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)

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 5

[ Page 7849 ]

THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: We have 22 grade 5 students joining us today in the gallery. They're from Sir James Douglas School, a school in my riding, and they're in the French immersion program. They're here with their teacher, Ms. Claire King, and four parents. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Tributes

ALLAN WILLIAMS

J. McIntyre: With the session ending, I thought we would be remiss in not acknowledging the passing of one of our distinguished former members. Allan Williams, QC, passed away February 28, 2011, at the age of 88 years. He's survived by his wife Marjorie and three children.

In 1950 he earned a law degree from UBC, and in the five decades of his career he combined a successful legal practice with an exceptional career in public service. Amongst a variety of elected positions, I want to highlight his service to the Legislative Assembly of B.C. where he served 17 years as MLA for West Vancouver–Howe Sound after being first elected in 1966.

He served as a Minister of Labour and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs and was appointed Attorney General in 1979 where he served in that post until 1983 when he retired from provincial politics and returned to private practice at Davis and Co.

Additionally, he served on several commissions and boards including the Whistler Land Corp. After a full career, he was then lured back into local politics, serving three terms on West Vancouver council until he retired in 2002 at the age of 80.

I understand the Speaker's office is arranging to make a donation to the Alzheimer's society at the request of the family — thank you, Mr. Speaker — but I'd like all members of the House to take time today to acknowledge the past accomplishments and contributions to British Columbia from a man clearly devoted to his profession and his community.

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: Carmen Gustafson is joining us here today. For anybody who has taught, this is one of those special students that come along. When she was a student, she represented B.C. schools in Washington, D.C., at a conference. She went on to run for the Green Party federally. She was a member of Golden council — I think the youngest councillor ever elected — and she's just finished an environmental law degree. I just want to ask the House to join me in welcoming her to Victoria.

Hon. C. Clark: I am delighted today to offer an introduction for a constituent of mine in Vancouver–Point Grey. Dr. Peter Wong is joining us today. He and his family have made a lifetime of contributions to British Columbians in hundreds of different ways. One of them, of course, is a huge contribution to Vancouver's Chinatown and the Asian community across British Columbia. I hope the House will please welcome my constituent, Dr. Peter Wong.

A. Dix: I want to introduce today the love of my life — my wife, Renée Saklikar, is in the galleries today — and to say to everybody in the House, especially on my side, I am not counting this as a date. In fact, hopefully, we'll be doing that later. Renée has assured me she is not doing any primary research today on the harmonized sales tax. Nonetheless, I'd like everyone in the House to wish her welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: Joining us in the House today are two very hard-working people with government communications and public engagement in my ministry. Jeremy Uppenborn is a junior public affairs officer, and Bronwyn Lawrie is a co-op student from the University of Victoria who has just joined us for the summer. They do great work, and I'm very fortunate to have them. So would everybody please make them feel welcome.

B. Routley: I have with me today in the Legislature Bill and Shirley Parks. Bill is quite a mountain of a guy. He ran the vertical resaw at the Youbou sawmill. I still remember when I first met him back in the 1970s doing that job. We had a wonderful tour and a nice lunch, and we indulged in a piece of pie. With that, I would ask this House to join me in welcoming Bill and Shirley Parks.

M. Coell: I have a constituent visiting us today, Mona Brash. She is accompanied by 24 officers from the Canadian Armed Forces from army, navy and air force. They come from greater Victoria and all across Canada to study a set of university courses, the officer professional military education program. They're actually studying Canadian federal and provincial politics at this time. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1340]

V. Huntington: I would like to introduce a constituent of mine, Mr. Eric Amlin, an engineer and technical transportation consultant, and Mr. Rod Fru. Both gentlemen
[ Page 7850 ]
are here on behalf of Wolf Trailer, which happens to be in the riding of our colleague from Vernon-Monashee. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

R. Howard: I have a guest in the House today. Mark Rogers is the vice-president of a great British Columbian group of companies. The Surespan Group built many assets across this great province, including almost 5,000, I think, resource bridges. Just as a note, Mark's father once occupied your chair, Mr. Speaker — the Hon. Stephen Rogers. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Fleming: I want to introduce a couple of guests in the gallery today. One of them is a good friend from my constituency and a member of my constituency association. Tom Longman is here in the gallery with us.

I want to join the member for Saanich North in welcoming the students, the officers from the Royal Military College division of continuing studies, to the House.

One of them is a friend of mine, who is here as a student. Scott McGregor has served overseas and studied firsthand and served our country in areas where political conflicts are a reality. He's now studying B.C. politics. He may find some similarities between the two in his experiences. Would the House make him feel welcome today here in the Legislature.

J. Thornthwaite: In the gallery I'd like to greet my constituent Carmina Gooch and her partner, Terry Roberge, who came to visit the Minister of Agriculture with me today. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. D. McRae: A constituent from the Comox Valley is visiting us today. Would the Legislature please welcome Jim Harris to these chambers.

D. Routley: I have two guests today, my friend Wayne Dunn and his son Kabore Dunn. Wayne is a consultant in corporate social responsibility and has been since before the term was ever coined. His wife, Gifty, is a native of Ghana. He works on social licensing projects. You'll find Wayne in that intersection between corporate, government, social and environmental project development.

One of his projects was the first private sector project to win the World Bank Development Innovation Award. His wife, Gifty, and he met while they were on the board of an international development organization in Ottawa.

His son Kabore is a former teammate and friend of my stepson Matthew — a very good hockey player. Kabore was the last cut from the B.C. team last year, one of the youngest players in the camp.

I'd like the House to help make my friend Wayne and his son Kabore welcome to our House.

M. Dalton: A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of introducing my grade 4 teacher to the Legislature. I'm on a roll, the members will be pleased to know. I've reconnected with my grade 5 teacher.

Interjections.

M. Dalton: Yes, grade 5. We're on a roll.

I haven't seen her for 40 years, and yes, she is in the House. I knew her then as Miss DeIure. She was my teacher in the Canadian Forces Station Holberg, which now is only trees. There's nothing remaining there, but there are trees. It's beautiful.

She was a great teacher. She put me on a group called the Fast Four in math. She built up my self-confidence and wrote nice things in the report card. I do have those report cards still. Some people have said nice things about me, yes.

It's amazing that I haven't reconnected because she is, in fact, married to Gordon Campbell. I tell you the truth. She is married to Gordon Campbell. Gordon served alongside the RCAF in World War II and later became a teacher. Joanne and Gordon Campbell — that's her married name now — live in Sidney, and I look forward to having lunch with them after question period. I'm just happy they're here.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1345]

Hon. M. Polak: We are joined in the gallery today by a very distinguished guest, Chief Robert Hope. He is here to watch the rest of our discussion on committee stage of the Yale First Nation final agreement and to witness the historic vote that will take place later this afternoon.

D. Donaldson: Today visiting the precinct is the Hazelton Secondary School's girls soccer team. They are amazing young women, great role models. They won the zones and are here in Victoria participating in the single-A provincial championships. After a 1,200-kilometre bus ride yesterday, they're playing two games today. I would like to ask the House to welcome the team, the parents who came down and their teacher sponsor Stacey Brown.

R. Cantelon: Joining us in the gallery today is Mr. John Hanuse. John has worked with us in the east annex and been of great help to our MLAs. He's completing his contract here and will be returning to Cortes Island. Let's all wish him well for his great assistance and wish him well in his future endeavours.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today is Petty Officer First Class Chris McCrea, who's the husband of Jennifer McCrea, who works and works ably in the Ministry of Education. Chris is here, as others have noted, with his classmates and their instructor, Mona Brash, for a course that fascinatingly is entitled "The Canadian Forces and Modern Society: Civics, Politics and International Relations."
[ Page 7851 ]

I understand that they have come here specifically to see our question period to provide a model of civility, moderation and thoughtfulness. Would the House please make them all welcome.

R. Sultan: In the gallery today we have a very poised and capable young lady, Emily Driedger, a grade 11 student at Lambrick Park Secondary School in Gordon Head. Would you please make her welcome.

D. Hayer: Joining us in the precinct today are 22 grade 7 students and 20 grade 5 students who are visiting from the Ellendale Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They are joined by their teacher and trustee from New Westminster school board Michael Ewen as well as parents and volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedule to come over here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure today of welcoming to the world Isabella Catherine Ramsell, daughter of my niece and her husband, David. This is the babe that makes my sister into a grandmother, so it's remarkable for our family. I'd ask you all to make her very welcome.

Tributes

Frankie Bones

M. Karagianis: A young foster child with multiple challenges has reached a very successful pinnacle. I'd like the House to congratulate Frankie Bones, who is graduating this weekend. He has an extraordinary music talent, and he has overcome many challenges to achieve an extraordinary goal in his life. I hope the House will offer great congratulations to Frankie Bones.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M215 — Senate Nominee
Election Act

J. Les presented a bill intituled Senate Nominee Election Act.

J. Les: I move that the act be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Les: The purpose of the bill is to modernize the Canadian Senate in a way that reflects the values of British Columbians and best represents British Columbia in the Senate of Canada. It is clear that the new federal government is open to Senate reform and hearing from provinces on best practices, and we are happy to engage with our federal counterparts to renew the Senate and find a mutually beneficial agreement to reimburse our government for the expenses incurred in conducting the elections prescribed in this act.

Thanks to advocates like Sen. Bert Brown from Alberta, who is himself an elected senator, these are conversations of value enabling us to talk about real change for British Columbians. The Senate Nominee Election Act provides a legal framework for the election of senatorial nominees to represent British Columbia in the Senate of Canada.

Our Premier has made a commitment to support open government, and this act provides another tangible example of following through on that commitment. At our recent convention B.C. Liberal members called for a framework for electing senators. Following through on that commitment to engage with British Columbians, I am pleased to introduce this legislation.

[1350]

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

Bill M215, Senate Nominee Election Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M216 — POVERTY
REDUCTION ACT, 2011

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Poverty Reduction Act, 2011.

S. Simpson: I move this bill be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Simpson: This bill is intended to put in place a legislated poverty reduction strategy for British Columbia. This legislation will establish a minister accountable for poverty reduction in our province and will mandate that minister, following a comprehensive consultation process, to report to the Legislature with accompanying legislation to put a comprehensive plan in place that includes identified targets and timelines for poverty reduction.

This legislation will also require that a representative advisory committee be established to support this poverty reduction strategy and that the minister report annually to the House on the progress that is being made on this plan.

This is a critical and overdue initiative for British Columbia. As a province we continue to have the worst levels of child poverty and overall poverty in Canada. Over 500,000 people in British Columbia live in poverty,
[ Page 7852 ]
and 120,000 of those are children, more than 11 percent of our total population. As a result, British Columbia has over the past decade become the most unequal province in our nation. This inequality must end, and this Poverty Reduction Act is a step in that direction.

Seven other provinces of all political stripes have moved forward with similar strategies, yet B.C. has steadfastly refused to either provide meaningful supports or be held accountable for helping the poor.

Poverty reduction is not an easy thing to do. It is not without costs, but in a civilized society, in a society as wealthy as ours in British Columbia, it is imperative that we do all we can to break this cycle of poverty and, in particular, do all we can to make sure that our children have real opportunity.

This is about families. It is about children, seniors and the disabled. It is about women escaping violence. It is about aboriginal people in our communities. It is about our brothers and sisters, our parents and our neighbours.

It is about strategies in the areas of income, housing, child care, education, training and health. It is about the government being the catalyst to help build the partnerships with the non-profit sector, business, academia, social justice groups and other levels of government.

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

Bill M216, Poverty Reduction Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Chouhan: I seek leave to table a bill.

Leave granted.

BILL M217 — WORKPLACE BULLYING
PREVENTION ACT

R. Chouhan presented a bill intituled Workplace Bullying Prevention Act.

R. Chouhan: I move that the bill be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Chouhan: We all know the negative impact of bullying on people. Victims of bullying have suffered severe trauma caused by harassment, and in some cases it has led people to commit suicide. Bullying does not stop on the playground. It can carry on to the workplace.

Harassment causes psychological and physical harm. It includes wilful acts, patterns of behaviour, ignoring and isolating people. It is an act to humiliate and intimidate people.

In a workplace victims of bullying are unable to work to their full capacity. This not only impacts individuals but also the business. Productivity is affected, and it becomes a financial loss for the business owners.

This bill carefully defines "harassment" and provides measures and procedures for workers to report incidental workplace harassment. It provides sound policy for investigating incidents and making workers accountable for acts of harassment.

Other provinces such as Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba also have brought in similar laws.

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

Bill M217, Workplace Bullying Prevention Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

BRAIN INJURY AWARENESS

C. James: When someone breaks a leg, the injury is plain to see. But when someone suffers a brain injury, the damage can be completely hidden from view, yet the effects can be devastating and life-changing.

Every year in British Columbia there are about 14,000 new brain injuries. The result of such injuries can be temporary, or they can be lifelong and may cause partial or total functional disability.

Survivors of acquired brain injuries face monumental challenges. They need a tremendous amount of support to cope, to recover, to be active members of our society. Their families and friends need support, too, and time to learn and to understand.

Around our province there are some amazing organizations dedicated to making a difference. They include the Victoria Brain Injury Society right here in Victoria–Beacon Hill, which runs on the people power of more than 55 dedicated volunteers. Their goal is to help citizens living with a brain injury to become self-reliant, confident and productive and to overcome the risks of homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, and crime. The society provides a supportive and safe environment that emphasizes the abilities, not disabilities, of each individual.

By using the experience of volunteers who have experienced an acquired brain injury themselves, the society's peer support program has proven to be a successful way to help survivors deal with the devastating repercussions. Volunteering can help the survivors, as well, and increase their ability to cope and rehabilitate themselves.
[ Page 7853 ]

June is Brain Injury Awareness Month. I hope that all members will join with me in thanking the individuals and organizations across B.C. that have dedicated themselves to helping those working to recover and cope with brain injuries. The injury might be invisible, but not the generosity and care of those who take on this important work. It makes a huge difference in communities every day.

WESTERN CANADA SUMMER GAMES
IN KAMLOOPS

K. Krueger: I'm pleased to rise and share the invitation and the enthusiasm of the people of Kamloops and the Thompson valleys for the Western Canada Summer Games, which get underway 64 days from today. I ask the members opposite and all members of the House to please mark your calendars.

August 5 to 14, come to Kamloops. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson and his staff will help you find rooms. We'd like to welcome some 2,300 athletes, and you along with them, and many more visitors — from Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and of course British Columbia.

These athletes, the best in their age groups, bring a high level of competition to the games. B.C.'s athletes will be aiming to win the tenth consecutive Western Canada Games trophy as the top-performing province or territory in the games.

Kamloops, of course, is the tournament capital of Canada — it may well soon be the tournament capital of the world — with extensive experience in hosting successful top-notch tournament and sporting events. It's a community that achieves excellence every time out, and it's the ideal host for these games.

We're anticipating a $7 million economic impact from hosting these games, and they will leave a legacy of sport development, trained volunteers, community infrastructure and pride. The games are a massive undertaking — 12 different venues; up to 2,500 volunteers; ten days packed with sports, arts, culture, entertainment and community spirit. It's indeed a very big job to pull all of this off, but the people of Kamloops and the host society are certainly up to the task. We're proud of our track record for hosting games in the tournament capital of Canada.

I'd really like you all to come to them. Join us in the Thompson valleys in August for the best-ever Western Canada Summer Games.

ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS

K. Conroy: As one ages, one is faced with all kinds of experiences, some wonderful and some not so wonderful.

One of the worst problems, which is often a painful secret, is that of elder abuse. June 15 marks World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Elder advocates from around the world promote awareness in an attempt to prevent elder abuse. The slogan is "My world, your world, our world — free of elder abuse."

Elder abuse comes in many forms — physical, emotional, neglect, financial and denial of rights. Often assets are taken, health is adversely affected, family and friends can become alienated, and the victim is often threatened and intimidated by the perpetrator of the abuse.

Elder abuse is surprisingly common. One in 12 seniors in B.C. is abused. More often than not the abuser of the elder is a family member, close friend or caregiver. The abused senior may be embarrassed and not willing to reveal the abuse or neglect.

The good news is that there are a number of organizations in B.C. that are helping seniors to deal with abuse. The B.C. Centre for Elder Advocacy and Support is a provincial organization that educates and raises awareness about elder abuse issues.

[1400]

Locally, in my own constituency, the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Seniors, or SPCS, was formed after the tragic case of the Albos, who were separated and subsequently died away from each other. The group's commitment is to make sure elderly couples are not split up but in fact can live with the dignity they deserve. They continue to be advocates in our region, ensuring seniors and their families have the support they need when dealing with difficult situations.

Here on the south Island there are a number of groups, including the Saanich Peninsula Health Association and the Old Age Pensioners Organization, Branch 191, Greater Victoria group. Both of these groups have been advocating for a public inquiry into the suspicious death of a local senior, Kathleen Palamarek. In this case the suspected abuse was due to overmedication, and the family needs answers.

As elected representatives we need to work together to ensure elder abuse is not tolerated and is, in fact, eradicated, and that seniors alive today don't have to suffer the same tragedies as the Albos and Kathleen Palamarek and their families.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF VOLUNTEERS

D. Hayer: What truly makes a community are the people who contribute to it, the ones who help bring us all together, the ones who generate pride and ensure inclusiveness for all. Without volunteers, elders would not be as well cared for, pioneers would not be remembered, heroes would not be honoured. For that matter, many of us in this House may not have been elected had it not been for the hard work of many volunteers. The assistance provided to British Columbians by those volunteers is priceless.

The value of directors, executives, volunteers and members of non-profit societies is worth more than
[ Page 7854 ]
gold. I doubt our economy could ever generate the funding to adequately pay for the services that volunteers give from their hearts. I am proud to regularly meet with many of the groups who are driven by contributions of volunteerism.

We are fortunate to have dozens and dozens of those great volunteer organizations in my community. Some of the volunteer groups in my community include Fraser Heights Community Association, Port Kells Community Association, Tynehead Community Association, Guildford Community Partners Society, Fleetwood Community Association, Rotary Club of Surrey Fraser Heights, Rotary Club of Surrey-Guildford, Rotary Club of Cloverdale, North Surrey Lions Club, Guildford Lions Club, Royal Canadian Legions of Whalley and Cloverdale, Indian Ex-Servicemen Society of B.C. and Dogwood Anti-Poverty Society.

The list of organizations and individuals who help others as devoted volunteers is almost endless in my community. I am certain that in every region of this province the worth of volunteerism is boundless. I ask the House to join me in offering a heartfelt thanks to the hundreds and thousands of British Columbians who so generously volunteer their time and skills to help and support other British Columbians.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO FIRE
IN BURNABY-EDMONDS AREA

R. Chouhan: I am pleased to talk about the spirit of cooperation in my constituency, Burnaby-Edmonds. About a month ago an apartment fire left over a dozen families homeless. Many of these families were new immigrants, low-income with young children. Some of these people did not have any relatives or friends to depend on, but they were lucky to live in a community which is known for its generosity and compassion. Without delay, they were helped by a network of dedicated service providers, volunteers and all levels of government to provide them with housing and other forms of assistance.

I am proud to have such dedicated community members and organizations in my constituency and would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their efforts. They were: Doreen George, Edmonds Community School coordinator; Maggie Marquardt, outreach worker; Sara Shaw, South Burnaby Neighbourhood House; Brian Cousineau, city of Burnaby; Cheryl Stogren, Progressive Housing; Wanda Mulholland, task force on homelessness; Burnaby Fire Fighters Charitable Society; Peter Julian, MP; SACHI Foundation; Deer Lake community church; Salvation Army; Helping Families in Need; Ministry of Social Development; B.C. Housing; and Minister Responsible for Housing.

Also many thanks to Laarni de los Reyes, my constituency assistant, for her hard work on this file. She went above and beyond her duties to ensure that families received all the help they needed.

Once again, my sincere thanks to everyone I have mentioned here and many more for their dedication and hard work for making our community a very welcome place for everyone.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members to make sure their cell phones are turned off.

[1405]

GRADUATES FROM SCHOOLS
IN BURNABY NORTH AREA

R. Lee: Summer is here, and students all across B.C. are completing another year of studies. Last week I had the honour to attend three graduation ceremonies for three schools in my constituency: Burnaby Central, Burnaby North and Alpha Secondary.

I was also privileged to present scholarship awards to three students, one from each school, making their departure from high school just a little bit sweeter. These students are a great example of what academic excellence means. They have demonstrated good citizenship in the school and the community, and participated in community services and volunteer work. They are also interested in public administration.

I'm sure Karen Chan, Eric Xu and Hannah Lin will continue to exceed expectations well beyond Burnaby Central, Burnaby North and Alpha Secondary.

I'm also impressed by the drive of students like Trevor de Zeeuw from Burnaby Central, one of the 18 teens from around the world chosen to participate in the Students On Ice educational expedition to the Arctic; Kevin Hua, the Governor General gold-medal recipient from Alpha; and Paula and Peggy Hsien, twin sisters from Burnaby North who have won numerous awards in table tennis and who have excelled academically.

It's very inspiring to be able to meet and honour these students. With young people like this, B.C. is truly facing a bright future. I encourage all members to join me in acknowledging the impressive achievements of these students. All the best to every student who is graduating this year. This will be a memorable year.

Go, Canucks, go!

Oral Questions

COST OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

A. Dix: Yesterday the Minister of Finance finally acknowledged that his $5 million Stickman campaign was a one-sided, partisan affair. He claimed that the government wouldn't offer any arguments in favour of the PST-GST system because — and I'm quoting him precisely: "There isn't any positive to the PST. There just isn't."
[ Page 7855 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just wait a second.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Will the Premier finally acknowledge what her Minister of Finance acknowledged yesterday — that the B.C. Liberal Party is using public funds to sell its HST to the public?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm glad the question came very clearly at the end, because the Minister of Finance and I were engaged in a little argument about which of us was going to get to answer this HST question today. We have been looking forward to the opposition raising the HST in this Legislature for a long time. And why?

We've been looking forward to the chance to be able to debate whether or not we will have a 12 percent tax, which, of course, is what they will support, or whether we will have a 10 percent tax in British Columbia; whether or not we will be fairer to families or whether or not we will be unfair to families, which is what they are arguing for; whether or not we will rebalance the taxation between business and individuals; whether or not we are going to make it easier for families to get ahead or whether we're going to follow that age-old NDP recipe and keep making it harder and harder for the working people of British Columbia to get ahead.

I'm delighted the NDP have finally found the courage to raise this question in the Legislature, and I'll look forward to a couple more.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

It's going to be one of those days.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

[1410]

A. Dix: You know, there are some Liberals who can bring balance to this debate. For example, former Finance Minister Carole Taylor said: "This particular tax takes the tax off business. It takes $1.8 billion off of business, and it puts it on consumers."

Then there's the B.C. Liberal Party itself.

Interjections.

A. Dix: Oh, you know they want to shout that stuff down.

Interjections.

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

Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Well, I think I'll read that again.

Former Finance Minister Carole Taylor, a B.C. Liberal Finance Minister, when she was describing what the Premier used to describe as the sneaky tactics of all of her colleagues, said: "This particular tax takes the tax off of business. It takes $1.8 billion off of business, and it puts it on consumers."

It did it last year. It's going to do it this year. It's a $3.6 billion tax increase on families. That's what the former Minister of Finance says — a $3.6 billion tax increase on families.

What did the B.C. Liberal Party themselves say? What did they say? They said the HST "would extend the PST tax base to a broader range of goods and services…. This is a major concern." It's major because it means a huge number of items go from zero percent — that's zero percent — to 7 percent, and those are paid by B.C. families.

If the Premier is so confident in her position, why doesn't she stop her political party, the B.C. Liberal Party, from using public funds to make their case with an ad campaign that's unacceptable to British Columbians?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the opposition's coming up with a whole new argument in favour of their 12 percent tax. I'm delighted. I'm delighted to see these arguments — finally, on the last day of the Legislature — come to the House. I'm delighted they're finally raising the HST in the Legislature. It gives us a chance to talk about whether or not British Columbians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. C. Clark: It gives us a chance to talk about whether or not…. Who in this House is in favour of a 12 percent tax, or a 2 percent tax reduction on everything? Who is it in this House that's in favour of a 12 percent tax?

Who is it in this House that doesn't care about fairness for families, who isn't interested in helping families get a little bit ahead — although we all know that families are increasingly feeling like they're struggling? Who is it in this House that doesn't want to address the issues of the independent panel report?

Who is it in this House that wants to ignore the views of the 300,000 British Columbians that we talked to in the course of this HST consultation, the largest public consultation in British Columbia's history?

Of course, it's the New Democrats. It's the New Democrats who have their ears closed. While they want a 12 percent tax, the people on this side of the House and British Columbians are saying it's time to shelve the 12.

Interjections.
[ Page 7856 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, a $3 billion tax increase on families. Who would believe that's good for families? Perhaps the Premier.

[1415]

Perhaps it's the Premier who complains that we're not debating HST in the House and then brings in closure to stop the debate. I thought the Premier might have learned in Vancouver–Point Grey that it's a good idea to show up for the debate. I guess there's no debate when you hire an animated Stickman to put forward your position.

Will the minister finally cancel that ad campaign and ensure that that money goes where it belongs — to B.C. classrooms, to B.C. hospitals, to people with developmental disabilities? Will she shelve the campaign now?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know why the NDP is so scared of information. They've been complaining there hasn't been enough all these many months, and now all they complain about is that there's too much information getting out there.

I don't say we shelve the campaign. I say we shelve the 12, which I think is what British Columbians will also support.

We need to be fair to families. We need to make sure that we're rebalancing the tax burden, and we need to make sure it's a little bit easier for people to try and get ahead in an economy where it's been really tough for a lot of people to get ahead.

I don't think British Columbians are going to buy NDP math. He stands up, and he talks about the billions of dollars. Will they believe the math from an opposition leader who produced eight deficit budgets in a row? Will they believe an opposition leader who was there in the Premier's office when they raised taxes to the highest in Canada?

It is no surprise that the NDP want higher taxes. They don't want to have a lower 10 percent tax. They want to have a higher 12 percent tax. It's no surprise when it's the same group of people that burdened families across British Columbia with the highest income taxes not just in Canada but anywhere across this great continent.

Now, this is my last chance to answer a question on this topic from the leader. I do hope the next questioner gets up and gives the Minister of Finance the courtesy of asking him a question about whether or not, indeed, we should shelve the 12.

C. James: This Premier has proven once again why the public doesn't believe anything the B.C. Liberals say, especially on the HST. It's now very clear to everyone in the public that this Premier has spent her time coming up with new slogans instead of standing up for families.

Let's take a look at the campaign on the referendum itself. Allowing the pro-HST side to run a campaign with no spending limits, with no disclosure requirements, isn't fair or unbiased. This is the people of British Columbia's referendum, not the B.C. Liberals' referendum. Shifting the goalposts to give one side the advantage shows complete disrespect for the voters of this province.

My question is to the Premier: why won't you impose spending limits and disclosure requirements right now, today.

[1420]

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, one thing you never hear from the NDP opposite is.... They're not pointing out that there are any errors in those facts, in that information campaign.

All you hear is that they are uncomfortable with those facts, and I can understand why they are uncomfortable with those facts. The entire time we've been in session, I have been waiting, sitting and waiting, listening to all of their impassioned speeches about why they don't like the HST, but I have yet to hear a single argument about why it makes sense to go back to a 12 percent PST plus GST — not a single cogent argument out of that side.

Perhaps it is because nine of the ten fastest-growing economies in the world — including China, India, Taiwan and Singapore — all have value-added taxes like the HST. But I note with interest that the one country that doesn't, the one country that they're always fond of quoting, which still has a retail sales tax today, is Cuba.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

C. James: Let's look at the B.C. Liberals' campaign for this referendum. No spending limits. A referendum ballot in the summer. And $5 million of taxpayer money spent on biased advertising — no disclosure. This is unprecedented.

My question, again, is to the Premier. When will the Premier and the B.C. Liberals wake up, recognize this is the public's referendum and stop playing games with the public?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just for once could the NDP do their homework and get their story straight? They were just telling us a while back that they wanted to move the referendum forward. The Premier followed through on that commitment and moved the referendum date forward.

Now, if they had done their homework, they would have known that moving it forward required moving it over to the Referendum Act to ensure that we could actually have an early referendum. If they read the
[ Page 7857 ]
Referendum Act, they would understand what the rules are around the Referendum Act.

The fact of the matter is that this Premier has kept the commitment to move the date forward. We have kept our commitment to make sure that the public has factual information to ensure they can make an informed choice.

They are upset because the facts are uncomfortable. They are trying to argue that instead of a 10 percent HST with an efficient tax system used by 140 countries around the world, they want to go back to an inefficient, dual-tax system at 12 percent, with a GST and PST. That makes no sense to anybody.

PROCESS FOR
REFERENDUM ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

B. Ralston: No surprise that the Finance Minister would choose the example of China. The minister is on record as being an admirer of Chinese democracy for some time.

The minister talked about the referendum and the Premier's commitment on the provincial referendum. When she was running for the leadership….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

[1425]

B. Ralston: When the Premier was running as a leadership candidate for the leadership of her party, she promised, in connection with the referendum, that it would be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election. When she was in a position to make that decision, she promptly went back on her word.

Unlike a provincial election, there are no spending limits for HST proponents, nor are there any disclosure requirements. Perhaps a little bit more of that Chinese example that the Minister of Finance was speaking of.

It is the public's referendum, not a B.C. Liberal donors' referendum. Can the Premier explain why she's adding to the already high level of distrust of the B.C. Liberal government by conducting the referendum in this way?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to get up and speak to the opposition again on this issue. As I've said a number of times, we want to make sure that the HST is fair for British Columbians. We want to make sure that we're rebalancing the taxation burden between business and families.

The independent panel told us that it wasn't fair the way it was. They told us that families would be, on average, $350 behind, so we're fixing that. We're going to a 10 percent tax, which will mean that every single family will be ahead when it comes to this tax than they would have been under the system that the NDP is advocating.

We do need to make sure that taxes are fair for families. I know that that isn't an issue you will find at the heart of NDP platform documents. I know that fairness for families isn't part of a record that includes the highest income taxes of anywhere across this continent. I know that fairness for families isn't part of a government that had a record of raising small business taxes by 80 percent.

I know that's not the kind of fairness for families that they're talking about, but we truly are talking about fairness for families. It is interesting, as the Finance Minister pointed out, that every time they do have the temerity to get up and talk about the HST in the Legislature, they never talk about the reality of the tax.

I hope that the critic will get up and offer us next his defence for why he wants so badly to go back to the PST-GST.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The Premier would rather do anything than talk about her broken promise. She promised not to sell B.C. Rail in the year 2000. She promised….

Interjections.

B. Ralston: A very clear commitment.

She promised to conduct this referendum in the same manner as a provincial election. Why doesn't she address the reason why she broke those promises and tell the public why they should trust her ever again?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, when the critic goes back that far, he is tempting fate. He is tempting fate because…. And here's the thing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Premier.

Hon. C. Clark: Here is the fate that he is tempting. When he asks a question like that, it's entirely possible that the Minister of Education might not be able to stay in his seat and might have to get up and talk about something like the fast ferries. But we'll stay away from that today.

I'll do my best to answer the question. We are doing what we can to try and make sure that the HST is fairer for families. That's been my commitment all along. We want to make sure in this referendum that British Columbians have the information that they need to be able to make a
[ Page 7858 ]
good decision, a well-informed decision. Whatever decision that is, we will accept their verdict.

[1430]

But for my part — and I am unashamed to say this; I've been saying this for over a year now — I will be voting in favour of the HST.

The new, improved HST is going to be much fairer for families. Every family in British Columbia, with a 2 percent tax cut, is going to be further ahead than they would be under the tax that the NDP is advocating — a 12 percent PST-GST. I don't think British Columbians want to go back to it, but we'll see what happens as a result of the referendum.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES
IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE
AND INDEMNITY POLICY REVIEW

J. Kwan: In October of last year the Premier said, on the Liberal B.C. Rail corruption scandal: "There are outstanding questions the government must answer. For heaven's sake, the public has the right to know what those answers are." But just a few months later the Premier did another one of her classic flip-flops. The $6 million B.C. Rail plea bargain is "not something I intend to reconsider." She further says: "It's a decision that was made, and it's not something that I'll be revisiting."

Funny how that is. She was curious about the plea bargain when she was a talk-show host, but now that she's Premier and has the power to do something about it — poof! — that curiosity is gone.

My question to the Premier: was her quest for the truth just empty words, just like the promise not to buy votes on the HST?

Hon. B. Penner: Well, this issue has been canvassed thoroughly, more than four hours….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. B. Penner: This issue has been canvassed thoroughly, for at least four hours, maybe more, during the estimates debate of the Ministry of Attorney General and another hour and a half or so during estimates debate for the Minister of Finance. I understand that it's also been canvassed during estimates debate for the Premier. This is how the opposition chooses to spend their time, and that's fine.

We have made it clear that we have concerns with what happened. We want to make sure that taxpayers' interests are better protected in the future. That is why we have retained the services of Mr. Stephen Toope at the University of British Columbia to conduct a review of the indemnity policy to see how it is that it expanded from civil proceedings to criminal matters in the 1990s and beyond. We want to see what the results of that review are, and we're looking forward to that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The current indemnity review does not provide Dr. Toope the mandate to investigate the corruption scandal. Dr. Toope has not been directed to investigate the $6 million payoff, and the Premier knows it. The Premier was in cabinet when the B.C. Rail went down. She likes to hear herself talk, so let me just quote her, from the year 2000.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: She said: "We're not going to sell B.C. Rail." She was in government when the B.C. Liberals went back on their election promise to not sell B.C. Rail, and she was very, very close to the scandal corruption case — very close. If she expects British Columbians to have faith in her ability to govern and to have a clean record on the B.C. Rail corruption deal, will she direct Dr. Stephen Toope in writing to investigate the $6 million payout as part of her review? If not, why not?

Hon. B. Penner: We can't turn the date back and put a different stamp on the decision that was made. The Leader of the Opposition might choose to do that, but that's not our choice.

[1435]

We do want to find out if there's a way we can better shape the policy for the future. To quote from the terms of reference, which are publicly available but apparently have not been read by the member asking the question, Mr. Toope is asked to do the following: "This review is to consider the rationale for the policy, the history of the development of the policy, how it has been applied in the past and the need for indemnity arrangements from a public administration perspective."

I suggest the member take the time to find the terms of reference, which are available publicly on the Ministry of Attorney General website for all to see.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

H. Lali: One minute two accused Liberal insiders are saying that the B.C. Liberal corruption scandal goes much higher into the upper echelons of the Liberal government. The next minute they plead guilty and take the
[ Page 7859 ]
fall because the Liberals threw $6 million of hush money at them to end their trial just before Gary Collins, a former Liberal minister, was to take the stand.

It stinks, hon. Speaker. Everybody knows it stinks, and the Premier knows it stinks. Even the Premier knows it stinks, and that's why she herself had asked: "Why did the Crown offer the plea deal in the first place, and why did they feel that they needed to throw in the $6 million indemnity in order to get the accused to sign it?"

To the Premier: why are you refusing to seek the truth about the B.C. Liberal corruption scandal and the $6 million payout? Is it because you're afraid that other B.C. Liberals will be implicated in this Liberal corruption scandal?

Hon. B. Penner: As has become evident, reading skills are not a strong suit for the opposition, for if they were, they might have read the following article in the Globe and Mail, February 17, 2011, with the headline: "Files Exonerate Elected Liberals in B.C. Rail Scandal."

The first paragraph: "An exhaustive police investigation into political corruption surrounding the sale of B.C. Rail found no evidence of wrongdoing by former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister" — now the Premier — "or any other elected official, according to documents obtained by the Globe and Mail."

Perhaps it's time for the opposition to offer an unqualified apology to all the people whose reputations they besmirched within the safety of this legislative chamber. If they have allegations to make and they're so confident in what they're doing, take it into the hallway and take your chances with the results.

[End of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

B.C. REPRESENTATION
IN HOUSE OF COMMONS

Hon. C. Clark: I rise to inform the House that I've sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and I'll read it, if I can, into the record now.

"Dear Prime Minister Harper,

"Media reports suggest that the government of Canada will be introducing legislation to increase the number of seats in the House of Commons for British Columbia. This move to adequately reflect British Columbia's size at the federal level would be an extremely positive development.

"I recognize that this was a commitment your government made in the last election, and I'm pleased to see that you and your government intend to move this initiative forward in order that the new seats can be in place for the 2015 election.

"I look forward to working with your government and the Hon. Tim Uppal, the Minister of State, Democratic Reform, as you move forward with this important initiative.

[1440]

"On behalf of all British Columbians, thank you for taking these steps to make the House of Commons more democratically representative of Canada's regions."

I'll also just add — that's my letter to the Prime Minister; I'll table it when I sit down — an appeal to the members of the opposition as well. The members of their party in Ottawa may not be so excited about B.C. getting its fair share in the House of Commons. Indeed, their federal leader hasn't expressed unqualified support. In fact, if anything, he's been unsupportive of British Columbia receiving its fair share in the House of Commons.

So I would ask the members of the opposition to do all that they can to lobby their brothers and sisters in Ottawa. I know the Leader of the Opposition speaks French. It will be useful in approaching his many Quebec colleagues in Ottawa to make sure that British Columbia gets its fair share.

The federal government wants to do this. I hope that the opposition, this opposition, can find a way to persuade their colleagues and the opposition in the House of Commons to vote…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It's a ministerial statement.

Hon. C. Clark: …in favour of this legislation, should it be introduced.

I'd like to table this letter now.

Mr. Speaker: Just to remind members, it's a ministerial statement. The Leader of the Opposition has time to respond.

A. Dix: We all know that when very serious letters like this are sent to the Prime Minister, letters whose first sentence is "media reports suggest" and second sentence begins "if accurate," those ones he takes particularly seriously.

For years I have advocated for B.C. to get its fair share of representation in the House of Commons — for years I have. I say it's about time, and even this proposal doesn't bring us to that level. B.C. should have its full share of representation in the House of Commons, and we should have our full share of representation in the Upper House.

Currently, as the members of the House know…. I'm not going to waste the time of this House with silly partisan statements like the one made by the Premier of the province. I think we in British Columbia should argue — when we have one senator for every 700,000 citizens and other provinces have one senator for every 30,000 citizens — to see the abolition of the Senate and fair representation for British Columbia in the House of Commons. That's what we advocate on this side of the House — serious positions on serious issues.

The issue of representation in the House of Commons is a fundamental one. We in B.C. over time and because of circumstances have been shortchanged, and that has
[ Page 7860 ]
to change. I find it wrong. I just find it wrong that the Premier of British Columbia, rather than trying to speak for British Columbia, would attempt to make this a vicious, nasty little partisan issue.

I think what British Columbia wants is a Premier who will speak for British Columbia, who will speak for our representation in the House of Commons, who will speak for our representation in the Upper House, who will defend the interests of British Columbia — who will do this and lead British Columbia to a better future. That's what they want, and that's what they're going to get soon.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: I respectfully present the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act's section 72(8).

Hon. H. Bloy: I have the honour to present the multiculturalism report for 2009-10.

[1445]

S. Hammell: Mr. Speaker, dare I rise?

Petitions

S. Hammell: I rise to present a petition from citizens who are…

Mr. Speaker: I think you've got to worry about your own Whip on the cell phone. [Laughter.]

S. Hammell: …opposed to the imposition of the wireless smart meters.

Hon. R. Coleman: With leave, I rise to table the terms of reference for some of the select standing committees of the Legislature.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

TERMS OF REFERENCE for special
and SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. R. Coleman: I've given my colleague the opposition House Leader a copy of these motions in advance. These motions are the direction and terms of reference for the following committees: the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Select Standing Committee on Health, a Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth and a Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides.

I move that those motions be dealt with now.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the BC child welfare system, and in particular to:

1. Be the committee that receives and reviews the annual service plan from the Representative for Children and Youth (the "Representative") that includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and performance measures that will be required to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the Representative during the fiscal year;

2. Be the committee to which the Representative reports, at least annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the critical injury or death of a child; and

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans delivered by the Representative to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered:

1. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the budget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to:

(a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;

(b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2011 on the results of those consultations; and

2. (a) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory officers:

(i) Auditor General

(ii) Chief Electoral Officer

(iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner

(iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner

(v) Merit Commissioner

(vi) Ombudsperson

(vii) Police Complaint Commissioner

(viii) Representative for Children and Youth; and
[ Page 7861 ]

(b) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other matters brought to the Committee's attention by any of the Officers listed in 2 (a) above.

3. The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services shall be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Auditor General Act and that the performance report in section 22 of the Auditor General Act be referred to the committee.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as shall be referred to them by this House or pursuant to the Recall and Initiative Act, as the case may be, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers, and records, as the Committee requires.]

[1. That the reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the Third Session of the thirty-ninth parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception of the report referred to in section 22 of the Auditor General Act which is referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 2, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor General Act.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That the Select Standing Committee on Health be empowered to:

1. Examine the projected impact on the provincial health care system of demographic trends to the year 2036 on a sustainable health care system for British Columbians.

2. Outline potential alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of the baby boomers on the provincial health system, and

3. Identify current public levels of acceptance toward the alternative strategies.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Health, the Committee shall be empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That a Special Committee be appointed to unanimously recommend to the House the appointment of a Representative for Children and Youth, pursuant to section 2 of the Representative for Children and Youth Act, and that the said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That a Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides be appointed to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the elimination of the unnecessary use of pesticides in British Columbia and to conduct consultations on this issue with the public and key stakeholders, by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider, the Special Committee shall specifically consider:

1. The scope of any ban on the sale and use of pesticides, including those used solely for cosmetic purposes; and

2. Any appropriate exemptions and restrictions on the sale and use, which may apply.

The Special Committee shall provide recommendations to the Legislative Assembly with respect to the development and implementation of legislative provisions regarding the unnecessary use of pesticides.

The Special Committee so appointed shall have all the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case
[ Page 7862 ]
may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motions approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will start out with committee stage of Bill 11, Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, followed by committee stage of Bill 8, the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act, then followed by Bill 13, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, and Bill 15, intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4), all of which are in committee stage this afternoon.

In the little House, in Committee A, we will be finishing the estimates of the Office of the Premier, and then we will go into the Ministry of Energy and Mines' housing portion of debates.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation
Final Agreement Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

On section 2 (continued).

B. Simpson: I would like to recognize the presence of Chief Robert Hope and any other members of the Yale First Nation that are present. I do want to again restate my desire to be understood in my questions of the Yale treaty as process questions, not the question of Yale's right to that treaty. I hope that they will be taken in that spirit.

[1450]

With respect to questions of process, there are three issues that I'm canvassing here. First, of course, is whether or not we have enabled a B.C. Treaty Commission process, whether it's defaulting to a first-past-the-post system because of resource issues, because of preferred tables and so on and whether or not we need to rethink that.

Secondly, is it time for British Columbia, now that we've got three treaties under our belt and this one proceeding, to really examine the best positioning of overlapping claims? Do we want to force litigation post-treaty, or do we want to look at reconstituting the B.C. Treaty Commission, giving it a renewed mandate, renewed resources, so that overlapping claims issues can be done in advance of treaty like other jurisdictions do?

Then finally, we're going to go to page 21 just now, section 2 of a bill that's before us that's 495 pages long. This treaty is getting caught up in the pathos of this House, as we saw today — probably the worst demonstration that even this House has experienced of how imbecilic debate is becoming. It's little wonder that voters walk away from us when they see this kind of nonsense go on.

Here we are, because of that kind of stuff, truncated into page 21 of 495 pages with 35 minutes left for debate. Again, I argue that I think there's a more reasonable way to do this.

I wish to read a statement into the record. There's a bit of length to the statement, but there's a reason for reading it in, because it best captures my conversations with the Stó:lô. I do give my apologies to Chief Robert Hope that I have not had similar conversations with Yale. It just has not happened.

This is a statement by Hugh Brody, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Aboriginal Studies at the University of the Fraser Valley, is an associate at the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge and author of Maps and Dreams and The Other Side of Eden.

He states:

"The trouble with the Yale agreement is that it both does and does not pay due attention to the history. The rights of a First Nation to its resources is, of course, a reading in history and is built on detailed accounts of how the land and river were known and used in the past. But many of the people who know and use that set of fishing sites have been dispersed.

"Guided by ideas about farming as the right way to live, government forced families to move from the rugged lands of the canyon to the wide alluvial valley downstream. Many Stó:lô were resettled in the agriculture region of the Fraser Valley around Chilliwack. But the people who moved away from the fishery to live still went to the canyon to fish, to learn, to pray and, in some cases, to be buried.

"Attachments to those sites did not just fade away. The resource did not simply slide into the hands of those who lived near to it. Every fishing season, families go back to their sites to catch the food they need and find the heritage they identify with.

"At the moment it looks as though the Yale agreement will entrench the rights of the people who live in or near Yale and deny or reduce the rights of those who live outside that community. This is to create or to aggravate tension and hostilities in the wider area. It is to consolidate and worsen a historical wrong that came from the implementation of the Indian Act, the splitting of peoples into small bands on scattered reserves and the relocation of people to places that governments thought would be right for them.

"It is also to launch argument and legal actions that would drain resources and even further erode relations within and between First Nations of the area.

"Historical damage has come from measures that failed to acknowledge deep needs for heritage or links to land and resources. By pressing ahead with this agreement, the government could yet again be proceeding without due regard to those needs and links without addressing the painful results of history. This would make things worse, not better, for the Stó:lô community as a whole."

As Mr. Brody and others point out, including the Stó:lô, this final agreement will lead to litigation. This final agreement will lead to potentially active protests in an area that has already been in dispute and suffered from active protests.
[ Page 7863 ]

My question to the minister is on clause 2, and it's a desire to understand what proceeds now on section 2.4.7, "Indemnities."

[1455]

It indicates that the Yale First Nation must indemnify Canada and British Columbia from "any and all damages, costs excluding fees and disbursements of solicitors," etc., for any action or omission by Canada before the effective date.

Then 2.4.8: "A Party who is the subject of a suit, action, claim, proceeding or demand that may give rise to a requirement…." It talks about payment to that party pursuant to indemnity.

I'm not clear. Again, as the opposition critic had indicated before, this is legal language that I'm not clear about, because I do understand we may be looking at a decade-long legal battle that may take the issue of title to the court. Taking the issue of title to the court is the explicit reason why treaties are entered into and why we have a B.C. Treaty Commission process.

Could the minister please explain if it is the Yale First Nation that has to bear the brunt of any claims against this treaty? If not, how does that process work, and who is it that the Stó:lô would lay claim against?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll deal with a couple of the earlier parts of the member's question before I get to the specific question on hand.

First of all, I want to reiterate. The BCTC process is not a first-past-the-post system. The treaty contains in it, as do other treaties, contemplation of future treaties that may impact on Yale. So there are ample provisions made, and in fact, there is the assumption made that there will be future treaties and that there will be interaction between those treaties and Yale.

We are certainly having greater success in recent years in reaching treaty agreements, and we appreciate the work of the B.C. Treaty Commission. By all accounts, it is working well. Certainly, we're always open to suggestions to try and improve any process, but I have to say that recent evidence — that being the signing of modern day treaties and progress for other First Nations toward treaty — is, I think, strong evidence that the B.C. Treaty Commission process is working very well.

It's also important, again, to emphasize that contrary to the assertions of the Stó:lô, this treaty does nothing to damage the section 35 rights of the Stó:lô, and in case of any disagreement with respect to that or a finding that there is some infringement, we have the non-derogation clause which protects against that.

With respect to the learned gentleman's opinion that was shared by the member opposite, I did note that in the description of the treaty, the person writing it seems to have forgotten that the current status of reserve land is that it is completely under the unilateral control of the Chief of the Yale First Nation. There are trespass laws that can be enforced such that if the Yale First Nation did not wish to have people accessing that reserve land, they can certainly have that enforced. In fact, in the treaty, there are access provisions that ensure that both the public and the Stó:lô have reasonable access through a system or agreement that will be developed at a later date.

This does not have to lead to litigation. In fact, it's our expectation that it will lead to further negotiation. We have continued to actively engage with Stó:lô. We will continue to do that. It is our expectation that we will be able to negotiate a resolution to the issues that have caused them concern.

[1500]

With respect to protests. I have grown up in the Fraser Valley. There have been active protests for decades with respect to these issues. There continue to be active protests. Those are not the result of the treaty and will not be the result of the treaty.

To the specific question. The member references section 2.4.7 and section 2.4.8. This is standard language that's included in any treaty. It's not unique to Yale.

The member is misreading the section. It does not apply, does not reference and is not related to litigation that may be brought by Stó:lô. This is Yale indemnifying the parties in the case that a Yale member may decide to pursue litigation with respect to Yale treaty rights.

B. Simpson: Because of a shortage of time…. We have canvassed back and forth as a fundamental disagreement in terms of the minister's interpretation of current Yale rights versus what the treaty does and what Stó:lô understand. Again, because there isn't a Stó:lô representative in the House and because we haven't taken this to committee and because committee hasn't taken the final agreement out and heard witness from Stó:lô, then I have no discomfort in attempting to bring Stó:lô into this House.

This is the only time for public debate on this very extensive treaty. I appreciate the minister's clarification of what is meant by "indemnify." The minister has referred to, and I know the opposition critics canvassed this somewhat, 2.12, on page 25 — the other aboriginal people.

The question here, of course…. As the minister has indicated, the access for Stó:lô now will be by permit, what the Stó:lô call gatekeeper, and again, there's the Fraser itself. There's the Frozen Lakes area. There are Kuthlalth areas that are contentious. Chief Joseph Hall has indicated to me that he is in agreement with 90 percent of this treaty. They would like some language that gives them some clarity and surety around access here.

The minister has pointed a number of times to 2.12 as the way that this will be addressed in the future. Could the minister clarify — we've had a very brief touch on this — what the legal definition of "best efforts" are and who or what entity determines if best efforts have actually been achieved?

[1505]
[ Page 7864 ]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll walk through a few of the things that have been raised in this question — first, with respect to the idea that a committee would take the treaty around. Just as in the case of government negotiating collective agreements with parties, one wouldn't then take the collective agreement that had been bargained in good faith around the province with a committee and then have the public comment on whether or not government should sign it.

Part of bargaining in good faith means that you have a set mandate that you are empowered to bargain with. We do that with treaties as well. And so not only has there never been a treaty that has been taken around the province in such a manner, but it is unlikely that any government ever would, because of the principles of bargaining that are employed.

Let me hit on a few of the other points that were raised with respect to the member's contention that somehow it is a foregone conclusion that the Yale will have to apply for permits. We canvassed this yesterday, and I outlined to the member the fact that permitting is mentioned, as well as other means. It is contemplated that it is likely that Stó:lô would enter into some type of agreement, whether that be with the Stó:lô Nation as a whole or the Stó:lô families who currently have a relationship with Yale and are continuing with their fishing rights on their land.

But there is nothing in the treaty that stipulates that the Stó:lô would have to go through a permit process. That is simply one of the methods listed as a means by which individuals might access that land, reasonably requested.

Kuthlalth. Really, I'm not sure why the member would say that this is contentious. It remains with Stó:lô, and we've canvassed that as well.

Frozen Lakes is not the same in terms of any kind of permitting or gatekeeping or permission sought, as the member seems to think. In fact, Frozen Lakes is treated differently. There is free public access. There is no need for an agreement in order for Stó:lô to be able to access that land.

With respect to best efforts, again, this is within the non-derogation clause — standard language in every treaty. The best efforts don't refer to best efforts to stop the infringement of rights. In fact, the best efforts refer to making best efforts to construct something that would replace a clause that had been found to be infringing.

In the case where there is a clause that is found to be infringing on the section 35 rights of another First Nation, insofar as that clause was causing an infringement, that aspect of the clause would no longer be in effect, and it would be up to the parties to make their "best efforts" — which is a term well-defined in law — to reach an alteration to the clause such that it could be reconstructed.

B. Simpson: So to the minister's statements before my question, again, it's not the member per se. I'm raising the questions in the House. I have the documentation that Stó:lô has provided to us — the documentation with respect to the Kuthlalth. They state that Kuthlalth "is a national treasure. It contains a unique archaeological site, the likes of which does not exist anywhere else in B.C. It is a Stó:lô site and does not belong to the YFN." Again, the contention is from the Stó:lô.

[1510]

I'm sure that the minister and her staff have been apprised of this in the ongoing dialogue. This is a Stó:lô contention: "It is objectionable that this treaty proposes to hand Kuthlalth over to Yale." I'm just saying that that is the Stó:lô's contention.

The minister may have a different interpretation of that, but the interpretation of this, then, becomes a legal matter because it's legal language. I don't want to get into an argument with the minister over her interpretation. I'm representing the Stó:lô's interpretation.

With respect to Frozen Lakes, again, the minister has indicated that the three points of contention that I've raised forward are somehow out of my own imagination. Here is the Stó:lô's language on Frozen Lakes: "The Stó:lô have used Frozen Lakes area since time immemorial for their spiritual, cultural and gathering places. This clause only contemplates recreational purposes and hunting and fishing. It must be expanded to include other traditional activities." Again, the Stó:lô are contending that those are the three areas that they believe are contentious, need remedy, and they have proposed language to address that.

With respect to the minister's comments about a committee on aboriginal relations, I never said that it would tour the province. I never said that it would open up for debate. However, a committee taking a bill, as in other jurisdictions, can actually do a bill, if it was designed as such, in a manner that's fundamentally different from here. Rather than having the minister filter her staff's comments, a committee can actually have direct access to staff to answer the questions directly.

A committee can also call witnesses. Again, I would not have to then attempt to represent Stó:lô in this House. We would be able to call Stó:lô to represent themselves. That's the difference in a committee. The government can still maintain the final agreement is a final agreement. But doing legislation by committee or doing estimates by committee is a standard practice in most Westminster….

The minister is saying no. It's how Ottawa does it. Ottawa does it all by committee. In the case of a treaty, that may be a different situation, but again, that doesn't stop this Legislature from doing it that way — not with the intent of opening the final agreement up but with the intent of allowing legislators to understand what they're saying yes or no to. Quite frankly, at this juncture, as one of the MLAs in this House, I don't know what I'm being
[ Page 7865 ]
asked to say yes or no to. It's 495 pages, and because this government is truncating debate, we're at page 21.

The minister has said on a number of occasions: "Further negotiation with Stó:lô to resolve this." The minister has said on a number of occasions that amendments are possible. The minister has said on a number of occasions that their hope is that Yale will not be in a permitting situation with respect to Stó:lô but will have some other agreement.

I wonder if the minister could state, for the public record, what the exact process is that will be embarked on now as we move from the passage of this bill to its implementation. What is the exact process that Stó:lô can bank on, from this government, to have their particular concerns redressed as a result of this final agreement? And please be as precise as possible.

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, with respect to Frozen Lakes, I'll read the passage, because it is written to be inclusive of the activities that the Stó:lô would wish to engage in. I'm sure the member will appreciate that from the language.

[1515]

Section 14.7.1 reads: "Yale First Nation will allow reasonable public access to Frozen Lakes Land for temporary recreational and non-commercial purposes, including reasonable opportunities for the public to hunt and fish." There is nothing in that that would restrict in any way the Stó:lô's activities on the land with respect to their traditional rights and activities.

When it comes to the process that will unfold now in dealing with the concerns that have been raised by the Stó:lô with respect to the Yale treaty, we have already been in consultation with Chief Hope, with Chief Joe Hall. We have discussions that are being facilitated by the B.C. Treaty Commission, and we will continue to consult and negotiate in that manner, as we have with respect to overlap issues in other areas.

I do have to say, though, Madam Chair, that with respect to the time allotted for debate, we have had four hours laid out for debate of this treaty. With respect to how far we've gotten in the debate, it truly is up to the member to manage the time for what questions the member wishes to ask.

I'm happy to stay with questions that relate to one particular aspect of the treaty, but that's really up to the member. I'm here to answer the questions that the member puts.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

S. Fraser: We've moved into the governance section, chapter 3 of the Yale treaty, Bill 11. I must say, probably the most moving part of any treaty is the governance section. I would note in this particular case with the Yale First Nation, 17 years, since 1994, in the treaty process — a long haul, to say the least. Finally to get to this point where we see the actual meat of a treaty where a First Nation can get out from under the yoke of the Indian Act is a big, big deal. It's something that I applaud.

I am not a fan of the Indian Act. It is — I have mentioned it before — I think, the only race-based piece of legislation left in the world, and it's not something to be proud of. It has been the basis for segregation, and it has been used, I think, in a very inappropriate way in this country. It's not a proud part of our history. So it is a big deal to see self-governance coming about for any nation, and I applaud the Yale First Nation and Chief Hope for the work they did — and his father before him. It is a big deal.

I disagree with the minister profoundly that somehow the time has been sufficient to cover these 70 sections just in the bill. Several hours is…. When there has been no involvement — indeed, not even any notice that the bill was coming forward, for anybody in this House — I would suggest to your own members, the government members, that it is problematic.

I was out of the House, I would note, for a moment getting some information when the minister…. I thank her for acknowledging my request to raise with the Premier the important issue, I think, of bringing about, empowering the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to help deal with some of these issues — as we get through this Legislative Assembly, maybe inadequately for our needs, to pursue all of the issues within this treaty and to scrutinize for the public.

That being said, I still think it's necessary to involve all sides of the House — this is not a partisan thing — so that the people of British Columbia can know that this is being done in an apolitical way and that all British Columbians have the ability to celebrate.

This section 3, I'm assuming, is pretty much standard, based on what we saw in Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen. I'm getting a nod, so I'm going to go with that.

I have a question — several. FOI — does FOI apply in treaty? I guess it's a twofold question.

[1520]

Can members of Yale use the Freedom of Information Act to access information, governance, decision-making information in Yale, in the Yale governance structure, or can people from outside Yale use freedom of information as a means to access on governance?

The Chair: Hon. Members, the member for Surrey-Tynehead wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 20 grade 7 students and 20 grade 5 students who are visiting from
[ Page 7866 ]
Ellendale Elementary School, one of the best schools in Canada, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

Joining them are their two teachers — a school trustee from New Westminster and teacher, whose name is Michael Ewen, and Mrs. Melody McGillivray — as well as many parents and volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to help the students to learn about our government.

These students are future leaders. I was talking to them earlier. They might be our future Premiers or Prime Ministers, MLAs or MPs, or mayors or councillors. I'm happy to see them here. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to freedom of information, they would not be subject to the freedom-of-information legislation in British Columbia because the Yale First Nation will not be a public body. However, if the member would refer to section 3.11.2, the Yale First Nation government is required in the treaty to create a legal framework through which their members, non-members and others who are receiving services would be able to access information that is in their custody.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the clarification on that. Just a further clarification: the minister said they're not a public body. I would submit that, within Yale, for the Yale people, it is indeed a public body. But again, the question may be answered in that section.

Is the intent of the section 3.11, which the minister cited, to allow for a structure to be put in place for the Yale people to have something parallel to an FOI process within the Yale First Nation?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the term "public body," that's as the term "public body" is defined by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. So that's the reference made to their not being a public body.

Yes, in fact, the Yale would, in forming their government, be responsible for constructing a legal system that reflects the government of their lands and their community, and a framework through which people could access information. As you say, a parallel type of system to a FOIPPA system would be developed by the Yale First Nation government.

S. Fraser: Just to finish that issue off: for clarification, would that just be used within Yale, or would other First Nations and non–First Nations individuals be able to access that process when it's in place?

Hon. M. Polak: What the Yale are required to do is to create legislation that would allow for access to information by Yale First Nation members, by non-members and by persons who do receive services and programs through any Yale First Nation institution.

[1525]

That, however, doesn't prevent the Yale from making additional provisions or additional laws, but they are at minimum required to make laws that would allow for access for these groups of people listed.

S. Fraser: I'm afraid that every time I ask a question on this, I have more, but I don't think I can spend any more time on that.

Just on the wording within the bill. Yale First Nation Final Agreement, 3(1): "The Yale First Nation Final Agreement is approved, given effect and declared valid and has the force of law. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person or body (a) has the powers, rights, privileges and benefits conferred…."

I get that. This is what I don't get: "(b) must perform the duties and is subject to the liabilities imposed on the person or body by the Yale First Nation Final Agreement."

I'm not saying I disagree with it. I don't understand it. What is "subject to the liabilities"? Is there an example of liabilities? What are we talking about here?

Hon. M. Polak: Essentially, this is the two sides to treaty, as it is the two sides to any agreement. An agreement such as the Yale First Nations treaty confers some benefits, but it also means that there are responsibilities and obligations that the Yale First Nation is taking on. This simply means that they are enforceable by law.

So as with any treaty agreement, there are benefits. There are also obligations, much like those of us who are citizens of Canada or citizens of British Columbia. We have certain rights and benefits that accrue to us as a result, but we also have certain responsibilities and obligations as citizens.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

S. Fraser: Just one question. "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize a member of the Executive Council to sign the Yale First Nation Final Agreement." I'm ignorant here. Does the Lieutenant-Governor — in this case, himself…? Is he a signatory on treaty? I just don't recall.

Hon. M. Polak: This means that cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may authorize a member of cabinet, a member of the executive council.

For example, when the Maa-nulth treaty was due to be implemented, I spent a goodly number of hours in my office initialling all the documents and signing all the appropriate documents.

Section 4 approved.
[ Page 7867 ]

On section 5.

S. Fraser: Just one question, please. "The Yale First Nation Final Agreement is binding on, and can be relied on by, all persons." Now, the Stó:lô.... I'm assuming that applies to them. If they have contention here…. We've canvassed this. There are contentions from the Stó:lô on this treaty and some of the aspects of access, certainly for the canyon.

Is this not seen as contentious? It seems like a simply worded piece of this, section 5, but does the minister see any problem with that regarding neighbouring First Nations claims?

[1530]

Hon. M. Polak: This simply makes the agreement legally binding, gives it the force of law. With respect to the impact or potential infringement on other First Nations claims, this actually puts into force the non-derogation clause and ensures that it is also binding. That ensures the protection of other First Nations in surrounding areas and ensures that their section 35 rights are not infringed.

Sections 5 to 70 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I ask that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

Interjection.

The Chair: Division has been called.

Hon. Member, we'll report out, and you may call on third reading.

The committee rose at 3:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1535]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation
Final Agreement Act

Bill 11, Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[1540]

Hon. R. Coleman: I call Bill 8, intituled International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act, for committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 8 — International Interests in
Mobile Equipment
(Aircraft Equipment) Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:43 p.m.

On section 1 (continued).
[ Page 7868 ]

B. Ralston: I do have some questions on this bill, which is largely uncontentious. There are a number of definitions in section 1. This is an act which is designed to coincide with a commitment by Canada to join an international convention. There's an aircraft protocol which is referred to and a convention. Could the minister briefly explain what the convention on international interests in mobile equipment is and then, from that, explain what the aircraft protocol is as well?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just before I answer, I want to introduce two of the staff members that have joined me today. One is a policy analyst, Cynthia Callahan-Maureen, and the other is Assistant Deputy Minister Heather Wood.

The title of the act in the act itself refers to two important aviation agreements that Canada has signed and is expected to ratify at any time. The convention on international interests in mobile equipment is a framework treaty of core provisions that may be modified by protocols for mobile equipment in specific industries. This is awfully formal, I'm just realizing as I read this.

[1545]

Essentially, what we're trying to deal with here is that perennial problem that when you've got mobile assets that can fly around the world, there is a challenge in registering interest for lenders on many of these aircraft.

The goal here is, rather than have it be registered in a personal property registry here in every province in Canada, that we have an international registry that will allow lenders and aircraft manufacturers and those that have a financial interest in any types of mobile equipment to be able to register in an international registry and thus ease up the cost of a lot of the financing, etc., which will provide a direct benefit for the aviation industry, including for B.C. companies.

B. Ralston: I think I understand the general principle that's being offered there. Generally in international treaties or international conventions, it's rare that every country in the world is a signatory to it. What's the scope, in broad terms, of the convention?

If the idea is to create a regime where aircraft could be subject to seizure and sale in any jurisdiction, obviously that would be weaker if there were only a certain number of countries that had signed that — again, given the obvious mobility of aircraft globally. What's the scope of the proposed convention? And how would those problems be avoided, or can they be?

Hon. K. Falcon: The aircraft equipment that is covered, for example, would be aircraft with eight or more seats and helicopters with five or more seats. It would include engines.

The U.S. and the EU are both signatories, as are, I am advised, 43 countries that are signatories to the international convention and protocol on aircraft equipment.

B. Ralston: I know there's a schedule which sets out international interests and the jurisdiction and the choice of law and all that in terms of pursuing under a seizure. I'm just wondering: what are the advantages to entering into this regime for, say, domestic owners of aircraft or domestic companies that operate aircraft? Obviously, there's a purpose for bringing this act about. Can the minister set out for companies that might benefit from this what the benefit to them might be?

Hon. K. Falcon: Canada's major airlines, like Air Canada and WestJet, and aircraft manufacturers — whether it's Bombardier, Pratt and Whitney or others — support the convention and protocol primarily because they expect to see two primary benefits as a result of this.

One is a lower cost of credit. For example, the U.S. Export-Import Bank has reduced its financing rates by one-third for purchases of certain U.S.-manufactured aircraft for buyers in countries that implement the protocol.

The second is a reduction in the costs of determining where to register. I'm advised that apparently lawyers spend a lot of time trying to figure out where an interest should be filed for aircraft financing transactions. The registry provides a single filing location so that you obviate the requirement to have to go and figure out jurisdictions and make sure you're registered in each of those jurisdictions where mobile equipment can often find itself.

B. Ralston: Thank you for that clear explanation.

In the definition section "declaration" is defined as "a declaration or designation made by the government of Canada in respect of British Columbia…."

[1550]

Are there companion pieces of legislation in other provinces? Is this process virtually complete across the country, or are there other provinces that have yet to follow this?

I'm just wondering: in terms of timing, is this something that's…? Obviously, assuming this passes, British Columbia has done its part. But it would seem, in a federal state, that it wouldn't be terribly effective unless you had each province sign on.

Hon. K. Falcon: All provinces except British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have enacted the same implementation act.

B. Ralston: Is there the wish, as there often is in federal-provincial relations, that the remaining provinces enact it, and is there any sense that that's going to take place imminently?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. It is anticipated that all of the provinces will be enacting similar legislative acts to bring the aircraft protocol into full force and effect.
[ Page 7869 ]

B. Ralston: Again on the same section, is the declaration something that's made by the government of Canada? It says "in respect of British Columbia." Would that — assuming this legislation passes, as it seems certain to in the next few minutes — be a declaration by Canada immediately, or would it require all the provincial jurisdictions to pass similar legislation before Canada was able to make that declaration in accordance with the international convention?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that it doesn't require all provinces to enact similar legislative pieces for the federal government to enact and to ratify the agreement. My understanding is that there's every expectation that all provinces will introduce similar legislative pieces and that the federal government is expected to ratify the act at any time.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

B. Ralston: This is what's called a request for declaration, and that is under article 52 of the convention. First of all, is the minister that's referred to here — I don't think that's in the definition section…? Is it the Minister of Finance that's referred to here as minister?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes.

B. Ralston: Looking at article 52 — and I think it's article XXIX of the aircraft protocol — what results if the government of Canada makes that declaration? Article 52 refers to a territorial unit. From my quick review of article 52, it would just appear to confirm that if there's a declaration, it comes into force within British Columbia. Is there anything more to it than that?

[1555]

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that Canada will make an initial declaration that states in which provinces and territories the convention and aircraft protocol will apply.

B. Ralston: Subsections 3(1) and 3(2) look, at least at first reading, to be very similar. I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the difference is. One says: "…to declare, in accordance with Article 52…and Article XXIX…." Then the other one says to ask the government "to make a declaration, in accordance with the Convention or the Aircraft Protocol…." So can the minister explain the difference between those two subsections?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that subsection 3(1) is the request for the feds to have this apply jurisdictionally to include and extend to British Columbia. The second, subsection 3(2), is to make sure that it applies with respect to what are defined as provincial matters.

B. Ralston: I want to now turn to subsection 3(3), looking at article 57. That appears to just give, if there are changes in the convention or agreement, further powers — to include those — as part of the earlier declaration, I think, in the event of changes. Is that the purpose of that subsection?

[1600]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that we have worked with the federal government and all of the provinces to harmonize our approach in respect of which declarations are made. I'm also advised that it could also be the case that provisions under which declarations have not yet been declared can also subsequently be utilized.

Sections 3 to 10 inclusive approved on division.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:01 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — International Interests in
Mobile Equipment
(Aircraft Equipment) Act

Bill 8, International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Bell: I call Bill 13, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 4:05 p.m.
[ Page 7870 ]

On section 1.

Hon. B. Penner: Just briefly, this bill obviously covers a number of different topic areas. As we move through it, there will be other ministers and their staff, I believe, available to handle the detailed questions.

The Chair: Minister. Member for Nanaimo.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair. I hope that was — how shall I say? — something that would portend well for the future, prescient.

My question to the minister is quite simply this. The replacement of the definition of "cattle" with the definition of "dairy animal" — what's the impact of that on the industry, and what's the purpose of this?

Hon. D. McRae: We're actually just doing this at the request of the industry to expand the definition of "lactate-producing mammals" — cows, goats, sheep, the ever-popular water buffalo and any prescribed animal in the future. It's just to be more encompassing.

L. Krog: If the minister can confirm, I presume this is to enhance the industry in British Columbia in terms of the animals that are regulated and presumably to allow for an expansion. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. D. McRae: Well, we're not at the stage to predict that the water buffalo milk is going to be expanding rapidly in this province. What we're doing is keeping our options open so that we have the abilities to represent what is actually being produced in this province or what could be produced in this province. Again, it's at the request of the industry and what's being considered right now in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Does the minister know what kind of cheese is produced with water buffalo milk?

Hon. D. McRae: Well, my smirking answer wants to say tasty cheese, but my other answer will be mozzarella.

L. Krog: The minister passed the test. We can move to the next section.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

L. Krog: I don't know if the Attorney needs staff to assist him at this point or not.

Hon. B. Penner: This would be an appropriate time for the Agriculture staff, I guess, to depart and for the Attorney General's staff to enter the chamber.

L. Krog: If the minister could explain the effect of this section, I would much appreciate it, and why it's required.

[1610]

Hon. B. Penner: As I mentioned briefly in second reading remarks, the concern here deals with the common-law rule around the certainty that's required for lease terms in order for those leases to be found to be valid. I believe a 99-year lease term is considered to be valid, but attaching the term of the lease or defining the term of the lease in terms of some other event, such as the dissolution of a strata corporation, could be vulnerable to attack because the duration is uncertain in terms of the number of years.

Many strata developments rely on long-term leases to attribute the use and enjoyment of parking spaces and storage lockers to specific strata unit owners. Some of these leases do not set out a term in a specific number of years. In such cases, the rule of certainty could be invoked by parties seeking to declare the lease void in a court. As a result, the lease could be declared void from the outset, invalidating any allocations of storage lockers and parking spaces to strata unit owners that depended on that lease.

By exempting these leases from the rule of certainty, this amendment aims to protect the interests that strata unit owners have in their parking spaces and storage lockers by shielding the underlying leases from the certainty rule. It will invalidate these arrangements and avoid uncertainty and expensive litigation for a potentially large number of strata developments and their owners.

The amendment will have a retroactive effect, in order to protect existing leases from the certainty rule. Rather than cause controversy, the retroactive protection should serve to validate, instead, the expectations of parties who in good faith paid for and entered into these lease arrangements.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could just confirm, firstly: then this will apply and will be designed to deal strictly with those sorts of leases for strata corporations. I'm looking for an example here, a concrete example — which I can't imagine, which is why I'm asking the question. Will it apply only to those kinds of leases that the minister has mentioned or other strata property?

Have there been any court cases that led to this section being presented?

The Chair: The member for Port Moody–Coquitlam seeks leave?

I. Black: Yes, I seek leave to make an introduction.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

I. Black: While the Attorney General is contemplating his riveting answer to that question, I wanted to take an
[ Page 7871 ]
opportunity, if I may, to introduce some students, some of whom are still in the gallery, from Cape Horn Elementary School in the thriving metropolis of Coquitlam, with which I know, Madam Chair, you are intimately familiar.

We've got some great parent volunteers. This is the grade 5 graduating class on their way to middle school. I would like to ask the House to join me in wishing them well in their middle school adventure.

I'd also acknowledge Craig Hollinghum, who is a great community volunteer and also, shamelessly, a coach of my son in hockey; Mr. Bill McGovern, the principal of the school; and Mme. Denise Gibson, who is with them as well. Would the House join me in making them feel most welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Penner: The amendment will only apply to common property of a strata corporation, not to any other property within that strata corporation — just to the common property, not to the individual lots within the strata corporation or the strata property.

The other question the member had, I believe, was: is there any litigation that's underway? Not that I'm aware of. I can't say definitively that there isn't, but this has been flagged as a potential risk. Due to the sheer numbers of people that currently reside in residences that are part of a strata corporation, I felt concerned this spring, when this issue was brought to me. I wanted to make sure that it got dealt with this session.

[1615]

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

C. Trevena: I think, again, this would be the time for staff to change, because we're changing to a different ministry.

I wanted a bit of clarification to this section — it will be sections 12 through to 20 — and then I've got some other questions further on. When I had the briefing from the minister's staff, and I appreciate that, on this bill and its implications, we didn't actually look at this section.

I just wondered if the minister could explain the reasons for…. If we start on section 12, and I think that will explain the reasons for the other ones. I'm assuming that these are sections that are changed because of the introduction to section 54. But if you could explain just in a little bit of real English, I would appreciate that.

Hon. M. McNeil: Many of these sections — from, as you mentioned, 12 to 20, I believe — are actually just parallel approaches, if you will, to the rest of the act — if that makes sense.

C. Trevena: Actually, it doesn't. I have a sense that it's going to be best explained in section 16, which is the most substantial one. I might ask if we can have the indulgence of the Chair here, if we can just do a bit of…. If the explanation will be best served on section 16 rather than trying to explain through each section what the minister means about parallel….

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

C. Trevena: As I say, I'm not quite sure what the minister means by "parallel." I go to section 16 because we're talking here about the temporary custody order. The substantial part of the amendments are talking about the extended family program and building in the ability to look after children without having the court involved.

I wondered if the minister could explain how this works in relation to the new section that's going to be introduced.

Hon. M. McNeil: What, basically, section 16 does is add section 44.1, which supports the new section of 54.01, by ensuring that when there is a plan to seek permanent transfer of custody to the child's care provider, there is sufficient time to meet the residency requirement in the child's best interests. This residency period is intended as a safeguard to the court to determine whether a permanent custody transfer would be appropriate for the child and family.

C. Trevena: At this stage, with this, when the court is still involved…. The court is being taken out of the mix through section 54, but in the new section 44.1 the court will still be involved.

[1620]

Hon. M. McNeil: I just wanted to ensure that I have the question right. What you're asking is: is the court still involved? If that is the case, yes.

C. Trevena: So at this point the court is still involved, although section 54.01, which is the new section, is trying to remove the court's involvement. From the indications I'm getting, I'm getting something confused here. So if the minister could explain again what the two are.

We're talking about temporary custody orders under section 44.1, section 44 of the act being "Extension of supervision orders and temporary orders." You've got the permanent transfer of custody planned, which is the new section 54, but we are still talking in this section about court involvement, saying in the new section 44.1(3) that "the court may, in the child's best interests," extend the order. Therefore, the court is still involved.
[ Page 7872 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: I hope I've got this correct. Section 44.1 allows the court to extend the temporary custody, whereas 54.01, if I'm correct…. The court has to be involved in both, and it allows it to happen as well.

C. Trevena: I think the minister and I are both a little confused on this one. The minister just said….

Again, the court involvement. At this stage there is court involvement, and it's only at section 54 where we don't have the court involvement. So under section 44, and thereby 44.1, we still have court involvement, and it's only withdrawn with the introduction of section 54.

Hon. M. McNeil: In fact, in 54.01 the court is involved as well. What it does is it actually creates capacity for the court to then create permanent custody.

C. Trevena: That will clarify it and will speed things up.

The addition, therefore, of section 44.1 is just to, as the note says…. It provides for "the extension of a temporary custody order to meet the residency requirement referred to in section 54.01(5)(c)," which is if the person "referred to in subsection (3) (h) under the agreement…or the temporary custody order…."

[1625]

So it's basically putting in that time limit, the six-month residency time limit.

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, it's giving them enough time to meet the residency requirement.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

C. Trevena: Again to the minister. Is this section again talking about the timing that is involved? The explanatory note saying that it provides that custody of a child transferred under section 54, that same section of the act as added to this bill… I wondered if the minister could explain. Is this still an issue of timing?

Hon. M. McNeil: The amendment ensures that a maximum time periods for temporary custody order apply in relation to orders made prior to an order that permanently transfers custody under the new section 54.01. It's consistent with the treatment of temporary custody orders when custody is permanently transferred or returned to the parent under other CFCSA provisions.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

C. Trevena: Again, I wonder if the minister could explain just what this means. For anybody reading it, they're just going to see lots of numbers and subsections. If the minister could explain how it fits into the general well-being of child welfare.

Hon. M. McNeil: The amendment ensures that a person who has temporary custody of a child under the new section 54.01 or another person described in section 49(7)(b) receives notice of a hearing to place the child in continuing custody of the director. This is consistent with the rights of the individuals who have temporary custody under CFCSA provisions.

C. Trevena: The person has custody of the child, and then the child's going to be placed in the custody of the director, which means the child is being removed from the person who has custody?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, this section is just ensuring that they have notice that custody… Let me explain. It's very confusing. It just ensures that the person applying has notice given to them.

C. Trevena: So the person applying for custody of the child under section 54 has notice given to them.

Hon. M. McNeil: No. What this requires is that only the director can apply, so what this is doing is just ensuring that all those people that might be impacted are given notice.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

[1630]

C. Trevena: Section 20 is quite a long section. I don't know. Maybe I should just specify each section as we talk about it or whether we want to break it down into the subsections that are here. This is, I think, really the crux of the amendment. As I think the minister is aware, we're supportive of this amendment but do, again, want a bit of clarification on it.

In section 54.01(1), the first section: "If a child is in the care or custody of a person other than the child's parent under (a) an agreement made under section 8…."

Now, section 8 in the original Child, Family and Community Service Act still describes agreements with child's kin and others. Would the minister explain whether this is still kith and kin, whether it's extended family or what the relationship is there.

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, it is the kith-and-kin and the extended family program.

C. Trevena: To the minister: are extended family program and kith and kin the same program, just under different names now?
[ Page 7873 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, it's the new name.

C. Trevena: Reading this then, it's very simple. Under section (a), if the child is under kith and kin or under extended family, there will be much easier transfer of care to the family member who is looking after that child. Will this change in any way the supports that that family gets, either financial or social, under the extended family kin program?

Hon. M. McNeil: No, there's no financial change.

C. Trevena: At the moment there are, I understand, about 350 children and young people who are under care under the kith and kin or extended family program. In the greater scheme of the several thousand — I think it's 10,000 or so — children in care under the whole auspices of care, this isn't many. I wondered if the minister could explain how this is going to really improve life for more children who are in care of the ministry?

Hon. M. McNeil: What these amendments are going to do is allow for the transfer of permanent legal custody of a vulnerable child living with an extended family to those family members without having to remove the child into government care first. So what it's going to be able to do is literally create a quicker and simpler process and provides for stability for these vulnerable children who reside with care providers. It really supports certainty and a more permanent situation for the vulnerable child.

C. Trevena: I understand the desire for permanency and the desire for security for the child. My question to the minister was….

[1635]

At the moment there are only 350 children who have kith and kin. Is there going to be an attempt to expand that program to ensure that we get more children and young people through this protection away from the courts, away from having to have the involvement of the courts, and get that sort of arrangement? Or is the minister looking at different ways that this can come into effect?

Hon. M. McNeil: This is another option for children in temporary care, and I think it's one that's available. Depending on the individual child plan, whether it works for them or not, it is available. It's one that I think is really going to allow a trusted family member or friend to offer a permanent home in a much quicker and smoother way.

C. Trevena: One of the issues on the kith-and-kin extended family program is the need for parental agreement. Is that also the case for section (b), the temporary custody order? I know that having to have parental agreement under kith and kin can be restrictive in ensuring that we have the children able to enter that sort of framework.

Hon. M. McNeil: It's my understanding that if a child is already in the extended family program, it is with the agreement of the parent, and therefore the application will be moved forward. If the parents are not available in this case, then there are other avenues where we can proceed, but it can still move forward without that.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to ask for a bit of clarification. I think it might be the whole of this section. It might just be this 54.01(1), which we're discussing at the moment. In the Child, Family and Community Service Act, under part 1, section 12 — talking about agreements with a child's kin and others, the extended family program or kith and kin — it says that agreements do not limit the court's power. "An agreement does not limit the court's power to hear an application and make an order about a child."

Is this section overruling that section, or do the two work in tandem?

[1640]

Hon. M. McNeil: It's my understanding that the court always has residual power to act in the child's best interest.

Sections 20 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

Hon. T. Lake: I move the amendment to section 33 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 33, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

1 Schedule D of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 17, is amended in the description of Anhluut'ukwsim Laxmihl Angwinga'sanskwhl Nisga'a [a.k.a. Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park]

(a) by striking out "and (6) the New Aiyansh Village proposed south access road shown in Figure 4.1 of the October 2006 report titled "New Aiyansh Village Government, Proposed South Access Road, Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park — Boundary Adjustment Request", on file 84220-25-0386 in BC Parks and Protected Areas Program office in Victoria." and substituting "(6) the New Aiyansh Village proposed south access road shown in Figure 4.1 of the October 2006 report titled "New Aiyansh Village Government, Proposed South Access Road, Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park — Boundary Adjustment Request", on file 84220-25-0386 in BC Parks office in Victoria; and (7) the proposed transmission line corridor shown on Drawing No. 2L 102-T07-00011 titled "West Route — Proposed Crossing of Nisga'a Lava Bed Memorial Park Plan and Profile", dated June 2010 and on file 84220-25-0386 in BC Parks office in Victoria. all those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, contained within the following described boundaries and containing 10.5 hectares more or less:

commencing at the intersection of the northerly boundary of the park described in Appendix G-1 of the Nisga'a Final Agreement

as having a grid bearing of 63° 00′ 00 ″ and a length of 2.175 kilometres, and a line having a grid bearing of 159° 46′ 28 ″ through Zone 9 NAD 83 UTM coordinate N6106080.8m and E 503099.3m;
thence northeasterly along the said northerly boundary of the park 40.28 metres;
thence on a grid bearing of 159° 46′ 28 ″ a distance of 169.1 metres;
thence on a grid bearing of 69° 46′ 28 ″ a distance of 12.0 metres;
thence on a grid bearing of 159° 46′ 28 ″ a distance of 897 metres more or less to the intersection with a portion of the southerly boundary of the park; thence southwesterly along the portion of the southerly boundary to a line drawn parallel to and perpendicularly distant 104 metres from the last described line bearing 159° 46′ 28 ″;
thence on a grid bearing of 339° 46′ 28 ″ a distance of 889 metres more or less to a point lying on a grid bearing of 249° 46 ′ 28 ″ from the southerly limit of the 169.1 metre boundary described above;
thence on a grid bearing of 69° 46′ 28 ″ a distance of 22.0 metres;
thence on a grid bearing of 339° 46′ 28 ″ a distance of 161 metres more or less to the northerly boundary of the park;
thence on a grid bearing 63° 00′ 00 ″ and along the northerly boundary of the park a distance of 30.2 metres more or less to the point of commencement. ", and

(b) by striking out "17 792 hectares." and substituting "17 781 hectares."]

On the amendment.

Hon. T. Lake: It simply replaces a map with a legal description of the area involved.

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

On section 34.

N. Macdonald: This is a very, very different way of doing this process, and it's very truncated. With the rules that have been put in place, we have about two or three minutes to do about 70 or 80 sections. The minister that I'm going to speak to.... It's not his fault, but it does mean that it's very truncated.

Section 34 deals with the Environment and Land Use Act. If the minister could simply explain the reason for this section, I guess we'll start there, and then we'll move on as time permits.

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, or the amendment here, simply provides for the appointment to ELUC by order-in-council of non–executive council members so that ELUC, the environment and land use committee of cabinet, can comprise executive council members and other members appointed by order-in-council, with the proviso that the majority of members must remain, and the chair must remain, members of the executive council.

N. Macdonald: This is part of a system that is actually in place and is working, and this catches up to what exists. But what is the rationale for the change? Why was there a change from what was exclusively a cabinet committee to one that's broader? Is there a central rationale to that?

Hon. S. Thomson: The rationale is to broaden the input, broaden the expertise, broaden the contribution of members to the environment and land use committee process. With the recent restructuring of government and the importance of the role that the environment and land use committee plays across resource ministries, it was felt that that was a right step. As you correctly identified, it does catch up to the process that is in place. So this amendment really, essentially, confirms the way that the committee has been operating.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Members, shall sections 34 through 137 pass?

[1645]

Sections 34 to 137 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the committee rise, report the bill complete with amendment, and that's it.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:46 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. B. Penner: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I now call committee stage debate on Bill 15, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4).
[ Page 7875 ]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Municipalities Enabling
and Validating Act (No. 4)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; D. Black in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

H. Lali: In short, the bill is known as MEVA, for an acronym. What's happened here is that when the SkyTrain went through in Richmond, some of the properties that were close by in the area…. The land use there is switching, obviously, and property assessments are going up, as land values go up because of the proximity to SkyTrain.

That's one of the benefits, as you know. When the SkyTrain goes there, property values do go up and people make money. Speculators come in, and developers come in, all looking to make a buck. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how our economy functions.

What's been happening there is that some of the merchants and even property owners…. One particular property — I won't mention the names — in 2007 was assessed at $9 million, and in 2008 the property was assessed at $25.5 million, obviously raising their taxes.

Another one of the property owners, the business owner said that taxes are approximately $380,000, while the business makes less than $100,000 annually in net profit. Problems occur. By the end of 2009 what's happening is that a lot of the merchants are moving out because they can't pay the rent and the leases with the taxes and the triple-net included in there.

There's now 180,000 square feet of space up for lease. The existing tenants are not renewing their leases due to the rise in property taxes. The opposition gets that. We understand. Business is in there to make a buck. They employ people. We don't have a problem with that. We understand where they're coming from. What this bill allows is for the city of Richmond to have a permissive tax exemption as per section 2.

[1650]

What happens is that in order to keep the taxes low and entice business to stay or others to come in, and merchants…. This is obviously favourable to them. But one of the problems that it's creating is that the property owners — who pass on these taxes to the merchants who are leasing their business from them — in a year, two years, three years or four years down the road will make quite a bit of money, as the values will obviously go up as well. It could be triple, quadruple or quintuple.

They derive the benefit there, but now there's also the low property tax that will be allowed as a result of this, so there's a double benefit. Why did the municipality, like the minister, not look at perhaps a tax deferral for the property owner so that when it comes time and they sell their property for a huge profit, the property taxes go against that profit? That way, businesses don't end up leaving because they can't pay their leases.

Hon. I. Chong: First, I want to make it clear that this is what the city of Richmond had asked for, as opposed to what the member is proposing, which would be what he would be suggesting we would recommend. But this is actually what Richmond's proposal was in how to deal with this very significant and unusual situation.

What I also want to say is that his idea about the deferral is not as simple as it sounds. Because there are lease arrangements made with the lessors and the lessees and these are triple-net leases, there is an automatic flow-through in the passing of these common costs so that these property tax amounts, if they are provided through a reduction and through a relief, then could be passed on to those tenants, which I think I heard the member saying he is supportive of.

Deferring them would not necessarily accomplish the same effect because of the obligation to pass on the taxation amounts through a leased agreement. But more importantly, as I said in my comments at the beginning, this is what Richmond had asked for. So I hope the member understands we are dealing with that. It is also transitional, so it's not going to be carried on for a number of years beyond the transition period of five years.

Before I sit down, I just wanted to introduce staff: Mike Furey and Meagan Gergley, who are from my ministry. Christina Dawkins from the Ministry of Finance is here as well.

H. Lali: I want to thank the minister for the introduction of the staff who are there doing a valuable service for the people of British Columbia.

Under the same section 2(5)(a). The rates could be different, according to subsection (5)(b)(i) — different classes of land, different activities and circumstances related to the land and its uses, and different uses as established by the zoning bylaw. I just want to put that on the record.

One of the other things, in the same section, subsection (8)(b), it also says that "any additional requirements established in the exemption agreement have been met, a tax exemption certificate must be issued for the parcel of land in accordance with the exemption agreement." Does this not actually tie the municipality's hands? Just to clarify, the use of the word "must" as opposed to the use of the word "may." It obviously ties the municipality's hands.

[1655]

Hon. I. Chong: Because this is enabling legislation — again, the city of Richmond requesting it — it is the
[ Page 7876 ]
last part of a four-step process. In fact, it states that once they've gone through this enabling process, that's the reason why this certificate must be issued.

It also provides notification, really, to the tenants that if this property or this tax exemption relief is to be provided, that the tenants are also then aware of it so that that relief is going to flow through to them, which is really what the intention is to deal with these triple-net leases that are in existence.

B. Ralston: Just a further question of clarification, then. Given that the intent of this legislation appears to be interested in relieving tenants against the effect of a dramatic rise in property value, occasioned by public investment in the Canada Line, this new private value to the land is created solely by public investment, is it open to the municipalities and municipal electors to make the judgment about this, whether the exemption that is granted could be simply deferred and required to be paid by the owner of the property at some point in the future, particularly, say, upon sale?

When we're looking at properties that have increased in value from $9 million to $25 million, one would think there's a little bit of tax room there to pay an increased assessment as an owner while not damaging the economic interests of their own tenants.

Is that an option that's available under this policy? There are some words there that are used — "a recapture amount" and conditions on the exemption bylaw. Is that scenario possible under this legislation or not?

Hon. I. Chong: No.

H. Lali: Again, as I stated, the owners of the properties stand to, obviously, make a windfall as a result of the SkyTrain going through and the property values going up when they actually sell and also get…. Although they passed the taxes in the way of a lease through to the merchants, how is this not actually…. I know that this government does not believe in subsidies to business. They believe that under free enterprise, the business ought to be able to flourish and stand on its own. But how is this not a subsidy to business?

Could the minister please explain that, and does the minister believe in subsidies to business or not?

Hon. I. Chong: Richmond has indicated that it intends to use the tax exemptions it can provide under this legislation — which, again, I want to say is enabling — to bring property taxes paid in the Brighouse area back down to levels that are comparable to what is paid by businesses elsewhere in Richmond where property values have not spiked or increased as significantly.

So the exceptions that Richmond is requesting…. Again, I want to say that they have made that determination. They want to level the playing field. They want to promote equity amongst their businesses in the community, and therefore help the business owners stay in business during this transitional redevelopment.

H. Lali: Noting the hour, I'm going to roll two questions into one.

The first question is on subsection 9(e). It talks about: "...a recapture amount is payable in respect of a taxation year" — where it's applicable —"if the conditions specified in the exemption certificate are not met or the exemption certificate is cancelled, and how that amount is to be determined."

[1700]

Perhaps the minister could explain what this exactly means and how this recapture actually takes place. That's the first question.

Then my final question is actually on section 4. Do we have to pass the first ones first, or can I do this? I can do this because of the time?

The Chair: Sorry, your time is up.

H. Lali: Okay. Well, then, my final question, I guess…. I'll roll this into a question. The actual section 4, "Notice to lessees," I want to read into the record. It says: "If an exemption certificate has been issued in respect of a parcel of land and the owner of the parcel has received an assessment notice for that parcel under the Assessment Act, the owner must promptly deliver a copy of the notice and of the exemption certificate…

The Chair: Hon. Member, I'm sorry. Your time is up. Would you please take your seat.

H. Lali: …to each lessee of any portion of the parcel."

I was wondering how this is going to be placed…

The Chair: Member. Member.

H. Lali: …and how the saving is going to be passed on to the lessee.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I move the committee rise, report Bill 15 complete without amendments.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 5:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 7877 ]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Municipalities Enabling
and Validating Act (No. 4)

Bill 15, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

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

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on May 3, 5, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 25, 30 and 31 and on June 1 and 2 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

[1705]

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $34,214,819,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2011, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I also move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $742.726 million. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2011, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the capital, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012.

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2011-2012

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2011-2012.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill was introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by the Committee of Supply after consideration of the main estimates. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply.

In addition, the House has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of this supply bill this day.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being circulated.

[1710]

In keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 16, Supply Act, 2011-2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2011-2012

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 16, Supply Act, 2011-2012, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2011-2012

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 5:13 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.
[ Page 7878 ]

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — SuPPly act, 2011-2012

Bill 16, Supply Act, 2011-2012, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

[1715]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, if you just would remain in your seats, I think the Administrator should be here shortly, in the next five or ten minutes.

Hon. Members, it looks like there will be about a ten- to 15-minute recess, and I'll bring everybody back then.

The House recessed from 5:17 p.m. to 5:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, please take your seats. The Administrator is in the precinct.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the House:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011

Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act

New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act

Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011

Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011

Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act

Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4)

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 2011-2012

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[1740]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: Prior to moving the long adjournment and the other adjournment, I would like to remind members, on behalf of the staff who do a great job for us in this building, to clean out your desks when you leave. It saves them some work, and they would very much appreciate it. So if you'd take whatever you have in your desk with you, they'd appreciate it.

Not right now. Boy, talk about a bunch of keeners.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the 39th parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at a time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Before we adjourn, Members…. All members will be travelling back to their ridings. It's a time when you can spend a lot of time with your family and, in some instances, with your grandchildren — in the member for Chilliwack's case, all your grandchildren. I think it is a time to get back, reconnect with your constituents and spend — I reiterate that again — a lot of time with your family, because it is so important.

This is a job that I know the people of British Columbia take seriously and, I know, we take seriously, and it's important that we re-energize ourselves for when we get back.
[ Page 7879 ]

I want to thank all the members for their cooperation. Even with question period today, it still was a pretty good session, by and large. With that, I want to thank the members for the session and for what's transpired.

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 5:43 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

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

The committee met at 3 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,455,000 (continued).

Hon. C. Clark: Now, of course we got cut off just before I was able to answer the member's question. I'm going to do my best to try and address some of the issues that he raised when he was up right before we got cut off, before we had to take a break for lunch. He raised a whole number of issues, and I'll see if I can get to a couple of them.

He talked at the very beginning about laying off women, and I think the Leader of the Opposition knows a lot about laying off women. In fact, I think that's what the NDP have just done recently in their leadership. He was a central part of laying off the Leader of the Opposition, a woman who had served the Legislature well for years and had prided herself on being a voice for women. Well, the NDP laid her off. Gosh, there's leadership for you when it comes to supporting women.

On the HST. I'm really glad that we got a chance to canvass some of those issues in question period today, and I'm looking forward to continuing the debate here as well. You know, the reason that we went out and decided to consult with British Columbians about the HST was in recognition of a couple of things — first, in recognition of the fact that British Columbians were quite justifiably upset — and I was one of those British Columbians — about the way the government introduced it.

The government needed to have a dialogue with British Columbians that didn't happen when the HST was introduced. So we wanted to set out and make up for that. We wanted to set out and fix that, so that was what our listening process was about.

It was also, though, in recognition of the fact that the independent panel told us that the HST as it stood was going to add a big new burden for families all across the province. They told us that wasn't fair, and we needed to address the fairness issue.

So we went out and talked to British Columbians. We heard from almost 300,000 British Columbians on their views on the HST in the biggest listening exercise in the history of this province. What we learned is that British Columbians wanted us to make it fair. They wanted us to make sure that we were recognizing that it's tougher for families to get ahead in this province. For many families who are now earning two incomes, they're still feeling like they're getting more money, but they're still falling behind. We had to find a way to make sure we were being fair to families.

So $350 extra per family under the HST wasn't fair, in my view, and that's why we changed it. That's why we are changing the HST so that it will be two points lower — a 10 percent tax across the province as opposed to the 12 percent PST-GST that the NDP are supporting. A 10 percent tax will mean that every single household in British Columbia is ahead of where they would be under the NDP proposal.

We needed to take a stand and make sure that British Columbians had a little bit lighter tax burden, and one of the ways we did that was by rebalancing the burden between business and families. Business is going to pay a little bit more so that families can pay a little bit less. That just seemed to me to be an issue of fundamental fairness.

That's where we're at on the HST these days. Our government and certainly I are supporting a 10 percent tax. We are going to ask British Columbians in a secret ballot whether or not they like the proposed improved HST or whether or not they want to go back to the NDP proposal for a 12 percent PST-GST.

I don't know what decision they will make, but we will respect the decision that they make. There's absolutely no question about that. I hope that British Columbians will vote for it for the same reasons that I am. It's fair. It's more efficient. It's a lower tax burden for British Columbians than we bear now.

There are a lot of the reasons, I think, that families can support this. The government did not introduce it in the way that people liked, and people were right about that. But we set out to try and fix that by really listening to British Columbians. I think that if the Leader of the Opposition spent a little bit of time listening to British Columbians all across the province, he would find that his proposal for a 12 percent PST-GST is not something that British Columbians will favour.
[ Page 7880 ]

A. Dix: It's good to be here for the last few minutes of our debate on the Premier's estimates before closure kicks in. I just wanted to respond briefly to the Premier, because I know many families who are affected by her decision, her government's decision, to lay off women workers in British Columbia — the largest layoff in history.

[1505]

I know the Premier thinks there's light to be made of that. I don't think there is. People worked hard and did important work, especially in health care facilities around British Columbia. They were misled; let's face it. The government of the day said they wouldn't tear up their contracts and they did, and they did it in a way that was, I think, reprehensible. And it wasn't found reprehensible by me alone. It was found reprehensible by the Supreme Court of Canada.

So I think to make light of that is unfortunate, but I know that apparently those families — those thousands of women laid off and men laid off — may not play as important a role in the Premier's agenda as others.

I just wanted to ask the Premier, on the HST specifically, why she won't pull the partisan ads. I mean, this is a referendum campaign. I understand she's advocating for her position. I think that's fair in a democratic society. I'm advocating for mine. It's going to be a good debate. I'll be meeting people all across the province, as I have in the last little while.

But I don't think it's fair in a referendum campaign…. It would be illegal in an election campaign for the government to do this — let's be clear — and she promised that this would be like a provincial election campaign. It would be illegal in a provincial election campaign for the Premier to do what she's doing here.

So my question is very straightforward to the Premier. Why doesn't she pull the ads?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know why the NDP is scared of getting information out there — or I suspect I do know the answer to that, though. The HST, particularly the improved HST, will make a difference in British Columbians' lives. I believe — in fact, the independent panel confirms this — that it's going to create thousands and thousands of jobs all across the province, but more importantly and perhaps more urgently, the improved HST is going to mean a lower taxation burden for families all across the province.

Now, the information campaign that the government has funded is intended to make sure that people have the information they require in order to cast an informed ballot.

[1510]

I wasn't here, but I know that the opposition complained vociferously and tenaciously about the fact that there wasn't enough information provided to the public about the HST, that there wasn't an adequate public debate.

I think what we are seeing now is a great public debate about this issue. A great debate is a well-informed debate, so the government is providing information to make sure that people are informed about what the HST really is and how it works. Then people can make their own decision about whether or not they will support it in the referendum, and we will live by the decision, whatever it is, that they make when they cast their ballots.

I don't think we should apologize for making sure that British Columbians have the information they need, and we won't, because that's what open government is about. It's about making sure, first of all, that you're listening to people; second, that you're acting on what you've heard; and third, that people have information about what government is actually doing.

It's part of opening up government, which is part of the change that I'm bringing to this government. I've talked about that quite a bit. I won't go over again some of the other things that we've done to open up government, although it's been pretty extensive so far. We have a lot more to do.

The member says that he's been out there advocating for his position. I don't think he has. We stood in this Legislature and talked about the HST. We stood up today, and they canvassed it extensively — I shouldn't say extensively — for 45 minutes in the Finance Ministry estimates, and never once have I heard the member opposite talk about why he supports a higher 12 percent PST-GST system.

I have never once heard him stand up and talk about the merits of a 12 percent PST-GST for British Columbians. If he wants to advocate for his position, he has an obligation, I think, to explain that not just to us but when he travels the province.

When he goes to small-town British Columbia and big cities and gets on his campaign in favour of the PST-GST, I hope we will hear him explain what is so good about a 12 percent PST-GST. I've been waiting to hear this defence. I'm sure that he could get quite passionate about it if he decided to take it on.

I don't know what he's scared of, but I hope he will stand up, have the backbone to stand up, and make his position on that absolutely crystal-clear.

A. Dix: The Minister of Finance introduced a motion on Monday. I was the first speaker for the opposition on Monday, and I showed up for that debate. I look forward to debating the Premier whenever she likes on this question. It's not an issue for me.

I've been advocating on this issue ever since…. As the Premier said, all of her colleagues were sneaky. Just to quote her, all of her colleagues were sneaky and misled people in the last election campaign. That's what she said. I've been advocating on this issue since then.

The reason I'm advocating is very simple. They're increasing taxes on families — they are — to cut taxes for
[ Page 7881 ]
business, after having done that again and again and again. This is a major tax shift onto families, and I disagree with that.

That's, by the way, what was laid out by Carole Taylor and others in the House today as to why British Columbians oppose the HST — on substance that I quoted today in the House.

What I'd like to ask the Premier is…. In all of her consultation…. The biggest consultation, of course, in this debate happened in the initiative campaign. People went out and got 700,000 petition names to try and overturn a decision of the government.

The Premier will recall that her advice to those people wasn't to go out and get signatures and so on. It was to call their local MLAs. A lot of good that would have done.

In any event, that was the biggest consultation in history. They sought a referendum campaign. They sought a referendum on this question. It's their referendum. Does the Premier not think there's something wrong when her Minister of Finance has acknowledged that this is a totally partisan campaign, putting forward just pro-government information? That's what the campaign is.

Doesn't the Premier think it's wrong to be spending public funds on this at this time, when every day in the Legislature the Premier and her colleagues say: "We can't do anything about shutting down group homes for people with developmental disabilities. Not enough money"? They say: "We can't meet our commitments on class size and composition. Not enough money. We can't address the health care needs of people on Haida Gwaii. Not enough money."

[1515]

Why on earth would the Premier be spending $5 million in public funds on ridiculous Stickman ads?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, still no defence of the PST-GST at 12 percent from the member opposite; still no intellectual underpinning for where he's going on this; still no big idea about why we should go backward to a 12 percent PST-GST, a dual-tax system — no argument for that at all.

Instead, he stands and wants to talk about the process, and the process is surely important. But I think, though, I'm starting to smell a little bit of fear over there from the Leader of the Opposition, who refuses to stand and explain why he supports a tax increase. It's pretty hard, I think, to try and defend going to a 12 percent tax that is a PST-GST system. Pretty hard to explain why you'd support going backward to that when it's going to make it harder for families.

Of course, he stands up and says: "Gee, the government is advocating higher taxes on families and lower tax…." Actually, that's not true. It's not true. The government has been advocating, in the case of the HST, lower taxes on families — in fact, taxes that would get every single family further ahead than they would be under the taxes that this member is proposing — and higher taxes on business. It's rebalancing the burden of taxes between families and business.

So the member needs to make sure that he's sticking to the facts. That's one of the reasons that the government is making sure that the people have the facts about the HST, that people understand what the reality of it is. They complain that there hasn't been nearly enough debate and information out there. Well, let's ignite that debate. Let's get the information out there so that people can cast an informed vote on what will surely be the most important referendum that any Canadian jurisdiction has been asked to undertake on a tax issue, and that's certainly this one.

[1520]

The member keeps digging up statements by a woman who used to sit in this House — Carole Taylor, a woman for whom I have a great deal of respect — and he talks about her statements on the HST as though she's talking about the HST today, as though she's talking about the HST as it's been improved.

Of course, the comments that she made then didn't have the information of the independent panel. It had nothing to do with the changes that have been proposed by this government. Her comments were based on the HST as it was introduced. The member, I think, is really profoundly unfair to a woman who has served not just this Legislature but our entire province with great distinction. I think he's incredibly unfair to her to take her comments out of context and somehow pretend that she's commenting on the HST as it's planned today, because she absolutely isn't.

The comments that he quotes aren't about an HST that's at 10 percent. The comments that he quotes aren't about an HST that's going to include a bridging transition fund for families to make sure they get ahead. Her comments were not about an HST that's going to mean a lower tax burden for families, on average after the changes come in, than it would have under the tax that the NDP is proposing.

I think it's really profoundly unfair, and I hope this member has the respect for this House and for the member that he quotes to stand up next and apologize to her, in light of the distinguished service she's provided to British Columbia, for taking her comments so unfairly out of context. Ms. Taylor deserves better, given the service that she's provided this province over the years. She deserves far better than the kind of treatment she's received at the hands of the Leader of the Opposition.

A. Dix: Well, of course, Carole Taylor was talking about the HST as it is today, was doing it, exactly as it is today —
[ Page 7882 ]
the HST as it is today, absolutely — and next month and the month after that. I mean, yes, she didn't include the Premier's promises two years from now. But they don't even keep their promises for two months on this question, never mind two years. They can't be trusted on the question — absolutely can't be trusted on the question.

Even the independent panel, in what has to be described as a favourable assessment of the tax — more favourable than Treasury Board has given…. The government can't explain the difference between Treasury Board's assessment and the independent panel's assessment. The assessment of Treasury Board was a $1.9 billion tax shift onto families. The independent panel says that's only $1.3 billion. So that's the difference. That's the difference between the position of the independent panel and the position of the Minister of Finance on that question.

But the HST came into place on July 1, 2010. That's $1.3 billion on families then. It continues in place on July 1 of this year, for the following year. That's another $1.3 billion on families. That's what Carole Taylor was talking about. That's precisely what she was talking about.

And what we have as a choice in this referendum campaign, as the Premier well knows, is a choice between the PST and that model of taxation and the HST.

What the PST does that the HST doesn't do, the difference between them as tax models is that the Premier's model, the HST, really sticks it to families, and the other is better for families — the PST. That's why, as an opposition party that's really advocating for families…. That's what we're doing.

You know, it is a little bit laughable to hear Liberal members. I mean, this was their position in the last election campaign. It was against the HST. This was the position they went to the voters on. Then for them it suddenly became the greatest thing that could happen to the economy. Then they revised their job estimates. Nothing of what they've said on this issue has lasted months, never mind years.

So they went to the public. The member from Kelowna went to the public — I know he's talking right now — and said: "I'm against that HST." That's what his party did — right? That was the position of the party. That's why the Premier called what the B.C. Liberal Party did sneaky — right?

[1525]

The world changed with the recession. The recession happened. Lehman Brothers went down — I'll just let the member from Kamloops know this — in September 2008. In April 2009 on CKNW the Premier who ran for re-election, whose mandate this Premier is making these changes based on, told the people of British Columbia at CKNW — the new Premier might have been there — that the deficit was $495 million, and he turned out to be massively wrong weeks later. That's why we're in this mess today.

There's no way they would have gone to the HST if they hadn't misled people about the size of the deficit in that election campaign. This is the reality of the situation we're facing. So I look forward to the debate in British Columbia against this tax shift onto working families. I oppose this tax and this tax shift onto working families, and that's what I'll be advocating around British Columbia. I'm perfectly happy that the Premier will go out and do the same. I think that's a good thing in a democracy.

What I find less acceptable is for the government to effectively cheat in the campaign and to effectively say: "We're going to also use taxpayers' money." So we hit families for $1.3 billion between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011. We're going to hit them for another $1.3 billion in the coming year for the HST, and we're going to use some of the money that they transferred onto families to pay for an ad campaign that nobody wants.

I defy anyone — anyone — to find a single person in British Columbia, other than the ad agencies and the members of the Liberal caucus and the public affairs bureau, who thinks it's a good idea to spend public funds in this way. I defy anybody to find anybody in British Columbia who believes in that, who believes that to be the case.

The Premier is defending using public money for partisan acts, and people have had enough of that. I think that the Premier, who, as everyone says, is an effective communicator, can do it without wasting public funds on those ads. I don't think the Premier needs the Stickman to help her.

I think that the Premier could run a campaign in favour of Gordon Campbell's HST to extend his legacy and protect his legacy and stick it to working families. She could do that without using partisan ads paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia. I'm sure she's capable of that. I'm sure she's capable of running a good campaign, and I look forward to seeing it.

What I think the people of British Columbia find less acceptable are the tactics of the government, who said they'd do one thing months ago, and they're doing a completely different thing today. In some respects, what they say about the rate depends on your belief in their credibility, and they have no credibility on this question. They haven't from the beginning. They don't have any now. People don't believe them. People don't believe their promises, and I think that is a major issue in this campaign.

I believe that the people of British Columbia, at the end of the debate, will conclude, as I have concluded, that they should vote to scrap the HST. I look forward to that debate very much.

Hon. Chair, I know you're leaning forward, and I'm always interested in your posture, because as the former Health critic, I have an eye for this sort of thing.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

A. Dix: I just wanted to, very briefly at the end of those estimates — I worked with Mr. Dyble on a few estimates
[ Page 7883 ]
— thank the staff of the Premier's office because they have to sit here through our debates, and they assist in the debates. I just want to thank the entire team over there and Mr. Dyble, whom I have known for many years. I appreciate his contribution. I thank them and thank the Premier, and I think the closure motion is about to take effect in this debate, so I'll sit down.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm also delighted to thank the staff that have supported me here today and through the course of these estimates. Let me say this, just to wrap it up with respect to some of the issues that the member has raised.

You know, I am really looking forward to hearing…. I know what he opposes, but I'm really interested in hearing what he supports. I want to hear why he supports it. I want to hear why the member, the Leader of the Opposition, supports going back to a 12 percent dual tax, a PST-GST system when the alternative is a 10 percent, a much simpler tax that we're proposing.

[1530]

I want to hear him tell us why he's taking these positions. I want to hear him tell British Columbians why he supports blowing a $3 billion hole in B.C.'s budget, how he thinks that's going to make it easier for anyone in government to support families, how he thinks that's going to make it easier to support health care and education and the other vital services that people depend on us to provide to support British Columbians in need.

I am very much looking forward to hearing those things from the Leader of the Opposition. He's always so silent about the things that he wants to do, but he only wants to talk about the things he doesn't want to do. Well, I think maybe the reason he doesn't want to tell us what he wants to do is because he's worried that British Columbians won't like it. Maybe he's worried that his agenda, if he keeps it to himself long enough, might be something that British Columbians will never find out about, and he might find his way back into government.

If he won't tell us what his agenda is, if he won't tell us why he supports a 12 percent tax and a PST-GST, if he won't tell us why he supports blowing a $3 billion hole in the budget, maybe British Columbians will just have to go back and look at his record when he was in the Premier's office.

Maybe British Columbians will have to go back to the days and remember when we suffered consecutive credit downgrades in the province, when there was an over $3 billion deficit that the government had to deal with, with the mess they left after years of mismanaging the people's money.

If he won't tell us, we could always go back and look at his record. Instead of doing that, I very much look forward to seeing the Leader of the Opposition get out there on the hustings in British Columbia and tell us all not just what he opposes, but why he supports the ideas he supports. I suspect that when he does, British Columbians will find out that they're onto his game.

With that, I move that this committee rise…. No, I'm not moving that.

The Chair: Premier, pursuant to the schedule tabled by the Government House Leader, I'll now put Vote 10.

Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,455,000 — approved.

The Chair: This committee will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 3:32 p.m. to 3:44 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

(continued)

On Vote 24: housing, $345,444,000.

S. Simpson: We're starting into housing estimates, and for those few people who are looking for a hockey game and happen to run across us on the way to a hockey game, we have about an hour and 15 minutes to deal with housing estimates here, so it's going to be pretty brief. That's the reality of this session of the Legislature.

I'm going to move through a short list of items and some questions that relate to those and not attempt the broader scope of housing estimates that we might have done if we had significantly more time.

[1545]

Just working through these, I'll start with the question of the housing endowment fund. Could the minister tell us the current status of the housing endowment fund, which I believe was put in place in 2007 by the then Finance Minister and was to generate about $10 million of interest a year to be used on housing programs? Could the minister tell us what the current status of that fund is, what's been spent, what's been subscribed, etc.?

Hon. R. Coleman: Since the $250 million housing endowment fund was established, the interest or money that comes off it can go into innovative housing projects in British Columbia. The fund has been quite successful, actually, since 2007. More than 40 innovative housing projects or proposals received more than $25 million to develop nearly 400 affordable housing units and other unique projects.

The funds will contribute to the development and operations of 32 supportive housing projects being built around the province in partnership with local government and community groups. It will not fund the entire project cost, but it comes in as a partner on innovative projects where other partners have come together for funds on those particular projects.
[ Page 7884 ]

Basically, the fund sits there. We get proposals. As we have money, we select the innovative projects through B.C. Housing, and then they're funded.

S. Simpson: Just so I'm correct here that the status or the operation of the fund…. The fund was, I believe, about $250 million at the outset, of which the interest was being applied towards these projects such as the minister spoke about. Currently what is the value of the fund, and how much money is being either taken out of the fund or out of interest on the fund to be expended on projects?

Hon. R. Coleman: The present value of the balance of the fund is $305,253,033, as of May. The fund always stays at $250 million. That can't go below $250 million because that's what's making the interest.

All of the money that's the difference between the $250 million and now — the $55 million — has been committed. It has been committed to projects like some of the MOU projects in Vancouver — some of the innovative projects we're doing there — across the province as well as the other 25 projects I mentioned earlier. It's been funding by commitment. It will go out, as the projects get ready to be funded, into specific projects as needed.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move on. My sense of this, just so I think I understand this…. When B.C. Housing says the fund is fully subscribed, that means it has been subscribed down to the $250 million base, and any excess or surplus income or value in the fund over that has then been allocated or designated onto projects in the future. So that constitutes a fully subscribed fund when it hits the $250 million base, and whatever is over that has been allocated or designated? Yeah, the minister is nodding. That's great.

I want to move on to a few issues that relate to some rental housing questions. Looking at the information here, I believe…. It looks to me like the rental assistance program currently, excluding seniors and SAFER, has just over 10,000 subscribers to that program. Could the minister tell us whether that number is accurate, how many are subscribed, and how much room is available in that program for other potential applicants to the rental assistance program?

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 9,370 families on the rental assistance program. This is up from 4,300 families in 2007. The average monthly payment per family in the rental assistance program is $360, which is an increase from an average benefit back in 2007 of $162.

The maximum income — I think a lot of that came from the change in the maximum income ceiling. It was raised to get more folks to come in. We raised the income ceiling from $28,000 to $35,000 in 2008-09. Any applications that we receive and are eligible, we process. We don't have a situation right now where we can't process and handle any new clients.

We have $39.3 million in subsidies annually to date, and we're still able to take applications for low-income families who need housing.

S. Simpson: My apologies. I missed that first number — the number of people, the number of families using the program currently.

Hon. R. Coleman: Some 9,370 families.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what the current wait-lists are for B.C. Housing? Maybe if he could break that down into wait-lists for seniors, for families, and so forth.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: We operate a housing registry, as I think the member knows. There are 95 member organizations that belong to the registry. There are 81 housing providers included in that registry, including B.C. Housing.

Basically, the housing provided members of the organization with over 20,000 units across the province. The total across the registry for all categories, the number of applicants on the registry right now, would be about 12,397.

The number of applicants that were wait-listed just a couple of years ago was at 15,343. Of the 12,000 that are on the wait-lists, there are current tenants in social housing who have requested a transfer to another social housing development. They are on the list, although they are housed.

The number of families. I'll just give the member some numbers. In 2005-2006 the number of families on the register was 8,560. Today it's 4,254.

In the seniors category it's 3,256; special needs, 2,519. Looking for wheelchair accessibility are 402, and rent supps are 26. These are by households mix, and transfers are the 1,028, which I mentioned earlier, where people have asked for a transfer.

[1555]

S. Simpson: I think if I add those numbers up, it comes up to just over 8,000 or so. Could the minister tell us…? I think he had said the number was about 12,300 and something. Maybe I missed a number in here somewhere and he can correct me, but where's the other 4,000 or so?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's 11,485 in the actual wait-list by household type of queue for a year-to-year comparison that I read from. In the briefing note it actually says it's higher, so I suspect that the queue for it compares and is the number.
[ Page 7885 ]

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: based on these numbers and the projections of B.C. Housing, how long would the wait-list be? I understand none of this is specific, but I'm sure that there are projections put forward by B.C. Housing on length of wait. How long is the wait for seniors, for families, for special needs based on these numbers?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually a question that's impossible for me to answer quantifiably. What we have on this list is we have people who are in a particular community and won't move, and so they're on a wait-list for projects where there's less opportunity. We have folks that have other needs that have to be met through other means. Some of them are health care issues, but they're still on our list and that sort of thing.

What we do know, though, is that we try and work with everybody, and it's not really a time-on-the-list comparison that matters. Our lists are based on those in highest need. So there's a scoring system. Highest need is determined. Those people are eligible first for housing. Anybody that comes into this list — we try and also work with them to see if we can get them on rent assistance if they're interested in rent assistance in the communities that they're in as well. So there's always work on the list with these people ongoing.

S. Simpson: Maybe I'll just go to the one category, families, for the moment. I appreciate the minister's answer. I know that my office probably writes a couple of letters a month to B.C. Housing, where we get people who have unique or particular needs. We will write a letter to B.C. Housing and talk about those needs and try to provide some supporting documentation. Our hope is to get them moved up the priority list so that maybe they get their housing a little bit sooner, because as the minister says, all of a sudden they get reranked and they're higher on the priority list. So I understand that.

I don't like to use the term "a typical family," but a family that's…. And I know we hear from B.C. Housing, when we talk to people, that people who apply are told, and I think told quite fairly, when they put in an application that they shouldn't necessarily have an expectation — if they're typical, and I use that term carefully — that they're going to get into B.C. Housing in the next couple of months. That's not a reality because of the demand and the list.

So maybe this question, just to get a sense of this. In the Lower Mainland, where somebody's prepared to kind of be in the Lower Mainland and not saying, "I've got to stay in this neighbourhood or that neighbourhood" or "I've got to be in Burnaby" and "I won't go to New Westminster" or "I won't go to Surrey…." For a family there, what kind of timeline are they waiting for? For six months, for a year, for two years, for one to three years? I'm just trying to get some sense of what the scope of this is and what the expectations are that people should plan on.

[1600]

Hon. R. Coleman: I can't quantify for this. I'll give you two examples. One would be a woman and her children fleeing abuse who would go to a transition house and come out of a transition house after 30 days. They would bump to the top of the priority list for housing, to be housed somewhere, and probably would be housed within a month or so simply because of their need.

On the other side, with somebody just in low income, just a person at a lower income in a community, our first objective, and what we try to do, is to move them to the RAP, the rental assistance program. As we do that, even if it takes time for their application to get processed, from the time they apply, if they're eligible, they will get retroactive payment to support their rent wherever they're living.

One of the challenges in managing this is also the fact that not all non-profit housing, even though it might be subsidized by government, is actually on the registry. So people will actually go to housing projects in communities and apply and could get housing in social housing that we're supporting. There's a lag to find out where they are. So there's always this catch-up being done on the list and information of people that are out there.

We try to do as best we can, but it's not possible to say: "Family B, if you apply tomorrow with these particular criteria, you'll be housed within X months or X period of time." The reason that's not possible is because there could be a higher need come along that is determined by the scoring. There's a much higher need, and so they wouldn't get in as quickly. So it's not possible to quantify beyond what I explained to the member.

S. Simpson: I asked the question, I guess, because I go back to October. I might have done these estimates. I'm not sure — maybe or maybe not. October 28, 2009, in Hansard on page 1744. At that time I think the minister told us that the official wait-list then was about 9,000 people all in at that time and that the average wait time for social housing was estimated — I understand they're averages — somewhere maybe as much as three to five years that somebody could be on that list if they didn't have any prioritization of any kind.

I'm interested particularly in families. As the minister will know, we have got a fair amount of families who are living on income assistance. They are not eligible for the rent subsidy program on income assistance at this point, so that avenue is not available to them. A large number of them…. Obviously, income assistance money is tight, and particularly in a place like the Lower Mainland, rental housing is hard to come by. It's hard to come by generally for families, let alone hard to come by for people who have a modest income.
[ Page 7886 ]

So for a family on welfare with a couple of kids, a family that doesn't have any particular or unique circumstances other than that they're poor and they're on welfare, if they're prepared to live pretty much anywhere, say, this side of the river — the Vancouver-Burnaby–New West side of the river — what should they expect in terms of waiting on that list if they have no unique circumstances to move them up the list?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have that answer. If I can get it — we'll go back and look at our statistics — I'll try and get it for the member. But we don't have it here today.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I would appreciate it if the minister could ask his officials to get me a ballpark number on what that circumstance would be. I would appreciate that.

I want to move to a specific project, and that would be the Little Mountain project in Vancouver. As we know, that project moved forward. I can't even remember all the dates.

[1605]

I think that it might have been 2007 when it first got talked about. Well, 2007, I guess, is when the federal government transferred it over to the province and gave the province ownership of all of that.

At that point — I believe it was in 2007 there — the province and the city reached an understanding on a redevelopment of that site. It was going to be redeveloped for market housing, but the 224 units of social housing would be replaced on the site with roughly the same composition and the same number of bedrooms as existed under the Little Mountain project, including, I think it was, close to 190 of those units being committed for families. It was 184 units committed to families.

At that time, I think that the hope was that by sometime in 2010, in mid-2010, they'd actually start construction. Now we know, of course, that the development process has gone very slowly with Holborn. The debate seems to be over density questions — not exclusively, but it is over density questions and whether Holborn wants to build the density that the surrounding community isn't comfortable with. But for whatever reason, the city and Holborn have not found enough common ground to be able to move the development process forward.

So the question that I have is: is the minister or the minister's officials….? Since there is the commitment by the province to rebuild the 224 units of housing, is the government still a participant in any way in this initiative in order to be able to meet the obligation that the minister has made to get these 224 units built, I believe, as soon as is reasonably possible?

Hon. R. Coleman: One of the biggest challenges this year has been the city of Vancouver. As we've tried to get through to where they would determine what they thought was the art of the possible with regards to density, they have, frankly, bounced around. At one point they were actually at a density that we thought would make good sense, then they went down below, and then they came back up. And ironically, this project is almost solely for the benefit of the city of Vancouver.

The money that comes out of Little Mountain already is being spent. We are doing 14 sites in the city of Vancouver. We're building them today or getting them ready to be built today, and money coming into Little Mountain is helping to pay the capital on all of those projects plus the 224 social housing sites. So any money made on Little Mountain is actually going into projects. We took a leap of faith and stepped up to the plate with the city of Vancouver and said, "We're going to go do these 14 sites," thinking that their process would be a little quicker.

Even though the process has been slower than we anticipated, we've still invested the capital in the city. So the sites we're building now in the city of Vancouver…. The arrangement we have with the Ministry of Finance is they're allowing us to finance those on the basis that there's going to be future outcomes from Little Mountain that will pay down that amount of money we'll have to borrow.

On the second piece of this, there has been a policy planning program led by the city of Vancouver now for the redevelopment. An advisory committee has been formed, and there are open houses being held in the neighbourhood. Currently, the development team is looking at working toward starting the first phase of the project.

If they can get past this, there are a couple of little hurdles, from what I understand, that are being discussed. I don't go to all the development meetings — I don't go any of them, actually, because it's not my job — but Holborn is prepared to move forward. I think the density that's there on the table now will make the project function fine. Our commitment, of course, as the member knows, is to pay for the 224 units in the first phase of the project.

S. Simpson: I understand those comments. We know that this advisory committee has had its moments. I believe from September to March it didn't meet. For over six months — for whatever reason — it couldn't find its way to meet. It had been meeting prior to that on pretty close to a monthly basis. I think it reflected in the March meeting that the delays stemmed from significant disagreements that they were having trouble resolving. Now I hope the minister's comments…. Maybe that's now…. Maybe progress has been made, and they're moving ahead, and I accept that.

[1610]

My biggest concern is the loss of family housing here. I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't believe the 14 sites — certainly any of the housing opening in the next
[ Page 7887 ]
number of months — the 500 units or so that I think are opening up over the next few months — are family housing. I think they're all targeted housing.

I'm concerned about restoring the family housing in the city of Vancouver that's been lost. We all know the cost of family rental in Vancouver, and it's pretty challenging for people unless you have a pretty good income. I accept all of the comments about the city having to find a resolution with Holborn.

The ministry and the minister made commitments to restore those 224 units and restore the 184 or 185 units of family housing. All I'm asking at this point is: what are the expectations of the government on how we get those units back on the ground, and can we expect this by 2013 or 2014? When might we get these units on the ground for people?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, you know, the city of Vancouver…. You're right. The 14 sites…. The priority the city put on the relationship on housing early on in this particular game with regards to this site and the money they wanted invested was focused on the 14 sites in Vancouver, particularly for people with mental health and addictions, homeless or at risk of homeless, that they wanted those units to…. That would be the priority, and we worked with them on that as a result, because that's what their priority was.

Everybody that was at Little Mountain has been housed and continues to be housed and supported by government. That will be the case until they have the opportunity to decide whether they want to move back onto that site when it's complete.

If I could describe frustrations around this particular file, it is how fast the city seems to be able to manage to fast-track some of these other projects and, frankly, have not been fast-tracking on this particular project. I don't know why that is the case, but I do think the city needs to recognize that the benefit they're receiving on the 14 sites is directly as a result of our decision to redevelop Little Mountain. We will build the 224 family units back into Little Mountain when we have the opportunity to build the site. If they could fast-track quicker, we'll be there quicker.

S. Simpson: I know from conversations I've had with people in the development sector and private developers in Vancouver that many of them would say the challenge around the Little Mountain site is that, in fact, Holborn might not have done a very good deal. The province might have got a good deal money-wise, but Holborn overestimated their capacity to build on that site and overprojected their density possibilities on that site and maybe misjudged the best market opportunity — a number of things there.

Other developers I've talked to said it was a deal that not a lot of other people would have necessarily done. Holborn put the deal on the table, or the province and Holborn negotiated the deal. That's fine, but the problem is that they might have negotiated a deal where they've now put themselves in a box where they may not be able to get the return that they believe they need to make that work for them. I guess time will tell as that plays itself out.

Maybe I'll ask one last question in relation to that, and it does come to that situation. I understand that the contractual agreement is a private agreement. But my question would be this. If the city and Holborn cannot come to an agreement on development, primarily around density…? If they can't reach an agreement that's satisfactory to the developer, to Holborn, does that have implications for the agreement with the province, in terms of the financial agreement with the province? And if so, what happens there?

[1615]

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to the member's concerns, to start with. The process to put this up was a bid process that was done for us by a consultant, which was Colliers. We had bidders, other bidders other than Holborn. We had lots of bidders. Holborn happened to be the higher bidder but not so substantially that there would have been a difference between these things.

We have a firm contract of purchase and sale. We have a substantial non-refundable deposit. There is no out-clause, so if frustration of the agreement took place, we would be keeping a substantial multi-million-dollar deposit. The land is still owned by PRHC, which is the arm of B.C. Housing that holds all of our titles. So it hasn't been transferred to them, and there is no transfer of title until the project starts and they start to dispose of units or pieces of it.

I think it's a very workable deal. We believe that we're very close to the number that will work for all parties on density, which could move it forward quicker. And in addition to that, because we're coming back in and paying for 224 units of family housing, it actually gives the project a presale, which basically also makes its commercial viability quite strong.

I'm not concerned about the commercial viability of the project at the density that I'm hearing about and neither should Holborn. Knowing the market as I do and knowing the development community as I do and having conversations with folks, we will get there. But if they chose to decide that they didn't want to continue, we'll take the deposit. There are paces along the way that they had to meet certain benchmarks. Should they decide they can't meet a benchmark or not, we'll be in a position to have money that will more than give us a return for just letting them have an opportunity to bid to buy the land.

But we do have a firm contract of purchase and sale, which they cannot…. There is not escape clause for them, and we have a substantial — and I do mean substantial — deposit.
[ Page 7888 ]

S. Simpson: I would ask the minister what the deposit is, but he's not going to tell me, I guess. But if he wants to tell me, that would be great.

With that project, the minister talks about benchmarks along the way that would be in place. Could the minister give us some sense of what the nature of those benchmarks is? I don't need specifics, if that's problematic, but what's the nature of the benchmarks that Holborn has to meet to show that they're continuing progress here in a way that's satisfactory to this agreement? And the minister, of course, can tell me the number, if he'd like.

Hon. R. Coleman: The closing date is subject to when the zoning is complete. If it isn't done by a specific date, which I am told I cannot disclose because it's confidential to the agreement, then we would be basically terminating the vehicle agreement and keeping our money.

I was wrong on one piece of that. On the drop-dead date they have to close. It's not a question that they could terminate the agreement. They actually have to buy the property. So it's either at zoning or at the specific date. They have to close. There's no out for them. They have a firm contract of purchase and sale.

[1620]

S. Simpson: So that I understand that now. That in fact there's…. Is what the minister's saying…? Because the minister, in his first answer…. I understand that this could be a clarification.

The minister had said: "We got a significant deposit in place. They have certain obligations and benchmarks along the way. If they don't meet those, we have the ability, potentially, through our arm of government, to take that property back, to retain and keep the deposit, take it back if they don't meet the obligations at the other side."

Actually, I believe the minister said: "We still own the property. They have rights to the property under this agreement, but they've got to meet obligations and pay for those rights down the road in terms of paying this off."

So if they walk away — that's the only thing — then we, being the government, keep the cash. They could walk away or else they have to buy this thing out. Was that it or is the minister saying that they have no right but they have to buy it out?

Hon. R. Coleman: I will try and clarify it. We have a firm contract to purchase and sale. The closing date is established in two ways. You either close on the day that the zoning is complete or you can close on a specific date in the contract. That's the date you have to pay for the land or pay for the project.

If they were to walk away, which we don't anticipate, by the way…. We have no indication whatsoever. They're very substantial. Their assets are very substantial. I've met with them recently, and they're very keen to get going. But if they were, then we would still have the land because we own the title. The title will not get transferred until we're paid — right? — and we would still have the substantial deposit.

We could choose to pursue for the price difference that they have, if they did decide that they weren't going to close on the specific dates, but then that would be a lawsuit decision at that particular point in time, a commercial decision.

Frankly, my expectation, in having met the family and having met the representatives of the company…. There's a pretty strong honour there. They know they have a deal with us. They know they have a contract to purchase and sale. They want to get on with the project. If we can get over a couple of these little hurdles of the city, this thing can move pretty quickly.

S. Simpson: I believe that B.C. Housing does this research, and I guess we'll find out. Could the minister tell us whether he has an assessment of how many families — and we're talking families here in British Columbia — are paying in excess of 30 percent of their income for rent? I use that number because I believe that's the number that's been established federally by CMHC as affordability.

How many families has B.C. Housing, presumably, determined are paying more than the level of affordability?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, B.C. Housing doesn't do that research. That research is usually done by CMHC, and we don't have their data with us today, but we can get it for the member.

S. Simpson: I believe the numbers I've seen, just looking at poverty-related numbers…. We have about in excess of 100,000 families that have real financial challenges in the province — probably numbers more than that, but a significant number of families — and we know that about 10,000 of those families probably in some way, shape or form are getting some support from the government by rental assistance, and the others have a challenge.

Now, in the past — I believe it was in last year's estimates — the minister and I had the debate around family housing versus homelessness versus targeted housing.

[1625]

The minister at that point, in Hansard in April of 2010, said: "We're not building a bunch of family housing, because we have a rent assistance program." He said that program was where people with low incomes would go to get support. "As a result of the rent assistance program and improvements to SAFER and the rent subsidies put in for the homeless issue, our wait-lists have gone down…" etc.

But essentially, the position was…. I respect this. This minister has taken the view previously that family housing was not on the top of the priority list for housing.
[ Page 7889 ]
Homelessness was very high on the list. Some support for seniors who were in need of a fair amount of support was there on the list. Family housing wasn't.

I now know, of course…. I believe that it was on May 20. I have the release that B.C. Housing…. I believe that the minister was there with the Premier to open Como Lake Gardens, which was a facility of housing for single moms there. We know that the Premier has talked about families first as being a priority.

So my question to the minister is: is there any shift in the priorities of the ministry and B.C. Housing in terms of where the emphasis and resources will go with families versus what has been an emphasis on homelessness and supported housing in the last few years? Is there any suggestion of a change of emphasis related to families?

Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to give the member some information before I answer the question. This is just some actual for people housed in the month of March 2011 in directly managed housing only. That's housing that we manage at B.C. Housing. We can give you a wait-list.

In the Fraser region there were 62 placements. The average wait time for those folks was 14.5 months. In the Interior region there were 13 placements, and the average wait time was 4.1 months. In the northern regions there were 32 placements, and the average wait time was 7.9 months. In the Vancouver coastal region there were 84 placements, and the average wait time was 18 months. In the Vancouver Island region — 18 placements, and the average wait time was 18 months. So provincewide there were 209 placements, and the average time on the list was 15 months.

I think we made the shift on housing to families…. I know we've had this debate before, so I don't want to…. We don't have the time to have the debate. But with the almost 10,000 people that are on rent assistance today, and given the previous discussion we just had about Little Mountain and how long it takes to do something, we would have had to deploy about $3 billion in capital to build units for all those almost-10,000 families.

We would have been… I would suspect — given the time it's taken to do the stuff we've been doing even on the homeless strategy in communities across B.C., where they've given us land and they've sped things up — that since we started the program in 2006, we would still have about 6,000-plus families that wouldn't be getting rent assistance.

Today they get the rent…. So the priority is still, for families, the rent assistance program. If communities could wake up, like communities like Surrey and Langley in particular have, and do some innovative things, we could actually solve this pretty quick.

I'll give you one example, which is the Clayton Heights area of Surrey. Surrey allowed for coach houses and basement suites in the homes that were built in this particular area of the community. So when they first started building homes with basement suites, the average price for a two-bedroom basement suite was $1,250 a month. Today the average two-bedroom basement suite is $850 a month. What happened was…. The market happened. Basically, a bunch of housing was produced. It brought down the affordability.

It works for us, because it lowers the amount that we would have to subsidize a family in a two-bedroom suite or a three-bedroom basement suite. That lets us do more, but it actually helps the family that is also upstairs. They're able to get a mortgage helper to buy their home and keep it. So they help us with the housing.

The beauty of the RAP program, and the reason I'm a big fan of that as a family initiative…. I think we can always look at other ways to do stuff with it. I think that as we go into the budget cycle this fall, I'll try and bring some new ideas to refresh the program and see what else to do.

The beauty of it is that we don't build housing and say: "That's the form of housing we're going to need for the next generation." The mistake we made in building purpose-built housing for decades was that we all of a sudden woke up and found out that the demographics had changed, and the housing we built didn't fit the people that needed the housing.

[1630]

The rent assistance program and SAFER. The magic of those two programs is that somebody can make the choice where they want to live and in what community and get the subsidy, versus saying: "You all have to go live in a specific social housing project" — or whatever you want to call it — "because we only have housing over there." The ability is to integrate people into the community. I'm a big fan of it. I know we've talked about it before.

So we are able take more and more intake on this. We can bring in more families. We're obviously…. We always look at the income thresholds each time we do a budget, and we look at how that would affect….

I am actually, personally, as the minister, very proud of the RAP program, the rent assistance program, because I know I could not have housed those 9,000-plus people or families by trying to build it up purposely. Find the land, zone it, put up with all the community push-back whenever we do social housing, and get it done, versus getting them housed with the money to support them.

If you think about it, if you were a single mom with a six-year-old kid in 2006 and you went with rental assistance, that child's now 11. In some communities we might be five more years to actually get the housing built. That would mean the child would be 16.

So they've had an opportunity for better affordability, better outcomes over the period of time within the marketplace for that family, versus trying to say: "Let's just go build something and cut the ribbon."
[ Page 7890 ]

The Chair: Minister, just a gentle reminder that once you've been recognized and on your feet, the use of electronic devices is not allowed.

Hon. R. Coleman: Only in question period it's not allowed.

The Chair: Excuse me. Not allowed once you're on the floor, when you're recognized. You can use it as a resource here, but once you've been recognized and are speaking, you're not allowed to use them.

Hon. R. Coleman: Then I wouldn't have been able to give the member the information.

The Chair: You'll have to find a different way.

S. Simpson: I guess I want to come back a little bit to this question again. I don't want to debate rental assistance programs, the minister and I. I accept that program, and 10,000 people are getting help out of it. That's all good.

We've had our differences in the past about where the priorities should be in terms of direct build. I think we're talking here about the money that the government chooses to invest, either directly or with non-profit partners and other government-level partners, in building housing that's purpose-built.

I have no interest in revisiting the debate we've had over the last couple of years. All I'm trying to determine here…. We know the realities. The reality is that all governments are affected by the views of their leader, and the new Premier has put forward families first as clearly her emphasis and priority. She has enunciated that time and time again.

The question I'm just asking here is whether that is going to mean a shift in terms of the direction that the ministry — and, presumably, B.C. Housing as its agent to build housing, to deal with the housing file, the minister's agent to do that…. Is that going to change the emphasis in terms of where future resources go — not what's been done in the past, but in terms of future resources, in terms of direct build or partnerships for direct builds with non-profits and others?

I'm just trying to get a sense of whether there's any shifting in terms of the emphasis here from where it's been before. I don't think that diminishes the rent assistance program in any way, shape or form from what the minister said about the value of that.

Hon. R. Coleman: The Premier today is very happy with the housing strategy and its outcomes. She's very happy with the results on the homeless file for mental health and addictions and is aware of the fact that we're really not done yet.

Although we've made tremendous progress and we've put a dent in this file all across the province of British Columbia, the fact of the matter is that there are still folks who will need our assistance for the supportive housing that they need. Our shift that we've done has been to….

Frankly, I think any son or daughter, any person who has a family that has a mental health issue and addiction and is homeless or on our streets, is family. I think a family agenda includes the entire family.

Through the rental assistance program and through our initiatives with the SROs, through our initiatives with the supportive housing that we've done, I've seen families reunited. I've seen people who've moved past their addictions, got help for their mental illness and have reunited with families. Sometimes they've been apart from each other for ten years.

[1635]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I don't see a shift. I see us concentrating to continue to help the most vulnerable, to build for the most vulnerable who cannot be helped in the marketplace. I see us continuing to expand the rental assistance program for families that can be helped in the marketplace, because that's certainly a priority. We actually have 80,000 units in British Columbia of social housing. A large piece of that is family, some of it is seniors, and then we have our supportive. We have the housing market itself where we have almost 10,000 people with rent assistance.

So we will continue to build on this, because I think, actually, when we started it in 2006, it has been a tremendous thing for the government to support. This year alone it will be $300 million in capital in supportive housing for people with mental health issues, addictions and homelessness across the province of B.C., in communities all across B.C. — Campbell River, Nanaimo, Victoria, the Interior, all throughout that and, as the member opposite reminded me, in Sechelt, as well, because we have actually opened a project in Sechelt.

I do think that we are building a plan. It's really about the integrated package, and it does include families. It includes families that are affected by mental health issues and addiction, but it also includes families for whom, just because of their income, rent assistance can help a tremendous amount.

N. Simons: My question is about the Pacific autism family centre. The Ministry for Housing has possibly committed $20 million for the construction of a building to house as yet unknown facilities or programs and services. Can the Minister tell me if there was ever a needs assessment done for that program and if a business plan was ever conducted? If so, could we see a copy of that?

Hon. R. Coleman: The job that we were given as Housing was not to do the business plan for the centre. That was done through the autism community in conjunction, I
[ Page 7891 ]
think, with Children and Family Development at the time, with regards to an autism centre that would then do outreach to the rest of the province. It would provide respite, some housing, for people with autistic children coming to Vancouver for treatment. That would be able to reach out into other communities as part of the centre.

The job we were given is basically to see if we could find a site, get a design and then, obviously, government will fund the $20 million, which is committed. So what we've done on the Pacific autism centre, Member, is this. We went to work with the non-profit societies. We identified what they thought was the best location for an autism centre in B.C., in the Vancouver area because we wanted to be close to Children's Hospital, Sunny Hill, that sort of thing.

They all felt that the Sunny Hill site was the best site. It took a tremendous amount of work to put together the MOUs, to get control of the site at the Sunny Hill site and have future opportunities on the site where Sunny Hill actually exists in Vancouver when they would move to the new Children's Hospital.

So what we've managed to do is get a development-phase project set up in that area of the city. The city is going to sign a new 60-year lease with the Pacific Autism Centre Society, and the Children's Foundation will then lease the building space from the Pacific autism centre.

The Children's Foundation will have suitable accommodations found for them during the construction process. The future development, which is in the same area, on the same site, would be phase 2. That would be led by the province, through B.C. Housing, in partnership with the city of Vancouver to create affordable market rental housing for seniors, families and the like, and continue for people in need, including those who are on respite.

It's actually a multiphase project. But for the autism centre, our job that we were given was to get a site and firm it up so that this thing could go ahead. That's what we did. Our job is basically, at that point, complete, except that we will watch it through the development process.

N. Simons: I know that there was one particular society that has a number of board members who are, obviously, friends of government, who were gifted, essentially, $20 million. There's been no identification of operating funds, and I'm just wondering. The direction must have come from somewhere. How did Housing suddenly decide to use $20 million out of its budget to build something that, essentially, right now has absolutely no residential component at all?

The argument that it's going near Sunny Hill to be close to the hospital… As I understand it, they're moving away. I'm just wondering about the entire process of developing this program. Based on what? Based on need, or based on the request from certain individuals who simply thought this would be a good idea?

[1640]

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's completely disingenuous to think that this was just because somebody had a good idea. This was in the throne speech in 2008. We've worked with the autism community, and not just any one particular group. There's a Canucks autism network. There are a number of other autism groups that all came to the table when as the minister I was asked to see if we could find a location.

The money did not come from the Housing budget. It's separate money that's in the capital budget that would come when the project would be going ahead. It wasn't gifted to anybody. It will be into the development of that particular project, that purpose-built project, and the budget has been identified throughout the various ministries affected.

It will be Health, Ministry of Children and Family Development, or Social Development. If there was a housing component that required subsidy, we would be involved in the subsidies to people who needed subsidies on the location if it was social housing. This is a collaboration across government. I know my piece of it well, which is that we found the right site. The whole community said that's where they wanted it. That's where the autism community told us they wanted to go. They thought that was the best site to go.

We had other opportunities on other sites, but this was the site they wanted. We went to work, and it took a lot of work — probably a good year's work — to get a new lease with the city, work through some old things that were on title to try and make this thing work so we'd have a site to build this. We now have the site that will go through a zoning process, and we'll deploy the capital at the appropriate time to build it from government. But it's not part of the Housing budget.

N. Simons: That contradicts what the Minister of Social Development told me in estimates not that long ago. I believe that there's nothing disingenuous about a good idea. It's a question of whose good idea it was. I would take exception with the characterization of community-based or groups of autism advocates coming together.

There's a considerable amount of concern within the autism community, as well as the other developmental disability community, because of the absolute lack of front-line support for people with disabilities. When they see $20 million going into a new building to house already existing programs, people look twice. If they follow the money, they'll see that it's one society that has requested this money.

Former Premier Campbell, in his last public announcement, was to suggest that this was going to be
[ Page 7892 ]
going ahead. No public consultation took place except from the proponent's perspective. It was Lower Mainland–based; 65 percent of the respondents were from the Lower Mainland.

Meanwhile, we have people in Fort St. John, in Kamloops, in Prince George — people all across the province — who are wondering how a Lower Mainland facility housing provincial services that already exist in apparently adequate buildings can't continue to operate thus. The fact that there is no residential component to this facility…. I think it's like a moving target. Nobody really knows what it's going to be about. Nobody knows where the funding is coming from.

I've seen briefing notes that say that $20 million is coming from the Ministry for Housing. In fact, I've seen a briefing note saying that the Ministry for Housing has already spent $500,000 on the planning process.

I think that the questions being raised by the community about this particular project at this particular time, when there seems to be such a lack of appropriate services for people with various disabilities…. That's why they're questioning it. I think the public deserves some answers that actually indicate why this centre was even conceived of and who put it forward.

If you speak to any of the advocates like the B.C. Association for Community Living, Moms on the Move and MOMs network, which is the largest advocate group for people with autism and disabilities, they are saying that they have some serious concerns about it.

Can the minister tell me specifically where that $500,000 has come from so far and where the $20 million and the $15 million operating costs…? There doesn't seem to be a plan. There doesn't seem to have been a needs assessment. There doesn't seem to have been a business plan. There doesn't seem to be any actual government involvement in the expenditure of $20 million, possibly $35 million, on an ongoing basis. This is raising serious concerns, especially at a time when such significant needs are being expressed by people throughout the province.

[1645]

I'm just wondering if the minister knows what is going to be housed in this facility and whether he understands how far along this project is.

Hon. R. Coleman: I want to be clear here. The member said in the initial question that I took the money out of the housing budget to do this. We did not. We've been given money to do the predevelopment stuff over and above our budget, to do this particular project, to manage it.

We were given the task of putting together the groups, having a talk with them about the needs, and believe me, it wasn't just one autism group. I've actually sat in a meeting where they were all there — right? — and they were all wanting the autism centre. But what they do is they do go away and come back with different ideas from time to time. They are not, perhaps, always cohesive — would be a fair description.

The challenge is that you were told by these groups to look at other places in Canada, like in Ontario where there's the Surrey centre, which is an autism centre where a number of programs exist in conjunction with each other. They bring together, like we were…. What we're going to try and do is have Simon Fraser University as part of this, because they can bring in their autism research piece. We can bring in the treatment piece. We can bring in a program piece.

The idea of having it all in one place in an autism centre is to have the resources in place so that families from anywhere can have the best information available. Then, as you build the centre of that information, the outreach is into Fort St. John and into Prince George with other offices and the ability to go in and connect on line into the data, to talk to doctors, to make arrangements to come down with your kids for respite.

There's a whole package that will get designed around this. I'm not doing that in this ministry — right? But I believe in it. I believe in it because I've talked to families with kids with autism that say that one of the biggest frustrations they had when they found out their child had autism was running around to multiple places trying to find out and get answers for their kid.

They said: "Why can't you have a place where you have the specialists, you have the ability to do the testing, you have the ability to determine the treatment, you have the ability to give us advice, and you have the ability for us sometimes to come down and go to the doctors and have respite as well?" So that was the beginning of this thing, the genesis.

I happen to have a sister that is an expert in autism, so I've been hearing it in the ear about autism and the need for this type of centre in British Columbia for a lot longer than I've been the Minister of Housing. My sister would be able to explain to you the benefit of these things much better than I can. The business….

N. Simons: When are her estimates?

Hon. R. Coleman: Unfortunately, she lives in Toronto. But the reality is this. We took on our piece of this project. We designed the building. We spent the money — the $500,000 the member has mentioned. That was to get the work done on the land, to get done with the leases, to design a building, to get to the point.

The fortunate thing for you — to make the comment about the previous Premier in his last day running this out the door — is actually unfortunate for him but fortunate for us, because it was only the week or two before that we finally nailed down the lease and the arrangements with the city of Vancouver — the long-term arrangements.
[ Page 7893 ]

The autism community wanted us to announce it because they were excited. It was finally coming to fruition in a location. They knew something was going to happen. So that's how that came about.

[1650]

S. Simpson: I think we have about maybe ten minutes or so left. I'm going to try to push through a couple of issues here in a pretty focused way. The first one is in regard to residential tenancy matters. I have a couple of questions.

First, could the minister tell us whether there are any plans to make changes around current rent review processes, around rental amounts and rent reviews and those things or — and I understand we don't talk about future legislation — any plans around changes or consultations related to residential tenancy changes?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are no immediate plans that I know of on legislation. We're always trying to look to how we could adapt to meet the market demands that are facing us from time to time on residential tenancy, but there's nothing in front of me right now.

The Chair: As the member has pointed out, I caution on asking about pending legislation.

S. Simpson: Well, I was sure the minister would tell me that he wasn't going to talk about it anyways, hon. Chair.

The minister would know that there's been ongoing concern related to residential tenancy matters around a series of things, around things like geographic rent increases, around what's commonly called renovictions, evictions that have been related to renovations that may or may not be legitimate and sometimes there are evictions.

We know the residential tenancy branch has in a number of instances overturned those decisions, those attempts by landlords to make those changes when the residential tenancy branch has determined that they weren't reasonable. They have overturned them, and they have restored the tenants to their original situation and made them whole. We know there have been a few of those instances, and I'm sure there have also been instances where the residential tenancy branch has deemed them to be reasonable requests and has supported the landlord, and that's all fine.

The issue I have is.... It's my understanding that in terms of the number of decisions that are made and the nature of those decisions — i.e., the nature of what the cases were and the decisions were made — that information is not readily available or public. Is that information available? Is it public? Or can it be made available so people can get some sense of the scope of applications around rent increases for geographic purposes, renovictions — what those are? And why isn't that made available?

Hon. R. Coleman: Posted on the residential tenancy branch's website are decisions. They do post decisions by category, including rent increases. On the first part of your comments with regards to renovictions, they have to have a permit in order to do what the member described.

But we should all be aware of something, and that is this. The municipal taxes across B.C. are going up every year by 4, 6, 7 and 8 percent — whatever the number is. Water costs are going up every year. And our system does not allow that pass-through to a tenant. The challenge with that will be not today but in the future. I actually remember back having debates with the former Premier Ujjal Dosanjh on residential tenancy, when I told him that some of the things we were doing were going to cause a rental crisis in B.C.

We have at this point reached a new crisis I see coming at us — and that is, the older buildings we have in B.C. that have a certain type of elevator will soon be made, by a certain date, to change their elevators. That's a $50,000 to $150,000 cost per building. They will be told to do that because these are older technology and they have to be replaced. As that starts to accumulate on a landlord, we will start to see people exiting the business if the cost gets so high that they can't actually pay their bills. That's a significant concern I have for the cost that affects housing, particularly in the rental marketplace in B.C.

That's why I'm happy to see what Surrey is doing with densities and suites and that sort of thing to create some new rental housing, because since the early 1980s we haven't built new rental housing in any number in B.C. We used to build about 8,000 or 9,000 units a year. We're lucky if we're building a thousand. The challenge for that is we just have an inventory going this way and no inventory going that way.

[1655]

That's why — and we've had this discussion — I keep encouraging the federal government, to say: "Will you please take off or do something on the flow-through tax costs on this type of housing so people can actually fix their buildings up and get some capital recaptured?" If they don't do that, we're going to see a continued deterioration of the product, and we will not see new buildings being built for purpose-built rental housing.

S. Simpson: I think we know we have a challenge around purpose-built rental housing. The minister talks about the effects of these properties and property values, and part of that's reflected in what have been dramatic increases in the values of the properties that are being held as an investment. Sometimes it's a business with rentals. The property values have been going up dramatically, too, so the asset has become extremely more valuable for people in many of these cases.

Going back, though, to the case, and I wonder…. My first question had been about whether there were plans
[ Page 7894 ]
to make modifications related to the rent review process and what is allowable and not allowable. The minister talked about increased property tax values and those over and above. Is the minister contemplating allowing additional rent increases related to other factors that maybe haven't been a consideration in the past?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said earlier, we do from time to time look at the challenges that are facing the industry or facing the rental side, and we listen to the residential tenancy branch. I have nothing in front of me right now, but that doesn't mean nothing will ever happen down the road either.

I mean, you have to recognize that in the housing market things are never the same — maybe year to year or every three to five years or whatever the case may be. So to say there would never be any changes would just be disingenuous of me. The fact of the matter is there's nothing in front of me right now.

S. Simpson: I'll just ask one more question. It really is a request for information post this meeting. It is whether we could get information in regard to, again coming back to those decisions that are posted, whether there's the ability to get information that specifically talks about applications that involved geographic rent increases, involved evictions for renovation purposes or for the purposes of caretakers where there's been an appeal of those.

Obviously it's a matter of when the tenant has said, "I don't think this is reasonable," and they've appealed the process, and then there's been some kind of decision arbitrated or adjudicated by the branch. Would it be possible to get a list, say, of those for the last year?

Hon. R. Coleman: We can't do that, because that's not how we characterize or how we do our data. If it had gone to judicial review under the Supreme Court, we'd be able to get you that information, or that information would probably be available.

Before we break, for the member for North Island, I do have a briefing note that I could share with the member with regards to the Transition House Society project in Campbell River, if she wants to stick around for a second after this.

S. Simpson: Well, hon. Chair, I'm going to use that last two minutes I've got, you know, because that's the situation we're in.

Maybe the briefing note that the minister is going to make available…. That does directly link to one of the last questions I have. It is around transition housing and, more essentially, the second-stage housing in the province.

Could the minister make available or commit to make available — and we don't need, obviously, to get it this very minute — the status of second-stage housing in this province — the number of units that are available, the expectation around any new units that are expected to be built in communities and any plans that the ministry has to add or to advance further second-stage housing in the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were 13,000 women and children who were housed through transition housing programs in '09-10, and $31 million was spent for transition housing programs annually. The second-stage housing initiative that takes place is actually a relationship between B.C. Housing and housing service providers across the province.

[1700]

It was actually an initiative that was started under a former government. Quite frankly, when we talked about it back in '95-96…. I remember doing it in estimates, suggesting to the minister that we should use some of our existing stock if we had vacancies for higher priority situations like that — second stage housing, which in many cases becomes permanent housing, because we're actually moving directly into a social housing unit.

We'll see what numbers I have and see if I can get them for the member.

The Chair: Pursuant to the schedule tabled by the Government House Leader earlier this week, I'll now call Vote 24.

Vote 24: housing, $345,444,000 — approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: Since these are the last estimates, I'm going to go through a number of votes that are for things like legislation, the Auditor General and those sorts of things, which need to also be dealt with as part of the estimates process.

ESTIMATES:
LEGISLATION

Vote 1: legislation, $68,862,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $15,752,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $480,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $8,134,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $4,906,000 — approved.
[ Page 7895 ]

Vote 6: Merit Commissioner, $1,062,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Ombudsperson, $5,372,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Police Complaint Commissioner, $2,796,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Representative for Children and Youth, $7,317,000 — approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the following estimates: Office of the Premier; Ministry of Energy and Mines, housing, Vote 24; legislation, Vote 1; and statutory officers, Votes 2 to 9. And I ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:04 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