2011 Legislative Session: Third 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)

Monday, May 9, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 4

[ Page 6759 ]

MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I am delighted to introduce two guests with us today. One is Nelson Allen. He's a trustee from school district 68 who has been here several times before, but he is here today more in his capacity as a Rotarian and a host. Accompanying him is a young student, a Rotary exchange student, all the way from Colombia, here to observe politics in the making. He has political ambitions, I'm told. I hope we don't put him off by the performance in question period. Would the House please welcome Kevin Hartmann Cortez from Colombia.

Tributes

Baraladei Daniel Igali

G. Hogg: In 1994 a young, community-minded wrestler came to Victoria to compete in the Commonwealth Games, and he stayed. He became a Canadian citizen in 1998, and he won an Olympic gold medal for Canada in 2000. On April 26 of this year, after three months of rigorous campaigning in a riding of 34 villages and 60,000 people, he was elected to the Bayelsa State Assembly of Nigeria. He will be sworn into office on June 3. I ask this assembly to extend its congratulations and best wishes to a wonderful international citizen, Baraladei Daniel Igali.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: Today in the gallery for the first time is the newest employee of the Premier's correspondence branch, Jasmine Bains. She's with Holly Oaken, and they are looking forward to seeing the events unfold from now until the end of question period. Let's make Jasmine and Holly both feel very welcome.

[1335]

D. Routley: I would like to expand on my colleague's introduction of Mr. Nelson Allen from Nanaimo. I think the House should know just how dedicated Nelson has been to the city of Nanaimo and to education in this province. He is the former chair of the board of Nanaimo school district and current vice-chair. He has served two terms on the Nanaimo city council.

He was a Nanaimo regional district representative. He was on the Nanaimo parks and recreation committee. He's been a chair of practically every committee in the school board. He was a BCTF local president. He was involved in their children's committee for, I think, five years.

Nelson Allen has given great service to education in our province and to the city of Nanaimo. I would like to have this House help me thank him for that dedicated service.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd like to introduce a guest in the House today. His name is Brian Smith. He's from the beautiful community of Halfmoon Bay on the Sunshine Coast. Would the House please make him welcome.

M. Dalton: In the gallery today I have three special guests. First of all, my lovely wife, Marlene. I appreciate all her love and support for these many years — 26 years and counting.

Also, Gloria Bodnarchuk, who is a retired teacher I met for the first time today, from Edmonton, Alberta. She has come along with Lynn Gendron.

Lynn is a very special person to me. She was my grade 4 teacher. She taught me in Holberg, British Columbia, which is up by north Vancouver Island. She taught me all that I know, and she said: "Marc, you can do anything." I remember those words. "You can be Prime Minister one day if you want." I took that to heart. Well, I'm not on Parliament Hill, but I am here in elected office. I appreciate her encouragement and inspiration, and I'm glad she could be here today.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

G. Hogg: We are joined in the gallery today by the ambassadors from the city of White Rock. I enjoyed having a lively conversation and lunch with them today. They are Chloe Woodin, Freda Zhang, Stephanie Charleton, Kira Apted Tilcock, Katie Fownes and two ambassadors who are a little more mature and have been ambassadors for the city for a long time, their chaperones, Debbie Ward and Donna Beaudry. Would the House please make them most welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today we have a young lady whom I first got to know at about age three, the daughter of a neighbour. She's now doing her best for the cause in the Premier's office, correspondence section. Would you please welcome Holly Oaken.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CANCER SURVIVOR PARK IN RICHMOND

L. Reid: I'd like to dedicate my remarks today to someone I miss each day. Her name is Kathie Hatlen.

Cancer survivors parks — because what's outside can help heal what's inside. There are currently 22 cancer
[ Page 6760 ]
survivors parks in North America, a legacy created by Richard and Annette Bloch and their foundation.

The Richard and Annette Bloch Cancer Survivors Park in Ottawa is a public park offering green space for reflection, sculptures, a healing garden with stones of hope, motivation and so much more. This cancer survivors park is the second of its kind in Canada and will offer a place of serenity and inspiration to cancer patients and survivors, their friends and family. I am working for the creation of a third such park in Richmond, British Columbia.

Each park is unique, though they maintain three common elements. In each park there's a sculpture called Cancer: There Is Hope, created by the renowned Mexican sculptor Victor Salmones. The piece features eight life-sized figures passing through a maze depicting cancer treatments and successes.

A positive mental attitude walk is an area where visitors can stroll through, meditate and read through 14 plaques which feature inspirational words and suggestions inspired by Richard Bloch. A road to recovery, with seven plaques explaining what cancer is and basic actions to assist in recovery, is a place of peace and reflection. I hope each of you will have the opportunity one day to visit.

GATHERING OUR VOICES
ABORIGINAL YOUTH CONFERENCE

G. Coons: What do you get when you have 1,200 aboriginal youth descend on your community? You have four days of high energy and interactive workshops, and four days of sharing, networking and meeting new friends. March 21 to 24 was the ninth annual Gathering Our Voices Conference held on Tsimshian traditional territory in Prince Rupert.

[1340]

It was an inspiring four-day event with the theme "A vision of our future." Over 50 unique, imaginative and fun workshops were offered in six venues spread throughout the community, exploring the breadth and potential of aboriginal health, language, culture, the environment, employment, education, sports and recreation. Partnering to make this happen were the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres' Provincial Aboriginal Youth Council and the Prince Rupert Friendship House.

I solicited comments from the Friendship House youth hub, and this is their perspective:

"This youth conference had countless amazing motivational speakers such as the Hon. Steven Point and Dakota Brant, Miss Indian World 2010. The conference allowed not only the youth but everyone involved the opportunity to make lasting friendships. Everyone was so positive, and this inspired youth to be the best they could be."

"One of the highlights of the week was the 'Elders Don't Bite' workshop, bringing youth and elders together in a safe and positive environment where you weren't afraid to share stories and have a conversation. The wisdom of the elders sharing with youth is so important for us to stay grounded in everyday life and in our futures."

"The amount of talent woven throughout the entire conference is enough to blow you away. JB, the First Lady from the Nuxalk and Cayuga nations, is an inspiring young role model spreading the words of empowerment and the perspective of urban indigenous women in Canada. She really inspires you to be proud of who you are."

"It was really great to see so many people come together, people with similar cultural beliefs. We all look forward to the conference next year where aboriginal youth will gather our voices and be a force to reckon with."

TRAFFIC ON LAKES AND RIVERS
AND TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY 5A
IN KAMLOOPS–SOUTH THOMPSON AREA

K. Krueger: My constituency is the home of many famous people. One of the most famous is Sen. Nancy Greene Raine, Canada's woman of the century. Nancy said to me one day that government really ought to think about a quiet waters designation. Personal watercraft are a lot of fun, but they shouldn't be everywhere. There are a couple of locations in my constituency that are notable as examples of how right she is.

The South Thompson River, for example, is the route that the Adams River sockeye run takes — a very famous icon of British Columbia. There's a problem with siltation from people wakeboarding and speedboats using the waterway, a problem with quiet enjoyment of their properties for people who live along the river. Also, in the valley of scenic lakes which houses Highway 5A and feeds Nicola Lake there is severe competition between the speedboats and water-skiing and fishing lakes. So it's an issue I'd like to put on the radar of everybody in the House.

Highway 5A itself has another challenging issue. Truckers like to use it because it is relatively flat. They burn less fuel, many of them say it's fun to drive, and they'd rather use it than the Coquihalla. Some of these truckers are rogues. They speed, they take chances, they flop their trucks, and they do things like tailgating local ranchers and local farmers and tourists.

In one case a trucker actually chased a rancher up her driveway and rebuked her for having slowed him down because she had to make a right turn into her driveway. It left her quite shaken. Speaking of shaken, I visited a rancher in her home, and the trucks were making the house shake every minute or so as they drove by. Many of them travel too fast. There's a constant risk and threat of injuries, fatalities and pollution of the waterway.

We've spent a lot of money trying to make sure that these things don't happen. In the meantime, there's a
[ Page 6761 ]
perfectly acceptable alternate route that's already built, already paid for, and that's the Coquihalla Highway. I'd like the House to pay close attention to that risk.

JANE JACOBS AND URBAN PLANNING

L. Popham: I'm grateful today to have the opportunity to stand and honour a woman who has been an inspiration to me since studying urban geography at the University of British Columbia in the early 1990s.

April 25 marked the day that Jane Jacobs passed away five years ago. At age 89 she left us with a lifetime of contributions in the form of books like The Death and Life of Great American Cities, historical protests like the battle with New York city developer Robert Moses, incredible interviews with anybody who would listen and reflections that changed the way we can think about our cities.

For over half a century, Jane Jacobs championed our urban centres as places of human habitat which bring together people in adequate numbers to develop strong, local economies, rich culture and connected communities. She warned us of the necessity of protecting the social capital of the city, that complicated web of human relationships built up over time that provides mutual support in time of need, ensures the safety of the streets and fosters a sense of civic responsibility.

[1345]

Jane Jacobs's observations about the way our cities work and don't work revolutionized the urban planning profession and engaged communities in ways that had never happened before. Because of Jane, ideas once considered inconvenient and quaint, like mixed-use development, short blocks, increased density, are now, thankfully, being seen more commonly in new developments around the province. We know that progressive developers and planners are asking themselves what Jane Jacobs would do before making critical decisions that shape communities forever.

This is not the case everywhere, and when we miss opportunities to integrate Jane's vision, we miss the opportunity to improve our quality of life. When we design our urban centres for cars instead of people, we know that Jane Jacobs would have been troubled.

Jane Jacobs wasn't very tall, but she was brave. She showed us that all great things come in small packages, and she also showed us that so does dynamite.

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS

G. Hogg: Through recorded history, families, communities and societies have looked after each other, have cared for each other and have provided support and social programs for each other. The primary providers of this care and this support have been family and friends, philanthropists and governments. The development of physical capital, of physical wealth, has been the purview of the marketplace, of business. There has been little sharing of the strategies between these two domains.

In today's international climate of fiscal challenges, funding has become more challenging, be it for social determinants of health or for social programs more generally. As societies we continue to face many intractable social challenges.

Worldwide, in Denmark, in England, in the United States, in Australia, in New Zealand, and even in Canada, social entrepreneurs are finding new ways to approach these challenges, finding sustainable methods for funding social programs.

Some of the world's leaders in social innovation live right here in British Columbia. The Lower Mainland was recently called by the Ottawa Citizen: "The Silicon Valley of social innovation in Canada."

Many new models have been designed to ensure the development of sustainable social networks and programs. Increasingly, the world's leading social providers and service providers are melding marketplace practices with social programs to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of their impact.

The social entrepreneurs of British Columbia are world leaders. They provide services, and the people of our province are the beneficiaries. They need and deserve our support and our thanks.

FAMILY CAREGIVERS

C. Trevena: Juggling work, children, parents, housework, driving to hockey games — life is an extreme balance for many people, which is why this week we should stop, take a breath and notice that it's Family Caregiver Week from May 7 through to May 13.

Not surprisingly, women make up the majority of caregivers, and many women are in what is so aptly described as the sandwich generation, looking after the children and caring for aging parents. You may be providing care for your spouse or partner or providing care for another adult family member or friend. The person you're caring for can be elderly, in poor health or disabled and be living in his or her own home, with you or in a care facility. In some instances, it may be a child giving care for its disabled or sick parent.

Caregivers are, of course, unpaid. Looking after family, you don't usually get paid. In fact, on average it costs people as much as $300 a month, and it takes hours out of the day, leaving families stressed and overworked.

So one of the messages of this week is for people to get a better understanding of caregiving and what caregivers need. Much of what is needed is support — peer support, community support, family support. Not always government support, but that too is needed from time to time.
[ Page 6762 ]

Caregivers need information, whether it's the progress of a disease or access to services. Having information means they can make informed decisions and get the right support.

Organizations who work with caregivers providing supports are using the week to hold workshops on different aspects of caregiving. They're also using the week to help people understand that this is part of our society, that help is there and that caregivers — although they often may feel left alone to tackle problems they never thought they would face, helping people they have either loved or simply feel obliged to look after — are not alone.

[1350]

There is a network, there is help, and they do not have to be silent, unsung heroes of our homes.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR PARKS SYSTEM

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Let me first congratulate him on his new appointment.

This year British Columbians should be celebrating the 100th anniversary of our provincial park system. But instead of celebrating, they're having to endure the effects of a decade of B.C. Liberal neglect. Today freedom-of-information documents show how park rangers are being deprived of even the most basic resources they need to do their job.

My question to the Minister of Environment is simple. In light of the FOI information that presumably he's now read today, does he think B.C. park rangers have adequate resources to preserve and oversee B.C.'s park system?

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to thank the member for pointing out to everyone that we are celebrating 100 years of B.C. Parks. Many British Columbians may not realize that British Columbia has the third-largest park system in all of North America. We have 13.6 million hectares in parks and protected areas in British Columbia — almost 14 percent of our entire area in parks and protected areas.

There are 97 seasonal rangers that work at the busiest times of the year in our parks across the province. But not only that, over 700 employees of park facilities operators are on the ground every single day assisting visitors through our wonderful parks system here in B.C.

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

A. Dix: I appreciate the minister's kind comments about the NDP's record on parks. The B.C. Liberal record — less edifying.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Less edifying. Let's face it. They've cut 60 percent of full-time park rangers — 60 percent cut; 25 percent cut in funding; 13 percent cut in park visits by the public. The public has been denied access to our parks.

The park rangers themselves see what's going on. The minister talks about them. They see the damage being done. Let's take Garibaldi Lake as an example. Four rangers used to monitor and protect the area. As of summer 2009 that was reduced to one. According to Parks staff — the minister's staff — this has caused "major issues with garbage removal, illegal dogs, illegal camping, damage to the park."

My question to the minister is simple. Does he think this kind of decline is acceptable?

Hon. T. Lake: Over the last ten years we have added 1.9 million hectares to parks and protected areas of B.C. In fact, over the last five years $107 million in acquisitions and improving park infrastructure…. This government knows that British Columbians appreciate their B.C. parks, and in fact, we have an 80 percent approval rate with visitors to B.C. parks.

The people of British Columbia love B.C. parks. They're happy with B.C. parks. We'll continue to improve B.C. parks as we celebrate 100 years.

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

[1355]

A. Dix: Parks staff, who the minister apparently doesn't want to listen to, have made the situation very clear. There's no money to clear trails, no money for garbage removal, no money for screwing hinges to keep bridges in basic safe condition, no money for the vehicles that rangers need to respond to emergencies in the back country.

Interjection.

A. Dix: I know it's hilarious to the minister from Kamloops — not the minister, the member from Kamloops.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.
[ Page 6763 ]

A. Dix: These are serious cuts to B.C.'s park system, and they have a real impact. The minister had said outside — and I'm quoting him — that there's no money tree — right?

Well, what was there money for? Well, anyone watching the Canucks game on Saturday night knows there's adequate money for the government to do TV ads that were self-congratulatory — I know there's a by-election — TV ads celebrating B.C. parks. So why is there money in the government's ad budgets to celebrate B.C. parks but no money in the government's budget for properly funded, safe parks?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I find it amazing that the opposition member would say that we shouldn't be celebrating B.C. Parks 100 and telling all of British Columbians about Parks 100. The member opposite says that people aren't going to B.C. parks. Well, in fact they are — an increase of 19 percent over the last six years. We want more and more people to go to B.C. parks.

We just removed parking fees so that families can enjoy the day use of B.C. parks, and $500,000 into a community enhancement fund, and now we are celebrating B.C. parks, telling all the British Columbians to go and have a great time this summer. Visit a B.C. park near you.

R. Fleming: The minister has just asked us to join with him in celebrating parks after ten years of neglect. The state of B.C. parks, revealed through freedom-of-information documents — hundreds of pages; I recommend he reads them — shows that the state of British Columbia parks has never been worse than it is today.

The documents reveal that basic ranger patrols don't even cover B.C. parks during the busiest times of the year. We've got a long weekend coming up on May long weekend, and that's going to be the same situation. They show that trails have overgrown across British Columbia in our parks facilities, vandalism has increased, the potential for human injury has risen. These are all staff concerns documented in correspondence between staff, back and forth on e-mail. The potential for environmental damage has increased in B.C. parks.

My question is to the Environment Minister. Instead of cute announcements about parking meters, does he think the ongoing budget cuts are an appropriate way to celebrate the 100th anniversary of B.C. Parks in our province?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm amazed the NDP would think that removing parking fees is a bad thing to do — amazing.

Did I mention the 80 percent approval rating of those people who visit B.C. parks — 14 percent…?

British Columbia has an amazing level of biodiversity — the last bastion of real biodiversity in North America. We use our parks and protected areas to make sure that that biodiversity remains. That's an area the size of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. combined — the third-largest park system in the world.

[1400]

People over on this side of the House celebrate our park system. We're celebrating 100 years, and we're proud of the men and women who support that park system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The minister refers to the significant announcement around parking meters. I'm glad that the new Premier has finally got around to cleaning up a mess that she was warned against when she was Deputy Premier on Treasury Board — that parking meters in parks would be a disaster. They were. There are three million less visitors to B.C. parks now than there were when she put them in, and it's about time she cleaned up her mess.

But that's not the only problem in B.C.'s parks, and the minister knows it. We're the only jurisdiction in North America other than Mississippi that doesn't have interpretive services. We expected to hear something about that.

We had an Auditor General report in 2010, just six months ago, that said that 75 percent of British Columbia's parks don't even have a management plan in place. We have species at risk in our parks that haven't even been given an inventory. We have dozens of parks that are closed to families. We have seasonal trails that are being closed, and we get an announcement about parking meters.

Well, my question to the minister was about how he's going to restore trust and confidence in his ministry amongst park rangers and conservation officers in particular. It's gotten so bad in British Columbia that today you go to a tackle and bait shop, and what do you see there? A coffee can asking for donations for their gas money. They can't even do their jobs in British Columbia today.

So the question to the minister is: will his government actually restore the funding to B.C. Parks that they have cut year after year for ten years, so that basic human and safety issues, hygiene, aren't even considered problems in B.C. parks? Will he do that in 2011, the 100th birthday of B.C. Parks?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead, Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: I was doing so well. [Laughter.]

This year we expect over 20 million people to visit British Columbia parks — 20 million people. British Columbia parks represent an enormous opportunity for British Columbia families to enjoy a very affordable vacation, for British Columbia to promote tourism all over the world.
[ Page 6764 ]

We have 97 park rangers doing a fantastic job during the busy summer season, with over 700 park facility employees on the ground ensuring that our visitors are looked after. The third-largest park system in all of North America. We're celebrating, on this side of the House, 100 years of great parks in B.C.

M. Sather: Well, this minister may be new, but he's certainly not doing so well on this parks file. I mean, he should look around a little more. Go and have a look at Golden Ears Park, the most well-used park in this province. The toilets are overflowing, the trails are closed, and the park is closed for half the year. It never used to be that way until this B.C. government came in with their mismanagement of our parks.

Looking at Garibaldi Park and the freedom-of-information document, this is what park staff had to say: "There are several impacts on Garibaldi Park and its visitors that are a direct result of lower ranger staffing levels. There are major issues with garbage removal, illegal camping and damage to the park."

Is the minister going to stand up again and defend the declining British Columbia parks, or is he going to take responsibility, apologize to the people of British Columbia and fix the problem?

Hon. T. Lake: Since 2004 the visitations to B.C. parks have increased over 9 percent — 19.5 million people. We expect over 20 million this year to visit parks like Golden Ears, where I remember going with my family when my kids were young and enjoyed the experience there, as families all over British Columbia are enjoying their experience in B.C. parks.

[1405]

Well-managed, well-run B.C. parks celebrating 100 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Well, that's a sad indictment of this government if the minister thinks that our parks are being well run. Again from the freedom of information, this is from the B.C. staff: "We did have two of four outhouses closed at Garibaldi Lake campground this season. Those toilets are full and require new holes to be dug and toilets moved. We were not able to do this project this past season due to staffing levels."

To the minister again: how are British Columbians supposed to enjoy the 100th anniversary of parks when we can't even get basic facilities like bathrooms in them?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I think lots of families will enjoy B.C. park visits this year — the day use parks particularly, where they won't have to pay any more for parking. Community groups will also be able to apply for community-enhanced fund money — up to $500,000 around the province for important projects that they think are important for their parks.

We have wonderful parks around the whole province. Wells Gray Park in my riding, where visitors from all around the world come to visit. An 80 percent approval rating from visitors — over 20 million this year. We have a first-class park system. We're protecting biodiversity. We're protecting natural values. We'll continue to do that over on this side of the House.

SCHOOL DISTRICT CARBON-NEUTRAL
REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCE
INDUSTRY EMISSIONS REDUCTION

B. Ralston: EnCana's Cabin gas plant, recently approved by the B.C. Liberal government, will produce over two million tonnes of greenhouse gases this year. This single project will increase B.C.'s total carbon emissions by more than 3 percent over 2006 levels.

School districts are forced to pay for their carbon emissions. That money is taken out of classrooms and sent to companies like EnCana, who pay nothing for their industrial emissions.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Does he think that the B.C. Liberal law forcing cash-strapped school districts to send scarce classroom dollars to energy companies like EnCana is right?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: I know that children around the province understand the importance of climate action, taking action to preserve our environment. I'm glad the NDP finally know what the children around the province have always known — that this planet is worth protecting. Carbon neutrality is a huge part of that.

Our public sector is committed to being carbon-neutral, and offsets are a big part of that. I'd like to quote the member for Juan de Fuca, who says: "I have no problem with carbon offsets — none whatsoever. I think that is a useful way for individuals, corporations, companies to do what they can to offset their emissions that they may…have."

I think that's a great quote.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: I'm sure children in classrooms understand better than this minister the importance and the ridiculousness of this particular law. Michael McEvoy, the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, has pointed out that the B.C. Liberal law that takes money from classrooms and sends it to companies like EnCana is "a scheme that doesn't make any sense."
[ Page 6765 ]

Why, as Mr. McEvoy asked, are these education dollars being sent to polluters like EnCana instead of invested in school districts to finance projects that will actually reduce emissions?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the fact is that the cost for school districts to become carbon-neutral for 2010 was about $5 million. They've received five times that amount over the last three years to reduce their energy use, to allow them to meet their carbon offset opportunities.

[1410]

Not only that, but it's amazing that the opposition would say that companies like EnCana are somehow bad for us as British Columbians, when in fact they're the ones that are providing money for schools, for hospitals and for B.C. parks. Where does the money come from?

R. Austin: Even a child could understand we don't sack a teacher to help a polluter. Even a child can figure that out. Last year the B.C. Liberal law forcing cash-strapped school districts to send money to big polluters like EnCana stripped up to $6 million from classrooms.

My question is to the Education Minister. Does he really think that the district should be financing big polluters like EnCana at a time when they are struggling to find resources for classrooms?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the fact is that resource revenue in this province supports schools, supports hospitals and supports B.C. parks.

I know that the opposition members opposed the carbon tax. They've reversed their position on that. It sounds to me like they're against carbon neutrality in terms of government operations. We are for carbon neutrality. We are the first government in all of North America to be carbon-neutral, something the children of this province can be, rightly, very proud of.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: School districts are excited about the opportunity to shrink their carbon emissions. Yet instead of providing them the means to do so, the B.C. Liberals are financing EnCana, using money cut from classrooms.

Again, my question is to the Education Minister. When will he stand up for districts and end the practice of sending classroom dollars to gas companies like EnCana?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the members opposite voted against cap-and-trade legislation, they voted against the carbon tax, and they voted against clean energy projects. So I'm not surprised they're against carbon neutrality.

The fact is that funding for education has gone up every single year, despite what the member opposite claims. That financial commitment to education on the part of the government on this side of the House is funded in large part by the resource industries of this province who are making steps to reduce their carbon footprint in a way that makes sense. In fact, the goals are very well aligned with leadership — something that member opposite wouldn't understand.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North. [Applause.]

B. Simpson: Very gracious of both sides to recognize me standing — some, anyway.

The issue here is not about what is trying to be accomplished. The issue is about how. As a result of budget constraints in school district 27, Big Lake School will have to put eight grades in one classroom four days a week. That includes three full-day kindergarten students and special needs students. Yet school district 27 must transfer $87,000, which is supposed to be going to classrooms, to the Pacific Carbon Trust to go to EnCana, cement factories and hotels.

My question to the Minister of Education…. It looks like he's wanting to leap at it. Is this the fairest way to achieve carbon neutrality in this province and the public sector? Is it fair?

[1415]

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the question from the independent NDP member on this important issue. It is important to note, I think, that…. At least up until recently I understood that the NDP was opposed to the carbon tax, opposed to cap-and-trade and generally opposed to all of the climate change legislation and initiative that the government had undertaken.

I thought I heard from the now Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, some of the other remarkably capable candidates for that position that the NDP had moved to a different position with respect to carbon tax and with respect to climate change, that they were now going to be embracing the commitment, the initiative, the drive of this government to fight climate change. Yet today I hear some recidivism with respect to that. It appears that already, before they had even fully embraced it, their enthusiasm is beginning to flag.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: It's unfortunate that this kind of rhetoric occurs here, rather than dealing with the substance of the issues. This is a patently unfair structure to do what is a laudable outcome. The school districts would love to be able to achieve carbon neutrality. We would love to see EnCana and others be able to be supported to get their greenhouse gas emissions down. That's not the issue.
[ Page 6766 ]

The issue is whether or not classrooms, health authorities, universities ought to be the ones that bear the burden of the private sector's ability to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. School districts would love to become carbon-neutral, with the support of this government as well.

So my question, again, to the minister…. If he's talking to the people in his ministry, he knows that they're very upset about this. Municipalities are allowed to self-fund or buy carbon offsets. Wouldn't it make more sense if schools and other public agencies would be allowed to self-fund projects first — to get their emissions down, get cost efficiencies, get cost reductions — and then use the extra to pay to the trust, if there's extra? Would the minister please comment on whether a fair deal could be given to school districts as well?

Hon. G. Abbott: I first should note that overall funding for education in this province has never been higher. In fact, it is up 41 percent, from $4.1 billion to $5.8 billion, over the ten years that we have been in government. That is a huge increase.

Further, this member — this so-called independent NDP member — makes, I think, a very specious connection between carbon offsets and EnCana. That is a false connection. It is entirely specious. These members, this opposition, this NDP had no commitment to fighting climate change. They have no commitment.

If they have a commitment, they would step up and they would join the students across this province in embracing the fight against climate change. They wouldn't turn around and at the first opportunity say: "Oh, school districts don't need to be a part of fighting climate change. They should be exempt." The students of this province would very much disagree.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING
AND VANCOUVER ISLAND UNIVERSITY

M. Mungall: Post-secondary institutions are faced with rising enrolments, but funding just hasn't kept pace. Vancouver Island University had to make significant budget cuts this year because the B.C. Liberals refused to back up their rhetoric on post-secondary education with sufficient funding. But last week the minister insisted to the media that everything at VIU is just fine and that they should just make do.

[1420]

Does the minister have any better plan to address B.C.'s post-secondary future than contradicting schools and telling students to drink less coffee?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Ensuring that our students have access to the best-quality post-secondary education in this country is a priority for this government. We have made record investments in post-secondary education in the last ten years.

I'll just give you some of these numbers: $21.8 billion — that's the amount of money that we've invested in post-secondary education in B.C. since 2001; 56 percent — that is the increase in annual funding for universities since 2001; $1.9 billion — that is the annual funding that we are providing to the post-secondary sector in B.C. this year.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House we will be doing committee stage of Bill 5, intituled the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act, and in Committee A we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 5 — new west partnership
trade agreement implementation Act

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

On section 1.

J. Kwan: Question 1 of Bill 5, the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act, deals with the definition. In the definition, of course, it brings forward the term "Agreement," which refers to the new west partnership trade agreement itself. I'm wondering if the minister, first of all, could tell us: in this agreement, what kind of consultation work did the ministry do in getting the agreement to the stage where we're at now?

Hon. P. Bell: This agreement is largely similar to the TILMA agreement, and of course there were extensive consultations that took place during that process.

However, that said, there were further consultations on this particular agreement, not to the depth that was done during TILMA, because that would have been repetitive, but with organizations such as the CFIB, the B.C. Business Council, chambers of commerce, Vancouver Board of Trade — those sorts of groups, different industry associations. The consultation process was lighter than it was under TILMA, reflecting the fact that this agreement is much the same as the TILMA agreement, adding Saskatchewan.

J. Kwan: The minister said that it's lighter than TILMA. Now let me ask the minister this: was this brought to the attention of UBCM, for example? Did they comment on it, and if so, what did they say?
[ Page 6767 ]

Hon. P. Bell: I should just identify that I am joined by several officials here: my exec director, Don White; Guy Gensey, who is responsible for the bulk of the consultation work that went on; as well as Russell Getz, who is with the Attorney General's ministry.

UBCM consultations took place at an officials level. Again, the thinking was that this work was done largely during the TILMA negotiations. But at an officials level, yes.

J. Kwan: I think the minister said the "officials level." That would be with staff — is that correct? And what was that exchange?

Hon. P. Bell: The discussion was at an officials level or a staff level, if you will, and it was an ongoing discussion through the process.

J. Kwan: Could the minister enlighten us as to: what concerns did they bring to the table?

Hon. P. Bell: There were primarily two issues that came up, although there were some other kinds of residual issues as well. The two primary ones were the procurement issue and then the coverage of the agreement, including municipalities. Other kinds of residual issues that came up were to do with the European Union negotiation, which is ongoing right now, and some of the U.S.-Canada agreements, but they weren't deemed to impact this agreement in any way.

[1430]

J. Kwan: Yes, so the issues were around procurement and the coverage of local government itself in the agreement. Could the minister please advise what exchange took place between officials at the UBCM level, at the local government level, with the ministry in addressing those concerns?

Hon. P. Bell: The bulk of the issues that were identified were similar to issues that had originally been raised under the TILMA discussion and were dealt with at that level originally in the TILMA discussion. So that was where the bulk of the issues were raised. I understand that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities actually has adopted some of the principles behind this agreement as well.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please be more specific? Let's just go with the procurement issues. How did the ministry address those concerns on the procurement issues?

Hon. P. Bell: The issues identified around procurement were dealt with by increasing the thresholds for local communities. So the communities, in fact, have higher thresholds for procurement than do Crown corporations or ministries.

J. Kwan: Is the minister talking about the…? I have the agreement in front of me, so I'm just going to check the numbers.

Under the agreement, article 14 on procurement practices, it refers to "regional, local, district and other forms of municipal government; school boards; publicly funded academic, health and social service entities; as well as any corporation or entity owned or controlled by one or more of the preceding entities where the procurement value is (i) $75,000 or greater for goods, (ii) $75,000 or greater for services or (iii) $200,000 or greater for construction."

Are those the numbers that the minister is talking about? I suspect that they are, because that's probably why they're in the agreement. If those are the numbers indeed, what were they before? Were they the ones that were utilized for Crown corporations? Were those the numbers that were being contemplated, and as a result of the consultation, the amount got increased accordingly for local governments?

Hon. P. Bell: The original recommendation was the same as that for departments or ministries. That is $10,000 or greater for goods. In fact, the agreement shows $75,000 or greater for goods; $75,000 or greater for services, which remain the same at services; and under ministry, department, agency, boards, $100,000 or greater for construction. Municipalities have been set at double that, at $200,000. The original threshold was the one listed under sub (a).

[1435]

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister could advise. For local governments, is the minister now saying that as a result of the change in the threshold dollars, local governments no longer have any concerns regarding this agreement on procurement practices?

Hon. P. Bell: While I'm sure the member opposite would be able to find a community somewhere that might disagree with the thresholds, the Union of B.C. Municipalities has in fact signed off on the thresholds as they're identified in the agreement.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Could the minister please repeat that?

Hon. P. Bell: While I'm sure the member opposite could find a community somewhere that disagrees with the thresholds as established or even the principle behind it, the Union of B.C. Municipalities has signed off on the level of thresholds that are contained in this agreement.
[ Page 6768 ]

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister, in the conversation with local governments — or the ministry, in that discussion with local governments — has a sense of…. What is the average value of a procurement contract by local governments in the areas of goods and services and construction?

Hon. P. Bell: The staff-level people that we dealt with did not identify averages, and I'm sure that depending on what community it is, it could be quite different.

For the member's home community of Vancouver, clearly some of those numbers, I would think, would be much higher by the nature of the business that they do. For one of the communities located in my riding, Mackenzie, I suspect they'd be much lower. So I'm not sure that averages would be useful in this case.

In any event, the Union of B.C. Municipalities seems content with the levels that were established in the agreement, and on that basis, we move forward.

J. Kwan: The sign-off on the procurement issue. Was that signed off by an executive member of UBCM? Who signed off on that, and when was that done?

Hon. P. Bell: To the best of our knowledge, the staff at UBCM were provided the authority by the executive to sign the agreement. So it is a staff signature on the agreement, but I don't think that's unusual. In fact, the northwest transmission line environmental assessment was just signed by a federal staff person, and that was a significant decision that was signed by ministers here in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: When was that done?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have the exact date with us here, but we believe it was late 2007.

J. Kwan: So it was late 2007, and this is now brought before us in 2011. Would that be, then, part of the consultation that took place with Alberta TILMA, separate and apart from this, or there's specific discussion with respect to this piece of legislation, the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act?

[1440]

Hon. P. Bell: I hope I made this clear earlier, but if not, the primary bulk of the detailed consultation with UBCM and with others took place during the TILMA agreement. This agreement mirrors the TILMA agreement, so the consultation that took place here was simply going back and reaffirming with UBCM and other organizations that the thresholds and the like that had been set were still appropriate.

The determination of the thresholds was done as part of the TILMA agreement, and that was reaffirmed as a result of the consultation to do with the new west partnership agreement.

J. Kwan: Does the minister, somewhere in the ministry, have the threshold, whether it be average dollars or median costs to a contract, in these areas across different communities across B.C.? Would the minister have that information in the ministry? If so, could the minister please provide that information to the House?

Hon. P. Bell: While this ministry doesn't have that data available, we do think it's likely that Ministry of Finance would have that data, and we would be happy to try and research that out. However, it may take some degree of time in order to collect that, so I would hope that the member would give us the leeway to do that as time allows.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate that very much. I'll be interested. I'm not sure how detailed that information would be in the Ministry of Finance. It might be a community-by-community type of format, or it could be a regional format. But I would appreciate as much detail as the minister could gather from the Ministry of Finance on this.

Now, that's in the area of procurement practices by way of the threshold question. Let me just ask an example. Would this agreement stop local food service contracts — for example, for a B.C. food–first sort of direction? For example, if the threshold is over the amount prescribed in the act, would that stop this kind of initiative from taking place in B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: As with many things in life, the answer is often yes and no. So the answer to that question is: if the product is to be resold…. As an example, if a school was to be selecting fruit to be resold through its cafeteria to the students, they could specify a specific product, location. Saanich Peninsula grapes could be on the list. But if it was not to be resold, then it would restrict it and it would require an open procurement process.

J. Kwan: Let's just take this further by way of an example. We have a school system whereby the local school cafeterias would buy various agricultural products. Then they would produce it into some sort of meal or food item to sell to the students, so it would be resold in that context. In that instance….

For example, local governments decided to go forward with a local food service type of initiative for their school district. Would this agreement apply then, and would that threshold apply to them?

[1445]

Hon. P. Bell: Under the circumstance that the member opposite describes, those products would be exempt.
[ Page 6769 ]
They could specify the location where the products were to come from or in some other way prescribe what the product is. So it would be exempted from this agreement.

J. Kwan: Would that be the case also for hospitals? Let's just start with that.

Hon. P. Bell: As with many things in life, that's yes and no, because if it is to be resold, in fact, it would be exempted. So if it was a hospital cafeteria or vending machine or something of that nature, it would be exempted. If it were to be given away for free, then you would fall under the procurement process if it exceeded $75,000 in value.

J. Kwan: What about in the instance of daily meals to patients in the hospitals?

Hon. P. Bell: As with many things in life…. Sorry, that line is probably getting tired but, however, is probably true again.

In the circumstance that the member describes, I would have to answer that question on a contract-specific basis, because I can imagine circumstances under which it would be exempted. I can also imagine circumstances under which it wouldn't be exempted. So the question that the member asks doesn't have enough detail around it to be able to provide a firm yes or no.

Again, just as a general rule of thumb, if the product is being resold in some way, then it is exempted. If it is not being resold, then it would be required to fall under this. Again, the threshold of $75,000 would apply for that particular item.

J. Kwan: Actually, in that last instance, where patients in hospitals…. I've been a patient before. You're in a hospital bed, and your meals come. You have these little sheets of paper asking you what you would like for breakfast, lunch and dinner. You as a patient don't pay per se for those particular meals. They just come as part of the hospital service for patients that are there.

In that specific instance, with those kinds of contracts, where those meals are being served to the patients in various hospitals across British Columbia, would they be exempt or would they be included in this agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: In the case that the member opposite describes, I suspect that they would be included and captured under this agreement.

J. Kwan: Is that the case also for seniors homes, for example? In the case of seniors homes, it's a little bit complicated. I'm anticipating the minister's answer that he has been diligently putting forward in this set of debates, and that is a yes and no answer together.

I'm talking about in the seniors home, where you do pay for the services yourself. You're purchasing a service in this particular seniors home. Purchasing that service in the seniors home, it comes with the meals as part of that service. So as part of that service…. These are organizations — or seniors homes, if you will — that are managed by the provincial government or a local government. In those instances where the meals are served, would they be included in this agreement or would they be exempt?

Hon. P. Bell: This is going to be a bit complicated again, I think, so I'll try and go into it in some detail.

In most circumstances in a seniors facility, where the senior is paying for that service, it would be considered to be purchased by the senior and therefore would be exempted.

[1450]

But there's actually a second tier, or lens, that comes to bear here, and that is that a private contractor typically will contract that food delivery service. Once that private contractor has contracted that food delivery service, they're free to make whatever procurement decisions they choose to make.

That would also apply in a hospital. So if a hospital contractor, a private contractor, acquired the contractual responsibility to deliver food services in a hospital, that contractor would then be free, if they chose to, to only purchase a B.C. product, as an example. That would be an acceptable thing for that contractor to do.

They're not bound by the agreement once they've entered into the contract. The actual agreement revolves around the contract being available to the broader private sector in the three provinces combined.

In the example that the member was asking previously, specific to procurement of food products, that is largely only relevant in circumstances where the hospital provides its own food services, which does occur. There is a mix of service providers. So I think the answer to the member opposite's question is that on the seniors home example, to the best of our knowledge, they would be exempted from the requirement under the new west partnership agreement.

J. Kwan: Presumably, local governments would have raised the issues around various other economic development initiatives — often, particularly, in small communities, for sure, but not just in small communities — where you would want to engage in a practice that encourages and supports local economic development activities for those communities.

Can the minister, then, shed some light on what economic development initiatives would be exempt from this agreement? Or conversely, what would be included in this agreement, aside from the threshold issue?
[ Page 6770 ]

Hon. P. Bell: There are three such circumstances that we are aware of here. The first is if there is a specific public policy objective around the procurement of a service or a good, and those are listed — what those policy objectives are. They're around public safety and security — those sorts of things — and they're listed in the agreement.

The second is if it can be demonstrated that there is only a single potential supplier for a particular good or service and that there is no reasonable cause for you to go outside, knowing that there is only that single potential supplier.

The third is under emergency situations where it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to deal with the situation in an expedited fashion. An example of that might be a roof caving in on an arena that needed to be fixed or secured. The local jurisdiction would be able to go ahead and direct-award that or award it on a local basis if they so chose.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please define the word "local"?

[1455]

Hon. P. Bell: Well, this maybe isn't the best definition the member opposite is looking for, but it's under part 6 of definitions. It is sub (c), which says: "Regional, local, district or other forms of municipal government, as well as any corporation or entity owned or controlled by any such form of municipal government."

J. Kwan: Okay, so there are procurement practices issues. I know that there are other members of the House who would want to get into some specific areas of the agreement. I'm going to sort of just plow along, and then they'll signal me when they want to jump in with respect to this set of debate.

Okay, so that's on procurement practices. Now I'd like to ask the minister questions around other areas that local government might have expressed concerns about with respect to this agreement. Are there any other areas on which local governments have brought up issues and concerns? Also with respect to this, aside from UBCM, did the ministry consult with the B.C. School Trustees Association and the various health authorities?

Hon. P. Bell: To the first question, I had mentioned earlier, in a previous answer, that the coverage of municipalities was another issue that was flagged. To the second question, groups like BCSTA, others, the health authorities…. We had informal discussions with them, but again, the detailed discussions were held previously at the TILMA level.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, with BCSTA, the discussions were at the TILMA level. Were they informed, then, when this agreement was brought forward that it's going to be signed off? Are they aware of this prior to the agreement being signed off?

Hon. P. Bell: I need to correct the record.

My previous answer, I think, will show that I said that we had informal discussions with BCSTA, health authorities and the like around the new west partnership. In fact, I'm informed that it's not the case. We did not have those discussions. Those discussions were all held at the original TILMA process, and that was deemed to be sufficient. So I just want to correct and make sure that's understood.

[1500]

J. Kwan: Yeah, that actually raises concerns for me, to be sure, because the BCSTA raised concerns around the TILMA agreement. Now we're sort of moving and plowing ahead with further agreements, as well, in this instance — the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Before we get too far along in this area, my colleague the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows actually has some questions around procurement practices. I'm going to defer the floor to him at this time, and then we'll come back to further discussion around this issue.

M. Sather: I just want to ask the minister a question about…. Under appendix 1, the transitional measures for Saskatchewan under article 14 on procurement, it says that it does not apply to Crown corporations until July 1, 2012. That's the transitional period then — right?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

M. Sather: So after that date, the in-effect date, procurement of Crown corporations is not exempted in any way from this agreement, then.

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

M. Sather: So that would be for Saskatchewan. I'm just trying to understand the agreement, and I have gone through TILMA quite a bit too. Why does the agreement bother to do that? Why have a two-year transition period when it's going to come into effect anyway? Why not just make it happen right off the bat?

Hon. P. Bell: It's actually just over a year, given that it's May 9, 2011, today. To July 1, 2012, is 13½ or 14 months. But in addition, the member opposite will recall that in the TILMA agreement Alberta and B.C. had a two-year transitional process which allowed for Crowns and others to adopt the new responsibilities that they had in their procurement and other purchasing services. That would mirror the decision here to provide some time for
[ Page 6771 ]
transitional processes, with the new province coming in being the province of Saskatchewan.

G. Gentner: Just a very simple question to back up on this to the minister. If I have it correct that the whole modus operandi of the new west partnership is something to find economies of scale, so to speak, in the procurement orders in order to lower costs, can the minister agree or disagree? Is that not the basic premise in all this?

Hon. P. Bell: That is one of two central themes behind this agreement. The other central theme behind this agreement and TILMA was to allow B.C.-based companies to do business in Alberta originally, and now Alberta and Saskatchewan, on a competitive basis without any cross-border barriers. Of course, the reciprocal of that also applies.

G. Gentner: Indeed, that is the general premise, so to speak. Wouldn't it be easier to promote international trade through the greatest economies of scale to be achieved by all Canadians by combining your efforts through the federal government?

[1505]

Hon. P. Bell: I think it's a bit cynical to try and advocate for free trade internationally when we don't have it internally within Canada. This has been a longstanding agenda item when the Premiers meet, and B.C. decided to move forward with Alberta initially. Saskatchewan saw the results and wanted to partner and become part of that process. Certainly, British Columbia would welcome other provinces that were interested in joining the elimination of internal trade barriers.

While I agree with the member's assertion that international trade is also critical, and certainly we are open and eager to participate in other negotiations that the federal government may take forward on free trade agreements with other jurisdictions, within our control is simply the ability to manage our interprovincial trade relationships and eliminate barriers.

G. Gentner: Is the minister suggesting that he's given up on the partnership of Canada? Manitoba is sort of seen as a western province. How do you do the arbitrary decision to just include three provinces?

Hon. P. Bell: The initial agreement…. I was actually quite involved, when I was Minister of Agriculture and Lands from 2005 to 2008, in trying to remove interprovincial trade barriers.

Various provinces have different views on agricultural subsidies and how that's managed. Initially, B.C. and Alberta found themselves in alignment in their view around a free and open market relationship with the two provinces. Once Saskatchewan saw the results, they expressed an interest in becoming part of it.

We would be open to and embrace other provinces such as Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and certainly the territories to become part of this relationship as well. We would be honoured by the fact that there may be other provinces interested in joining with us.

J. Kwan: The minister said there were no specific consultations with the BCSTA or health authorities. I'm wondering if the minister can provide me with a specific list, then, on who was actually consulted for this agreement.

I know that he referred to some of the groups that were consulted for the Alberta TILMA agreement at the time. Then subsequently in the case of UBCM, there was a refer back to the representative from UBCM on this issue related specifically to this agreement.

In that instance, I would be interested in actually getting a list from the minister specifically on who was consulted, specifically related to this agreement and not just on the assumption that there was consultation done when the Alberta TILMA agreement was brought in place.

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, I would be happy to provide that, but it will take some time to put together.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that. Presumably, it will be perhaps a long list or a short list. As the minister is compiling that list, could I ask his ministry to also provide this information — the comments that were made from the folks that were consulted? In other words, how do they feel about this agreement? What comments did they offer? I'd be interested in getting that information as well.

Hon. P. Bell: We'll provide an outline of the general comments received.

J. Kwan: Last but not least, if the minister could also provide the timeline on when this discussion took place, I would appreciate that as well.

Hon. P. Bell: To the best of our ability, we will — again, not knowing exactly what we have sitting here right now. But certainly, we'll do our best to provide that.

[1510]

The Chair: Shall section 1 pass?

J. Kwan: Not quite yet, Madam Chair. Yes, further questions with respect to this.

I'd like to actually move to another area, and that would be on the question of exemptions. The agreement provides for exemptions of certain areas to be included in the agreement, so I'd like to canvass that with the minister a little bit.
[ Page 6772 ]

I know that, for example, the Saskatchewan government talked a lot, prior to signing off on this agreement, about the desire to exempt Crown corporations. Yet I see that in the agreement itself Crown corporations are not exempt, except for some of the guidelines that have been put forward around the threshold.

I wonder if the minister can enlighten us around those discussions and what happened there in terms of the issue related to Crown corporations.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite is quite correct. Saskatchewan's initial position in the discussions was to exempt their Crowns from the new west partnership agreement. As we went through the negotiations, they came to the conclusion that an open procurement process was preferable and chose to sign on with a transitional process.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: The member says he just gave a great answer. And you're right. In the spirit of cooperation here, I will take his word for it, and I won't challenge him on that.

On this agreement, on the exemptions and related to Crown corporations, because it was one of the areas which caused the previous discussions with Saskatchewan to sign on to TILMA — and now with, I would argue, partial provisions to address Crown corporations…. When did that change with the Saskatchewan government?

In other words, exactly at what point in the discussion with the Saskatchewan government did it change, that they were willing to sign on? Even though, substantively, this agreement is essentially the same as that of the Alberta government, there's really been not that much change — no change, I would argue. So at what point did that sort of switch over?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite will appreciate that there were a number of issues that were ongoing during the negotiation on a variety of items. One of them was the Crown corporation issue. My staff certainly are willing to go back in their notes and try and find a date when we first became aware that it was no longer a key issue from the perspective of Saskatchewan and that they were prepared to sign on with the Crowns, but we don't have that level of detail here with us right now.

[1515]

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can confirm for me, then, that this agreement, the new west partnership trade agreement…. The provisions, as they relate to Crown corporations — how do they differ from the Alberta TILMA agreement? I just want to get it on the public record if they are different at all.

Hon. P. Bell: There is no substantive difference.

J. Kwan: That is by far the best answer that the minister gave so far in this set of estimates.

I just wanted to…

Interjection.

J. Kwan: That was last week.

...cross my i's and dot my t's and make sure that I'm not misreading the agreement and that my memory is not faulty in remembering the Alberta TILMA agreement.

Okay, so we got that sorted out on the Crown corporations.

There is another area about which I know there are some concerns, and that would be local procurements. Actually, we just touched on local procurements a little bit earlier.

Could the minister also put on the public record for me how the issues around local procurements for this agreement, the new west partnership trade agreement, differ from that of the Alberta TILMA agreement? I'm assuming the answer is that there are no substantive differences, but I'd like to get the minister to confirm that on the public record.

Hon. P. Bell: The member assumes correctly.

G. Gentner: Just let me segue right into the Crown corporations, and then I'll surrender the chair to my dear friend from Cariboo North. My understanding of the agreement is that it does not apply to any corporation, partnership established, owned or controlled by either the Alberta Investment Management Corporation or the B.C. Investment Management Corporation, and there is no similar exemption for the Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan. Do I have that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: My understanding is that the organization in Saskatchewan is set up differently, and the exemption was not deemed to be required for them, versus the exemption provided to BCIMC or the Alberta investment management organization. My understanding is that it was covered off, it was discussed, but it was not deemed to be required, given the construction of the investment model in Saskatchewan.

G. Gentner: I take it, therefore, that this is one of the examples where the ministry referred to this as TILMA-lite. It just doesn't include those types of Crown corporations from the province of Saskatchewan.

I raise it because on November 10, 2009, sometime thereafter the three provinces got together and decided to discuss a joint regional plan relative to a pension plan. The three organizations I just gave examples of could be used, through consultation, to develop such a plan.
[ Page 6773 ]

Could the minister explain to me: can this TILMA-lite in any way harmonize the standards relative to a pension system for all three provinces?

[1520]

Hon. P. Bell: Pensions and pension plans are outside the scope of the agreement. However, given the nature of the relationship that is developed as a result of the agreement, the agreement could lead to a model where the three provinces chose to work collaboratively to provide a better pension model for their respective jurisdictions. It's outside of scope, but conceivably, given the nature of the agreement and the way the three provinces are working together, it may be possible to see the three provinces develop something that would work for their respective constituent groups.

G. Gentner: I take it then, hon. Chair, that this TILMA-lite or new west partnership creates sort of a preamble, if you will, to develop a supplementary pension plan amongst the three provinces.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't think the member accurately describes what I said. I simply said that the fact that there is a relationship between the three provinces could lead to an opportunity where they could negotiate something. However, the agreement itself does not refer to any sort of pension management organization, nor is that specific work contemplated in the agreement.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could advise me whether part V, "Exceptions," under subsection A, general exceptions to the agreement: "Measures adopted or maintained relating to aboriginal peoples." Does this section, therefore, preclude treatied local Indian governments from the agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the section does not consider the difference between a treaty or non-treaty First Nation, so the exemption would apply regardless of whether the First Nation was in or not in treaty.

V. Huntington: So it doesn't take into account a treaty that requires an Indian government to be subject to the general provisions of the laws of British Columbia. It exempts them from that, an actual local Indian government.

Hon. P. Bell: This agreement, the new west partnership agreement, in no way requires the Tsawwassen First Nation or any First Nation to participate in this agreement.

[1525]

However, I am not as current as the member opposite on the Tsawwassen agreement. There may be a clause in the Tsawwassen agreement that requires them to participate in this or other types of procurement agreements — which would, then, require them to participate — but this agreement by itself does not impose that on a treaty First Nation. I hope that's clear. This agreement itself would not require that. There may be something in the treaty that would require that participation, though.

V. Huntington: Article 14 of the treaty, then, under "Procurement," subsection (c). You're saying that because local Indian government isn't included in that section, then they're excepted, you believe.

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

B. Simpson: Maybe the minister needs to move down to our end so that he's seen all the time and it's more direct conversation — either that or a little button.

I want to continue with the exemptions, and as a general question, I'm just curious about how the range of exemptions was canvassed. Of course, the intent of the agreement is to try and get some sort of level-playing-field agreement — you know, the unrestricted trade as well as the ability to have all three provinces operate together. Then, of course, you bind the agreement by listing a whole bunch of exemptions to continue to have the public policy initiatives that you want to have in your own province.

To start that off, I have some specific questions, but how is the range of exemptions arrived at?

Hon. P. Bell: The exceptions were largely modelled after the interprovincial agreement on internal trade that other provinces have signed, with the exception of Nunavut. That's where the exemptions came from.

The remaining components of the agreement on internal trade are not as strong, of course, as this. That's the benefit of this agreement. The exemptions were largely modelled after the agreement on internal trade.

B. Simpson: Was there any attempt to take a look at that as a framework and say that there are areas that we may need to upgrade, given that our business climate is changing, given that some of the dynamics within the province are changing? Was there any process that actually looked at those and said: "Let's update them a little bit to reflect more current realities"?

Hon. P. Bell: The agreement on internal trade, as I said earlier, was used as the framework to model these exemptions, but the work that the member opposite was suggesting is exactly what was done. In fact, it was only used as a framework, and then improvements were made to the exemptions on internal trade into this agreement.
[ Page 6774 ]

B. Simpson: I won't canvass the details of that, because the critic for this has tried to scope out what the range of consultations was.

[1530]

Now that these exemptions are in the agreement, if there are areas of public policy that do shift, what would the process be for changing these exemptions, either adding or deleting or changing some of the language in the exemptions?

Hon. P. Bell: The process is that annually ministers convene, the ministers responsible for the act. If there are any further exemptions or changes necessary, they're tabled at that meeting for officials to work on, and then changes would be made by agreement of the three parties.

B. Simpson: I guess there's the rub in trying to get a free trade arrangement with those parties, to giving those parties the ability to constrain public policy changes by, as the minister has indicated, trying to get agreement. I have a couple of examples where I think there may be some traps in there.

Just one for clarification. On one of the exemptions under "Government Procurement," section 2(f) there, "entities which operate sporting or convention facilities, in order to respect a commercial agreement." That isn't compatible with the other areas around procurement in the actual agreement itself.

I was wondering if the minister could explain why that explicit exemption is in the agreement.

Hon. P. Bell: The member may or may not have been in the House earlier on when we were talking about the example of food services being contracted out and the ability to specify a local producer for a food product. The point of difference largely came around resale of that product, and it's a very similar situation here.

These facilities that are being referred to typically, in many cases, are publicly owned facilities that have been contracted out to a private provider, and the contract period could be for a very long period of time. The private provider is not bound by the agreement in the sense that they're allowed to enter into commercial relationships as they see fit. That would be why this exemption applies and why it exists here.

B. Simpson: Under the exemption section D, "Energy and Minerals," there are two sections to this. One has to do with measures adopted for mineral resources and conservation of energy or mineral resources. The second is promoting renewable and alternative energy.

I'm just curious. On the oil and gas sector, as the minister well knows, we're in a position where often we're in direct competition with Alberta on how royalties and subsidies are structured. It looks like we're going to go through another round where Alberta and B.C. are going to have to play off of each other for the limited amount of money that's around there, particularly in shale bed and coal bed finds.

How would that work in terms of having the exemption? Does it require the parties to come together and discuss what they're doing and to get sign-off, even though the exemption may exist? Do they still have to get sign-off to make any substantive changes to public policy with respect to minerals or oil and gas exploration or development?

[1535]

Hon. P. Bell: The member points to section D of the agreement, "Energy and Minerals," with two sections and three subsections. I think they're reasonably self-explanatory in terms of the nature of what they exempt.

There's another thing that's important for the member opposite to know, and that is that royalties on minerals or energy products are exempted. Therefore, should one jurisdiction or another choose to have a different royalty regime for a specific mineral or energy resource, they are able to do that without having to consult with another jurisdiction or without coming to any sort of agreement, because royalties are specifically exempted.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister. I was aware of the exemption. I just wasn't sure if there was something that compelled some sort of consultation. Thank you for that clarification.

The next section I'd like to look at under exemptions is the whole section on regional economic development. Again, the minister has this as part of his ministerial portfolio. I know he's very well aware, because he comes from the same part of the country as I do, that we've got some areas of the province that are going to go through significant transition — the mountain pine beetle in our area. The northwest is going through transition as it struggles with what it is going to do with its fibre resource, etc.

I guess in this case it starts talking about "regional economic development measures, provided that such measures (a) are only adopted or maintained under exceptional circumstances." I'm curious how that gets defined. Is that a negotiated agreement on what's exceptional, or does one of the parties — i.e., the province of British Columbia — just simply say that this is an exceptional circumstance; therefore, we are going to do X on regional economic development?

Hon. P. Bell: A couple of things. The first one is that exceptional circumstances need to be time-bound or time-constrained. They can't be a permanent decision. Exceptional circumstances are declared by the governing
[ Page 6775 ]
jurisdiction. If it was in British Columbia and Quesnel was defined as an exceptional circumstance, the province of British Columbia would declare that. If Saskatchewan and/or Alberta didn't believe that that was a fair description, then the dispute resolution mechanism would be used, which is defined in the agreement.

B. Simpson: Just so I'm clear on that point about the time sensitivity, with something like the mountain pine beetle where there's a long time horizon, is the minister indicating that time sensitivity is more of a short time horizon in order to avoid dispute resolution? We may have to have, as the minister knows, a three- or a five-year regional economic development initiative in order to get some of those communities over the hump. Is three to five years too long, given the time constraints the minister is indicating may exist?

Hon. P. Bell: Although the notion of an exceptional circumstance is time-constrained in that it can't be a permanent program or decision, there is no specific time bounding around it. The termination of that declaration would occur when the circumstances change. So in a mountain pine beetle situation, it could be much more than three to five years even.

[1540]

Again, if the other jurisdiction disagreed with that perspective, there is the dispute resolution mechanism that is used in order to resolve that difference.

B. Simpson: It's more the issue of permanence than the time constraint, as long as it doesn't appear to be permanent.

There are two aspects of this — I'll kind of roll them into one for the minister — that I struggle with, with respect to this deal. That is that it's kind of normal practice in regional economic development to do a couple of things — to do local procurement as a strategy to foster local contractors, to build your own internal economy, if you will, in the community. Of course, this has significant restrictions on local procurement.

Is there any opportunity for local procurement to be waived? It doesn't appear that it does, given the descriptions, but I just want clarification from the minister.

If a region decides that one of the best things they can do is really make sure that they enable the local economy to get whatever the dollars are for municipalities, school districts or whatever and want a local procurement policy as part of the regional economic development initiative, is that explicitly forbidden under this trade agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: I have had the unique opportunity as one of the MLAs to have to deal with difficult economic circumstances in the community of Mackenzie. When I look at both the regional economic development clauses as well as the overall procurement thresholds, I have confidence that we would have been able to deliver for Mackenzie in the way that we did without having this particular agreement hamper us in any way. I think the agreement wouldn't have stood in the way of us in terms of the direction we took.

Also, of course, there are the base thresholds that apply regardless. Those base thresholds often, in the case of a small or mid-sized community looking to implement economic development initiatives, would be sufficient to allow for locally procured contracts on an exceptional basis.

Also, if the community were to declare emergency or exceptional circumstances, then of course they'd have the right to do that as well. So there are a couple of tools in the agreement.

As a general rule of thumb, the principle is we're trying to encourage communities as well as provinces to open up procurement so that the contractor in Mackenzie has the ability to work in Grande Prairie and garner the work that is available to them there — which, of course, in that particular circumstance means a much higher level of work availability than would have existed in Mackenzie. So it does cut both ways. We want our contractors to be able to work in other provinces. In order to do that, of course, there's a quid pro quo that comes with that.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point that it cuts both ways, but from the perspective of public policy in B.C., our responsibility is to make sure that British Columbia gets the benefit of the way that it gets cut. It's my understanding that lots of contractors I know — fabricating contracts, etc. — in Quesnel do work in Alberta and Saskatchewan without this agreement. So I'm not sure that the agreement was necessary for our contractors to work in other provinces.

There's another aspect of regional economic development in the exemptions, and the exemptions specifically state that regional economic development measures must be consistent with article 12(1). Article 12(1) states that parties shall not directly or indirectly provide business subsidies that provide an advantage to an enterprise that results in material injury to one of the parties, "(b) entice or assist the relocation of an enterprise from the other party, or (c) otherwise distort investment decisions."

[1545]

Yet again, part of economic development within the regions is to do some of those things, to create an enticement for a business to locate in your area, to try to attract head offices or regional branch plants or various other things to your area. That is a legitimate tool in regional economic development.

Again, are we not constraining ourselves in this deal with…? It was supposed to be freer trade, but what we're doing now is handcuffing some of our areas that would like to be able to use enticements to actually distort, if
[ Page 6776 ]
you will, investment decisions in their favour. Does this not constrain that and take that away from economic development in some of our regions?

Hon. P. Bell: Since 2001 our government has had a principle of no company-specific subsidies. That continues today, and that's reflected in this agreement.

However, I think the member opposite should have some comfort in knowing that if the community of Quesnel, as an example, decided that they wanted to attract the solar panel business to Quesnel, they would be able to provide some sort of an inducement as long as it was provided to anyone in the solar panel business that wanted to come and locate in Quesnel.

They wouldn't be able to go to XYZ solar panel company and say, "We'll give you something," without making that available to any solar panel producer that wanted to locate in Quesnel. So there are tools available for economic development — not company-specific tools. That comes back to a basic principle that we've had for some time in this government.

Also, from a taxation perspective, they could apply tax relief to a class of properties or to a zone in an area. They could define a zone — as Prince George has with its downtown — that provides special tax incentives to locate in a given area. So there are tools available, just on a broader basis — not company-specific tools. We think that's appropriate.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that clarification, although I do recall that this government did some bank tax relief with an explicit intent to attract some bank headquarters to British Columbia at one point. So there was a specific policy, as I recall, at that time.

I think the minister's explanations are helping me to understand some of the nuances of this deal. With that in mind, I'm curious whether or not regional economic development entities will be apprised of what the nature of this deal is and what some of the nuances of it are. I'm just thinking of the money that went to the beetle action coalitions, for example, as they begin to develop some of the tools that they'll be looking at. Again, the kind of normal practice of procurement, of investment distortion, etc., are some of the tools I know they'll be looking at.

Will there be an education initiative or information package sent out to regional economic development officers and regional economic development entities to make sure they're apprised of what they can and cannot do under this deal?

[1550]

Hon. P. Bell: Just before I answer the question from the member opposite, I just wanted to point to the statement he made a few minutes earlier with regards to the banking sector. I would argue that that policy is consistent with the policy that I described in terms of a local community deciding that they wanted to support a specific industry, to bring that industry. I would argue that that was consistent.

The member opposite asked the question: will there be an outreach program intended to educate organizations such as beetle action coalitions and other economic development organizations that are run by other levels of government? The answer to that is yes.

B. Simpson: This last question here has to do with language. As the minister heard me the other day there, we're moving away from Wood is Good to "Fibre is fabulous."

I just want to read something from PricewaterhouseCoopers' most recent report that illustrates why I think this is important. It states: "While the regulatory picture is still uncertain, one thing is for sure: competition for wood fibre — one of the world's most renewable resources but not an infinite one — will be fierce."

I think the minister is well apprised that the idea of timber or a saw log or whatever…. We're moving quickly away from that. It's one of the traps that you always get into when you try and do definitions and so on in agreements. The current exemption under "Forests, Fish and Wildlife" uses the term "timber" and "timber procurement" — "requirements that timber be used or manufactured within the territory of a party."

It's a curiosity, I guess, of…. Shouldn't that now reflect where companies like Canfor already indicate that they are fibre managers and no longer timber managers? It's the direction we're moving in. My hope is we're going to see some initiatives around a fibre-based economy. Is it possible for that word to be changed to reflect where we're going and not constrain us to the old timber world?

My question to the minister is: is there a possibility of changing as this thing goes along to reflect the reality that we're faced with today? Here's a classic example of that. Really, timber is one thing to protect. Fibre is the real issue that we have to protect in the future.

Hon. P. Bell: Wood is good, fibre is fabulous, but timber's terrific. The short answer to the member opposite's question is yes. As I mentioned earlier, this document is reviewed annually at the ministers' meetings of the three ministers in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan responsible for this. If that is the type of thing that people deem to be of value….

I think the member is quite correct. The nomenclature of that sort is probably the type of thing that would be worth flagging. I suspect the member opposite will recall that there have been several amendments to TILMA in this chamber already, so something of this nature would certainly be on the table for that discussion.
[ Page 6777 ]

J. Kwan: I know the minister is happy with his answers, and that's all good.

I'd like to ask the minister, though — on procurement practices, actually. I just want to get back to the language a little bit, and that ties into regional economic development initiatives and so on. With this agreement, does that mean to say that all language related to local hire type of language would be contrary to this agreement? That is with the understanding, of course, of the threshold issue. I understand the guidelines around that.

I'm just trying to get a sense of what language, then, would local governments or other entities be able to use if they want to pursue a local hire type of language for contracts. Or would that now be disallowed under this agreement?

[1555]

Hon. P. Bell: As with so many things in life, the answer is frequently yes and no to a question of this nature.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't want to respond to that.

If a jurisdiction like Mackenzie — I've been using it today as an example — were to hire on a contract basis someone to perform a specific function, they would be allowed to do that. That wouldn't represent a problem.

If the district of Mackenzie were to issue a contract to a company that was over the minimum thresholds and they had not declared a specific emergency or other exemption, then they would not be allowed to enter into a clause…. They wouldn't be allowed to insert a clause that required employees to be hired from the area.

However, I will note for the member opposite, before she gets too excited about this, that that actually was stipulated by the agreement on internal trade that was signed. That's the national agreement on internal trade that requires that to be the case.

Just in the off chance that the member doesn't recall the date in which that agreement was entered into, it was actually in 1995, when the member may or may not have been in cabinet. I'm not sure. But anyway, I'm sure the member opposite will remember the name of the Premier who would have signed that agreement.

J. Kwan: Well, 1995 would have predated me sitting in this House, to be sure. Generally, a general election would be pretty significant in the event of who is in this House. That would be before my time, as they say.

[D. Black in the chair.]

So just to follow up on this — emergency circumstances. Could the minister define for me what emergency circumstances might be? Natural disasters — would that be an emergency circumstance? Is that how that's been defined?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair.

The example I used earlier was the caving in of a roof at an ice arena, something of that nature. I think this is one of these things that if a municipality tried to use that as a reason not to follow the rules under TILMA and another jurisdiction thought that that was an unreasonable use, then that would go to the dispute resolution mechanism that's located in the document. That would be the resolution model.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair.

Okay. On the issue around labour mobility. I know that this was canvassed at length as well, or concerns were raised at length, when the TILMA agreement with Alberta was brought forward.

[1600]

Presumably, the labour mobility language here in this agreement and that of the Alberta TILMA agreement — there has been no change?

Hon. P. Bell: There is a very slight change in this agreement versus TILMA, and it relates to the scope of practice and how decisions around procurement are made around a change of scope of practice.

Interjections.

J. Kwan: The Opposition House Leader was just checking to see what kind of progress we are making. I told him that we're making good progress and asking important questions.

The minister said, right at the time when the Opposition House Leader came into the House, that there are slight language differences. Operationally, in terms of…. Maybe I should ask this more broadly speaking. Between this agreement and that of the Alberta TILMA agreement, what's different? Maybe we should do that as opposed to going through, clause by clause, which are the areas that are different.

Maybe the minister can just provide a list for me at this time, then. What is different between the new west partnership trade agreement and that of the Alberta TILMA agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: The new west partnership agreement is substantively the same. There are very minor differences.
[ Page 6778 ]
They were items that were identified over the years of implementation of the TILMA agreement, where minor items were deemed to be necessary to be corrected. The opportunity was used in the negotiation of this agreement.

The one example that I used earlier was scope of practice and how that is defined in order to change a contract or continue the work under the existing contractual relationship. So the changes are not substantial. The agreements are virtually identical, although there are minor differences. If the member wanted a line-by-line analysis, we can certainly provide that. I don't know that it's of huge value, but we could provide that.

J. Kwan: Maybe not so much a line-by-line analysis, but where there are differences in the general scope of it, I think it would be useful to know what they are — right? — so that we can identify it more clearly and to understand it. What the minister might interpret as a minor change could be interpreted differently by someone else in their own read of the agreement and as it applies, perhaps, in their own set of circumstances.

I'm just trying to get clarity on that with respect to what potential changes…. I don't know if that list is readily available at this time. It may be; it may not be. Maybe the minister can advise. If it's not available, I would be amenable to receiving that at a later time just so that I can see what the differences are.

[1605]

Hon. P. Bell: Perhaps we can provide all of the detail to the member opposite, but I'll just provide as an example a paragraph that was added under part 6 of the agreement.

This particular section of the agreement refers to business subsidies. As I mentioned to the member for Cariboo North earlier on, generally speaking, the way we define that is that it can be available to an industry sector but not to a specific company within that sector. That's where we draw the line in terms of how we describe a subsidy. So if the sawmilling industry were provided with a certain level of support, then it would have to be industrywide. You couldn't provide it simply to one company within that sector.

Saskatchewan asked us to add a paragraph to the agreement in order to clarify that. They didn't think it was well enough defined in the previous TILMA agreement, even though it was the intent of the agreement, so they asked us to add a paragraph.

The paragraph that was added says:

"A business subsidy does not include a financial contribution made available to entities within a particular industry or group of industries where the measure pursuant to which the financial contribution is made available establishes objective criteria or conditions governing eligibility that are not structured in law or, in fact, so as to make the financial contribution uniquely available to one single entity, whether that entity is structured as one legal entity or a group of legal entities."

So it simply describes it out, perhaps, in more legal terms than my layman's version of: "You're not allowed to give an individual company money."

J. Kwan: That would apply, then, I guess, for all entities — right? — whether it be local governments or elsewhere. So grants from local governments in support of a small business, for example, would be contrary to this agreement if they were somehow to enter into procurement practices with that local government?

Hon. P. Bell: If the grant was an industrywide grant that was available for everyone in that sector, it would be allowed. If it was unique to one specific operation, it would not be allowed.

J. Kwan: With respect to labour mobility, earlier, with the TILMA agreement, there were lots of concerns that were raised by all sorts of entities, whether it be local governments with labour unions, with non-profits and so on, so forth. Could the minister please advise: are those concerns resolved in terms of the issue around labour mobility?

Some of the concerns would be, for example…. The most common one that has been brought forward is the race to the bottom in terms of the standards that are set. As mobility is taking place between provinces, different provinces may have different standards. Therefore, it will generate a situation of a race to the bottom as opposed to maintaining various standards that are applicable to our own situation here.

Maybe the minister can advise: how has the ministry addressed those concerns with respect to labour mobility that have been raised by various entities?

[1610]

Hon. P. Bell: The three governing bodies for each of these respective trades or professions or whatever it happens to be are the entities that get together and by consent try and reach an agreed-upon framework under which that particular profession will be managed.

If one of the jurisdictions, or more than one of the jurisdictions, feels that for some reason they are unique and their particular jurisdiction requires a different view, then that is required to be defined under the exceptional circumstances, and that jurisdiction would have to defend that in front of the dispute resolution system that is in place in the agreement.

J. Kwan: Okay. So the process for resolution is basically that it gets before a panel, the dispute resolution panel, and then ultimately, I guess, the dispute resolution will make the decision. But the parameters in which you can make the argument to even get to the dispute resolution panel would be under the definition of "exceptional circumstances." Is that the only instance where there is
[ Page 6779 ]
actually, I guess, cause for a dispute to take place? That's the only time you can raise those concerns?

Hon. P. Bell: Article 6, which is entitled "Legitimate objectives," is actually the section that is most relevant. That's the actual agreement document that I'm referring to, Canada's new west partnership.

The member may not have that in front of her. I'm not sure. She does. Okay. It's article 6, "Legitimate objectives." A jurisdiction would call into force that section and would go through the dispute resolution mechanism if it was challenged.

Just in case the member wasn't absolutely certain as to how we determined that that was the appropriate approach to it, we just copied the agreement on internal trade, which the member will recall was signed in 1995.

J. Kwan: Yes, predating me. Could the minister please advise: how do you define "legitimate objective"?

Hon. P. Bell: The definitions are found on page 38 of the agreement, and I'll just read them into the record. They are for one of the following objectives:

"Public security and safety; public order; protection of human, animal or plant life or health; protection of the environment; conservation and prevention of waste of non-renewable or exhaustible resources; consumer protection; protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; provision of social services and health services within the territory of a party; affirmative action programs" — which I suspect the member knows a bit about — "for disadvantaged groups; or prevention or relief of critical shortages of goods essential to a party."

There's some further language around that.

[1615]

J. Kwan: No wonder I don't have it — page 38. My agreement only ran up to page 36.

Hon. P. Bell: Sorry. In the document that the member opposite has, I suspect it's page 29.

J. Kwan: Oh, yes. Sorry, I see it now — "Legitimate objectives" and the list of the various definitions of it.

With the Alberta TILMA agreement, does the minister know if there have been any disputes that have been brought forward arising from the TILMA agreement? If so, could the minister advise what those areas of concern are and where it is at with the dispute resolution process?

Hon. P. Bell: To date there have been no dispute resolution mechanisms filed or engaged in.

J. Kwan: I'm going to defer now to my colleague the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows to carry on with some questions. Oh no, it's the member for Delta North — Delta North, right? — who is going to canvass some questions with the minister around this bill.

G. Gentner: The member is quite correct. I am the member for Delta North, although we do overlook Burns Bog.

The government has entered into various western purchasing plans for pharmaceuticals. Those agreements are part of an element of the national pharmaceuticals strategy. I'm wondering: how does this agreement…? I'm looking at some of the exemptions. Can the three provinces, through this agreement, work towards procurement schemes relative to pharmaceuticals?

Hon. P. Bell: The new west partnership agreement is a larger body of work. What we are referring to here is the trade agreement, and the document that we are debating and talking about is referred to as the new west partnership trade agreement.

The broader agreement, or new west partnership, includes other elements. One of those elements is an agreement on procurement, and that's where the incentive lies in order to achieve that agreement. So the piece of legislation that we're actually reviewing today and the actual agreement that we are debating are not directly related to the other agreements within the new west partnership that do encourage joint procurement.

G. Gentner: The whole issue of health care in the province, in the nation and, of course, with the other three provinces is an interesting one. Some time ago, about a year and a half ago, there was discussion between Premier Brad Wall and his Health Minister relative to offsetting or allowing surgeries for hip replacements and knee replacements in the province of British Columbia.

[1620]

It was an interesting debate, because it brought the whole notion that we could be seeing queue-jumping in British Columbia to facilitate the needs of Saskatchewan, which was entering into this kind of relationship. In any way can this agreement foist or encourage these types of agreements among the three provinces?

Hon. P. Bell: Health and health services are outside of the scope of this agreement.

G. Gentner: I had to raise the question because, obviously, it was a quite a thorough debate here in the House a year and a half ago. It was an interesting discussion between the three different Ministers of Health, particularly those with Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

I'm wondering, though, with this agreement, when it comes down to trade, Saskatchewan has asked and is now, I believe, part of a cooperative sharing agreement relative to trade houses internationally. Does this agreement look after…? Is the umbrella to look after those types of new relationships?
[ Page 6780 ]

Hon. P. Bell: My staff are not familiar with the circumstances the member opposite is referring to. It sounds like it is likely a private entity, which wouldn't, therefore, fall under the agreement, but if the member opposite could put a little bit more detail to the question, we might be able to answer it.

G. Gentner: On May 18, 2010, Saskatchewan agreed to pay $255,000 for a new Shanghai trade office now shared with British Columbia and Alberta. The Western Canada Trade and Investment Office of Shanghai was officially opened then by all three Premiers — Saskatchewan's Brad Wall, then Premier of British Columbia Gordon Campbell and Alberta's Ed Stelmach — as the three Premiers continued their joint trade mission.

In the release — and this was, of course, in Canwest news by the Star Phoenix — it suggested that this is what…. The trade agreement amongst the three provinces would help encourage and initiate duplication for all three provinces in the effort to find efficiencies through the trade agreement.

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member opposite for the clarification. We thought he might be referring to a trade office inside Saskatchewan. So that's helpful.

The actual agreement that we are discussing here today is the new west partnership trade agreement. There's nothing in this agreement per se that requires or causes anyone to participate in it. However, the broader memorandum of understanding that has been signed between the three provinces and really is the new west trade agreement does allow those three provinces to enter into the establishment of foreign trade offices, and the office that the member opposite refers to would be one of those offices.

[1625]

M. Sather: I just wanted to clarify. The minister said — as I heard him say, anyway — that health was not included under the scope of this agreement. I see that there are exceptions for health services and social services under "Procurements." Can the minister just clarify for me what he meant by that?

Hon. P. Bell: What I meant by that was that while hospitals, health authorities and other provincial entities that the province funds are required to follow the act in terms of their procurement and the rules associated with that, there is nothing in this act that requires the province of British Columbia's health facilities to provide services to residents of Alberta or Saskatchewan. That responsibility lies within the Canada Health Act and the principles of the Canada Health Act.

This in no way supersedes or exempts B.C. from adhering to the Canada Health Act, nor is there anything within the parameters of this in terms of providing services to citizens of other provinces.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister to go back to the exceptions under "Government Procurement." There are two parts to that under this agreement that are not in TILMA — that's part C, "Government Procurement," 3 and 4. And 3 says: "Articles 3, 4 and 14" — those are "No obstacles," "Non-discrimination" and "Procurement" — "do not apply to any procurement undertaken by non-governmental bodies that exercise authority delegated by law."

I just wonder if the minister could tell me: what exactly does it refer to — "non-governmental bodies that exercise authority delegated by law"?

Hon. P. Bell: The example perhaps I could provide for the member opposite is that the Legislative Assembly itself is exempted from the agreement. The independent officers of the Legislature are defined in law and are funded through the Legislative Assembly and, therefore, would be exempted from the agreement as well. So the conflict commissioner, as an example, would not be required to operate under the agreement.

That would be one example. The B.C. bar association — I think it's called — would be another one that is defined specifically under the law and, therefore, has a different set of principles that it must follow.

M. Sather: Okay. Then No. 4: "Articles 3, 4 and 14 do not apply to any procurement of treasury services." Can the minister just explain a little bit more what that is?

[1630]

Hon. P. Bell: This clause was used to prevent B.C. Investment Management Corporation, entities of that nature, from having to publicly disclose information at times when they're in detailed negotiation processes. BCIMC, I'm sure the member will know, is to do with pension funds for public employees in the province.

M. Sather: So why were these two clauses not included under the TILMA?

Hon. P. Bell: When the TILMA agreement was originally established, it wasn't deemed that that was an issue that was necessary. Since the implementation of the agreement, it was one of the areas that were identified that were important and therefore is being added at this point in time.

J. Kwan: I'm wondering. In the previous first Premiers conference there was interest in actually going to a national agreement, as opposed to a TILMA agreement such as what we're debating in the House at the moment.
[ Page 6781 ]
Could the minister shed some light as to why we abandoned a national strategy?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member opposite's characterization that we've abandoned the national process would be inaccurate. In fact, we're still a full participant in it. It was just deemed…. We believed that it wouldn't be timely in terms of its completion, and that's proven out to be true. So we've chosen to also engage in bilateral discussions, initially with Alberta, now with Saskatchewan. If others would like to join us, we'd be happy to have them on board.

J. Kwan: At the first Premiers conference — actually, first ministers, I guess — people actually rejected this approach, in fact. By and large, they rejected it. So the only province left standing at that time was Alberta, which had signed on. Now it seems like Saskatchewan has signed on as well, even though there's been basically no change to this agreement from that of the Alberta TILMA agreement.

So it remains, it seems to me, that the rest of the country is not going to sign on to this. Am I right in that assumption, or is the minister actively negotiating with other provinces to try to get them to sign on to an agreement such as this?

Let's start with Manitoba. Are there ongoing discussions with Manitoba, and is there any indication from Manitoba that they would be interested in signing on to this agreement as well?

Hon. P. Bell: While the province of British Columbia — and, I'm sure, Saskatchewan and Alberta — does get approached from time to time by other jurisdictions with regards to our agreement, I would not suggest that there are any active negotiations with any other provinces at this point in time. Our preference would be to have a national agreement, but whether it happens organically, one province at a time, or across Canada, we are happy with either outcome.

J. Kwan: In the event that a national agreement comes forward, what would that mean for these agreements? Would they be null and void? What would happen to these agreements?

[1635]

Hon. P. Bell: These agreements could coexist with a national agreement, as they do today. There is a national agreement today that has been in place for about 16 years. I know that predates when the member was first elected to this House, as she's advised me on a couple of occasions today. But it could conceivably coexist, or it could be replaced. It just depends on the nature of the agreement, so it would be hard for me to speculate what the outcome of that would be.

J. Kwan: Of course, I suppose in that instance, depending on the language of such agreements, it would also determine what was to proceed.

That said, for section 1, we're wrapped up in terms of questions around this area.

I simply want to say this, though. I think it's worth reiterating on the public record that I have, actually, concerns around this agreement.

I don't know what the implications are with respect to the TILMA agreement that was signed by Alberta. The minister says that the dispute resolution panel process has not yet been in effect, in the sense that nothing's been brought forward to it. I don't know if that means there are really no concerns. Or does that really mean that we have yet to see what those concerns might be?

I am concerned about the consultation process, although I don't have an exhaustive list from the minister around who was consulted and who wasn't consulted with respect to this agreement, the new west partnership trade agreement, and the fact that, for example, the BCSTA has been left out of the loop on that — which was fairly vocal, actually, I think, in raising these concerns earlier on with the Alberta TILMA. I think there's cause for concern with respect to that.

I think it would be more prudent if in fact we actually went and did an exhaustive consultation process with respect to this and perhaps watched to see what the outcome of the Alberta TILMA might be before we sign on to yet another agreement binding British Columbia to the clauses stipulated in the agreement. That might be more prudent — conservative even, one might argue — in terms of an approach.

In this instance, I would argue conservatism should be the order of the day, because we want to protect British Columbia in terms of potential lawsuits — and other entities, as well, where their voice should clearly be heard and their concerns reflected.

With that, I'm going to vote against section 1 on division.

Section 1 approved on division.

On section 2.

J. Kwan: Section 2 deals with the prohibition on private cause of action. It stipulates, I guess, the process of the legal proceedings where a private action could be brought about.

I wonder if the minister could just put on the public record and explain to folks who might be listening and others who might refer back to this scintillating debate at a later time section 2 on the clause on prohibition on private cause of action so that people are fully aware of what we're debating about.
[ Page 6782 ]

Hon. P. Bell: Section 2. This section provides for the prohibition of a private cause of action to prevent private parties from initiating claims in any British Columbia court relating to the new west partnership trade agreement or the implementing legislation.

The agreement provides its own dispute resolution process, and it is the intent of the agreement that if a private party has a complaint relating to the agreement, it is resolved in the dispute resolution process under the agreement. So the intent of this section is to preclude a third party or a private party from filing in a court, instead requiring them to use the dispute resolution process that's identified in the agreement.

[1640]

J. Kwan: How might a private party initiate that process, then — the dispute resolution process as stipulated in this agreement? Do they have the capacity to do that, or is it just the signatories of the agreement that get to do that?

Hon. P. Bell: The short answer to the question is: the normal process would be that an individual or organization would approach their government….

If it was a company in the province of Alberta, they'd approach the Alberta government and register their notice that they are discontent and that they would like Alberta to file in the dispute resolution process. If the province of Alberta refused to do that and the individual or company still felt that it was necessary to move forward, then they could apply themselves. That's identified under article 25 and throughout the document as such.

J. Kwan: In other words, it's not just the signatories of the agreement that could actually file a dispute resolution or initiate a dispute resolution process. They could do that individually as well. Could the minister advise: who are the parties in this panel to address the dispute resolution, who will be a part of the dispute resolution process?

Hon. P. Bell: As with so many other things in this act, the agreement on internal trade signed in 1995 was used as the framework for this document. Each jurisdiction is responsible, under article 26(1), for establishing and maintaining "a list of at least five individuals to act as panellists." It is then further outlined in this section.

J. Kwan: I'm glad to hear the minister repeat again and again in this House that the Harcourt NDP government and the work that they had done was actually very useful and helpful for this government — and his work subsequent to that.

That said, in article 26 it does say that each party "will establish and maintain a list of at least five individuals to act as panellists." In that context, does that mean to say that the respective provinces that have signed on to this agreement would have to provide a list to each other that is kept current with the names of whom they deemed to be appropriate individuals for the panel? Then, when a dispute resolution situation arises, that panel will then be activated and those names will be drawn. Is that how that works?

Hon. P. Bell: There's no obligation requiring the three provinces to share that list. However, it has been practice to post the 15 panellists on the new west partnership website, and I believe that is the case today.

[1645]

M. Sather: In section 2(1) it refers to "the Agreement as interpreted by a joint decision." As I understand it, these joint decisions have to be listed on the website for the agreement. The two that I noticed…. One refers to the ability of parties "to create, maintain or designate a government entity," and nothing in the agreement "limits the parties' ability to create, maintain or designate a government entity," as defined in the agreement.

I'd like to ask the minister: why was it necessary to have a joint agreement to specify no limits of the ability to designate entities?

Hon. P. Bell: This section was raised by the province of Saskatchewan. They were concerned that they would be able to create Crowns and sustain Crowns — Crown corporations, that is. In our previous discussion with Alberta under TILMA both provinces didn't think that that was necessary — not that we wouldn't create Crowns, but we believed that the agreement allowed that. Saskatchewan simply wanted clarification, so this clause was added in.

M. Sather: The second joint agreement refers to application of the agreement to the investments of the Alberta Investment Management Corporation or the B.C. Investment Management Corporation, which the minister mentioned before. Why does the agreement not apply to the entities controlled by the B.C. Investment Management Corporation?

Hon. P. Bell: I think I may have answered this question already earlier. Just to double-check….

BCIMC doesn't typically purchase a lot of things. It takes money and makes investments, and those investments are intended to serve the best interests of the constituent group, which is, of course, the public employees of the province of British Columbia. That's the point of difference and why they would be exempted.

M. Sather: But the agreement is trade investments. A lot of it is about investments, so why wouldn't investment decisions…? The minister mentioned pensions. I
[ Page 6783 ]
think something like 80 percent of the management corporation is pensions. It's investment of valuable assets to the province. Why wouldn't they, then, be included?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, BCIMC is there to serve the interests of its constituent groups, just to make sure that the pensions are funded and that retirees from the public service of the province of British Columbia are able to receive their full pension benefits.

In discussions with Alberta originally over TILMA and then with Saskatchewan as we moved to the new west partnership, all jurisdictions agreed that it would be in the best interests of those entities serving in a highly competitive marketplace to be able to place their investments in a way that achieves the rate of return that the employee groups would hopefully expect and be able to provide them with a comfortable retirement through their final years.

M. Sather: This joint agreement is just between Alberta…. It just refers to Alberta and B.C., so is it the case, then, that Saskatchewan does not have a similar body?

Hon. P. Bell: The body that Saskatchewan has performs in a different way, in a different function. Saskatchewan did not believe that they required a clause of this nature for their particular organization.

[1650]

M. Sather: Under section 2(2) — referring to part IV, dispute resolution — what does it mean by "a proceeding that is contemplated"? "Subsection (1) does not apply to a proceeding that is contemplated by Part IV" — which is the dispute resolution — "of the Agreement."

Hon. P. Bell: The word "contemplated" means the same, legally, as "covered by." The two words are interchangeable.

M. Sather: Under subsection (3): "No legal proceeding lies or may be brought or continued against the government for compensation, damages or any other remedy for anything arising as a consequence of a joint decision issued under Article 34 (4) of the Agreement."

Why does this subsection specify "government" but not "or another person"? Subsection (1) has "government or another person," but this one leaves out "or another person." Why?

Hon. P. Bell: This section is interpreted as meaning that if the three parties — meaning Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan — agree on a specific resolution to a claim brought, an arbitration panel cannot overrule the agreement of the three parties.

J. Kwan: Sorry. I forgot to ask this one question.

Section 2 is also retroactive to July 2010. Could the minister please advise why it is retroactive to 2010? And given that the House, albeit we only sat for four days in February of this year…. Why didn't we debate it at that time? Was the agreement not signed and in force and effect at that time, or did the government just choose not to bring it up for debate until now?

Hon. P. Bell: The agreement was originally signed on April 30 of 2010. So July 1 was the date that it became active. Then there's the transitional period that we've debated already and discussed already that is in place.

Albeit the four days in February will go down in my memory as some of the fondest days in this Legislative Assembly that we've ever had, it was completely contained with debates on both budget and throne speeches, and there was no legislation either tabled or budgeted, which I believe is in accordance with the standing orders of the House.

J. Kwan: That would have been the choice of the government, though. The government could have tabled legislation. The opposition was, in fact, expecting legislation. The government chose not to bring legislation to the House and delayed, I guess, this debate until such time. I say that because I think it is important to note.

This was brought into effect in July of last year. The government could have chosen to…. In anticipation of bringing this bill into the House, in anticipation of this bill coming into effect, this agreement coming into effect, they could have brought in legislation prior to July for debate and first passage so that it would not be retroactive.

We're dealing with retroactive debate back to last year, and there was another opportunity in February. It's true that debate was contained only to budget and throne speech debate, but that was the choice of the government. The government could have chosen to introduce legislation on this matter back in February, but it chose not to do that and wanted to wait until now for this debate.

It's been almost a full year since the agreement has been in place before we're even debating it in this House, and I would argue that that's not appropriate. It's not because the government didn't know that they had this agreement in place. They knew, but they chose not to actually bring it to this House for debate, and I think that's inappropriate.

[1655]

I just wanted to say that to highlight the fact that there are several clauses within this bill that are retroactive back to July, and for all the same reasons that I had stipulated before, the government should have brought this into the House for debate. That would have been
[ Page 6784 ]
respecting the procedures in this House and what we're meant to do as legislators in this assembly.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Kwan: Section 3 deals with the cabinet's authority, where a minister could be assigned by order-in-council to be in charge of the powers, duties and discretion that the government has given it under this agreement. Could the minister advise: what sort of orders-in-council might he be anticipating that would be brought into place in relation to this agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not anticipating any further orders-in-council, except the one that would put me responsible for this ministry, responsible for the agreement.

J. Kwan: Are there specific areas that might be on the minister's agenda that he might be bringing forward — orders-in-council for the cabinet to consider specifically related to this? Are there any issues percolating at this moment?

Hon. P. Bell: Not at this time, but as I have stated a few times already today, ministers get together annually to review the TILMA agreement. If there are any changes that are negotiated mutually, then those changes may be made by regulation or by an amendment through the House, depending on the nature of the agreement. So at this time I have no particular items that I'm considering, but that's not to say that somewhere in the future that might not change.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Kwan: Section 4 in terms of the retroactivity issue applies again here. I won't repeat my comments, but suffice it to say that those comments I just made earlier apply here as well.

Now, this also talks about the regulations that would be implemented related to this act. The regulation-making authority expires, actually, after two years, and of course, this would be an implementation of July 1, 2010. So we're almost through the first year, actually, with respect to that.

Again, on this issue in terms of regulations, is the minister expecting any regulations that he might be bringing forward in relation to this agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: We're not anticipating having to use this at this point in time.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

J. Kwan: Section 5 deals with the College of Applied Biology Act. Just for the public record, this section of the act allows the minister to request the College of Applied Biology to amend or repeal any bylaws that conflict with the agreement — that is, the new west partnership trade agreement. Again, this section is also retroactive back to July 2010.

I wonder if the minister or the ministry had any conversations with those involved in the College of Applied Biology? And what are their comments related to this section of the act or this agreement altogether?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm joined here by Peter Trotzki, who is with the Ministry of Environment.

[1700]

There was consultation done. Saskatchewan does not have a college at this point in time, and there were no concerns raised.

M. Sather: On the College of Applied Biology Act, it seems to me my recollection is that there were quite a number of acts that had references to TILMA, and so I'm just wondering why the new west partnership trade agreement is being applied to this act. Aren't there a number of others that…?

Hon. P. Bell: All the other colleges were dealt with at the time TILMA was introduced. The college of biologists was the final one that needed to be included.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

J. Kwan: Sections 7 to 9 actually change the definition in the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act to include awards issued under the new west partnership trade agreement and the agreement on internal trade. Prior to this amendment, TILMA awards were the only trade agreements captured by the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act. So is this simply — I think it is, if I'm reading it correctly — just really a consequential amendment to the act to include the new west trade partnership agreement so that there is that mechanism in which it would follow through? Is it just that?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

On the title.
[ Page 6785 ]

J. Kwan: I do have one quick question about the title. I don't understand it. It says: "New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act." Why is it called the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act? Maybe there's a history lesson here, but I just don't get the "New West" part. Maybe the minister can enlighten me.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't think there's any science behind the name. The three Premiers discussed it and loved it, and it's here today to be embraced by all who endure this chamber.

J. Kwan: Just a quick comment about that. I have to say when it was first introduced to the House, where it said New West Partnership Trade Agreement, I actually thought, Madam Chair, it was your constituency that was signing on to some sort of trade agreement that we didn't know about. That's why I asked the question for clarity. That's all.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Bell: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:04 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1705]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — new west partnership
trade agreement implementation act

Bill 5, New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. P. Bell: I move Bill 6, intituled Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — civil forfeiture amendment
act, 2011

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill creates a new part in the Civil Forfeiture Act called "Administrative Forfeiture." The Civil Forfeiture Act has been operational since May of 2006. In that time nearly 250 forfeitures have taken place. That's nearly $17 million that have been forfeited from gangs, drug dealers and those involved in securities fraud, to name a few.

During this time the civil forfeiture office has come to realize that nearly one-third of these forfeitures were completely uncontested. The civil forfeiture office has also turned down many low-value matters, just $1,000 or $2,000 seized from local drug dealers. Except those cases where there are very significant public interests, the cost of litigating these matters simply outweighs the value that can be expected.

When civil forfeiture is unable to accept a case, what the police find more often than not is drug dealers coming into the police station a few months later and requesting that the money be returned. If criminal forfeiture wasn't sought or charge approval wasn't granted, then that's the only option. The police have to give the money back, allowing these criminal enterprises to carry on.

If there is no economic consequence for the activity, the activity is likely to continue. These dealers funnel their money up the chain, and this distribution network produces substantial income for those at the top and fuels crime committed by those who buy the drugs.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Administrative forfeiture seeks to divert that one-third of cases that are uncontested and add hundreds of referrals into a more streamlined, cost-effective administrative process.

The act does not impinge on anyone's rights. Anyone can contest the administrative forfeiture within 60 days of the notice being issued. If someone contests, then the matter will go through the existing civil court process, including the right to a full trial.

Even after the 60-day period, someone can still bring a court action before a Supreme Court judge, challenging whether the administrative process ought to have been applied in this case. But for those cases where it is expected that no one will contest the forfeiture, this process will result in significant cost savings. These cost savings can in turn be invested in additional grants and programs aimed at preventing unlawful activities — for instance, the many successful programs undertaken by the Abbotsford police department.

Those programs have seen police officers go to every middle school and high school and every major civic event to continually restate the message that unlawful activity and gang affiliation will lead to jail or to death, and to provide information and resources for kids who are in need.

In conclusion, this legislation is another step in improving community safety and reducing profits associated with unlawful activities.
[ Page 6786 ]

K. Corrigan: I'm pleased to rise and speak on Bill 6, which I believe we will be supporting, but I certainly have some concerns about it that I would like to talk about this afternoon.

Frankly, I would love to be standing here discussing bills and policies and programs instead of Bill 6, which talks about the civil forfeiture of criminal proceeds. I would rather be talking about policies and programs that would address the root problems of crime — plans like a poverty reduction plan and programs like a universal publicly funded child care program and budgets that would improve the earnings and working conditions of low-wage earners in British Columbia.

[1710]

We do know the stresses that poverty puts on families in British Columbia. In those families, and for the children who live in those families, they are at a much higher risk of becoming involved in crime.

I also believe it's important when we're looking at pieces of legislation like this that we need to be very careful in the balance that we strike, the balance that we find between the efficient and effective delivery of services — of public services, getting the best bang for the buck, making things easier, more administratively easy — and the recognizing of the rights and protections and the civil liberties of individuals. So while it is likely that we will support this bill, I do have some concerns about its operation and about its impact, which I will mention in a few minutes.

This builds on the Civil Forfeiture Act, which was passed in 2005. The Civil Forfeiture Act allows the government to request the court to declare proceeds and instruments of crime be forfeited to the Crown. This amendment would allow the government to complete a forfeiture of property without the intervention of the courts if the owners do not contest the forfeiture.

It creates a process for the administrative forfeiture of proceeds and instruments of crime. So anytime you remove something from the justice system where all the checks and balances of the justice system are in place, I think you have to look at it very closely and say: "What is the impact on the people involved, and is the protection of justice and the protections for the individuals and their rights being maintained?" My comments certainly are cognizant of concerns about individual protections.

The Civil Forfeiture Act was passed in 2005. I guess there's only been one full trial that's happened so far, although there were lots of previous interim orders and settlements, and sometimes abandonment of contesting. So that's the situation we're talking about now.

There is a director under the Civil Forfeiture Act, and it is the director who is responsible for pursuing the civil forfeiture of proceeds and instruments of crime. It is the director that sells forfeited items and places the money in a special fund. There's a special fund used to aid victims and assist with crime prevention.

So I was very pleased to meet with the director of civil forfeiture to get some background and insight and ask some questions about this bill.

There are four ways that the money can be used from civil forfeiture: crime prevention, administration of the act, crime remediation or returning money to victims of crime that have been directly affected by the crime that is being discussed in any particular case.

I asked the director…. I was interested in exactly how the decisions are made about where the money goes, because I noted that recently, in February, there was a big government announcement, complete with pretty pictures and so on, about a forfeited drug Hummer that was then wrapped with anti-gang messaging. What happened was that a Hummer that had been forfeited in Victoria was then given to the Abbotsford police department to discourage youth from gang and criminal activity.

Certainly, when I saw this announcement in February, I thought: "Well, I wonder how that happened." I spoke to the mayor of Burnaby, who said: "Well, you know, I would have loved to have gotten a Hummer too, and I'm not really sure how that happened, but nobody told me that there were Hummers available to fight crime."

I would note…. I'm sure it's not at all relevant; it has nothing to do with the fact that there are several Liberal MLAs, directly, that represent the Abbotsford area.

[1715]

Apparently, in that case the Hummer was given to Abbotsford police for two years in order to fight crime, which is kind of interesting, because what the legislation actually says is that the director is required to sell whatever are the proceeds of crime, to sell the Hummer, or to sell whatever they managed to get under the act. But in this case I guess what happened was that they said: "Yes, we will be selling it, but we'll do it later. So it'll be a couple years from now." So I'm not sure whether that's exactly in the spirit of the act.

I think it's very important when you have an act like this, and now particularly when you're going to have processes where we will not be going to court, that everything be completely transparent and fair and that everybody has equal access, and if there is access by municipalities, too, for crime prevention, that it be fair and open and transparent.

The legislation seems to have two goals: to reduce crime and improve justice by taking away illicit gains and tools of criminals and giving that money back to victims, and to provide another avenue of attack on organized crime where criminal prosecution is too difficult.

It's interesting. When we met with the director, we were assured that using this as a substitute for criminal prosecutions was not the intention of the legislation. However, it is also interesting that with the legislation to date, essentially all or almost all of the cases that have been tried that have been directed to the civil forfeiture director are all ones where there was no criminal con-
[ Page 6787 ]
viction. There may not have even been a criminal charge. In many cases there's not even a criminal charge.

So that again raises the question…. I think most people originally thought — and maybe I'm wrong on this — that what would happen was that you would have a civil forfeiture when you had a criminal conviction, but that is not necessary at all. So what can happen is that you can have a case go to the RCMP, be investigated by the RCMP, and then Crown counsel gets the case. Crown counsel may decide either not to prosecute, or they may decide to prosecute and they're not successful in a prosecution of, say, a drug case or some other criminal case.

Nevertheless, though there is not enough evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt — which, of course, is the standard of proof in a criminal case — the information can then be forwarded to the director, and proceedings can start under the Civil Forfeiture Act. It's very possible that that same property like the truck or like a house or like any other property that is being used in conjunction with that crime could end up being taken, even though there is no chance or even an intention or even an attempt to actually have somebody be convicted or having a criminal case against them.

So again, that raises questions, at least, and concerns about the use of the legislation. Of course, when you're now saying, with this legislation…. What this legislation says is that in those cases where there is nobody disputing, as long as the amount of money involved is not over $75,000, as long as it's not actually a piece of property, real property — a home or a piece of land — those kinds of cases, the director can merely give notice and go through the appropriate procedures, and if somebody does not contest it, then it will automatically be forfeited.

So this is taking away from the courts and the protection of the courts and putting it in the hands of the director to make a decision that he's going to go that route. If somebody doesn't contest it, then it doesn't go to court, and the protections that are built into the court system — fairness and so on — will not be there.

[1720]

It does put a certain amount of power in the hands of the director. I'm certainly not going to in any way suggest that this power will not be used appropriately, but I think any time you do that — when you take power away from the courts and you give it to, essentially, a civil servant — you have to be very careful about that power and make sure that the civil liberties and the rights of individuals who will be affected are protected.

I think it's sometimes easy just to say that everybody who was involved in criminal activity — or their spouses or their associates, their friends, their children, even — are all bad people. So I think you have to be careful that that net doesn't catch some of the people who are associated with those that are committing crime. I have no problem with us taking the proceeds of crime directly from somebody who is committing a crime, but I want to be very sure that when we are doing that, we are not also hurting somebody who may be associated with that person.

I'm thinking particularly…. I'll talk particularly about a situation that I did ask the director about, and I have some concerns about. If, say, a man were to — or a woman; a husband or wife…. Let's say in this case a man was to have a vehicle that was registered in his name, and he were to use that vehicle to commit a crime. That vehicle would then become subject to forfeiture. Let's say he used that vehicle to commit a crime. I don't know what, but say he committed a crime.

Actually, it doesn't even have to be a Criminal Code offence. It can be a provincial offence of another kind. It could be a driving offence. But if there was an offence committed, even if whatever court it was decided that they did not want to go ahead and prosecute, either as a criminal act in the Provincial Court or in some other offence in the Provincial Court…. Even if they decided they did not want to go ahead and prosecute, that car could be forfeited.

In a case like that, I thought: "What about if the wife, actually, even though she's not the registered owner, was the person who drove the car most of the time, and to her, it was a really important thing?" My concern is that we can then have somebody like that who may not come forward. Who knows what the relationship is between a man and a woman? Sometimes there can be power imbalances. Sometimes there can be reasons — intimidation or whatever — that a woman would not come forward and say: "This is actually my car. I drive it all the time, or I rely on it, even though it's not in my name."

I'm not suggesting that that type of situation necessarily would end up resulting in this woman being disadvantaged and not being able to have a vehicle — somebody who may not be happy being in that situation, may not want to be part of a life of crime. I'm not saying it would, because there is a certain amount of discretion that the director had.

The director said that that would not be a case where we would go ahead and forfeit a vehicle. But what that points to me, again, is that we are then relying on the director of civil forfeiture to be making an administrative decision based on humanitarian grounds, fairness and so on, which to me signals that this is perhaps an area that should be in the courts — that it is the courts that should be making those kind of decisions.

We may not oppose this on the basis of that, but I do have some concerns about the operation of it. Of course, I want to repeat again that I'm not in any way impugning or suggesting that the director of civil forfeiture would not make the right decision in each and every case. But every time you move away from public, protected decisions, and when you're looking at the rights of people,
[ Page 6788 ]
when you move away from the courts to an administrative process, I think you run the risk of rights not being protected.

[1725]

The possibility is there, and I'm not saying it's going to be, but certainly this bill extends the possibility of that happening.

As I said, in this case what could happen is that when it is a case…. If the tests have been met — if it's $75,000 or less, if it's not a piece of real property — then simply by giving notice and going through a process of giving notice and advertising in the Gazette and so on…. I can't remember what all the requirements are, but going through that process…. Then if a person does not contest it, they can lose that property, and they won't have a chance to speak. So I certainly have those concerns about this particular case.

I know that organizations like B.C. Civil Liberties have expressed…. Other civil liberties groups have pointed out some concerns with the original act, which perhaps will be amplified by this because of the fact that it will not go before the courts in these situations. Some of the comments they have made pointed out that forfeiture is available even when there is no conviction, as I said earlier, and even where no charges are laid. So certainly we're not the only ones that are raising these issues, but civil liberties groups have said that as well.

They've expressed concerns that there could be a design or a plan to allow targeting of criminal enterprises where it would be difficult to secure a criminal conviction. This is one that I also raised with the director. There could be a pressure — I'm not saying there's going to be — for police departments or Crown counsel to say: "You know, this is going to be a really expensive criminal trial that we're going to have to go through. There are piles of paperwork. It's going to eat up court time."

The courts are already under a huge amount of pressure. We've heard about cuts to the courts. We've heard about the wait-lists for courts, and I'll certainly talk about that again in a minute. But we know that the court system is being underfunded and that there's a huge amount of pressure on judges, sheriffs and so on.

So I think that we should be concerned about the possibility. It may not happen, but we should be concerned about the possibility that it could seem to be convenient. When you balance, on one side, going through an expensive trial and having to get a conviction of somebody…. You know, people say: "Well, the penalties may not be that much anyways." And you balance on the other side and say, "Well, we could, instead, go through a civil forfeiture," and take up to, under the original act, an unlimited, I believe, amount of property. There've been houses that have been forfeited and so on.

My concern is that it is possible that this could be a backdoor way in which to target criminal enterprises instead of going through the process of a trial, where sometimes the penalties are not that substantial, and certainly the fines are not that substantial — certainly not as substantial as it would be taking a house.

That is another concern that has been raised by B.C. Civil Liberties about this act, the original act, and certainly would apply to the new bill — that the forfeiture might be worse than a sentence that could be imposed.

[1730]

Minor offences are usually punishable by moderate fines, so civil forfeiture could actually result in forfeiture of property of greater value than the amount of the potential criminal fine, and that has happened.

To take it to the extreme, you could say that if you run a red light, that is unlawful behaviour. The car then becomes an instrument of that offence, and if you own the car, it could be forfeit. So the red light ticket is obviously much less than the value of your car.

I'm not suggesting that this has happened or that it is going to happen. But I think we always have to…. When we are balancing and looking at the pros and cons of legislation, and especially if we're looking now at this being administrative processes, I think you need to be very careful in protecting the rights of even criminals and making sure that what is happening is appropriate. B.C. Civil Liberties did express concern, saying that we need to tread very carefully when it comes to confiscating personal property.

There is an appeal process. There's the possibility for judicial review under the new Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, which is what this is called. There is the possibility for a judicial review, but there are also some concerns about that because if a decision has been made of forfeiture, then in order to come back later and challenge that forfeiture would be an expensive process. There are many people in society that couldn't afford to come back later. So it could be expensive.

I do note that under the amendment act…. Other than the Hummer, which is out there on the streets and hasn't been liquidated yet, what's usually going to happen with the proceeds of crime, whatever it is — a car or whatever — is going to get sold. What you could recover if you were to challenge later and come back and appeal is not necessarily the value. Even if you're successful, you don't get the value of the property that is lost.

You could, if that's the amount that is recovered. But unfortunately, if something is perhaps sold at auction at a much lower rate, then you get that lower rate. So somebody could be hurt financially even if they are successful.

The process can only be used if it is not real estate, as I said. The property is worth less than $75,000. The property is in B.C. The property is in the possession of a public body; in fact, they've gotten it. Also, the intention of it is that all the owners were involved in the unlawful activity. Now, I was happy to see that. But my concern about it is that Bill 6 says that what…. The intention is
[ Page 6789 ]
that all the owners were involved in the unlawful activity and to protect protected interest owners in relation to that property.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

A protected interest owner means "a person who (a) owns a registered interest in the whole or a portion of the subject property, and (b) did not directly or indirectly engage in the unlawful activity that is the basis of forfeiture under this Act." But section 12(2) of the original act says: "A person who indirectly engaged in the unlawful activity that is the basis of the application referred to in subsection (1) (a) includes, without limitation, a person who had knowledge of the unlawful activity and received a financial benefit from the unlawful activity."

[1735]

Again, a couple of concerns related to that.

Hello, Madam Chair. You've changed.

It is leaving to the judgment of the director whether or not there are any protected interest holders. Again, I'm thinking of that situation of a spouse — say, a wife — whose husband uses her vehicle and commits a crime. That is the one that I'm particularly concerned about. What if the vehicle is registered in the name of the husband but, in fact, the wife is the one who has possession of and uses the car all the time? Those are the kinds of hardship situations that we will then be leaving to the director to make a decision about.

Now, it's only if that person does not contest, and I fully understand that if somebody contests this forfeiture, then it goes back into the court process and the protections of fairness and so on that were in the original court process will kick in. But I am concerned that somebody might not contest, and then those protections will not be there.

In addition, a protected interest holder must have a registered interest in the property. But you know, there are so many types of property that are not registered in any way. Now, my understanding is that the reason for describing it as a registered property…. A lot of it was to do with property that was registered — to do with banks, liens and those kinds of things. In other words, it's to protect the property of banks, liens, mortgages, all sorts of different things.

Those kinds of things would naturally need to be protected, and I certainly would support that. But there are all sorts of property where somebody might actually have an interest in it but there is no registered interest. My understanding from talking to the director was that the property that will be covered by this legislation includes things like jewelry. That was one that was mentioned by the director. There is an example of a piece of property where there would be probably no registered interest of, perhaps, a wife, again, or a partner, a husband, who would say they are the owner, but there would be no registered interest to it as well.

So the director provides notice to owners that he's seeking forfeiture of the property to the Crown. The owners have 60 days to file a dispute with the director, and if there's no dispute, the property is forfeit. I always thought it was "forfeited," but people keep using the word "forfeit." Maybe my friend will explain that one to me.

If there is a dispute, the director has 30 days to decide whether to use the original court process or abandon the forfeiture attempt. So the notice that I talked about…. Again, we want to make sure that people's rights are protected. There's registering notice of forfeiture in the personal property register; giving written notice to the person who had the property when it was seized and to the owners of the property if they know — again, if they're a registered owner — and to the public body that is holding the property; and publishing a notice in the local papers or in the Gazette.

Owners have 60 days, after notice is sent, to file a dispute. If there is a dispute, then the director has 30 days to decide whether to go to court, and if the director goes to court, the original process applies. If the director does not go to court, there's no forfeiture. An owner who missed the 60-day window to file a dispute has two years to file a civil suit against the government to recover the value of the forfeit property. But as I said earlier, if the property is sold, then it is going to be either the value of the property or less, if it was sold for less than the original value of it.

There are certainly advantages, but they're double-edged swords, these advantages. I think there is an advantage of reducing the strain on the courts, and we've talked about the strain that is on the courts.

[1740]

I do hope that government is not making decisions about processes to remove them from the courts on the basis that it will remove the strain on the courts. It is absolutely essential that things that should be decided or dealt with in court continue to be dealt with in court. We certainly know that we've had years and years, frankly, of Liberal budget cuts to judges and to court services, to prosecution services, to sheriffs and to legal aid.

We've seen, through some of the questions that we've been asking in this House, that the justice system is in chaos, with huge court backlogs resulting in very serious cases being thrown out. So I truly hope that this is not a backdoor way to try to deal with some of that backlog, which should be appropriately dealt with by properly funding a transparent and fair court system.

Certainly, this will make the process for civil forfeitures quicker. My understanding is that it can certainly vary — the amount of time that there is a civil forfeiture, from beginning to end. It can range from just several months to years. I know that one of the motivations — and I certainly understand this — is that there
[ Page 6790 ]
will be reduced costs to the director. But again, we do not want to have reduced costs in our system if we are giving up the civil liberties of individuals who deserve protection.

Now, the final thing that I want to mention is that what we have here is a further shifting of the burden from government proving guilt to individuals proving innocence. It does concern me that that is happening. If somebody does not dispute and they come back later, then they need to prove their case. Again, it's only 50 percent plus one. So we are moving from a proof of beyond a reasonable doubt to a 50 percent plus one on the balance of probabilities that something is the proceeds of crime and can be removed from somebody.

Finally, there is a limit of $75,000, and it does not include real property. That, to me, indicates perhaps some small, implicit recognition that this could be subject, possibly, to abuse and that there may be some concerns about the civil liberties and the rights of individuals who are affected.

As I said at the beginning, I would prefer that we were talking about ways that we can eliminate crime through reducing poverty, providing supports to the stressed families that end up being the breeding ground for crime — young people who grow up in poverty. I prefer to be talking about that. While I do have some concerns about civil liberty and balancing the rights of individuals, I think, overall, that we will probably support this bill, but we will watch its implementation closely in the future.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to speak today in favour of Bill 6, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. This bill is an amendment to the Civil Forfeiture Act that was passed by this House in 2005, which established a civil forfeiture office in the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

The way the act works is as a supplement to the normal criminal justice process under the Criminal Code. I agree that it should only be a supplement; it is never a substitute for a properly functioning criminal justice system.

In the normal course of things, the police investigate alleged criminal activity and complete a report to Crown counsel. Crown makes a decision as to whether or not to pursue criminal charges in court and whether the test would be met. Once the charging decision is made by Crown counsel, the director of the civil forfeiture office is free to examine the police file, based on a referral from the police.

[1745]

The director considers whether or not the evidence gathered by the police will support an application to the court to seize assets. Eligible assets under the act include any assets that represent the proceeds of crime or were used in the commission of crime: vehicles, houses, properties, cash, equipment, firearms and jewelry, etc., are all eligible assets for the director of the civil forfeiture office to consider.

An application for a civil forfeiture decision by a judge is not dependent on a guilty finding in the criminal justice system against the person or people involved. The test that must be met is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and, as such, is a very high test against the person in the criminal justice system. In the civil forfeiture application to seize assets, the evidentiary standard is a balance of probabilities.

As I've said, civil forfeiture involves an action in civil court against property rather than a person. It does not depend on any criminal charges against or the conviction of an individual, but rather, it requires the province to prove that the property in question is a tool or proceed of unlawful activity. This proof must meet the civil standards: that is, the balance of probabilities, rather than the higher standard required to secure a criminal conviction against the person.

The aspect of having to meet a lower standard of evidence is an attractive feature of the civil forfeiture legislation. But, again, it is not a substitute for criminal charges against the people involved.

Another attractive feature is that the civil forfeiture office does not have to do a separate investigation. The director can rely on the evidence gathered by the police in the investigation of the crime by the person, even though the civil forfeiture actions are strictly against assets and not the person.

So civil forfeiture is another effective tool that police and enforcement authorities can use to achieve compliance with the law or to punish people who have engaged in illegal activity. This has been a very effective program. In 2006, B.C. became the second Canadian province with a civil forfeiture program targeting the tools and proceeds of unlawful activity. Today seven provinces have such programs.

Of the nearly 250 cases completed to date, the program has yet to lose a case in court. Its success continues to grow, with almost $17 million in proceeds forfeited to the province to date, including $5.3 million in 2010.

In nearly one-third of the cases, individuals have not contested or even responded to the notice of forfeiture, making it eligible for the amendment that the minister has in front of the House today. Last year the civil forfeiture office concluded 74 cases, secured 18 properties, six vehicles and 56 sums of cash.

Under Bill 6 our government is introducing these proposed changes to a very successful Civil Forfeiture Act to streamline the process in particular circumstances. The amendments will make it more cost-effective to go after low-value items and small amounts of cash commonly seized from drug dealers, gang members and other organized crime groups. It will also enable the province to go after more people who threaten the lives
[ Page 6791 ]
of others on our roads, as in the recent high-profile cases where two chronically impaired drivers forfeited their vehicles.

The key change in Bill 6 is a new process called administrative forfeiture. It will apply only in cases where property is worth $75,000 or less and the province's claim goes undisputed. If no one disputes the province's claim within 60 days of notification, the director will be able to dispose of the property. This will greatly reduce the province's legal costs and time commitment. The process will be streamlined — a more cost-effective alternative to the process currently used in the higher-value civil forfeiture cases.

[1750]

This will provide British Columbia with another tool to go after the proceeds of crime in a way that is efficient for taxpayers. It will also help deter unlawful activity, make communities safer and deliver more proceeds back into local crime prevention. The police have been incredibly supportive, and these changes will better help them deal with street-level crime.

The civil forfeiture office is self-funding, and most of the proceeds the program generates go towards funding its operations, including litigation. Of the remaining dollars, the province has provided over $2 million in grants to support community-driven efforts to address local crime.

The ministry invites and vets applications from across British Columbia and announces the details of the programs receiving funding. The non-profit groups funded have provided great value for money and a clear focus on the needs of their communities. Projects have focused on such goals as preventing domestic violence and cyberbullying, helping at-risk children return to school and restorative justice. The civil forfeiture account has also returned $900,000 directly to victims of illegal investment schemes, since the money recovered was rightfully theirs.

Crime prevention is a key goal of the B.C. civil forfeiture program. The Abbotsford police have a record of innovation in giving youth powerful anti-crime, anti-gang and anti-drug education, as the minister has mentioned. Through a unique agreement with the province, the Abbotsford police department has used a seized Hummer SUV to illustrate the high costs of choosing a criminal lifestyle.

In its previous life the 2004 Hummer was used to traffic heroin and evade arrest in Victoria. Its forfeiture coincided with a request from the Abbotsford police department for a vehicle that it could use to display at local schools and community events. Now the Hummer is covered with graphics and messages, which include slogans like "Gang life is a dead end," or another one: "Easy money can get you hard time."

The vehicle's history and the new look will help to reinforce messages about everything that young people can lose when they choose to be involved in gangs. The Abbotsford police department wants youth to know that you can lose your fancy ride, your cash and even your house. More importantly, you can lose your friends and your family members, and your life can be at great risk.

This is the first time that the province is using forfeited property to support crime prevention directly. By agreement, the Abbotsford police department can use the vehicle for two years before returning it to the B.C. civil forfeiture office, which will then sell it in the normal manner.

While I'm talking about innovative policing and public safety, I want to recognize the great work of the Abbotsford police department. Our community, certainly through significant periods in 2008 and 2009, faced some very serious gang issues. Abbotsford police department chief Bob Rich; his deputy chief, Rick Lucy; Const. Ian MacDonald, the APD media spokesman; and Sgt. Mike Novakowski have all been leaders in innovative policing, including the design and delivery of anti-gang projects aimed directly at young people.

Programs such as the youth help line were established to address community concerns around youth involvement in gang activity. The APD, the city of Abbotsford and the Abbotsford school district established a youth help line to assist kids who wanted to get out of gangs. This line was routed to a police officer for 24-7 coverage so that parents, friends and youth involved in gang and drug activities were encouraged to call the number to break free of the circumstances that put them at risk.

[1755]

Another program, entitled Operation Tarnish, was launched in September 2009. Operation Tarnish: Taking the Shine Off the Gang Lifestyle, was the program to coincide with the start of the school year. The intention of this initiative was to prevent young people from being lured by the alleged appeal of a life that includes gangs and drugs.

Operation Impact: Warning, Informing and Encouraging. This one-hour audiovisual- and presentation-based program exposed secondary students not only to the realities that have been part of the previous initiatives but also focused on positive accomplishments of the vast majority of young people in the community.

There was also a program directed at parents, known as Operation Lodestar. Lodestar means one who serves as a guide or model. Crime prevention starts at home. This program was intended as preventative efforts focused on parents and other caregivers who play a crucial role in public safety and crime prevention and who need to start at an early age. This program was promoted by Chief Bob Rich and Mayor George Peary by visiting schools and doing 13 different presentations.
[ Page 6792 ]

The poster that I particularly liked showed a very young child, probably about a six-year-old boy, dressed up like a gangster. At the top it said: "When I grow up, I want to be just like daddy." But then the directive to parents was that kids learn what they live. Be the parent that your child needs.

So these are some of the kinds of preventative programs that can be funded by the civil forfeiture account and the surplus revenues that it generates.

In closing, it is important to note that the civil forfeiture is another tool. It is not a substitute for an effective and timely criminal justice system. I believe that civil forfeiture is an innovative addition to a comprehensive approach to achieving a higher level of public safety in our communities.

I commend the minister for bringing Bill 6 forward. It will shorten time frames, save taxpayers money and improve recovery of assets which are used in criminal activity or represent proceeds of criminal activity.

I also want to commend the work of the staff, the progressive work that's done in the ministry in the design of the legislation and those working in the civil forfeiture office. I also celebrate the work of all our B.C. police forces, which bring forward the evidence that provides the foundation for a judge to issue a seizure order through the civil court process.

Going after criminal activity will become more effective with this bill.

L. Krog: First, I want to commend the members who spoke before me — the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, who gave a thoughtful response to the introduction of this bill; and the member for Abbotsford South, likewise, for a very thoughtful presentation.

Some of my remarks may indeed surprise some of the members of the House.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Ah, they're all anxiously waiting.

I would like to think that one of the things that brought most of us — indeed, hopefully, all of us — here was a sense of what it is when there is injustice in society.

I've had a note to indicate they may wish me to be somewhat briefer than I would normally be, but nevertheless, I don't wish to take direction on this particular bill.

It is that sense of injustice that people in communities across this province feel, and when they hear of criminal charges that have failed for whatever reason, whether it be an acquittal or charges being dropped, or cases being dismissed because of evidentiary evidence that is inadmissible, the community develops a sense of frustration about our justice system.

What the proposal before the House today — Bill 6, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act — essentially does is, if you will, streamline a process that was supported by members on both sides of this House when it was introduced.

[1800]

I appreciate the concerns of many members who raised the issue around civil liberties, if you will. As I recall, the Reform Party in the '90s was a big proponent of enshrining the concept of property rights in the constitution. I always thought that whole concept was inconsistent with the idea of a civilized society, because society is not about property. It is about people.

There is nothing in this bill that I think touches in any real way on the civil liberties of British Columbians. What this bill speaks to is what I started to say earlier, and that is a sense of injustice.

When you live in a community and you see people who are profiting from activities that are criminal in nature, even though they may not be proved in a court of law, and when you see individuals living an extraordinary lifestyle based on wealth accumulated through crime — and for which, I might add, they're probably paying no income tax, of course — then members of the public become outraged. They become distrustful of our justice system, and they have a sense that something is just not right.

As a lawyer, I recognize that there is potentially a remedy for every wrong, but justice is not always done in our system. What Bill 6 proposes to do is simply further the goals of the original act, and that goal was to reduce crime, improve justice and provide another avenue of attack on organized crime.

Now, I know that there are many in this province who have very strong views about the decriminalization of the use of all kinds of drugs, whether it's marijuana, whether it's cocaine, heroin or whatever. But that is a debate for another day. Many in the community sense that the Civil Forfeiture Act was designed to go after people who use illicit drugs, that it was aimed at what they would see as a private right — the right to use whatever substance they wish. That has in some respects clouded this debate.

As long as we have laws, they need to be enforced. They need to be successful. By successful I mean that they have to develop respect for our society and our common values. They must be seen to be administered fairly.

I come back to my point. When you have a loan shark in a community who is profiting from those activities and they cannot be successfully prosecuted; when you have a fraud artist who takes advantage of citizens in our community, innocent people; when you see that happen and you cannot successfully prosecute…. Notwithstanding all the talk that's taken place around this bill today about the sense that it is not to punish, surely we can at least, as a society, take away those ill-gotten gains.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with that concept? Is there something wrong with the concept that
[ Page 6793 ]
those who do not participate in society in a full and responsible way, as all of us do, by paying their taxes, by obeying the laws, by working for what they get…. Is there anything wrong with taking away from those who flout all those rules, who take advantage of others? Is there anything wrong with taking away their ill-gotten gains?

What we're really talking about in this bill is a cost issue. Let's put it in its crassest terms. The chief justice of Canada herself, presidents of the bar associations in the various provinces, the chief justice of British Columbia have all commented about the cost of our justice system, and they're speaking about the access to the civil side of it — not the criminal side, the civil side. In other words, is it worthwhile suing anybody anymore when it costs you so much to achieve justice in the court system?

What the government is really saying here today is: "Look, in those particular cases where the cost of proceeding is significant and the amount of money involved is…." I realize that for many British Columbians, $75,000 will indeed seem to be a very big number.

[1805]

In those cases, the cost of proceeding versus the probability or likelihood of recovery makes it prohibitive, particularly in those cases where there is no contest. If I loaned the member for Abbotsford South $10,000 and he didn't pay it back to me and I sued him and was successful, I might have to spend a lot of money to do it. But if the member for Abbotsford South chose not to contest it because he knew he owed me the money, to use a simple example, I would be able to get a fairly simple default judgment.

What is being proposed here is if someone who is being accused of profiting from crime doesn't contest the application of the state to take those proceeds of crime, to seize them, why should the state be put to unnecessary legal expense in order to obtain the proceeds of those crimes — or the proceeds of an unlawful activity, to put it in its broadest sense?

The legislation is very clear. Let's not beat around the bush. You don't have to be convicted to lose your ill-gotten gains. That's very clear in the legislation. But if one chooses not to contest it, why should the taxpayers, the citizens of British Columbia who are paying for this process, be put to unnecessary expense? Why should they be put to unnecessary expense in order to ensure that proceeds of crime and unlawful activities, illegal activities, aren't kept by those who perpetrate it? It's not an unreasonable proposition.

I think most British Columbians applying the commonsense test that I'd like to think we bring to legislation that comes in this House would say: "You know what? This is a sensible idea." They might even be surprised that the process wasn't put in place when the original bill was brought in.

But what has experience taught us? I think it's important to look at the experience of the legislation, notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised in the past about the Civil Forfeiture Act. The first full trial under the act took place in November 2010, although there have been numerous previous summary decisions, interim orders and settlements.

This is a civil matter. If you're coming after me and you seize a great deal, maybe I make you an offer. That is the reality of ordinary civil litigation between private parties in our society. Sometimes you settle; sometimes you don't. Sometimes you realize the cost of defending isn't worth it, particularly when you know that what you have are the proceeds of unlawful activity.

So what the government is saying simply here is: "Look, if you're not going to defend, why should we go to extraordinary expense to defend a supposed right that you have if you can't be bothered to defend it yourself?"

It's maybe not the best analogy, but I would remind the members of this House that Al Capone didn't go to jail on the basis of all his shenanigans that involved murder and mayhem in Chicago. He went to jail for tax evasion. That's a point I want to emphasize in my remarks today. Much of what we're talking about that the government is able to seize are moneys on which people are not paying taxes.

Now, I know my name has been associated with taxes for a very long time, and I like taxes. They're the price of what you pay to belong to a civilized society. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it, exactly those words. It is the price you pay to belong to a civilized society.

So what is wrong with legislation that essentially says to those people who have not paid taxes on the money they've obtained through illegal activities…? What's wrong with taking that money and then using it in a way that improves justice and that provides an avenue of attack on organized crime? The money is used to aid victims. It's used to assist with crime prevention.

You don't have to be the most observant individual if you want to spend time on the grounds of a high school and see a 17- or 18-year-old kid who's driving a hot car, who doesn't come from a wealthy home, to know that they're not earning it working at McDonald's. They're not earning it working at Wendy's. They are selling drugs for a living.

Setting aside, as I said earlier, the issue of what you believe about people's right to use substances of any kind, when that person cannot be convicted criminally yet retains the proceeds of illegal activity, it sends an example to others, and that is a very poor example.

[1810]

There is a double benefit here. Even if you can't convict, you can at least get the proceeds, and you can send a message, more importantly, to our young people that the activity being undertaken is not one that society will condone, that it is wrong.

If we're not prepared to do that, then what we're really doing is saying that, frankly, crime does pay. If that's the
[ Page 6794 ]
message society wants to send, so be it. But I think I can say — tongue in cheek, obviously — that there isn't a member in this chamber who would support the concept that crime should pay.

Those who choose to do so should pay a price. Even though the legislation does not talk about the concept of punishment, I think it is one way of sending the signal to the communities in which we live and to the citizens who work hard, who obey the law, who strive their best day in and day out; and to the police who place their lives on the line every day across this province that we are listening, that we actually care and that we are prepared to take action within the law against those who choose to ignore society's values, to ignore society's conventions, to ignore society's rules, if you will, the rules by which civilized people conduct themselves.

We are all part of some community wherever we live. We all have a role and an obligation as citizens. When we as a society set a standard, it is a standard that all of us should meet. Those that choose to involve themselves in activities that go against the values of a civilized society should not be seen nor should they profit by it.

As the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake indicated, with some concerns obviously about civil liberties, if you will, and the issue of property, I'm quite happy to support this legislation. I think its speedy passage is a good thing, because what the experience to date has taught us, with respect to the Civil Forfeiture Act, is that it is successful, that it is sending a signal and that the proceeds are being used wisely.

A debate for another day is…. I have never been a believer in dedicated taxes for any purpose. I think it's a wrong-headed approach to government. My personal view is if it's a priority, you find the money. Dedicating some special tax to it never made much sense. It would be rather like taxing everybody who eats food to benefit the farmers, on that special tax, and no other benefits go to them. It just doesn't make any sense it me. That argument is for another day.

The fact is that right now these moneys are being used for a very good and valuable public purpose. The fact is that in a time when everyone acknowledges that every level of government is revenue-challenged, what is being proposed here is ultimately a way of saving the taxpayers and the citizens money. This is a way of reducing legal costs.

I know some of the members opposite will be shocked that I would ever suggest we should reduce legal costs. I understand that. I would have thought the former Attorney General would have been interested in that comment, but he's not listening to my dulcet tones. I'm quite shocked and hurt.

Apart from that, the fact is that the money that is saved by this process, as outlined in Bill 6, means there will be more money available to prevent crime, more money to assist with teaching people about the evils of crime, more opportunity to drive this message home to the public — that in British Columbia we're not going to let you keep money that you obtained from ill-gotten gains. That's reasonable.

So let the message go out to the smaller loan sharks and the smaller fish that choose to exploit the weak amongst us. Let the message go out to all those who think they can get away with breaking the law. Let the message go out to all those who think that the constitution is there to protect them only and not their fellow citizens.

[1815]

In British Columbia we're going to save some money. We're going to put more money to good causes, and hopefully, this might be the first of many improvements to the Civil Forfeiture Act to ensure that in British Columbia we set a standard of public behaviour that is appropriate to the civilized nature of our society.

D. Hayer: In this second reading of Bill 6, actually, I support the member for Abbotsford South. I definitely support almost everything our member for Nanaimo has said. This is the first time in the last ten years that I have come up and said: "I support…." I mean, he very clearly explained it, and I think we all agree on both sides of the House on this, on Bill 6.

If there is one thing that can discourage crime, it is by making crime unprofitable, and that is what this amendment to the Civil Forfeiture Act is all about. The Civil Forfeiture Act is all about seizing the assets of crime and taking money out of the criminals' pocket and making it quite clear that crime does not pay, as the member for Nanaimo has said too.

This amendment will make it more cost-effective to seize personal property associated with unlawful activity, including even small amounts of cash. It will help send a very strong message to the criminal elements. Anything that we can do to curtail crime, to decrease crime, is very good for everybody who is a law-abiding citizen.

Without this amendment, many cases against drug dealers, gang members and other criminals would not be pursued, especially when it involves the small actions where they don't dispute it, and that does not send a great message. Every law-abiding citizen believes that crime should not and must not pay and that crime should not be profitable.

With this amendment, British Columbia will now become the first province in Canada to establish a streamlined, cost-effective process that can be applied to the property seizures of $75,000 or less, saving the province thousands of dollars in legal cost.

In accordance with the commitment of Premier Christy Clark to put families first, this may be just the first step on cracking down on crime by taking the profit out of it and reducing the incentives for criminal activity. As part of the commitment by the Premier, our government plans to develop new legislation to
[ Page 6795 ]
provide the criminal justice branch with the direction and authority to manage restrained property and dispose of the proceeds forfeited through the criminal law process.

This commitment and this amendment mean a great deal to me and to my law-abiding constituents, because we have all long advocated that all criminal activity, large or small, creates victims. I firmly believe that victims' rights are vastly more important than those of the criminals. Therefore it is right, and I am certain that every one of my constituents in Surrey-Tynehead who are law-abiding and every other person in British Columbia who is law-abiding will agree with this statement — that we have to pass this bill.

Every one of us should and must be able to feel safe in our homes, in our neighbourhoods and in our communities. Even the smallest criminal act destroys the sanctity of the home. Any crime, large or small, can be a devastating invasion in our lives.

Originally, one of the most important aspects of this amendment and one of the components of the Civil Forfeiture Act itself is that any property, any money obtained through it, is invested back into our community for crime prevention initiatives. That is no small thing. To date almost $70 million has been received by the province under this act. That money has gone back into fighting crime, and it is working.

Last year alone the Civil Forfeiture Act concluded 74 cases and secured 18 properties, six vehicles and 56 sums of cash amounting to about $5.6 million. Since the first of this year police across the province have referred 60 new files, and more than 200 cases are ongoing, with a potential net value of assets up for forfeiture of $22.6 million. That is putting a dent in crime.

This amendment will also provide a significant safety aspect. For example, it will allow the province to do something as simple as seize the car of a chronic impaired driver, a chronic drunk driver — in a sense, take him or her off the road and make the streets safer for everybody else in our province.

[1820]

This act and this amendment are not only good for law enforcement and bad for the criminals; this act is needed and welcomed by every law-abiding citizen.

I fully support this amendment. I know my constituents support this amendment. I am certain every law-abiding British Columbian supports this amendment. Again, this makes sense. It makes common sense, and this amendment is what is needed. It will decrease crime. It will make crime less profitable.

Again, in closing, thank you to the minister for introducing this amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Bond: It's one of those rare afternoons in the Legislature where I want to say a very special thank you to the members who have spoken this afternoon. It doesn't matter, apparently, which side of the House we're on today. What matters to us most is that we make sure that court time in British Columbia is reserved for people who deserve it most. Whether they're criminals or gang members, we want our court time taken up for those types of circumstances.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We're also aware of the fact that this will streamline a process, and it will allow us to take the proceeds of crime and actually put them where we need them most, talking about issues like crime prevention and supporting communities in those efforts.

I am very pleased, and I want to say a special thank you to the Attorney General critic, the member for Nanaimo, for his thoughtful commentary. As he walked through the principles of the amendment that is before the House, it was like he was reading my closing scribbles here.

The Civil Forfeiture Act has been extremely successful. It is clearly sending the message, and we agree on that in the House this afternoon, that crime does not pay, and it shouldn't. So I very much want to say ditto to the members that have spoken this afternoon.

We all want to be concerned about protecting the rights of individuals, but this amendment has clearly done that. It has laid out a process where an individual has 60 days to stand up and say: "I dispute that claim." The moment that happens, the court process then becomes the course of action.

I look forward to further discussion of this bill at committee stage, and with that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 6.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. P. Bell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.
[ Page 6796 ]

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

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LABOUR, CITIZENS' SERVICES
AND OPEN GOVERNMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $72,166,000 (continued).

D. Routley: I just have one question and then a summing up, since my portion of the estimates ended without completion on the last day we had this opportunity.

The one question I have for the minister…. Last week we were talking about the Premier's activities in both promoting herself and making announcements in the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey during the by-election and whether the minister thought that was an acceptable use of her staff and her ministry's resources.

Since that time, there was a controversy over the Premier tweeting election-related messages on the government website. When that became an issue, she directed someone to remove those tweets and acknowledge that it should never have been happening.

I'd like to ask the minister: does she not think that's an acknowledgement that there should be a great deal more prudence in her ministry and on her part in making sure that the resources of her ministry, the taxpayers' resources, are not being used in an inappropriate way during the by-election?

[1430]

Has she since, in light of that, sought an opinion from Elections B.C. or a legal opinion to validate the use of her resources in supporting the announcements being made by the Premier during the by-election in Vancouver–Point Grey?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the Premier said earlier today, the Twitter account was left linked to the government site in error. No cost has been incurred by government as a result, and as soon as it was noticed, the Twitter feed was removed from the site to remedy the situation.

As to the other part of the member's question, there is no conflict between the Election Act and recent announcements by the Premier. Her role as Premier doesn't change during the campaign, and nothing in the Election Act prohibits the Premier from continuing her duties and appearances as Premier, including making announcements that benefit the province.

D. Routley: Well, respectfully, I'd say it's up to Elections B.C. to decide whether there's a conflict between the activities of the Premier and the by-election and her obligations to keep those two roles entirely distinct and separate. In fact we have seen the use of public resources in those announcements, whether or not…. I'm sure there was a cost for someone to make those changes to the website, but cost is not necessarily the issue. Interference in the process and an intermingling of the roles is the issue here.

I've run for re-election, and the minister hasn't yet. In the period leading up to the election we are very strictly controlled over even the colour of the ink on paper that goes into our releases, let alone the content, in order to maintain a clear distinction for the public between our roles as their representatives elected and our roles as candidates seeking re-election. That is the issue here — whether or not the Premier has been abusing that distinction. I think it will be up to Elections B.C. to make that determination, not the minister. That's why she should have sought an opinion.

Leaving that aside, I'd like to move on to summing up my impressions of these estimates and my role in them with the minister. This is my third opportunity as Citizens' Services critic to engage in estimates debate. This ministry is an essential component of democracy in that it oversees the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of this province, and that is a fundamental foundation stone of democracy — the people's right to information.

We have seen, as the minister saw with me during her and my role as members of the committee reviewing that act, that the performance of this government over the past ten years is abysmal. We heard from stakeholders who complained of a growing culture of avoidance in terms of their responsibilities to FOI. We hear from the Canadian journalists that this province has the worst record in the country when it comes to FOI.

Now we see enormous government resources, taxpayer dollars, being directed towards an integrated case management data-sharing initiative that failed to provide privacy audits in its conceptual design and implementation stages, despite repeated requests from the then commissioner and the subsequent acting commissioner to do just that. So this has huge privacy implications for the people of B.C. and, therefore, huge implications for their freedoms.
[ Page 6797 ]

We heard the acting commissioner, Paul Fraser, refer to the right to privacy as being as essential as the right to a fair trial, free speech and equality. We need to feel, as British Columbians, that our government is doing an adequate job of protecting that bare and essential right. I think that in this government, through its repeated scandals when it comes to handling people's private information — these enormous scandals that have cost people their sense of well-being as citizens — we have seen a failure.

This government, in my opinion — and this opinion has not changed through these estimates — has turned the act upside down. Freedom of information has been anything but. In fact, we've seen the distinct and sophisticated culture of avoidance in living up to their responsibility to be an open government, and at the same time, privacy protection has been anything but that.

[1435]

We have seen repeated loss of private information, one after the other, having enormous consequences in people's lives.

Now finally, we as the opposition — in the past — would determine how long estimates went. This was before set calendar dates. If this minister's ministry were brought before the committee for review in the budget estimates, the opposition — then the B.C. Liberal opposition — could keep this minister sitting here as long as they deemed necessary. We, the opposition, said when the estimates were over, not the government.

In the '90s the average length of time for budget estimates debate was well over 200 hours. In the late '90s, it was 250 hours or more. This year we have 122 hours — half the time to debate a budget twice as large. That is a really sad commentary on this government and this minister's responsibility to open governance. We have half the time to debate twice the budget. I would like the minister to be able to explain to me how that serves the public interest. But that would probably take too long, because it takes a long time to explain the unexplainable and indefensible.

With that, I'll end my portion of this estimates debate and hand it over to my colleague.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I will just introduce the staff that's joining me here for the Labour portion of the estimates. We have Robert Lapper, Deputy Minister of Labour; to my left, Barb Walman, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour; and behind us, Deborah Fayad, the assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer. I look forward to the questions.

R. Chouhan: I was looking forward to having your opening comments too.

When the budget was tabled by the Finance Minister earlier, we heard him saying that the budget would be status quo, that there would be no changes to the spending projections from last year to this year. That's what we were told. However, when we open the books now and get information in front of us, we find that Labour programs will experience a large cut of 8.6 percent. Employment standards and the Labour Relations Board were hit hard by these cuts.

That's what we want to deal with in my questions to the minister. I'll be asking these questions to find out how it would be impacting those services in the different departments. I hope that the minister will be forthcoming and forthright in answering all these questions.

Now, it's obvious that since 2001 government has done everything, everything in its power, to undermine workers' rights. Bills 27 and 29 are the prime examples that are in front of us. In both cases the government was challenged, and the courts have found it guilty. This has resulted in unnecessary court costs, and millions in taxpayers' money was wasted.

The question in front of us is: after that huge decision by the court, has this government learned any lessons? Have they accepted that their decision to privatize the services in the hospitals was wrong? You know, we did not see that.

[1440]

Today in this budget we will see how it has continued with this old agenda. Also, you know, this government has taken teachers' right to negotiate a fair collective agreement, and that has also been challenged, and we have seen again that this government is guilty.

I have a few more comments, and then I'll ask specific questions to the minister.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

In my view, the minister and this government should apologize to the workers of British Columbia and to the public of British Columbia for its failed policies that we have seen over the last ten years. In last Wednesday's estimates we heard a number of answers from the minister, and we will be questioning those questions and answers, as well, during my time with the minister here today.

During the tough economic times, when the workers lose jobs or their wages and benefits are not paid for, a good government will take steps to protect these vulnerable workers. But the B.C. Liberal government has done the opposite, shutting down the employment standards branch — you know, consolidating these branches into one or two — taking away the ability of the labour relations community to participate in the labour board, deliberately creating an imbalance at the Workers Compensation Board by having only one board member from labour.

This budget shows that this is no longer the Ministry of Labour. Rather, it should be called the ministry against labour. You will see throughout the questioning
[ Page 6798 ]
today, Mr. Chair, that the government's actions are so irresponsible. It shows a total contempt for workers.

I had questions that…. I have already advised the minister that I'll be asking my questions in this manner. First, we'll be dealing with the employment standards branch and the Employment Standards Act, and then the labour board and then, after that, the Workers Compensation Board.

Let me start with…. I also heard, during the debate with my colleague about citizens' services and open government, that the overall ministry budget for Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government went from $599.7 million in the February budget to $565.7 million now, a huge cut of $34 million.

My question to the minister is…. This is an enormous cut. How will it be impacting the services in the Ministry of Labour? Would there be any effect of that seen in the labour side of the ministry?

[1445]

Hon. S. Cadieux: This year there's a budget reduction of $839,000 in the ministry, specifically on the Labour side, and we are managing the reduction through natural attrition. There are no planned layoffs, and there are no adverse impacts to program services as a result of the change.

R. Chouhan: As I mentioned earlier in my opening comment, we have seen 8.6 percent cuts to the labour program this year and only a 0.8 percent cut to the minister's office. What's the justification for that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: When combining the two ministries, we now only have one minister's office, not two. That accounts for the savings.

R. Chouhan: So if the minister-elect has indicated that services will be reduced by attrition only, how many FTEs do we have on the Labour side of the ministry now, and what's the projection in the next year that there would be any reduction in the number of those FTEs?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Through the year, or by the end of the year, we'll have nine fewer people through attrition. But as I said, there will be no layoffs.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister please tell me how many total FTEs were there last year and how many FTEs we have this year?

[1450]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In the core services of the Labour Ministry, there were 386 positions last year. There are 377 now.

R. Chouhan: So as a result of the nine fewer FTEs, what would be the impact on other employees who would still be working? Does it mean that the workload would be increased or that services would be reduced?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are no reductions in services. We're working with staff to ensure that there's no impact on service delivery, and in fact, we're still meeting the 180-day file completion for employment standards.

R. Chouhan: Well, if there's no reduction in providing of services to the public, then how would that be handled? You have fewer people than you had before. How would they be carrying that extra workload? It's obvious, you know, they won't be able to deliver the same quality of service that they were able to do in the past because they have to now carry the extra workload. So how would you justify that?

[1455]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We are accomplishing this by streamlining processes using technology. We're now moving files across offices when others are less busy than a particular office. We have a 1-800 line that fields about 100,000 calls a year which helps answer people's initial questions and frees up other staff time, putting supports in place earlier for people, meaning that things are less complicated. And we're doing more information sessions than we were before, which again helps answer a lot of those early questions and allows people to move through faster.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister please tell me how much overtime was accumulated by these employees last year and how much of a portion of the budget was spent just on overtime?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We'll have to get that for you. We can provide you with a summary of the overtime from the employment standards branch, and we'll get that to you for tomorrow.

R. Chouhan: Is there any projection or any money set aside for overtime in this year's budget?

[1500]

Hon. S. Cadieux: This is a complaint-driven process that we're talking about. It's not something employment standards is new to, so we're confident we can manage the demand, for the reasons we've already stated, around the work that's been done in creating efficiencies and better ways of working. For that reason, there is no dollar amount set aside in the budget specifically for overtime.

R. Chouhan: So is the minister telling me that there was no overtime paid last year at all in the budget or that they don't plan to pay any overtime this year?
[ Page 6799 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: No to both.

R. Chouhan: So I'll wait until tomorrow, I guess, to get the confirmation that there was no overtime paid to any employees in the ministry last year.

Okay, let's move on to employment standards specifically. Now, for the employment standards branch for this year, what's set aside in the budget?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify my last answer, I was not intending to say that no overtime was paid last year. We are getting you that summary. But we have no budget specifically for overtime. That is what I was saying.

Now, in answer to the member's next question, the budget for employment standards for '11-12 is $7.833 million.

R. Chouhan: I would also like to know from the minister, then, if overtime was paid in some form or shape, the impact of that on other services. Were there any services reduced, time allocated for the staff to deal with workers directly? Or where does that money come from? If you paid overtime last year, obviously there will be overtime paid this year, but it's not in the budget. So I'm just concerned about the impact of that. How would you manage it?

[1505]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The budget for employment standards is not huge, and the vast majority of the budget is in staffing costs. We manage challenges in the budget generally through staffing lags when somebody leaves to find other employment and then aren't replaced as quickly as one would expect or whatever.

The staff do a very good job of managing the budget and ensuring that we have the dollars in place to serve the public. So the staff are partners in making sure that any process reviews we do, coming up with better ways to meet the public's needs…. They're right there as part of the solution.

R. Chouhan: Those are nice statements. But the reality is that when you don't have the same budget as the year before and the year before that, obviously it impacts negatively on those services provided to the public by that branch or that ministry.

What was the total reduction in budget from last year to this year in the employment standards branch alone?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The employment standards reduction in this year is $692,000, primarily salaries and benefits related to attrition of $486,000 and some benefit adjustments, and then $119,000 for transfer of service that is now done internally with another ministry.

Just before your next question, I now have that employment standards branch overtime amount for you from last year. It's a whopping $2,939.

R. Chouhan: A reduction of $692,000 in a department which already has not that big a budget — it's a huge hit. Again, will the minister explain the impact of that reduction on the services provided by that branch or by that part of the ministry?

[1510]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We have processed almost the same number of complaints in the year as in the previous year. We're using opportunities for electronic filing and other efficiencies that we found with staff's input into what would work better and how they can do their jobs better.

R. Chouhan: What were those deficiencies, Minister?

[1515]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Some of the ways we're increasing efficiencies are streamlined decisions without written reports, if appropriate. We're changing the way we deliver employer history searches, using technology. We're using the ethnic media more for education — it's proving to be a very effective tool — as well as partnering with community agencies.

R. Chouhan: All of that is fine. How is using ethnic media affecting employees' workload? Surely you're reaching out to the public through ethnic media, which is fine and which should be done. But we're talking about a deficiency that the ministry has probably overcome, and that's why you're reducing the budget by $692,000. I'm talking about the internal workings in that part of the ministry, employment standards.

What were those areas where the impact will be seen by having this huge cut to the budget of $692,000?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Ultimately, this is a complaint-driven process. The most important thing we can do is make sure that people truly understand their rights at the front end and are able to do what they can with their own employers to mediate or to find solutions before they ever need to come to employment standards for our staff to assist.

The work we're doing with the media and other agencies in terms of information sessions helps build that knowledge amongst all of our workers and ensures that fewer cases come forward needing significant assistance, because people do, then, know their rights and responsibilities and can work at solving their issues with less assistance from employment standards.

R. Chouhan: All that is well, I guess. No problem is out there. Workers are not told. The front end can go
[ Page 6800 ]
with all their issues with their own employers. Why do we even have employment standards at all, if they can do it?

The role and the history of employment standards are there because workers are unable to resolve their issues with their employers. Many employers are very good, but there are some who are not willing to sit down and negotiate and deal with those workers and their issues. That's when the need for the ministry arises.

When that comes, when these workers come to employment standards, they are told to resolve the issue themselves with their own employer. They're the ones who were screwed up by the same employer. How would they go back and have the courage to deal with the same employers who are intimidating them, who are abusing them, who are not complying with the provisions of the Employment Standards Act? By telling them simply over the phone, how would you justify the existence of employment standards at all? We need help. These workers need help.

[1520]

My question, again, is: what kinds of services will be provided to these employees who need that help? And when you have a $692,000 cut in the budget, what is the impact of that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I in no way want to leave the impression that workers in the province who require help shouldn't have somewhere to go. That's exactly why we're here to do that.

There has been a slight reduction in the number of people in the ministry. We've been able to manage that very well. We have very dedicated staff who work very hard, and through moving a lot of resources to that front end, a lot of the cases that come in do just require some education. We've been doing a lot better job of that, which allows people to focus in on the cases where they require a lot more assistance.

R. Chouhan: We'll deal with those issues in more detail later on. Hopefully, we'll have time to deal with them.

Now, the comment made by the minister is: there's a slight reduction in the number of employees working at that part of the ministry. What's the definition? How do you define "slight reduction"? How many were reduced in total?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Four people.

R. Chouhan: What's the total number of FTEs that we have now in employment standards?

[1525]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are 104.

R. Chouhan: How many total employment standards branches are there in B.C. now?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are nine field offices and the main office.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister also tell me how many branch or field offices there were five years ago, four years ago, three years ago, two and one? We know that we have nine at present, but in the previous years I would like to know how many there were.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In 2002 there were 18 offices. There are now ten.

R. Chouhan: Did I hear that in 2002 there were 18 and that there was no reduction until now in all those branches? I missed the last part of the answer.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Let me clarify. Okay, prior to 2002 there were 18 offices. Since 2002 there are ten.

R. Chouhan: What are the locations of these branches now in B.C.?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The office locations are the head office in Victoria; Richmond; Kelowna; Nelson; Langley; Nanaimo; Prince George; Dawson Creek; Terrace; and as well, a field office in Victoria.

R. Chouhan: The branch that we used to have in Burnaby is no longer there, I guess. When was that consolidated to another branch, and where is it now?

[1530]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Lower Mainland regional offices moved to Richmond last year.

R. Chouhan: So if someone has a complaint in Mission, Abbotsford, Surrey, Burnaby — you name it — or North Vancouver, and they were unable to resolve their complaint over the phone and needed to go see someone physically in Richmond, and that worker may not be in a position to afford to own a vehicle, and transit is a problem…. What kind of service is available for those employees who need that kind of service? Where would they go?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Workers can go to any of the offices that they feel comfortable working with. So there is the office in Richmond. For the Lower Mainland–Fraser Valley region, there's also an office in Langley. As well, they can use the 1-800 number or file claims online. Most of the work can now be done over the phone.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]
[ Page 6801 ]

R. Chouhan: There will be times when most of the work is not done on the phone, and somebody still has to go see someone — a staff person, employment standards officer or somebody. What would they do? They're living in a remote area, and they have no access to having a vehicle or public transit. If they take public transit, they would have to use SkyTrain or buses. That means most of the day is gone to go visit either in Langley or Richmond, and they're working on minimum wage, these employees.

What kind of protection, what kinds of steps are available there for these kinds of employees who are already making so little? Now they're impacted with the burden of using public transit or taking a taxi to go see someone at the employment standards branch. Why is the government not doing anything for those kinds of people in those situations?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This is exactly the sort of situation that we've responded to in being more citizen-centric in the sense that people were finding travel difficult. That's why we can do almost everything over the phone now, including mediation when necessary.

R. Chouhan: Now let me use this as an example. It could be hypothetical, but I don't think it is. I'm an individual employee working somewhere in the Lower Mainland. I have a great deal of difficulty dealing with my employer. Now, according to the minister, I have to call someone at the ministry's office, the employment standards branch, to resolve my issue. I have difficulty explaining myself. I have a language problem.

When I call the employment standards branch, would there be someone to deal with my complaint or speak with me in a language other than English?

[1535]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just like translated materials are available on the website and in print materials at the ESB offices, if someone calls and requires service in another language, we either have staff that can assist in a variety of languages — I think about 15 languages — or we will ask if there is someone that can translate, or we'll help find a translator to make sure that the person gets served.

R. Chouhan: I'm told that if someone who has difficulty speaking English calls the branch, the employee is told to have someone who will speak English on their behalf, rather than having someone at the ministry's end who can speak their language. Somebody is calling speaking Mandarin or Tagalog or Punjabi. They found out that the ministerial staff was saying: "Sorry, we can't assist you. Bring someone who can speak English, and they can then talk about your issues."

[1540]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, it would be quite reasonable. Definitely, we would ask if they have a friend or family member that could assist, if staff were having difficulty communicating by phone with an employee, just as is quite often seen at doctors' offices or in other circumstances where someone has difficulty communicating with the service they're trying to receive.

However, we also have translated materials available in each of the offices and on the website in Punjabi, Spanish, French, Chinese and Filipino. We have a guide to the Employment Standards Act. We have FAQ sheets on vacation, complaint resolution, first job, entry-level wage rate — which isn't there anymore — hours of work and overtime rules, the minimum wage, termination, foreign workers.

In addition, there's sectoral information available for farm labour in Punjabi, Spanish and French; for garment workers in Chinese; for domestic workers in Spanish and Filipino; for foreign workers in Spanish, Filipino, Chinese, Punjabi and Korean; for employment agencies in Chinese, Filipino, French, Korean, Punjabi and Spanish. That's all available on the ministry website.

Other translation services that are offered by the branch are provision of a translator, where required, to assist during hearings; and we have, as I mentioned, branch staff that are fluent in many, many languages and available by phone to assist and to call people back. In fact, 24 of our staff speak other languages — 16 different languages. Education sessions and the media opportunities are also presented in Chinese and Punjabi in the Lower Mainland to best reach out to as many people as we can in their native tongue.

R. Chouhan: We have seen a reduction of eight branches — from 18 to ten in the last eight years. Obviously, as a result of this reorganization, consolidation, there would have been, I'm sure, the reduction in staff when people were moved from one location to another. How many complaints were received or filed with the various branches in B.C. in 2009-2010 and how many in 2010-11?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In 2009-10 there were 7,183 complaints received; in 2010-11, 6,607.

R. Chouhan: Now, my favourite subject: the farmworkers. In the accident which occurred on March 7, 2007, three women lost their lives. After some time — it took more than a year when the inquest took place — 18 recommendations were made. The RCMP recommended 31 criminal charges to be laid against the driver and the owner of that vehicle.

So my question to the minister is: first of all, how many out of those recommendations are accepted and fully implemented? And why were there no criminal
[ Page 6802 ]
charges laid against that driver and the owner of that vehicle?

[1545]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, certainly it was a tragic accident, and my thoughts and condolences go out to the families who are living the results every day. We are committed, though, to protecting the health and safety of farmworkers, as we are all workers in the province, and government is addressing all of the recommendations for which it is responsible from the coroner's inquest into this tragic motor vehicle fatality.

So far, we have amended the Motor Vehicle Act to allow government to act swiftly and strongly against designated inspection facilities that don't perform inspections to standards. We changed the laws to require a seatbelt for every passenger transported in a van or passenger vehicle.

We established an interagency committee to coordinate the enforcement prevention and education with respect to farmworkers, and the interagency committee undertakes a combination of random roadside vehicle inspections, farm visits, worker interviews, education sessions and payroll inspections. We've increased random roadside safety checks on vehicles. We've been conducting the vehicle inspections every year since 2007.

The ministry expanded the memorandum of understanding with the agricultural sector to focus on safety issues, specifically including vehicle safety in addition to employment standards. The Employment Standards Act now requires a vehicle safety notice translated into appropriate languages to be posted in all farm labour contractor vehicles. We implemented changes to the Employment Standards Act with the intent to eliminate the use of unlicensed farm labour contractors and to ensure improved compliance with regulations.

We allow for the cancellation or suspension of a farm labour contractor's licence if they violate the relevant WorkSafe B.C. and motor vehicle laws and regulations. We charge farm labour contractors the costs paid by government to provide safe alternative transportation to stranded workers when an unsafe vehicle is taken out of service during roadside blitzes, and we've expanded the education about workplace rights and safety further into the South Asian community.

The RCMP report, however, goes to the criminal justice branch and the Ministry of the Attorney General, and they make a decision regarding any criminal charges.

R. Chouhan: So that means that it looks like the ministry has accepted 12 recommendations out of 18. Why were not all recommendations accepted, especially the one which recommended to have the vehicles not be inspected by the same company who repairs them? Where is that? Why do we still continue to allow the repair shops to inspect and authorize them for safe use in the province of B.C.?

[1550]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, we take the recommendations very seriously. All of government does. We're acting on all of the recommendations, because we don't want to see tragedies like this occur ever in the province. The specific question or the specific recommendation that the member is referring to is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation. In their response to it, certainly facilities are subject now to mandatory audits, and they are continuing to monitor the situation.

R. Chouhan: We also have had a very serious incident or accident at a mushroom farm in Langley. Three workers lost their lives, and two were seriously injured. WorkSafe B.C. was investigating it. Have they or has the ministry released the report into that investigation?

[1555]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, a tragedy that we don't ever want to see in the province, and certainly, my heart goes out to those families affected as well, the victims.

The investigation report and documentation were referred to Crown counsel to consider for prosecution under the Workers Compensation Act. The case is currently before the courts, so WorkSafe B.C.'s investigation will remain confidential pending completion of the prosecution.

R. Chouhan: I hope that report will be made public so that we can learn from that tragedy in order to prevent those kinds of situations in the future.

How many complaints were received by the ministry from workers in the agriculture or the horticulture industry in the last year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In 2010 there were 43 farm labour complaints.

R. Chouhan: What kinds of complaints were they? Were they related to payment of wages or workplace abuses or health and safety issues? What kinds of complaints were they?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The majority of the complaints — not all, but the majority — relate to payment of wages, overtime or improper recordkeeping on behalf of the employer.

R. Chouhan: Out of 43, how many of these complaints were accepted? And once they were accepted, were they all resolved successfully, or are they still pending resolution?

[1600]
[ Page 6803 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The way that complaints are tracked doesn't allow for us to provide an answer, specifically, to each of those 43 complaints as of now, because some complaints that were closed during the year would have been from the previous year, and some from this year may still be ongoing. It's not an exact…. The way the statistics are kept, without going in and looking at the status of each record, we wouldn't know that.

R. Chouhan: Speaking of the tracking of these complaints, how many complaints were there from the previous year? What I'm trying to find out is if there is a trend that the complaints are going down or that the complaints are going up.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I can take the member back to 2005. In 2005 there were 30 complaints; in 2006, 27; in 2007, 38; in 2008, 15; in 2009, 19. In 2010 there were 43, although I would make a special note there that 20 of those complaints were with one employer.

R. Chouhan: Did I hear that there were 20 of those complaints with one employer? I take it that there must be an investigation underway to deal with it and find out why one employer is not complying with the Employment Standards Act or is violating that act.

Now, when someone calls the ministry and files a complaint, how are they assisted? Do they have the ability to see someone in person, or is it all on the phone, on line?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes.

R. Chouhan: Yes, what? Do they have the ability to meet with somebody in person, or are they all resolved on line or on the phone?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, as I mentioned in many of my earlier answers, people have the opportunity to come in and speak to somebody in person at any of the offices, or they can — as most are preferring to do — work through their issues over the phone or through the electronic process.

R. Chouhan: Was there any penalty levied against any employer in the agricultural industry related to any employment standards abuses?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There were 53 determinations last year, and for every determination there is a penalty.

[1605]

R. Chouhan: What was the total amount of money received by the ministry for these workers related to unpaid wages in the last year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The wages recovered, including voluntary collections and paid determinations, for 2010-11 were $7,110,651.

R. Chouhan: Was that money all in the agriculture industry, or was it overall?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Sorry, I thought you were asking for the aggregate number. The wages recovered specifically for farm labour in 2010 were $50,564.

R. Chouhan: The harvesting season is around the corner. Large numbers of workers will be going to the fields in those vehicles again. Is there any plan to have roadside checks to check the vehicles carrying these farmworkers for safety? What's the plan for that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, there will be ongoing spot safety checks by the compliance team.

R. Chouhan: Any plan for spot checks in the fields about accuracy of weighing scales, sanitation, washroom facilities and availability of drinking water?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The farm labour team is in the fields talking about employment standards–related issues, though some of the things that the member has specifically mentioned would be under the purview of the Ministry of Health.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister also tell me: what is the composition of that farm team or whatever it's called? Who would be sitting on that team?

[1610]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The farm labour team, which works out of Langley, has five staff that are specialized in farm labour to provide education to employers and employees about employment standards and conduct regular site visits, payroll audits and other enforcement activities to ensure that our farmworkers are fairly treated in British Columbia. The staff are fluent in numerous languages.

R. Chouhan: I was wondering if the members of the team are from employment standards branch, from Workers Compensation Board, from the police. That's the composition I'm looking for.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The farm labour team is staff of the Ministry of Labour, employment standards branch. They are specifically trained to enforce the Employment Standards Act, and they are industrial relations officers.

R. Chouhan: Does the budget show that the farm labour team is now fully funded so they have all the
[ Page 6804 ]
resources that they would need to make sure that all of these issues are taken care of? Does the budget reflect that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The farm labour team is part of the employment standard branch budget, as are the other members of the branch.

R. Chouhan: Now I'm going to share this information with the minister. I don't know if the ministry is aware of this. If they are, I would like to know what steps they have taken or will be taking to address the situation.

[1615]

The situation is that many people work on a piece-rate basis in the farming industry. During the peak season their wages are converted to an hourly rate. When you look at that, it sounds very good — fine, they are paid an hourly rate — but the reality is totally different.

For example, if an employee has worked 12 hours a day during the peak season on a piece rate and has earned $60 total in a day of 12 hours, the employer on its payroll would show that the employee has worked 7.5 hours at the rate of $8 an hour so that the worker may qualify to receive a better or higher rate of EI, employment insurance, later on.

This piece-rate conversion will continue during the peak harvesting days. However, near the end of the season workers will be working longer hours to pick a very little amount of fruit, and they are not paid at all. Workers are afraid to report this for fear of not receiving a good record of employment.

So my question is to the minister. Is the ministry aware of this abuse? What steps has it taken or planned to take to stop this flagrant violation of the law in this industry? It could be provincial; it could be federal. I don't know. It may be a combination of both, but it is happening there. Is the minister aware of this thing happening out there, and what steps are they taking to stop it?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Employment insurance is the responsibility of the federal government. The employment standards branch is here to help people to make sure they get their wages paid that are owed under employment standards.

R. Chouhan: Employment insurance is the responsibility of the federal government. We know that. I'm talking about the record of employment. People are deliberately taking these steps to not comply with the law. You know, they are simply falsifying these records of employment. That's the responsibility of the employment standards branch, so what steps are they taking to correct that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: One of the roles of the farm labour team is to do site visits and payroll audits. Farm labour contractors must pay by direct deposit, and that is all in an effort to ensure that farm labour employees are paid the wages they're owed.

[1620]

R. Chouhan: I'm sure I can ask at least 30 more questions on that, but I'll leave it, given the fact that we don't have much time today.

Now, I have a few more questions about employment standards itself, but we also want to ask questions about temporary foreign workers. My colleague from Vancouver-Kensington has a couple of questions. Then I'll continue with my line of questioning.

M. Elmore: I want to offer my congratulations to the minister for her new responsibility and thank you for the opportunity to raise a few questions on the issue of temporary foreign workers. It's come to my attention…. I have a lot of people who present to my constituency office on these issues, so it's raised my awareness about it. I also work with community groups on this issue, so I thought I would raise that here.

I know it's an emerging issue. Certainly, it's a relatively new phenomenon in Canada, and we are seeing the numbers increase dramatically. So I think it's a new area in terms of tackling it on the legislative side and also on the provision of services.

I understand there are currently 45,000 individuals that entered B.C. as temporary foreign workers in 2010 and also in the past two years. I am told that the number of people in British Columbia is 182,000 on temporary work visas of some kind, so the number is growing.

Migrant workers my colleague mentioned — farmworkers, janitors, cleaners, caregivers, construction workers, cooks and food service assistants. They work on local farms and in restaurants, hotels, food courts, airports, hospitals and private homes.

There's a new provincewide coalition. It's called the Coalition for Migrant Workers Justice. They're a coalition of 12 organizations across British Columbia.

They include Amnesty International Richmond, Agricultural Workers Alliance Support Centre, the B.C. building trades council, Canada Philippines Solidarity for Human Rights, Justicia for Migrant Workers, KAIROS Vancouver and Richmond, Longhouse Council of Native Ministry, Migrante B.C., Missionaries of St. Charles Scalabrinians, the Red Latina Legal, St. Joseph's Langley Mexican Farm Workers Outreach and the West Coast Domestic Workers Association.

The coalition held a press conference last month, April 19, to expose many situations of injustice, vulnerability, poor working conditions and barriers to temporary foreign workers. They've raised the point that many temporary foreign workers, particularly in the lower-skilled professions, experience themselves as second-class citizens, compared to workers in Canada
[ Page 6805 ]
who have permanent residency, with respect to their rights and benefits.

It's their temporary status that renders them invisible and precarious and disposable if they speak up for their rights or speak out against poor working conditions. Many experience their employment relationship as indentured servitude.

Given the large numbers of temporary foreign workers in British Columbia, there's not really a way to track them in terms of finding out where they are, what service or where they're located in British Columbia. I'm just wondering if the ministry has considered a registry of temporary foreign workers to be able to track them — a registry of temporary foreign workers and also a registry of employers, which is currently the approach that Manitoba takes.

Hon. S. Cadieux: B.C. has recently concluded negotiations for an information-sharing agreement with Service Canada to enable the exchange of employer information to support compliance with the terms of the temporary foreign worker program and compliance with employment standards and workplace safety regulations in British Columbia.

[1625]

M. Elmore: Also, in terms of the…. It's been raised to me that… It may be outside the jurisdiction, but I wanted to register it. A lot of the temporary foreign workers pay employment insurance premiums, but they're unable to collect employment insurance because their work permits are employer-specific and not skill- or occupation-specific. So if they're not working, they're not eligible to apply and be granted employment insurance.

I'm just wondering if the minister is considering changing work permits to be issued as skill- or occupation-specific, which would allow temporary foreign workers to transfer across their industry, and not employer-specific.

Hon. S. Cadieux: All of those considerations would be under the purview of the federal government.

M. Elmore: Yeah, I would just ask that that would be one of the topics that you raise in your discussions and bring forward as an issue of concern to be addressed. I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

Just also following on in terms of housing, often it's raised to me that housing conditions are a big issue. We're looking into a case in Nanaimo where temporary foreign workers work for the employer and the employer is also housing them in a house that's being rented, and they're being charged quite a high fee — $500 for each person, and sometimes four per room. It's quite a high rate.

I'm just wondering if the minister is familiar with this concern and also if there are initiatives underway to address these situations around housing of temporary foreign workers.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Temporary foreign workers have all the same rights and responsibilities as other workers in the province. They are free to seek and choose their accommodations, as are we all. It is not something that is under the Employment Standards Act.

M. Elmore: Just recognizing, again, that it's a different experience when temporary foreign workers are, in terms of the context of our economy, given their temporary status. The issue of housing has been identified as clearly a condition where temporary foreign workers are systematically…. I've heard it very consistently in terms of a concern raised from migrant worker organizations, the coalition and also individual temporary foreign workers. So I would put forward that it is a concern.

I know it is an emerging area in terms of policy development, because it's a relatively new development and phenomenon, but I would say that it is an area of concern, that certainly legislation and regulation to ensure that temporary foreign workers are treated fairly and adequately on housing is a consideration.

Just following up from that, in terms of temporary foreign workers having many challenges. There's an urgent need for front-line services to help temporary foreign workers. They're prohibited from accessing settlement services because they don't qualify. They're not permanent residents. There are few places to turn to if they're in need of assistance.

[1630]

I'm wondering if the minister will consider providing services such as the ones that are offered in Alberta. They offer service centres to directly help temporary foreign workers if they have questions. They also have a 1-800 number that workers can call in to if they have specific questions.

Hon. S. Cadieux: We have no plans to expand our services at this time. As you will be aware, the budget doesn't offer flexibility in that regard. But I would like to assure you that, as you know, foreign workers are entitled to all the same statutory protections as any other worker in British Columbia and are free to call the 1-800 line or access services through employment standards.

M. Elmore: It's my final question. I would just put to the minister that it's currently not adequate — the services that are available. Certainly, they are covered under employment standards, but given their specifics and the special circumstances of their vulnerability,
[ Page 6806 ]
there needs to be additional supports in place for temporary foreign workers.

A case in point. You may be familiar with the Denny's class action lawsuit that went forward — $10 million class action lawsuit, first in British Columbia. Denny's was found — it was fined — that it illegally fired a worker once they submitted their complaint to the employment standards branch.

The person who brought forward that employment standard was actually my server when I went to Denny's. I struck up a conversation, and I was very interested to learn that he was a temporary foreign worker and that all their staff were temporary foreign workers. I offered him my card and said: "If you have any questions, feel free to come to my office, and I would answer any questions." So he did come to my office and raise concerns.

I also worked closely with community groups providing support and support agencies to bring out these issues of these workers across British Columbia, thousands of them, not only in Metro Vancouver and metropolitan areas but in very isolated rural areas. They're scared; they don't want to raise concerns. They're scared that their employer will send them back to their country. They just want to provide for their families.

So it's my experience…. I would characterize it that we're seeing in Canada a distortion of our social fabric with the creation of these second-class citizens who don't have full access to basic rights and welfare. I would contend that there is a need — given that it is a new program and just the number, the scope of the issues and the seriousness of their complaints — to really take a close look and do a review of employment standards as it specifically relates to temporary foreign workers. Given the economic benefit that they provide to our economy, certainly they're deserving to have their rights and dignity respected and the provision of basic services.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thank you for raising it, and I'll take that information under advisement.

If it would be all right, Madam Chair, I'd take a five-minute recess.

The Chair: Yeah, we'll take a five-minute recess and come back.

The committee recessed from 4:34 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

R. Chouhan: Just a clarification on temporary foreign workers. My colleague from Vancouver-Kensington asked these questions, and the minister said that temporary foreign workers have all the same rights and that they have the same statutory protections. Does this mean they also have access to public health care and also have the same dispute resolution mechanisms we have for other workers in B.C.?

Hon. S. Cadieux: My comments were in relation to all the same protections under the Employment Standards Act, Labour Relations Code and Workers Compensation Act.

R. Chouhan: Okay, I'll leave it there. Does the ministry have any plans in place to hold public hearings about the working conditions of farmworkers in the near future?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer would be no, not at this time.

R. Chouhan: That means they will continue to be at the mercy of these bad labour contractors, and they will continue to experience the abuse that we have seen in the past. I hope this government realizes that by not conducting any public hearings to find out the situation in the field out there, the ministry will never understand the gravity of the situation. So I really urge the ministry to do that.

There are people out there who are willing to participate in that process, and they can inform the government. Also, I'm sure there will come of it solutions and recommendations which the government can follow to protect these poor farmworkers.

Now, is there any plan in place to review or revise the Employment Standards Act in the future?

[1645]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We have just completed a review and are taking the information that came in from that process and are looking at ways that we may wish to continue to modernize the Employment Standards Act going forward.

R. Chouhan: The process that the minister is talking about, I guess, is when they issued a summary report on the employment standards stakeholder engagement process. Yeah, okay.

During that process on January 20, 2011, the Coalition of B.C. Businesses made a submission to that panel or body — whoever was conducting those reviews. They made several recommendations, so my question to the minister is: is the ministry going to accept any or all of those recommendations made by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I mentioned in the last answer, we are looking at all of the recommendations put forward through that process. Looking at them at this point, we have no plans to implement anything beyond what we have implemented with the increase to minimum wage.
[ Page 6807 ]

R. Chouhan: The report issued after the conclusion or completion of that process was titled Summary Report on Employment Standards Stakeholder Engagement Process, which also has talked about the minimum wage and other issues. My question, again, is: other than minimum wage that the minister has talked about, will any other such recommendation made by the Business Council of B.C. or Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses or B.C. Federation of Labour or CCPA be accepted or looked at in the near future?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I mentioned, we are reviewing all of the recommendations of the report. We are considering recommendations of the report, but at this point nothing is forming the basis for policy. We received a broad base of very rich input, and I am going to continue to consider whether or not aspects of that should be used to modernize the employment act.

R. Chouhan: In the past, with the previous two Ministers of Labour — one of them is not part of the government anymore; she retired or resigned, and the other Minister of Labour who was previously in this ministry — they had this practice of talking to the opposition critic for Labour before any of these policies were implemented or brought to the public. I hope we'll have the same kind of cooperation from the current minister before we are surprised by or read something which we don't know.

[1650]

What assistance mechanism is available to workers who are unaware of their rights to enable them to assess their rights? The minister will agree that there are many workers out there who are not aware of their rights and responsibilities, so what assistance mechanisms are available for them to assert that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I appreciate the question from the member, because it gives us an opportunity to reiterate that assistance is available to workers in British Columbia through employment standards branch, through the 1-800 number, through the website, through fact sheets — in multiple languages. We continue to support education and awareness on employment standards in British Columbia. We collaborate with stakeholders on a number of initiatives through employment standards.

They're the key elements for increasing awareness and compliance and form part of the existing memorandums of understanding with the B.C. Agriculture Council and the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

The branch has been delivering information sessions to larger association meetings such as the B.C. Human Resources Management Association and the Canadian Payroll Association, and we've partnered with the Canada Revenue Agency and the employers advisers office to deliver sessions as well.

We look to all sorts of ways to reach out and provide and deliver education. We deliver education seminars on the act to employer and employee groups, and as I mentioned earlier, we use the ethnic media to promote awareness of the act. We commenced this work in 2007, and it was expanded. We did 23 presentations in 2010-11 through the ethnic media.

R. Chouhan: I want to talk about the minimum wage now for a while, Minister. As we know now, after years of campaigning and lobbying and raising this issue by the opposition in the House and outside, finally the government has agreed to increase the minimum wage. Again, people are asking that the minimum wage be increased to a minimum of $10 an hour right away, but the government has chosen to do it in different stages. Why was it implemented in stages and not immediately raised to the full amount?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I agree that it was a necessary step, and I am very pleased that we were able to do that this year. Although the member opposite mentions that people were asking for the wage to move higher than $10 and to do that faster, the reality was that there were also many, many stakeholders warning against a raise at all.

Part of the implementation plan is to raise it, I will mention, to what was higher than being called for by the opposition. It's being raised now to $10.25 an hour, not the $10 amount that was being promoted. We are doing that in three stages so as to allow the employers, the folks who pay the wages, to have time to adapt to the higher wages and minimize any potential job losses that might occur.

R. Chouhan: The opposition was asking for an immediate increase to $10 an hour and also attach the hourly minimum wage to the cost of living. Also, the Coalition of B.C. Businesses has recommended in their submission that it should be done, that the cost of living should be a factor in the minimum wage increase.

[1655]

So the question now is: is the minister going to consider having the cost of living being part of the minimum wage, or is it going to be left at the lowest in Canada?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In fact, it is not going to be the lowest in Canada. When it reaches $10.25 next year, we will be tied for second-highest in Canada, actually.

In relation to the member's comments about the cost-of-living adjustment, we have chosen not to go that route. Instead, we have said that every two years, starting in the summer of 2012, we will review the minimum wage and look at whether we are sitting at the right level or not, based on a large variety of factors that influence both the minimum wage and the job market.
[ Page 6808 ]

R. Chouhan: The minister will agree with me that living in British Columbia is not the same as living in Saskatchewan, in Halifax or somewhere else. We are talking about the highest cost of living here in this province. Everything is going up — hydro, the ferries, the transit; you name it. Now what we see from this government is the minimum wage being increased in stages, not even up to the full amount. That's why it's important to have the cost-of-living adjustment attached to it if we really want to have any justice with this whole concept.

Now, my next question is: why have servers been left out of the new wage standard?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In fact, no server has been left out of this.

We did consult with stakeholders and economic experts on their views on raising the minimum wage. As a result of the discussions, it was determined that there are job impacts when you do raise the wage and that those impacts are minimized when you do the raises over time, which is what we are doing.

In relation specifically to servers, that's a unique industry, where a vast number of people earn a great percentage of their income through tips. We've adopted an approach that is in line with what is existing in Ontario and has worked very well in Ontario. In that province the liquor server rate has allowed the general minimum wage to increase, while maintaining and supporting jobs in the food and beverage service sector.

R. Chouhan: So is the minister telling me that somebody who makes $9 an hour is the same as somebody who makes $10.25? How can the minister say that servers are not left out? They are left out. They will not be making the same amount of minimum wage as any other worker will be.

There's another situation that I want to clarify. Now, if somebody is working in a restaurant, say the White Spot, and they serve liquor, what kind of wages would they be paid? Would they be paid an hourly minimum wage like other workers, or would they be paid the servers' rate?

Hon. S. Cadieux: If serving alcohol is a regular part of their duties, they will get the liquor server rate.

R. Chouhan: Again, let's use our White Spot example. If you go there, those workers do serve liquor regularly. Somebody who orders a meal can also order a glass of wine or beer. They do that on a regular basis.

[1700]

However, they don't get the same…. If the justification of paying servers less is because they get higher tips in bars and other restaurants, but they don't get the same kinds of tips there in White Spot or similar restaurants, what is the justification for excluding those workers from being paid the same minimum wage as other workers?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I mentioned, our goal in raising the minimum wage and being able to raise the minimum wage as we see is necessary in our province…. Our goal, though, is to maintain and support jobs in all sectors, including the food and beverage sector, which is somewhat unique.

Liquor servers do earn a significant portion of their income through gratuities, as bills that include liquor are significantly higher. Our goal is to strike a fair balance with the needs of the job-creating employers such as White Spot so that we can make sure that we continue to have jobs for all of our citizens and ensure that they're earning a wage where they can support themselves and their families.

R. Chouhan: I'm not clear what the minister is trying to tell us. Is the minister saying that the owners of White Spot restaurants or similar restaurants can now pay less wages to workers than other workers because they are serving liquor on a regular basis?

The minister knows that the gratuity level in those restaurants is much lower than it would be in a bar. So what kind of message is the minister sending out to the community? I want to make it very clear. I want to hear it clearly from the minister. What rate of minimum wage will be paid to employees working in a restaurant like White Spot?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. If a server serves alcohol as a regular part of their job duties, they will earn the liquor server rate.

R. Chouhan: It's so shameful that in a province like British Columbia, the Minister of Labour, other than defending workers, is now advocating…. Yeah, you can find excuses for employers. Go ahead and pay them less.

That is not acceptable, Minister. Do something more. You're the Minister of Labour, not against the labour. I'm really disappointed.

Now let's talk about minimum wage and how it applies to the agriculture industry. The picking rates in the agriculture industry are paid on a piece-rate basis. So when you increase the minimum wage as of May 1 this year, how will it be affecting the wages in the farming industry?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The regulated minimum piece rates for hand-harvesting of certain crops are increased by the same percentage as the first phase of the general minimum wage. We are then, as the member will know, implementing a review of piece rates to follow before any additional adjustments.
[ Page 6809 ]

As of May 1 the general minimum wage increase will apply, which will be the equivalent of a 9.375 percent increase in the piece rates.

R. Chouhan: Does the percentage by which minimum piece rates are being increased in the first phase of the minimum wage implementation equal the percentage by which the general minimum wage is being increased?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, that's correct.

[1705]

R. Chouhan: The province of Quebec appears to require piece rates only for pickers of raspberries and strawberries, and the rest of the farmworkers are paid the hourly minimum wage. Why does B.C. continue to implement piece rates for other crops such as beans and mushrooms in B.C.?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I mentioned, following the May 1 increase to the piece rates, the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government, in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, will undertake a review of the piece-rate system. That review will specifically examine whether the current piece rates are working for employers and employees in British Columbia in the agricultural sector.

The system that we currently have was established in the 1980s and worked for the system then, but we want to make sure that we are aware of and taking into account any developments in the sector that are affecting piece rates before we make decisions about any adjustments.

R. Chouhan: Does the minister know that the average wage for a farmworker in B.C. is below the average rate of youth workers in B.C.?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, I am aware of that. When the piece rates were set up for the agriculture industry, they were set to work with minimum wage. That's why we feel it is time to have a review of that.

R. Chouhan: Will the recent changes we have seen in the minimum wage…? Will that serve to mitigate this gap?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We'll have to wait to see what the review results are.

R. Chouhan: The best answer I have got so far today, maybe.

[1710]

Okay, let's move on to the Labour Relations Board. What is the budget allocation this year for the Labour Relations Board?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The '11-12 budget is $4.63 million.

R. Chouhan: How many vice-chairs are currently working at LRB?

Hon. S. Cadieux: That would be eight, including the chair and associate chair.

R. Chouhan: How many were there in 2002?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Sorry for the delay. The number in 2002 was 18.

R. Chouhan: In the last eight or nine years we have now reduced the number of vice-chairs from 18 to eight. In regards to that, how many applications were received by the LRB in that year, in 2002, and how many applications are received now?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We don't have the 2002 number with us, but I can get it for follow-up. Between 2002 and 2010 we saw a drop of approximately a thousand. So in 2010 there were 1,579.

R. Chouhan: It seems like we have basically reduced the Labour Relations Board to nothing. We had not only 18 vice-chairs at that time; we also had the members appointed under section 110 of the Labour Code.

[1715]

They had the capacity, the ability to assist the parties to resolve their issues in a timely manner, and they had the ability to mediate, help to mediate settlements at that time. Now it seems like the government has deliberately frustrated the labour relations community by reducing the resources of the Labour Relations Board by not having the same number of vice-chairs and members available to the community.

What types of applications are received these days?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There's a huge number of different things, from complaints about unfair labour practices, religious exemptions for dues — what else? — common employer, appointment of a mediation officer, and over 10 percent of the applications are for certifications.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister tell me — I mean, she's looking at the category of all different types of applications — which is highest area which receives that similar type of application? Is it certification or unfair labour practice?

Hon. S. Cadieux: For the member's information, unfair labour practice is the highest, followed by the certification applications and appointment of a mediation officer.
[ Page 6810 ]

R. Chouhan: When I was on the board, we used to produce monthly charts of all of these applications, and we were also producing the trends of applications. You know, resolutions were going up or declining. Are those monthly reports still available?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Those same reports are available quarterly on the LRB's website.

R. Chouhan: How long do the complainant or complainants have to wait before their application is heard by a vice-chair?

[1720]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Although it varies, based on workload and the type of issue and so on, if you look at the fact that the vast majority of cases are completed and disposed of within six months, generally the time to get through is quite quick. Some of the delays that can occur are actually not within the control of the board, because they relate to the availability of counsel or advocates.

R. Chouhan: I guess that the minister will agree with me that justice delayed is justice denied, so six months…. Is that acceptable to the minister — the waiting time before a decision is rendered after the conclusion of a hearing? What I'm told by the labour relations community is that six months is the norm now. People are really lucky if they get their decisions from the vice-chair before six months. Some of them have even waited longer than that.

What is acceptable to the minister, the time these days? Are there any efforts being made or considered to correct that situation?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just to clarify, the majority of cases are closed within six months, and that's six months from the time they are brought to the board, not from the hearing. It's the first time they're brought forward. It's relatively quick in most cases. Delays that do occur are not always attributed to the board. They can be for any number of reasons, including the availability of either side's counsel.

[1725]

So while we will always be looking at ways to improve the system…. Looking at legislated timelines is an option, but it's not anything that's being actively pursued.

R. Chouhan: Regardless, if six months starts from the date of application or from the conclusion of the hearing, six months is six months. People have to wait at least six months before they can get an answer from the board. So that's not acceptable.

By reducing the number of vice-chairs from 18 to eight, I don't see any solution available in the near future under this government at least.

Now, my other question is about the mediation services. How many mediators do we have now, and how many were there in 2002?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are currently five mediators. We don't have the 2002 number in front of us, but we do know that it wasn't significantly different. But we'll get that number to you.

R. Chouhan: Given that we don't have much time left, let me move on to the Workers Compensation Board issues then.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'll just introduce the staff that's joined me. We have Roberta Ellis, who's the senior vice-president of corporate affairs for WorkSafe B.C. Behind me are Donna Freeman, director of media relations, and Terry Bogyo, director of corporate planning with WorkSafe B.C.

R. Chouhan: On April 2, I asked a question in question period to the minister about Grant's law, but I was unable to ask a supplemental question. I hope the minister will provide some answers today.

When Grant's law was introduced, it was after that tragic incident of Grant De Patie, who was killed while he was trying to stop a thief. As a result of the community's concerns and the input received by the ministry from both the labour and the employer's side, Grant's law was introduced and applied. It's been working very well since then.

Now we hear that it's going to be under review, and the Workers Compensation Board is not going to implement one aspect of that. I understand that Grant's law is still in place. But for the protection portion of that, for the employees who work on a night shift, who are working alone…. And there are some requirements there. My question to the minister is: why are we trying to take away the workers' protection that we have available under Grant's law now?

[1730]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In fact, what is occurring is that WorkSafe is going out to the community for public consultation on whether or not there is a potential third option that will allow for the protection of our workers and make sure that they're working in safe environments but that provides a third option for employers in making their premises safe. So it is out at public consultations now to determine from input from the employer and worker community whether or not this is a viable option.

R. Chouhan: Does this mean that the so-called third option will render the previous option null and void? What does that mean? Or is it just an option that the employers can pick and choose?
[ Page 6811 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just to be completely clear — as I mentioned and as you articulated as well, Member — the Grant's law portion is in full effect. The "working alone or in isolation" regulations…. There were two other regulations. They are still there. It's two options for employers, two different opportunities to ensure worker safety — either having more than one worker on or the barrier option. WorkSafe is out now consulting with the community to determine whether or not there could be a third option.

R. Chouhan: This so-called consultation process — is it kind of a public hearing process? Or are you asking the stakeholders to provide submissions?

Also, my next question is: if the majority of people who are concerned continue to tell the minister that there should be no change to the existing law, would the minister then keep the law as is? Or are they still going to change it and proceed with those changes that they want to have in place?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are five public hearings occurring around the province in the month of May and into June. As well, WorkSafe is receiving written submissions. Then the board of directors at WorkSafe will review all of the information gathered.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister tell me, please, how many board members there are at Workers Compensation Board, and what's the makeup, the composition, of that? How many are from the employers and how many from the workers' community?

[1735]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The board of directors of WorkSafe is made up of seven people: three in the public interest, including the chair; one from the employers; one from workers; one with rehab or medicine background; and one actuary.

R. Chouhan: I'm just skipping some of these questions. When we have these WorkSafe committees at various workplaces, those committee members — are they required to be trained, or are there any training provisions for those committee members? Or can anybody be a member of that committee?

Hon. S. Cadieux: If you could clarify it. Are you referring to occupational health and safety committees in workplaces? Okay.

The members of occupational health and safety committees are generally chosen or nominated by both the employers and the workers. Yes, there is training provided and time provided to take the training, and that's all part of the act.

R. Chouhan: Are there any resources available for committee members to get training?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Through WorkSafe B.C., there is funding provided to industry associations and colleges and the B.C. Federation of Labour to provide training. As well, materials are available on the WorkSafe B.C. website.

R. Chouhan: Is that training mandatory, or can people still be on the health and safety committee, just without any training?

[1740]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Training is mandatory. It is required by the law, especially with respect to the responsibilities of the health and safety committee, how to conduct an investigation. Other aspects of training may only relate to certain industries and may vary by workplace, but there is a requirement for training of the members of the committees.

R. Chouhan: Under section 39(e) of the Workers Compensation Act, employers can apply for a relief of costs. Why are the same provisions not available to the workers or to their unions?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The relief of costs is related directly to the employers' costs because they are the only payers into the system. That's why.

R. Chouhan: The minister is lucky I don't have much time to pursue that further.

Anyway, we have seen over the years that approximately $500 million dollars is taken out of the overall money available through the Workers Compensation Board every year. The impact of that is that the workers don't get the same pension; they don't get the same premiums or benefits. But at the same time, the executive salaries continue to go up and up every year. I would like to know from the minister how much bonus is being paid to all the managers or executives this year, and how much were they paid last year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: If the member is referring to the executive and board of directors — only that number — those numbers are published in the annual report every year. In 2010 the total amount of bonuses was $370,574. I don't have the 2009 annual report in front of me. If you were talking about another number, please ask again, and we will search it out for you.

[1745]

R. Chouhan: Last year it was 16 percent — the bonuses paid on average to all these managers and excluded staff. Does that number still remain the same this year?
[ Page 6812 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Performance bonuses of up to 10 percent are available for managers and up to 20 percent for executive. But we don't have a calculated percentage out for this year on the actuals.

R. Chouhan: On another topic, the acquired soft tissue disorder, which is also known as ASTD. Issues relating to the way that the employer has organized the work…. For example, Prince George is doing ASTD claims for Terrace, Merritt, Kelowna, etc. This makes for lots of staff travel and, as a result, an increase in costs to the board.

At the same time, ASTD had disallowed…. The claims — the rate is proportionally very high. So my question is to the minister. Are there any steps taken to create that balance? It seems like now a good majority of claims under ASTD are not allowed.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The disallowed rate for musculoskeletal claims is 7 percent, which is the same as the overall rejection rate.

R. Chouhan: My colleagues have some questions to ask before I conclude.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and staff. I realize that time is very short. Just a couple of questions regarding the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences. This is a non-profit private institution that's just about ready to open in Port Alberni. It's very exciting. The people of the Alberni Valley are very excited about it, and I'm quite proud to have played a role — a non-partisan, bipartisan role — where both sides of the House brought forward the legislation to help make this university a reality.

Of course there are other challenges, too, but just quickly here, the programs will focus on the leading edge in occupational health and safety innovation, approaches to health promotion combined with optimizing disability management and return-to-work initiatives. I could go on, but I don't have time.

[1750]

The proponent, Wolfgang Zimmermann, is the executive director of the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. He's also the former chair of the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities and is still on the national advisory board for veterans affairs.

The first question is hopefully a simple one. I'm wondering if I can arrange a meeting between the minister and staff and Wolfgang to discuss back-to-work strategies that the university is developing, which 16 nations in the world have already adopted and which, I would submit, even organizations like Canada Post are adopting in this country too.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I am well aware of the new school as well as the chair, Wolfgang Zimmermann, through my previous life. He is well known to me. We would be happy to have that meeting.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I was remiss. I'm hoping that our Labour critic would certainly be able to be there too. That would be wonderful, thanks.

This is not as positive a question. I was contacted by the chief executive of the largest workers compensation board in the world, in Germany — Dr. Breuer. I know him because of his work with the university in helping to support it and sponsor it. They've become an actual sponsor of the university too.

My cause for concern is that he had a recent meeting with workers compensation board CEOs in western Canada, trying to work with the university and move it forward. He was less than happy with the level of support he was getting in this province. You may want to bring forward or contact your executive director. I mean, for me it was an embarrassment, as a member of the Legislature that helped to create this university.

I'm hoping, as the workers compensation board in Germany is actually monetarily supporting the work of this school — as are, of course, 16 nations in the world in total that have adopted the policies being developed through the Pacific Coast University — that the minister would ensure that the level of support provincially from our Workers Compensation Board will be at least as strong a level of support as we're seeing from other nations in the world, from other provinces and from the federal government. If you go onto Industry Canada's website, you'll see that they're highlighting the university as a sort of crowning achievement through their funding too.

Can the minister comment on that, please?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I wasn't aware of that, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll look into it.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister and staff. Congratulations on your new ministerial position. I have a question to do with mining and mineworkers.

Mining has become a very important part of the future in B.C. in current conditions. Often all we hear talked about are jobs and revenue generation. There's very little about labour, about worker safety.

Some people would be very surprised to hear that mineworkers do not fall under the jurisdiction of WorkSafe B.C. In fact, we are the only province that still has mine safety under the Mines Act, administered by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. In the Sullivan inquiry from 2007, it was pointed out that mining legislation in B.C. was from a different era. This was an expert witness in this testimony.

[1755]

My question to the minister, under this vote, is: would you commit to doing the work that is funded under the
[ Page 6813 ]
activities of this vote to ensure that mining workers are covered under WorkSafe B.C. rather than under the Mining Act or, alternatively, to boost up the standards of the Mining Act to meet or exceed WCB standards?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, WorkSafe B.C. works very collaboratively with the chief mining officer. We respect their jurisdiction in the issue. It is and has been historical, and there has been no change since the previous administration.

K. Conroy: I'm going to talk a little bit about asbestosis with the minister. I'm not sure if you realize, but it is now the number one killer of workers in this province. It manifests itself in a number of ways, and it's become quite an issue in my constituency, through people that have worked at Teck Cominco, and in other parts of the province.

One of the ways it manifests itself is through pleural plaque, where it develops on the outside of the lungs, making it very, very difficult for people to breathe, and impacts a worker's life considerably. The other is through mesothelioma, the cancer which develops from exposure to asbestos.

The problem with that is that the majority of the people being diagnosed with this form of cancer are being diagnosed after they've retired. They are exposed to asbestos sometime in their working life. Quite often it takes years before it actually can be diagnosed.

What happened in 2002 is the Liberal government changed the WCB act to exclude retired workers from any kind of compensation, even though it's very obvious that the cancer they've developed, the illness they're facing now, derives directly from their work. They no longer are able to have any compensation for that.

What we've seen is a number of people who retire expecting to live a healthy life after retirement are struck down with mesothelioma. It's a devastating illness. Virtually you watch people waste away. It's terrible, not only on the person who ends up dying, but it's horrible to their families. Not only does the person get absolutely no compensation, but nor does the family get any compensation.

I know the minister herself was not involved in this change with the government in 2002. What I'm wondering is if she will consider changes to the act so that these people get the just compensation they deserve and their families get the just compensation that they should be getting.

[1800]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thank you for bringing the question forward, Member. In fact, the ministry has asked WorkSafe B.C. to review its health care policies — all of them. They'll bring the results of their own review to my attention, at which point we may look at a number of things.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In addition, I'd just like to mention, because I think it relates, that WorkSafe will launch an occupational exposure registry in 2011 for workers to report exposures to things like asbestos and other substances that have been linked to occupational diseases, which will assist with workers' claims in the future.

K. Conroy: Is there a time frame on the review of their health care policies?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The work will be ongoing through 2011, and I will hopefully have the information to my office by the end of the year.

N. Simons: I don't know if seven minutes is enough to canvass all the questions that we have.

A Voice: Two minutes.

N. Simons: Or two minutes, according to my friend. I could rag the puck, you know, but I won't.

I have a lot of questions, and maybe I can get a meeting with Workers Compensation.

The Kang inquest resulted in a number of recommendations. Can the minister inform us what steps have been taken since the coroner's inquest issued its rulings?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In fact, WorkSafe B.C. did report back to the coroner on all of the recommendations. Of special note, WorkSafe created special care services with additional staff and would be happy to provide the member with more information on that particular result.

N. Simons: During that inquest was Workers Compensation represented by individuals who attended the inquest and heard the testimony and subsequently offered their own testimony? Were the rules of evidence in the coroner's inquest respectful of the need to respect the rules of evidence? That was just an issue that was raised by the public.

Hon. S. Cadieux: All of the staff that went before the coroner's jury were examined and cross-examined.

[1805]

G. Gentner: To the minister: recently, as of March 10, there was a request for proposal by various ministries to look into the feasibility of a foreign trade zone. This notion has been around various studies by the government since 2006. What is the position of the government relative to foreign trade zones and the incorporation of a temporary foreign worker program within that project?
[ Page 6814 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Our current position is that once anyone is working in British Columbia, they are covered by the occupational health and safety laws and the employment standards of British Columbia. If there's something we're missing in your question, Member, that you would have further questions about, we'd be happy to have the expert at WorkSafe sit down with you.

R. Chouhan: Given the time constraints, we were not able to ask all the questions that we wanted to ask. Unfortunately, we had to leave out a number of questions which were very important to find out and explore the workings of all three departments of the Ministry of Labour — employment standards, the Workers Compensation Board and the Labour Relations Board.

However, given this limited time, we were able to raise many questions regarding the mine workers, asbestos, temporary farmworkers, university in Port Alberni. All those questions were raised, and what we have heard from the minister today through all these answers is that the government has deliberately failed workers in British Columbia since 2001.

If you look at the answers provided by the minister today, you would see that the number of FTEs has gone down systematically every year. The budget has been reduced by a big number every year. That has left a big gap to provide the services to protect workers and protect their rights.

We have seen, for example, at the Labour Relations Board, vice-chairs were reduced from 18 to eight — similarly, the employment standards branch. At the Workers Compensation Board we have seen the managers are paid a huge amount of bonuses, between 10 to 20 percent, yet the workers are not getting their benefits paid. They are not getting pensions. If they're disabled at the age of 65, they will not continue with the pension benefits. All of that is because this government has policies which are anti-workers, policies that have failed British Columbians.

I hope that next year when we debate the budget, we would have all these issues addressed. We would have more money allocated to the Ministry of Labour so we provide all the necessary resources to take care of these concerns that we have raised today.

With that, Mr. Chair, we conclude the line of questions that we have for the Minister of Labour.

[1810]

Vote 34: ministry operations, $72,166,000 — approved.

Vote 35: Shared Services B.C., $451,688,000 — approved.

Vote 36: government communications and public engagement, $26,155,000 — approved.

Vote 37: labour programs, $15,713,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I would just like to say thank you to all of my staff who have helped me through this first process here, and I appreciate all of the members of the opposition who posed their questions here in the estimates.

I would move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:12 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 © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175