topics that the task force dealt with.

We spent a considerable amount of time…. Not to jump around particularly, but I can't resist responding to the member's comments earlier that, somehow or other, because our task force wasn't a legislative committee, we were more political. In fact, if it had been a legislative committee, you would have had NDP and Liberal — nobody else, no local government representation. That, to me, would be far more political.

To say, as the member did, that members of the opposition didn't have an opportunity to participate in this task force…. Of course they did. Everybody in the world had an opportunity to make a submission to this committee. All they had to do was read the papers and understand what the issues are, because they're complex. Read the papers, understand what the issues are and then make a written submission.

The member had that opportunity. Every member over there had that opportunity. Everyone in the world had an opportunity to make a submission to this task force. Tell us what you think. Tell us if you like the idea of contribution limits. I didn't get the member's submission. I didn't get any submissions other than from the Leader of the Opposition. So you know, it's a little hollow to say that you didn't have the opportunity.

In terms of the situations that the member has referenced from the 2008 election, there were five or six situations from 2008. One was in Central Saanich. The member has mentioned that situation. The RCMP investigated. They recommended 19 charges. The Crown counsel chose not to proceed. I don't know why. The member is welcome to go to the Crown counsel and ask, if he wants to. I don't know if they'll tell him, but he can certainly ask. I'm not going to ask, as a minister.

There was a situation in Langley where a local parent group ran an advertisement that promoted a slate of board of education candidates. The media said that they failed to identify themselves. It was investigated by the RCMP. They didn't recommend any charges.

[1640]

There was a situation in West Vancouver; that's the third situation. It was reported that two citizens associations campaigned extensively on behalf of some of
[ Page 5667 ]
the candidates without identifying themselves to local government as "campaign organizers." In that situation, there was a citizen or some citizens who filled out a complaint and gave it to the West Vancouver police department. They investigated those allegations.

They recommended charges, and the Crown counsel chose not to proceed. Again, I have no idea why they chose not to proceed, other than that the standard test for Crown prosecutors, basically, is: what are your chances of conviction? So one would assume that they didn't feel there was a great chance for conviction.

Summerland — there were some mistakes made there. You know, I would characterize those mistakes as honest mistakes by elected people not really understanding the rules. They need to get the rules right, and we need to educate them better. We need to do a better job on education. We need to make sure that when people submit themselves to this local government elections process, they know what they have to do. So as I said earlier, there might be some recommendations around that.

In Gibsons there was a court case launched by four residents to invalidate an election. They allege that there were irregularities in vote counting. The judge noted that all the rules were not followed, but there was "no evidence of bad faith, only inadvertence and errors."

That goes to my point that for the most part, folks that make mistakes in local government elections are not crooks. They're people who maybe haven't taken the time they should have and maybe need to be admonished for not following the rules properly, but they shouldn't go to jail or be horsewhipped or anything.

The point here is to figure out where the gaps are and why they made mistakes, help them not make mistakes next time, educate them, work on compliance and — if absolutely necessary — do an investigation and have appropriate enforcement. So we have learned from all of these situations, despite what the member has indicated in his earlier statements.

S. Fraser: I was merely referring to the minister's refusal to come up with any information on the questions I was asking around those court cases. You kept circling around that one, and you finally came up and read some details that were looked at by the task force, which is illuminating.

Suggesting that the opposition had a chance to submit a written submission to the task force is not what I call inclusivity. Being involved, we are legislators, regardless of our political stripes. We are elected to do that. We all represent municipalities and municipal governments and regional district governments that are affected by these potential changes. If the minister had made a truly open process, then we wouldn't be having to spend this much time in estimates trying to pry some information out of the minister.

I guess now I'm going to ask for a liberty here after this. Maybe I'll get it or not. I have a member that has a specific question. I'd like to go back to the task force, but I'd like to touch maybe on the other task force that I just need a bit of information on. I have some other questions, as well, around a municipal revenue-sharing agreement with resort municipality revenue-sharing. So a couple of questions there, but if I could allow my colleague to ask a specific question on behalf of a constituent, I'd really appreciate that, because he's got another obligation.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the critic and to the minister's staff for fielding this question. I hope you have the appropriate staff here. It's a question from a constituent of Stikine. He lives in the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako. It's a question around regional districts. His name is Eugene Becker, and he's done some very extensive thinking on the structure of regional districts.

He feels that the structure is flawed from the aspect of a person elected in a municipality also being able to sit as a voting member on a regional district board. He's written numerous letters on this topic. The minister may be familiar with some of them.

The most recent one was to the inspector of municipalities. It's one of the most recent ones — February 11. Mr. Becker has done some research on his own. He has investigated municipal districts in Alberta, for instance. A municipal district in Alberta includes farmlands and unincorporated areas. They elect one councillor for a ward. There are 64 of these kinds of structures in Alberta.

[1645]

So the question under this budget vote is: can the minister describe any plans under this vote to review the regional district model to assess its efficacy?

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, if I can just get the member to nod, to make sure that…. There are two different situations this could be, and I think I know which one it is. You were talking about a situation. Your constituent is concerned about a situation where somebody is sitting both on the regional district as an electoral director and on a municipal council. Is that the situation? Okay. I had the nod in the affirmative.

Yes, we are aware of that. There are two instances of that in the province. I've attended all five regional local government association meetings. From time to time — not at each one of the five, but I think at a couple of them, anyway — people have come up to me and said: "You know, that may be an issue." The member's constituent has written in, and I know we're aware of that.

The local government elections…. Sorry, I've talked about the Local Government Elections Task Force so much that I've got it on the brain. The Regional District Task Force, which was created by the previous minister that had this portfolio, did look at a myriad of issues. They didn't actually make any recommendations to government on that particular topic.
[ Page 5668 ]

What I've said to UBCM is: "Do you know what? If this is an issue in local government, tell us what you want government to do." You know, the opposition would be the first people to be down on us if we just did something sort of top-down without consulting with UBCM and without them asking us to do it. I've actually said quite recently to UBCM that if this is an issue you want us to address, tell us. I think you may perhaps see a resolution come forward in September.

I hope you'll tell your constituent that you've raised this, that the minister is aware of it. I think we need local government to give us some guidance on whether they want us to address it or not, and that's where it's at.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. I may not have added enough information to that question. It's the flipside, as well, that the constituent is concerned about, where an elected municipal councillor also sits on the regional district board, which is the structure we know the regional districts are constructed under.

I never talked about a top-down approach by his ministry. What I am asking is if he's heard from UBCM on this kind of issue and if he's looking, under this budget vote, at investigating the efficacy of the current model of regional districts.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm happy to repeat the answer I just gave you. I said that yes, I have talked to UBCM about this. There is some interest out there in local government circles in discussing this at least, if not perhaps imposing a change or a fix.

As I said a second ago, I'm going to let UBCM take the lead on this. If they want us to make some changes around this situation, I think government would be more than willing to do that. But we don't want to force a solution on them until they've come to us and said, "We want you to fix this," and they haven't done that yet.

K. Corrigan: I had a couple of quick questions about the Olympics that I was going to ask the minister. The ticketing report that was published recently indicated that the minister did not attend any Olympic events. First of all, perhaps just a confirmation from the minister that that was correct.

Hon. B. Bennett: That is correct.

[1650]

K. Corrigan: Again, I wanted to ask about whether or not there were any other hosting costs associated with this ministry.

Hon. B. Bennett: My ministry had no hosting costs.

K. Corrigan: Recently the Ministry of Citizens' Services put out a press release that talked about the volunteer matching program and the employee loan program or secondment to VANOC. It indicated that there were four ministry employees involved in the volunteer matching program. That was the program whereby employees could volunteer some of their time, and a matched amount of time would be given to them while they were paid to work in the Olympics.

My understanding is that there were four. At least according to the report, there were four from this ministry, and I'm wondering if I could find out what the cost was associated with those four employees.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct. There were four ministry employees who volunteered for the 2010 Vancouver and Whistler Olympic and Paralympic Games. They volunteered for 244 total hours between the four of them.

She's probably asked every minister that has come through here the same questions, and I'm sure she's aware that they pay their own travel and accommodations. So 244 hours. We will figure out the value of that and get that to the member.

K. Corrigan: I had one more question, and that was to do with the employee loan program. My understanding was that there were two employees from the ministry that were seconded to VANOC. I'm wondering if I could get the same information — the value of the salary and benefits associated with those two employees and also a confirmation that that is the correct number.

Hon. B. Bennett: I can confirm the member is correct — there were two ministry employees who were seconded to work at the games — and make the same commitment to the member that we'll dig that information out for her and provide it to her as quickly as we can.

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, thanks for the little interlude there and the change of pace.

I guess just to finish up on the local government task force…. The elections coming up — what's the timing on this? Recommendations have to come forward, I know. Does that come back to the House in the form of legislation, and if so, when? The timelines — can this be done in time for the next municipal election?

Hon. B. Bennett: I won't give a lot of detail on the go-forward steps for this work. If the member wants more detail, I'm happy to provide it, but I don't want to use up his time with more detail than he wants.

The report will go to government and UBCM on May 30. It will then be up to government to decide which of the recommendations will be adopted from the report. It will then be up to government to deal very expeditiously with any recommendations that require legislation and regulation as well.
[ Page 5669 ]

We're going to have to get busy with this immediately following receipt of the report to be ready in time for the next local government election that's scheduled for, I believe, November of 2011.

[1655]

Our commitment is that we will have whatever recommendations government decides to adopt in legislation — those that need to be legislated — for the next local government election. It's been a tight time frame to get this done, but my own personal view is that you work better when you're under pressure. You could give the task force twice as much time and come up with the same recommendations, I think.

We work really hard at it, and I think we had lots and lots of public input into the process. I think the report is going to be great. I think we can get the legislation done in time for the fall 2011 election. It is a lot of work for staff, but we fully intend to meet our commitment to have the recommendations adopted into legislation or regulation or policy in time for the November 2011 election.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. You've touched on something — the date of the election. If there were a recommendation…. The minister may not be able to answer this without divulging some of the recommendations. One of the things that were pondered by the task force was potentially changing the term of the electoral process locally to four years. Is he able to comment on that? I guess that would be another option to give a little more time if that were required.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I don't know if that's even something that was considered — to move an electoral process out one year hence. Is that something that was contemplated, or is it something that the minister can comment on?

Hon. B. Bennett: We certainly have no plans — either we being government or, as far as I'm aware, the task force — to recommend changing the date for the next local government elections. So the hypothetical about whether it's three years, four years…. Whatever the recommendation might be on that won't change the date. At least, that's my understanding today, standing here in estimates.

My understanding is that we would not consider changing the date of the next local government election. I wouldn't say that I can absolutely guarantee that, but I think it's doubtful.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I wasn't fishing. It was just something that came to mind that that might be a possibility. I don't know the efficacy of changing an electoral term during the term. It would probably be unprecedented, but it was just a thought.

If I could move on. We have, of course, the other task force of big importance to the province around industrial taxation, and I don't know if that requires a slight staffing change. Does Nicole get to retire, then, or go back to work?

On March 10 the minister announced the joint review of major industrial property assessment and taxation in the province. It's near and dear to many in the province with the issues, the recent court challenges, around taxation.

I know that four communities in particular — Port Alberni, the heart of my constituency, and then there were Powell River, Campbell River, North Cowichan — all faced specific challenges with, in this case, Catalyst. Other communities faced similar challenges.

It certainly was an issue at the UBCM also. It was a very well-attended session, as the minister knows, on the issues around industrial taxation. It was well attended, as the minister also is aware, not by just the representatives from these four communities or other communities, but even the urban centres were very interested in this, too, because of the potential, I guess, around vacations for all taxation — corporate, industrial, whatever. As the minister is very well aware, there are a lot of concerns about how to fund basic infrastructure for towns and cities.

Since that announcement, I don't have a lot of further information on the role of the task force. I guess I don't believe it's necessary for me to go through the same thing I did with the last task force.

[1700]

For the record, this is another task force that excluded the members of the opposition and the member for Delta South. Again, she's not able to be with us in this room today, but I said that I would certainly be raising that issue on her behalf too — that she has great concerns that she was not able to take part in this task force to have any meaningful role at all.

Again, I would put that point out — another protest from myself and the independent member of the Legislature that this should have been a more inclusive process. However, at least the previous task force….

At some point, the minister reversed his decision and allowed the publication of the submissions to be made so that the public had some way of tracking what was being submitted to the task force and whether or not they were being listened to or whether submissions were going into a black hole, so to speak. That, I think, was useful — the minister's decision to reverse that decision.

This task force we don't know much about, so I guess I'm looking for a bit of information. Firstly, about the meetings — are there plans for public consultation? How many times has the task force met? I guess that'd be the first couple of questions around that issue.

Hon. B. Bennett: Just a clarification. The member said that the minister "reversed his decision," and that
[ Page 5670 ]
was in relation to posting the papers on our website. The Local Government Elections Task Force is not a component of the ministry. I don't make decisions on behalf of the task force. It's a consensus-based, democratic group made up of representatives from the government caucus and from UBCM. We decide jointly how we do things. We've made every single decision that way, and every single recommendation that's going to come out is a consensus-based decision.

I should put the member on notice that every time he criticizes anything that's recommended, he'll be criticizing UBCM just as much he'll be criticizing the government. He's fair to do that, but that's the truth.

With regard to the industrial taxation task force, there are actually two groups that I want the member to be aware of. The task force consists of a steering committee that has my deputy minister, Dale Wall, on it and Connie Fair, who is president and CEO of B.C. Assessment.

It has Robert Hobson, who is the Central Okanagan regional district chair. He's also an alternate on the Local Government Elections Task Force, co-chair of this industrial taxation group and past president of UBCM.

Dan Rogers, the mayor of Prince George is on there; Lawrence Chernoff, the city of Castlegar — one of the communities, actually, in the province dealing with the company that was refusing to pay its taxes; Gary MacIsaac, who's the executive director of UBCM; Gerry Armstrong, who is a UBCM consultant and a very, very knowledgable, smart guy in taxation; and one business representative, Jock Finlayson, an economist who happens to be the executive vice-president for the Business Council of B.C.

Then to advise that main group there's an advisory committee. There are a couple of CAOs: one from Elkford, one from Powell River.

There's David Lane from the Canadian Property Tax Association; Bob Laurie from the Vancouver Board of Trade; Jon Garson, B.C. Chamber of Commerce; Ken Peacock, Business Council of B.C.; Mike Martin, general manager from Teck Cominco from the Trail operation; Brenda Gibson with UBCM; again, Gerry Armstrong; Andy Robinson, who is also a very, very knowledgable guy about taxation; Christine Dawkins, who is with the Ministry of Finance; Mike Furey, who's our ADM for local government for the ministry; Talitha Soldera, who's also with the ministry, works in this field; and Rob Fraser, another member of our ministry who works in this field.

[1705]

This is quite a technical exercise to try and figure out what we might be able to do together with local government to address industrial taxation rates. The reason why these committees were struck the way they were is that we didn't…. You'll notice I'm not on it, for example. You'll notice there are no MLAs on this committee from any party. The reason was that it is such a technical issue. It's a very complex issue, and we need to look at technical solutions before the elected people get a crack at saying whether they like it or they don't like it.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister.

Going back a few comments ago, I met with the UBCM early on when the task force was named, the first task force on electoral reform with the Leader of the Opposition, and we expressed our concern that the process was not going to disclose the submissions, so there was no way to track them.

The minister was making statements in the press. His statements were regarding that he was not going to…. They were not going to be made public. He was quite definitive on that, yet he was making comments openly to the press at the time suggesting that what he was hearing…. He was hearing that nobody was concerned about campaign finances or that it was a free market of the democracy, or something like that.

He was out there making statements about what he was hearing. He was refusing to make those public. We raised those concerns with the UBCM. We were told that basically, it's being controlled by you and your office. It's good to hear that the decision was made that the UBCM were able to have a role in changing the mind of the task force or changing the role of it to open up the submissions to make sure that they were available to the public, so there was some way of tracking and some form of accountability.

Thanks to the minister for trying to clear that up for me, but there were reasons that I raised those concerns, and they were based on past statements made by the minister himself and in consultation with UBCM. I didn't make that up. It was meant with no disrespect to UBCM at all. I applaud the decision to change and open up that process so it was, at least, trackable to some extent for the public. I think that was a wise move, and I thank the minister for that. Just for clarification. I wasn't trying to get anybody riled. I congratulate the decision.

Going back here…. Okay, the task force on industrial taxation is created, and for all the makeup of that, I thank the minister. Is there anywhere to find this? I haven't been able to get any information on this. I don't see anything about meetings — how often they meet, when the scheduling is, what dates are available. What sort of work is this committee doing? Can you give us just a hint of what the process is for this committee? The makeup is good. How often are they sitting, and is there a schedule available?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the member makes a good point. He is the critic, and he has every right to know how this process is working. I frankly have not been very involved in this process. The member said that it's being run by the minister's office. It must be somebody else in the minister's office. It's not me, because I really haven't
[ Page 5671 ]
been that involved in the process. I've spent most of my time working directly with local government and, to some extent, with the companies, because I believe that's where the solutions are in individual communities.

I must say that the deal that was worked out between Catalyst and Powell River is probably a pretty good model, generally speaking. There's going to be a dollar asked, and then I'm not sure what we're going to do with that, but generally speaking, the company and Powell River have done a really good job of coming to grips with how they can help each other and how they can partner.

I really do believe that in terms of industrial taxation, that's where the solutions are going to be. Nonetheless, there's policy work that has to be done around industrial taxation, and that's what this committee is doing.

[1710]

What I would offer to the member is, first of all, a briefing from staff on this process, and also, we'll give the member a copy of the terms of reference so that you understand how it's working. It's not intended to be secretive. The people who were on there are mostly provincial government employees and a few business people. There's nothing conspiratorial about the process. We're just here, and we're just trying to help.

N. Simons: I'm pleased that the minister referenced Powell River, and my question is about Powell River.

Hon. B. Bennett: For some reason I was just thinking of Powell River. I don't know why.

N. Simons: Yeah, well, I understand that. It's a beautiful city.

I'm wondering if the provincial government is planning to directly or indirectly subsidize the Catalyst mill in Powell River through the financing of the co-treatment plant. I'm talking about liquid waste management.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a good question. The deal that has been worked out between the company and the community does involve some sharing of services, so of course Powell River, as the member is no doubt aware, has approached government over the past few years to assist in funding some sewage treatment–type facilities. Government, obviously, doesn't want to be in a position where they're subsidizing business. It's one of our core policies in this government, so we won't do that.

At the same time, we can't say to communities, "We want you to sit down and work with these companies and try and figure out some way that you can have them reduce their industrial taxation so that they can keep their doors open and so that they can be more competitive," and then have such strict rules that the communities just aren't able to do that.

I think the answer to the member is that we admire what they're trying to do in Powell River. We're going to work with them and be as open and creative with them as we possibly can without breaching any of our important rules.

N. Simons: I take it that co-financing is off the table. I would appreciate confirmation of that, and I'm just wondering if that would make the Powell River council concerned.

My second question has to do with the level of consultation required when discussing or getting involved in liquid waste management plans. What is the statutory obligation of municipalities — and, indirectly, the province — in ensuring that there's a consultation process on liquid waste management plans?

Hon. B. Bennett: Two parts to my answer, hon. Chair. The first part deals with the member's summary of what I said in my previous answer. To clarify…. I definitely don't want the member going back and speaking to the Powell River media, or to the Powell River mayor and council, and saying that the province is not interested in helping to fund waste management. We are. We're talking with Powell River quite regularly, in fact, about helping.

I'm not quite sure what the member meant when he said "co-funding," but we're in the business in this ministry and in this government of helping local government to deal with their challenges around water treatment, sewage treatment and so forth. We're still talking, and I hope that we'll be able to come up with something on that.

[1715]

With regard to the second part of my answer, on the member's main question, it really is a question for the Minister of Environment, but I think he may have already been through estimates. What I can tell the member — to the best of my knowledge, as a minister who's not responsible for this — is that there is a considerable obligation for public consultation prior to the Minister of Environment making that final decision.

I think the member can count on public meetings for sure — I shouldn't say several, because I don't know how many public meetings — and significant consultation with the public.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for allowing others to jump in here. We're kind of fluid, I guess is what you would say. I would take the minister up on the briefing — that would be very helpful — on the industrial taxation task force.

He mentioned terms of reference. The steering committee as such — do they have a charter that guides their work? Is it something adopted, or is the terms of reference what he's referring to?

Hon. B. Bennett: We unfortunately don't have a copy of the terms of reference with us. Otherwise, we could provide those to the member on the spot, but we definitely will.
[ Page 5672 ]

The terms of reference are what guides this committee in its work, and I think that through a briefing, the member will have an opportunity to ask all of the questions he wants to determine what the guidelines generally are, in addition to those that are contained in the terms of reference.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I know these are technical things.

Taxation is always a fascinating subject, and everybody has got an opinion, but will there be…? I mean, does the minister know of or will he support some sort of public consultation process that will…?

I am, as critic, getting a lot of questions about what the heck is happening. There isn't anything published about this since the announcement has been made. The public really doesn't have any oversight at all on this.

As the minister knows, as I mentioned before, this was a big session at the UBCM. So there are a lot of issues there that the public is interested in. Will there be some process available to the public?

Hon. B. Bennett: I would suggest to the member that the public is, in fact, in a fairly strong position here because their duly elected representatives in local government do sit on this committee. This committee has committed to reporting out at the next UBCM convention in September of this year, where no doubt there will be a healthy debate, discussion, and then it would be out in the public realm.

We will have a public discussion about this prior to government taking any sort of action, if there is any action to be taken.

S. Fraser: Just to be clear, there's no public process anticipated, then, besides the reporting out at the end of the process, and that's to the UBCM next September. Did I get that right — just for clarification?

Hon. B. Bennett: If the member means by the term "public process, public consultation," are we going to have a series of public meetings around the province to discuss what this group has come up with for ideas around industrial taxation, the answer is no.

We will not be having that kind of a public process, but we will be taking the report to UBCM, where all the delegates will get a chance to read and to hear a presentation and to discuss and debate. They may decide to propose a resolution or two in relation to this.

[1720]

Then there will be, I would imagine, quite a fulsome public discussion through the media, through meetings with my ministry, with UBCM members.

Certainly, I would invite the member to get engaged in the discussion when this work is completed and to come and see me, to have a briefing again, a second briefing from staff, on what the meaning is of the report that was done. I invite all members of the opposition to engage in the process.

We're just not going to have a lot of public meetings, which tend to be highly political, because we don't want to politicize the process.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is going to have another question.

A follow-up on this one, just to close off this bit. Okay, so there's no public consultation process, but is there any consideration of, or is it possible that the minister would consider, even some sorts of updates, just to let the public know? It could be done on line, in a website, at the ministry website — something to let people know, even in the most general terms, what the task force is doing, the general content and/or the timing or how often they're meeting, and what topics in general they're deliberating.

I'm sure the minister must be getting the same questions I am, so I believe that would be useful, but if the minister can comment.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised that the process is very fluid, that it is moving around a lot. There are a lot of different parties at the table with many different points of view, so there really is no consensus at this point and no consensus perhaps even in sight that would enable us to report out.

I understand that the member, as critic and as a former mayor, is interested in what's happening in this process. What I would suggest to him is that he come and talk to me every now and again, or I'm happy to set up meetings with senior staff to just let the member know the kinds of discussions that are happening.

I'd like to assure the member that there is no conspiracy to put caps on industrial tax rates in the communities of the province suddenly, without notice. We're trying to figure out how we can help our industry be competitive so that they can keep their doors open and continue to employ in places like Powell River and Port Alberni and Cranbrook.

N. Simons: I want to quote from an article in the Powell River Peak from yesterday, I believe it was. It just raised another question on that issue of financing. It says: "Dale Wall, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Community and Rural Development, has put together a group to work with the city on interim funding requests, assistance on implementing the agreement-in-principle, drafting a tax revitalization bylaw to allow major industrial tax certainty for five years, and other miscellaneous items."

Would the minister be able to comment on that and maybe explain what "other miscellaneous items" are?
[ Page 5673 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: The reference to other miscellaneous items would have referred to the various components of the agreement between Catalyst and the community.

[1725]

Again, to my earlier point, we are taking a constructive approach to this. We know that we might have to be innovative, on the government side, to make this work. We want to find a way to make it work. We're definitely not looking for ways to not make it work. We know that there's been a lot of work that's gone into the negotiations and, ultimately, into the agreement that they seem to have.

What I would say to the member, and what he can say to his community, is that we are committed to working as hard as we possibly can to find a way to facilitate this agreement between the community and Catalyst.

N. Simons: There seems to be an indication that there's a very tight timeline. The city of Powell River planned to have the co-treatment project completed within 18 months. I'm just wondering if the minister is aware of the consultation process that's occurred to date on this particular innovative and interesting and controversial proposal.

Hon. B. Bennett: I think I understand the question. I'm going to do my best. If I don't get it right, the member will tell me.

The member, I would think, is aware that the infrastructure program that funds this sort of infrastructure is…. The windows for applying to that are long behind us, and until there is a new program that comes along that the federal government and the provincial government partner on, there wouldn't be, I don't think, the level of funding for the size of project that is contemplated in Powell River.

Typically what we do is say to communities: "Get your planning done. Get as much of the design work as makes sense to get that done." We actually help communities do that. We have people in the ministry that can help, and we have small infrastructure planning grants that we try and find for communities.

My understanding is that we have said to Powell River: "Get that work done. We'll help you get that done so that when the next infrastructure program comes along, you're in a good position to apply for your funding." That is typically what we do with all the communities in this situation.

N. Simons: I know that there are important things happening in other parts of this beautiful country of ours, and I was pleased to know that earlier Montreal was leading, 2 to nothing.

The concern around the timeline and the window of application, I think, could…. There are concerns in the community about the timeline and decisions that might be made with haste due to — I wouldn't say artificial deadlines — deadlines that are not set by us.

The question is: would the ministry make sure that adequate consultation occurs despite this deadline? What I'm concerned about is that decisions might be made quickly because of a funding deadline, and that might allow for people to look for ways of speeding things up.

That's my concern, because I do think that this is a major infrastructure proposal, and it's one that should be a lasting element of the city's infrastructure. I'm just concerned that the process requires some public consultation, and if the government, if the province puts timelines on it, it may pressure that kind of consultation process.

I'm just wondering if the minister could elaborate on that issue.

[1730]

Hon. B. Bennett: In terms of consultation, as I mentioned earlier, the liquid waste management plan requires, as I understand it — not being the minister responsible — a lot of consultation with the public. That's built into the process.

The Minister of Environment is not going to sign off on a permit or a plan without the community having considerable opportunity to talk about it, hear about it and give their feedback to their elected representatives there.

With regard to any sort of pressure from this ministry or other agencies in government to Powell River to speed things up, I mentioned earlier that there is no infrastructure program available, no Canada-B.C. program available. There are some smaller programs available, like Towns for Tomorrow and that sort of thing, but I don't think that program would have the level of funding that they would need for this.

There is the gas tax program. I know Powell River is aware that there may be money available from gas tax and so they may well be wanting to get something ready to avail themselves of that opportunity when and if — well, not if — the gas tax opportunity will come.

It could come as early as this fall. I don't know when the opportunity will be there for communities, but that may be the pressure that the member has heard about in the community. You know, it's not pressure. It's just that if you want to apply in that particular window, you probably should be ready by a certain time of the year.

N. Simons: I appreciate that answer. I'm trying to ensure that the community members who are concerned are not going to feel that there's a timeline pressure that they need to adhere to specifically, but clearly there are deadlines for applications.

Are there any opportunities for government to intercede should the proposals for this plan not be ready at the deadline of the provincial government application
[ Page 5674 ]
programs, and would the minister have any influence over that?

Hon. B. Bennett: There is, again, this process with the Ministry of Environment on the liquid waste management plan that will take some time because of the requirement for public consultation, so the community has that ahead of them. That is separate from where you get the money to build it, but obviously they're connected. You're not going to make an application to build something before you know that you have approval from the Ministry of Environment on your plan.

Built into this there's…. You know, this is going to take some time. The member asked how much flexibility there is in terms of our window for receiving applications for gas tax. This is a priority for the government, for the ministry.

I have said this several times publicly: we admire what Powell River is trying to do with Catalyst. We think they are a good model for other communities, other regions, and therefore we are going to make every effort to be flexible and help them get their application done at the appropriate time and to time the application window accordingly. I can't guarantee the member, but we are well aware of what's needed there, and we're going to do our best to help them make it work.

S. Fraser: I have a question that's related that just came to mind. Maybe I should know it, but if there were infrastructure money — the one-third, one-third, one-third opportunity — available for infrastructure grants through the federal-provincial initiative, and cities like Powell River or Port Alberni were looking at changing this model of one of their public services to more of a….

[1735]

Essentially, it would be a privatization of that service, to some extent. Would there still be the eligibility for such a grant program? It's just a curious question. I'm just curious if that would work or not.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a hypothetical question, because we don't have a Canada-B.C. infrastructure program. We don't know what the terms of reference would be for it. I have no idea what the feds are going to want next time around. Generally, if there was a Canada-B.C. infrastructure program and it had a community component, which it almost certainly will, I would think that this project would certainly qualify to apply. Yeah, I would think so, although not knowing what the program is, I can't guarantee that, obviously.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the minister's answer there. I apologize for the multiple hypotheticals in that question. It just came to mind with the previous member's question — from Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

If I can just get clarification from the minister. And I apologize for this. When he gave me the list of the people that were on the committee, on the task force, was that the steering committee or the advisory committee or both? Again, I apologize if I didn't get it all.

Hon. B. Bennett: I did read them fairly quickly. I gave the member the names, first of all, for the steering committee and then, secondly, for the advisory committee, so both committees. We'll get the member a copy of this.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that too. It's not that I zoned out. I just missed whether or not that was both or not.

I don't know that labour…. I tried to make some notes there. Is there any representation on this committee from labour? I'm not aware of…. I know there are administrators on here — or at least one from a community involved or affected directly by some of these industrial taxation problems lately.

Are there any elected representatives? Are there any mayors? I don't think there are — from Powell River, Campbell River, North Cowichan and Port Alberni.

So two separate questions, then. Are there any labour representatives in any of that, either the steering committee or the advisory committee?

Hon. B. Bennett: UBCM picked the representatives from local government to sit on these two committees and on the steering committee. That's sort of the main committee. As I mentioned earlier, you have Robert Hobson, who's from the Okanagan. You have Mayor Dan Rogers from the city of Prince George and Mayor Lawrence Chernoff from the city of Castlegar. The city of Castlegar, as the member is probably aware, is dealing with a similar situation to the Catalyst situation.

On the advisory committee there are two CAOs — one from the district of Elkford, where industrial taxation is a huge issue, with the five big coalmines there; and then Stan Westby, the CAO for the city of Powell River, with obvious experience in the matter — to advise the steering committee.

I'm advised that everyone who's on there works, but none of them would be classified as what the member refers to as labour, I don't think — if I understand what he means by labour.

S. Fraser: I think the minister does. I'm referring to the paper union, Steelworkers. There are various union representatives that could be there. There's certainly a role to play, and there's certainly a perspective there that I would have liked to see on one of these committees, if not both.

I go back to the March 10 release from the minister. Sorry to go back to that. The minister states that the goal "is to develop livable, economically sustainable and
[ Page 5675 ]
financially competitive communities," which is a great, a lofty goal, to be sure. The same release also quoted a representative from the business community, stating that they're looking for changes to the current property tax regime. So it sounds to me like we could be facing some major changes in the way our governments or, indeed, our communities make ends meet.

I know the minister gave assurances that there were not going to be any sudden caps foisted on anyone, but it sounds like this committee might in fact be…. I mean, there's the potential for the committee — again, I'm looking forward to the briefings — to be rewriting the social contract, if you will, that's existed between communities and these industries for a long, long time.

That would be a very significant thing to do, considering that the public doesn't get access to the processes that are happening, that there is no real accounting out to the public.

[1740]

Again, I appreciate and will take the minister up on his offer for briefings. But I'm not the public, and I don't really have the resources to provide that level of information.

If we're not getting an open consultation process and with the spectre of, essentially, a social contract being altered, would the minister consider opening this up a bit or even being a little more inclusive on the steering committee? Labour certainly isn't really officially or unofficially recognized in this task force.

The Chair: Minister, and noting the hour.

Hon. B. Bennett: Permission to answer the question?

The Chair: Yes.

Hon. B. Bennett: When you think about the industrial taxation and the situation with Catalyst and some of the other forest companies in the province that have stopped paying their taxes…. Let me state on the record that I have said from day one and continue to say that they must pay their taxes.

This is all about labour. This is all about workers. If you want to call it a social contract, this is all about the social contract. The contract is between the people who live in a community and a large industrial enterprise that does nobody any good at all if they go out of business.

There are factors that go into whether a business is successful and is able to continue to employ people or not. One of those factors is taxation costs. If the taxation cost for big industry is a lot higher than it is in other jurisdictions and that big industry has the option of taking its money and moving to the other jurisdiction, where the taxes are lower, then it becomes a very relevant factor for labour.

For mom and dad and the kids that depend on the pulp mill in Powell River or the sawmill in Cranbrook or Port Alberni, having those companies be healthy, having them keep their doors open, is part of that social contract. All we're doing with this industrial taxation task force is trying to make sure that we're not chasing these major employers out of this province. I would assume that the member would be on side with that.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I'll call the vote on Vote 26.

Vote 26: ministry operations, $302,121,000 — approved.

Hon. B. Bennett: I am reporting completion of the Ministry of Community and Rural Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Before I adjourn, I'd like to thank my neighbour, Wayne, who watches this program all the time. I said I'd mention his name.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175