2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: I rise today to recognize some of the hardest-working unsung heroes anywhere in government. We are joined by over 70 constituency assistants here in the chamber today. These are the men and women who go above and beyond, serving our constituents every single day. They truly are the front line of government — in some cases, the place of last resort for people who haven't been able to find their answers within the bureaucracy.

They are our ears and our eyes in our communities and the front line to our constituents' needs. They make sure that our constituents have a voice in the Legislature and in the government, and for that we are very deeply grateful.

On behalf of the government, I'd like to thank each and every one of them who is joining us today for the work that they do to make British Columbia a better place. I hope the House will please join me in recognizing the work that they do and making them very, very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: To members of the House: if you want to have an uplifting experience, take a few minutes to meet — as I and several members of the House did; the member for Kootenay West — with individuals associated with the organ transplant program. This, we're reminded, as we heard last week, is Organ Donation Awareness Week.

In the gallery today are some remarkable individuals who are the face of the dramatic change that occurs as a result of the gift that people make — the gift that they make during their lifetime and, in many cases, that they make when they are deceased.

A few of those members are people who are familiar to us. We may hear in a moment from the member for Kootenay West, who has a very personal story to tell. Two former members, Ed and Chuck, are in the House, but each one of those people in the gallery — and I'm not going to mention them all by name — has a story. They are heroes. The teams that supported them are heroes, and the team at B.C. Transplant that works to remind British Columbians about the value of registering to be part of the organ transplant program are all heroes.

We're getting there — over 800,000 registrants, up to 18 percent. The message today is that we can do more, and we can increase awareness. The best way to do that is for us to acknowledge the remarkable individuals, the heroes, that populate our gallery today. I know all members will want to make them feel very, very welcome.

M. Farnworth: I want to join with my colleague the Minister of Health and welcome 38 organ donors and recipients who are in the gallery with us today. Organ donation truly is a gift of life. One of the most selfless things that a person can do is to save the life of another individual.

The minister said that we're making progress and that the way to increase that progress and to make everyone aware of the importance is through weeks like this and recognizing the people in the gallery.

Our side of the House wants to join with the government and, in fact, the rest of British Columbia in welcoming 38 organ donors and recipients to this House and help spread the message that organ donation is a gift of life. It saves lives. Let's all participate.

C. James: We do have someone visiting us at the Legislature, mentioned by the Minister of Health, who is a transplant survivor. He is here, obviously, for the transplant and organ donation week. He is also a city councillor in New Westminster. He is a musician and an artist.

[1340]

Something the members of the House may not know is that he wasn't content to simply recover from his transplant. He actually decided to take on farming and ranching and started a society called A Beef with Hunger Society, which is an organization that actually raises beef and produce for food banks across the Lower Mainland.

He's a former colleague of all of ours in the House, and I'm very proud to call him a friend. I would like all of us, please, to welcome former MLA for New Westminster Chuck Puchmayr.

K. Conroy: It does give me a great deal of pleasure to formally introduce my husband to the Legislature — the former member for Rossland-Trail. In his very busy schedule that he now has, Ed rarely gets time to get to Victoria, so Donor Awareness Day was a great day for him to be here, seeing as he has been the recipient of three different transplants. I would like the House to please join me in welcoming him here today.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is a former neighbour of mine from 30 years ago. Cheryl Wilson is a realtor in Abbotsford and is here with the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board for meetings yesterday and early this morning. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

V. Huntington: Also here celebrating, if you can call it a celebration, Organ Donation Awareness Week is a constituent of mine, Mr. Daniel Woo, who received a kidney in 1997 from his brother. Would the House please welcome Mr. Woo.
[ Page 11054 ]

M. Stilwell: I'd like to introduce Lisa Romalis, who is a grade 5 teacher at Vancouver Talmud Torah, and 56 of her charges who are in grade 5, who are here today. I hope the House will make them welcome.

S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce two guests who are visiting Victoria and are in the gallery. The first is an old friend of mine, Cheryl King, who used to be Cheryl Richardson, who has now left Surrey for the sunny climes of Osoyoos. And also Michelle Harman, a new friend, who is the sales representative for the Guildford Sheraton. Would the House please make both of them very welcome.

D. Routley: Joining us in the precinct today, but not in here to witness question period, were two classrooms and their teachers and some accompanying parents from North Cedar Intermediate School. I reminded those students, as I can tell these students, that Mr. MacMinn, who was the Clerk of this House, would constantly remind young people, the teachers and the parents who accompany them that if they were to witness question period, that the anger and passion in this place indeed does have a purpose.

We teach children to work cooperatively in our homes and our schools, but this place is different. In this place there is anger and passion in this chamber so that there isn't blood on our streets. I think that encapsulated very well the role of the passion that you might see in your House of the Legislature of British Columbia.

So welcome to students.

Statements

LAKELAND MILLS SAWMILL EXPLOSION
AND FIRE IN PRINCE GEORGE

Hon. C. Clark: It is with great sadness that today I rise in the House to mark a terrible tragedy that has touched all of us in British Columbia. Last night, just after 9:30, emergency crews were called to Lakeland sawmills in Prince George, which was engulfed in flames following an explosion. There were 50 employees on the site at the time of the explosion. All 50 were removed from the mill, 24 patients were treated in hospital, and tragically, one has succumbed to his injuries.

I'd like to extend my thoughts and prayers to the people of Prince George, to the families of the people who were directly affected. And on behalf of the people of British Columbia, I also want to commend the countless first responders, the volunteers, the health care workers who rushed to the scene to see what they could do to help. They are all heroes who risked their personal safety to save fellow community members.

Since last night, myself, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation have been receiving constant updates from the scene. I know that our MLAs for Prince George have been working tirelessly since the event to ensure that our government is doing everything we can to support the community during their time of need.

[1345]

WorkSafe is en route to start work with local authorities, the RCMP and the B.C. Coroners Service to determine the cause of the incident. They are also ordering a complete investigation and risk assessment of every mill in the province. Tomorrow the Minister of Labour will meet with representatives from labour, the forest industry and WorkSafe to address some safety concerns that have been voiced in the wake of this terrible incident. These investigations take time. They must not be rushed, and we must resist the temptation to jump to conclusions. We must get all the facts first.

As I said in my message to her today, I want Mayor Shari Green and all of the people of Prince George to know that they are very much in our thoughts and our prayers today and that as a province and as a government we are committing to do everything that we can to support them as they persevere through what for any community would be a terrible tragedy.

S. Simpson: On behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition and all members of this side, we join with the Premier and all members of this House in expressing our sadness at the tragedy that's happened in Prince George and to just say that all of our thoughts and prayers are with the family of the worker who unfortunately passed away and all of those workers who have been injured. We certainly wish them all a full and complete recovery as soon as possible.

We want to express our thanks to all the members of the community, the first responders and the emergency service workers for the courage and bravery that they showed, stepping up on behalf of the community to do everything they needed to do to ensure that because of their extraordinary efforts, this terrible tragedy was not even worse.

As we move forward, in the coming days and weeks we join with the government in the need to determine the cause of this, to do it properly, to bring all of the expertise needed to ensure that any measures that need to be taken are taken to ensure that we, hopefully, don't ever face this situation again.

The Premier is quite correct. This isn't a time to speculate. It's a time to get the evidence, to move forward and do what needs to be done. For today, it's our thoughts and prayers that will be with the family and the community and all of the people of Prince George who have stepped up in an extraordinary way for their neighbours.
[ Page 11055 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — PHARMACEUTICAL
SERVICES ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pharmaceutical Services Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 35 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: The bill that is being introduced today, Bill 35, does two important things. First of all, we should recognize that we have a PharmaCare program in British Columbia that is second to none. But that PharmaCare program, worth in excess of $1 billion, exists largely as a matter of policy and regulation. Bill 35 will change that and create PharmaCare on a firm legislative statutory foundation.

The bill does a second thing. It will also allow the province to lower the cost of generic prescription drugs in British Columbia. Members will know that the government originally negotiated a lower drug-pricing agreement with the parties in July of 2010. We did not see the savings that we were promised or that we expected. That agreement was terminated on April 1 of 2012.

[1350]

Through this legislation, we plan to lower generic drug prices to rates comparable in other jurisdictions. The ability to reduce those prices will come via the regulations that will be drafted following passage of the legislation. As I said, the legislation creates a framework to save the province — taxpayers — significant amounts of money which can be reinvested in the health care system. It will save patients and families money as well. As I said at the outset, it is about ensuring that our PharmaCare program is protected and sustainable over the long term.

I move that Bill 35 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35, Pharmaceutical Services 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

BRITANNIA BRUINS
BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

J. Kwan: March 10, 2012, was a momentous day. It was a day where East Van showed that we rock in the world of sports. It was the day that the Britannia Bruins secondary senior girls basketball team was crowned the 2012 provincial double-A basketball champions. Not only was this the first-ever B.C. girls varsity title in the 102-year history of Britannia girls basketball; it was the first-ever basketball championship at this level won by a Vancouver public school team.

The incredible members of the team don't achieve just on the court. They are also active in their community as volunteers at children's camps, after-school programs and special events. The younger students look up to them, and they're key role models in our community. As well, many members of the team are participants in the Strathcona basketball club program, a program that enables the girls to further develop their skills throughout the entire year.

In the game of basketball, where height matters, this team proves that hard work pays off. I would like to congratulate team members Angie Banh; Ashley dela Cruz Yip; Karen Li, the tournament's most valuable player; Naomi Morcilla; Kini Do; Jennifer Carpio, who was also named the best defensive player; JoJo Crossley; and first team all-stars Becky Fernandez and Jilliane Vina, Amanda Young and Helen Wilson for this incredible achievement.

A big thank-you also goes to the dedicated coaches, Mike Evans and Trevor Stokes, and the team managers, Wendy Lin and Sally Zhao. Of course, a special thank-you goes to the Britannia Senior Secondary School principal, Beverly Seed, and Ron Suzuki at the Strathcona Community Centre for all their tireless support and encouragement for all the students in our community.

Please join me in congratulating the Britannia Bruins, 2012 provincial double-A champions, and in wishing them many successes in the future.

ORGAN DONATION
AND WORK OF EVA MARKVOORT

M. Stilwell: We have heard a fair amount about organ transplants this week, but I think it bears repeating. Organ donors save lives, but despite the majority of British Columbians supporting organ donation, less than 20 percent of us are registered donors.

Most people waiting for organ transplants are in need of kidneys, but waiting for a compatible donor can take as long as eight to ten years. Sadly, many patients on the wait-list will die before a suitable match is found.

Two years ago the province lost one of our most vocal organ donation advocates. Eva Markvoort was barely 23 when she was put on the organ donor wait-list. Cystic fibrosis had robbed her lungs of breath and her voice of strength. While waiting for a lung transplant, she found a new voice on line, blogging about her battle with cystic fibrosis and giving inspiration and hope to people around the world. She championed cystic fibrosis and organ do-
[ Page 11056 ]
nation awareness and created an on-line community, connecting people with similar health issues, showing them they aren't alone.

Eva died on March 27, 2010, at the age of 25, after a lifelong battle with transplant rejection. Despite her short life, she was able to share her joy, her pain, her courage and her infectious passion for life with so many. She showed us that each breath is a gift, especially when you have to fight for each one.

As we observe Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, I'd like to ask members on both sides of the House to use their voices to spread the word about the importance of organ donation. Help someone in need breathe easier. Sign up now, and give the gift of life.

CHEF PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN

M. Karagianis: A few weeks ago I attended an event at the Esquimalt Recreation Centre in my community. Two young people in chef's hats and aprons assembled a variety of healthy and nutritious snacks for a small crowd of attendees. Then they passed around the tasty samples. The event launched the expansion of the Thrifty Foods young chef program.

[1355]

Now in its fourth year, the young chef program is a full- or part-time week-long summer camp that teaches kids aged nine to 12 how to read recipes and to learn basic cooking tips, nutritional guidelines and food safety skills.

The expanded program also includes leadership training for facilitators, a 12-month recipe calendar, plus pre-teen-specific information on nutrition and body health and wellness awareness. Each hands-on session is designed to familiarize young chefs with interesting food choices and delicious taste experiences, and the program includes a section on reading food labels and how to shop for fresh produce.

The camps are available during the summer in Victoria through a variety of rec programs and recreation centres in Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Saanich, Sooke, Victoria and the West Shore. Mid- and north Island, the camps are also offered in Cowichan, Campbell River, Comox and Nanaimo recreation centres, as well as at seven rec centres in the Lower Mainland.

The sponsor is Thrifty Foods, and they help to ensure that the program is affordable to all families through subsidizing the registrant fees at each camp, plus they provide the training, the material, the food, the aprons, etc. Registration begins this May and is only available through recreation centres.

I hope all members will join me in thanking municipalities, rec centre staff and Thrifty Foods for this excellent program and, maybe, encouraging people in your community to participate.

ARTS AND CULTURE WEEK
AND BURNABY STUDENT ART

R. Lee: This week is B.C. Arts and Culture Week. Many art projects, exhibitions and performances will be showcased in communities throughout our province.

In Burnaby our local newspaper, Burnaby Now, has an annual "Design an Ad" special supplement, published this month with students from 16 local elementary schools participating. I would like to thank the students from Kitchener Elementary School for designing an ad for me. It's very interesting to see how children see and paint the world around them.

Many students really show their artistic skills in Burnaby. In 2010 Burnaby North School's Annie Yu became the national winner of the Canada Day Poster Challenge. In 2011 the honour went to Burnaby South student Serena Chan.

I've regularly attended many art exhibitions in Burnaby organized by the Burnaby Arts Council, the Burnaby Art Gallery, the Burnaby Artists Guild and many more around Richmond and Vancouver. I'm constantly impressed by the creativity and talent in our multicultural society.

I'm very pleased to see that a new group of B.C. artists is initiating a project to promote cultural and artistic exchange among youth and children from different countries, building a stage for them to shine. This group is organizing the First Children and Youth World Cup Live Painting Competition, to be held in British Columbia. At the same time they are launching a charitable event named One Dollar for One Poor Child to raise awareness about children living in poverty around the world — improving the lives of children, one poor child at a time.

I would like to ask the members of this House to support these worthwhile causes.

DONOR AWARENESS DAY AND
ORGAN DONOR REGISTRATION

K. Conroy: As the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about yesterday, this week is National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week. And today is Donor Awareness Day here in the Legislature — a day to ensure that members of the Legislature, as well as British Columbians, are reminded of the need for organ donors in this province.

There is a chronic shortage of organs for transplant in B.C., as the need far outweighs the number of organs available for transplant. The most recent stats show that there are 450 British Columbians currently awaiting transplants. Many people in this province support organ donation yet fail to ensure they are registered with the Transplant Society — a very simple thing to do.

Just go on to www.transplant.bc.ca, and you can check to see if you might already be registered. You just put in
[ Page 11057 ]
your personal health number, and it tells you the date you registered. If you haven't registered, you can do that too. Please share your intentions with your families. Some organs that could be available for transplant are lost because the decision of the loved one is not known to their family.

You don't have to be deceased to make a donation. You can donate blood, stem cells and, yes, even organs — gifts of life that mean so much to the recipients. We often talk about anniversaries in this chamber. For our family we have a number of them. February 10, 1996, Ed's first liver transplant. November 13, 1997, his second. Both of those transplants were due to the selfless act of a family who, during a terrible tragedy, were able to think of others and ensured that their loved one became an organ donor.

[1400]

Donor families are so very worthy of recognition, and every year on those dates I think of those families and quietly thank them for the gift of life to our family. Our next anniversary will be May 14, two years since the kidney transplant donation. Ed is doing great, and I, too, survived. I even managed to run the 10K in the Vancouver Sun Run last Sunday, so you can live just fine with one kidney.

If any of you are thinking of such a gift of life, please don't hesitate. The B.C. Transplant team do an excellent job of making sure you are up to it, both mentally and physically. Again, check out the B.C. Transplant website. It gives you all the information you need. Ensure that you, your family members, co-workers and friends are all registered donors.

MINING INDUSTRY
PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY

R. Sultan: Geologically speaking, British Columbia is a precious storehouse of minerals needed by a more prosperous world. However, unlocking those minerals can be a messy business. Teck Corp. is showing how technology can change all of that. Teck's proprietary hydrometallurgy process, developed in Richmond over the past decade, produces copper and nickel metal from mine concentrates. It combines such technologies as pressure oxidation, solvent extraction and electrowinning to process bulk, lower-grade and impurity-challenged mine concentrates.

Environmentally speaking, here's the best part. It's a closed-loop system consuming little energy, producing no liquid effluent, avoiding acid-generating sulphur dioxide and leaving only a small residue of gypsum, easily disposed of.

How was metal produced in the good old days? Well, often in a honking-big, smoky, energy-gulping, lots-of-hostile-by-product smelter, that's how. Economists lament Canada's poor R-and-D performance and our high energy consumption. The environmental community pounces on any industrial impact on the environment.

Teck is showing the world how we can safely process mine concentrates at home instead of shipping them out for messy processing abroad. Keeping the value chain Canadian turns out to be technically feasible, environmentally friendly, more economical in shipping and processing and more profitable too. Thank you, Teck.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENT
WITH BOSS POWER CORP.

J. Horgan: My question is to apparently the most open and transparent government in North America. It's taken 182 days, through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, to finally receive the independent evaluations to the Boss Power uranium mine claim that we uncovered and discussed in this House last October. Unfortunately, the records revealed what we had feared. The Liberals paid five times the evaluation that they received in order to silence the courts on this matter.

My question is to the Premier. How is it that an independent evaluation paid for by her government of $5.6 million somehow became $30 million on the courthouse steps? It takes a lot of talent to wrestle someone to the ceiling and put five times more money in their pocket than your own advisers tell you that you should give them.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is well aware that there was more than one evaluation done in this particular case, if he has done his research. I suspect he has decided to go down to the lowest number on one evaluation report but neglects to say there was one evaluation report that actually said the compensation could be worth as much as $96 million.

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, through a period of time…. I'm looking forward to this little discussion today, because I want to remind the members how much they really love uranium mining in British Columbia. But as a government we listen to the concerns of the public. Back a number of years ago we stated we wouldn't allow the production of uranium in B.C. in both the 2002 and 2007 energy plans. We also announced we would not support any uranium exploration or development.

[1405]

We made those decisions, and as the decision was made, we also knew — as the members knew on Windy Craggy — that there were mineral claims that were possible in these particular areas of the province of British Columbia. If you ask the people around Kelowna and the interior of B.C. whether the decision to not have uranium mining in British Columbia was the right decision, they would say yes. At the same time they would also have the expectation that if somebody did have a legit-
[ Page 11058 ]
imate claim, the province would enter into discussions about compensation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: If in fact the government was sincere in 2002 when they made the initial statement, they could have very well introduced a moratorium at that time. The issue here is that you didn't. You waited seven years to have put into effect the moratorium…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Horgan: …and you did it by press release — late, $2 short, two hours late. The challenge now for British Columbians is not to deal with the issue of uranium mining but the botched compensation process that the minister tried to outline a moment ago.

There were three evaluations. The minister is absolutely correct. The government paid for one that said the cost should be $5.6 million. Boss Power, not surprisingly, bumped it up a little bit to $96 million. What did the court do? The court hired a third party to weigh between the two, and the eventual number from that third party was $8.7 million.

Again, my question to the Premier, who was allegedly fully in charge at that time last October when this decision was made to shut down a court case: why did she allow the people of B.C. to pay 22 million bucks more than they had to just to shut down the incompetence of the B.C. Liberal government?

Hon. R. Coleman: The evaluation report, which is the third report, actually had the number $13.7 million and not $8.7 million. I guess the issue is that the member doesn't want to do his full research. Nor does he want to understand that when the decision is made…. Frankly, this claim goes back a long, long ways, long before the discussions with regards to uranium even in our government.

The reality is that a mining company had made investment in the land base. They made the investment in the land base on the basis that they wanted to have a mine. Government changed direction. They changed the direction, actually, and were supported, frankly, in the direction, as I would understand it.

I'll give you one example. "New Democrats strongly believe that the nuclear option is not and never should be an option for B.C., and we will continue to speak out against its development here at home and in our neighbouring province." That was the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill in 2008, I might add.

Now, at the same time as you make these decisions you have to decide to deal with compensation. I know that the member opposite maybe never has been involved in a court case, but the reality is that you start at one point, and you start at another point.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll get to your court cases as a government. I mean an individual, hon. Member. I hope not. Maybe you have had that pleasure.

The fact of the matter is that whether it's a debate between somebody's injuries with ICBC that starts at one point on one side and starts at another point on the other side, there's always negotiation. We have a very good criminal justice branch in British Columbia. They're the ones that made the decision relative to this decision and came back with a recommendation to government to settle at this number, and they did so.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: An expert report from Keith Spence to the courts in May 2011,"I reiterate that it was appropriate to use the discount cash flow method in this evaluation," the evaluation used by the party retained by the province of British Columbia. "On the technical side the Stephenson report was thorough and had well-developed and -presented technical analysis. I view this at a higher level of confidence than I do the Hodos report," which was the Boss Power report. In conclusion, this third party to the two other parties says: "Hence, in these circumstances, I suggest adding a discretionary premium of 30 percent to the top end of the evaluation range. This would be $8.7 million."

Again, the pattern of covering up incompetence in this government…. You can go to the Basi-Virk case — six million bucks to shut down that court case and now 22 million bucks to shut down the malfeasance and incompetence with respect to the uranium exploration moratorium.

[1410]

Will the Premier stand in this place and demonstrate to the public that she's in control now, if she wasn't then, and explain why it is we're out $22 million?

Hon. R. Coleman: We took the advice of our legal counsel on this. We did it in such a way that I thought was well done and reasonable, given the circumstances.

However, in a ruling leading to the judgment and settlement by Mr. Justice Parrett in the Carrier Lumber case, it said this about the provincial government. The provincial government "chose to cover its own failings…and to orchestrate matters to conceal its own breach. Through a series of manoeuvres and self-serving documents, they sought to frustrate Carrier's harvesting activities and then to proceed with the suspension and eventual cancellation of their licence," at a cost of $30
[ Page 11059 ]
million in cash, two parcels of land under the Crown and 1.5 million cubic metres of timber.

The fact of the matter is that we negotiated in good faith and came to a settlement and a way to deal with uranium mining in British Columbia. You evidently, according to your comments even last fall, do not support uranium mining in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Well, it certainly wasn't good faith that got us into this mess in the first place, was it. The facts are fairly simple. The Attorney General's ministry hired AMC Mining Consultants to determine the value of Boss's uranium claim for the court case. The report said: "On April 24, 2008, the day the former Minister of Mines issued a press release to implement a mining ban, the claim was worth between $4.4 million and $6.7 million, with the preferred midpoint value of $5.6 million."

Nearly a year later the Liberals finally got around to paperwork to actually impose a uranium-mining ban on March 12. The midpoint value at that point had come to $3.5 million. Two and a half years later $30 million was paid by this incompetent government to settle the claims. So the question to the minister is really very simple. Why did the Liberals pay so much for a claim that was worth so little?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the member opposite could take down his halo the minute he pays back the charities in Nanaimo. The fact of the matter is that the NDP….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: The MLA for Kootenay West said this: "I'm well aware of the political firestorm that was brewing over uranium mining. The residents of the area did not want it." I suppose she supported a ban on uranium mining. But without compensation to the people who may have claims in the area, it would be inappropriate and wrong — not like the NDP government did in the Carrier Lumber case, where they actually frustrated the courts, frustrated the proponent.

We actually sat down and did the evaluations. Our lawyers did the work and came up with the conclusion of what the settlement should be. They did that on behalf of British Columbians.

You know what we did? We did something you didn't do, hon. Members. We put an end to the thought of uranium mining in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Every time there's an opportunity for real public accountability in an open courtroom, this government shuts it down as fast as it can.

The minister throws out a figure of $96 million. Well, you know what? I guess if you throw that out, $30 million looks pretty good. But in fairness to Boss, their job was to try to get the best dollar they could. But the minister should know it was his job to pay a fair price that reflected real value. That's defending the public interest.

The industry witness called by the court to evaluate claims made by the government in Boss Power put the claim at $8.7 million — still a long ways from $30 million.

Again to the minister, really very simple: was the price so high because the Liberals didn't want to have their embarrassment and be exposed in court for the bungling in the way they handled this file?

[1415]

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite, who wants to talk to us about negotiating in good faith: we decided that we would not be doing uranium mining in British Columbia. Some people had a claim on the land. They were entitled to actually file suit and ask for compensation.

Now, let's talk to the member opposite about acting in good faith. I just have one more little quote from Mr. Justice Parrett on the NDP's botching of the Carrier Lumber case. "It is difficult to conceive of a more compelling and cynical example of duplicity and bad faith. The words 'managing perception' may have a gloss which seems to carry with it some high purpose. The reality is, at least in this case, little more than a process of altering reality by concealing the truth and presenting a fabricated cover story."

Do you know what that acting in good faith cost us, hon. Member? Two parcels of land, $30 million and 1.5 million cubic metres of timber.

S. Simpson: This is about accountability. It's about competence. It's about transparency. We've seen the performance on those issues by this government before — $6 million to shut down the Basi-Virk trial because you didn't want to go to court. This time $22 million over the expert opinion to shut this one down, because it's another embarrassment.

This side's talking about where the fair compensation is, and that side's all about gross incompetence. How come you paid $22 million too much?

Hon. R. Coleman: The louder you yell, the less interested I am in your question, because I've spent too much time laughing at the question.

The fact of the matter is that we negotiated in good faith. We had a claim on the land after we got rid of uranium mining.

New Democrats, evidently, strongly believe that the nuclear option "is not and never should be an option for British Columbia, and we will continue to speak out against its development here at home and in our neighbouring province." Yet when we do it, they're upset. Then, when we find out there's a claim that has to be compen-
[ Page 11060 ]
sated, they're upset even more.

Now, there was a mine called Windy Craggy that was proposed by Geddes Resources back in the days of 1993 by the NDP. The NDP decided to go ahead and do a park there, and they ended up having to compensate. I'd love to see the evaluations. It actually cost them $166 million in loans, subsidies and other financial assistance to develop another site as compensation to that mining company.

You know what? On one side they say: "Don't compensate." The other side says: "Well, we'll compensate." And in the middle of it they say: "We don't want uranium mining, but by George, if you don't have uranium mining, you better not compensate anybody for any claims they have."

You can't have it on both sides, hon. Members. There's no uranium mining in British Columbia. We had to settle a claim. We settled the claim.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

S. Simpson: We have seen 11 years of this government developing its sense of privilege and entitlement sitting on that side of the House. We have seen 11 years of this government having no shame in spending tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, not on fair compensation but to hide the truth about what's going on.

Enough is enough. We know fair compensation wasn't paid here; $22 million extra was paid. Will this minister stand up, admit that they are hiding this — that they didn't want to go into court — and be open that instead they'll pay taxpayer money to bury the truth? Will the minister acknowledge that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just on the Windy Craggy one more time. The government was actually required to pay millions more in compensation due to what the arbitrator described as an unreasonable delay by the government.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the member opposite. I entered public life in 1996 so that my children and my grandchildren would have a future in the province of British Columbia. The last 11 years this government has given them that future, a future that they did not have under the NDP and they would never, ever have again under an NDP government. That's what's important to British Columbia — that these people on this side of the House are in government to protect the future of people in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: What this government has given the people of the province of British Columbia is disappointment after disappointment after disappointment, broken promise after broken promise after broken promise — Basi-Virk, B.C. Rail and now this fiasco.

The question is really simple. An independent arbitrator, an independent person, came up with a figure of $8 million. Yet this government, to shut things down, paid an additional $22 million over that. How is that accountability? How is that putting the public interest first? It's not.

The question is simple. Will the Premier stand up and say why they paid $22 million when an independent adviser said the claim is only worth $8 million?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've said to the member opposite at other times: "Blood pressure, Member. Blood pressure. Take it easy." You know, I know a man….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, an individual of his advanced years should be careful. You never know what could happen.

The only disappointment the people of British Columbia have is watching how these people blew up the issue with Carrier Lumber and also how they messed up Windy Craggy. The fact that they know…. What they are thinking is good is that we actually got rid of uranium mining in B.C.

They're also pretty happy about seven successive credit upgrades, a triple-A credit rating. I hear constantly that they're very happy about how we've attacked mental illness, homelessness and addictions in British Columbia and how befuddled the NDP are of our success there. The successes are incredible. The jobs plan — thousands of jobs, liquefied natural gas, all of these things taking place. And the reason they're successful is because we set the foundation for it.

The fact of the matter is that after evaluations, after negotiations, our legal counsel gave us a recommendation that they would settle the claim on this basis, and that's what we did. We didn't have any unreasonable delays like they had at Windy Craggy, and we certainly didn't have a judge telling us that we were absolutely, incredibly out of line with the way we handled Carrier Lumber.

[1425]

ALLOCATION OF
FUNDING FOR ARTS AND CULTURE

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister for arts has been rightly criticized for giving away $3 million of taxpayers' money with no application process, no criteria and, so far, refusing to tell the taxpayers where it went.

Recently we learned that she did decide to give $1 million of that money away to cities — cities that never asked for it. No application process was required. The cheque
[ Page 11061 ]
just showed up in the mail. The minister went through incorporation dates and decided: "Oh, I like 120th as a year" or "Oh, I like 75 as a year, but not 115, so we'll decide how to give out money that way."

Can the minister please explain why it's better for her to go through a list like that, choosing who she thinks deserves arts and culture funds, than going through the British Columbia Arts Council, who are dedicated to doing that job?

Hon. I. Chong: I think it's important to correct the facts for all members here in the House with respect to arts funding in British Columbia. Despite challenging fiscal times, we have still put funding amounts to the Arts Council at the second-highest level ever in British Columbia — far greater than what the NDP ever did.

We have maintained funding to arts and culture for this current year and for next year. We have provided additional dollars, as well, for arts and culture groups through the gaming grant program. An additional $15 million has been added to the gaming grant fund, which provides dollars to a number of arts and culture groups.

Again, I want to tell the member that he is incorrect when he suggests that the cities who have requested funding for their celebrations, for arts and cultural groups, did not come directly to me. In fact, cities had been asking for assistance for arts and cultural celebrations since last fall.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Chandra Herbert: It is Arts and Culture Week, so I guess I should have expected a performance like that from the minister. But I would suggest she get a new scriptwriter, since it wasn't correct, what she asserted. In fact, the government cut arts and culture funding — the deepest cuts in B.C. history. The additional money that the minister says went into gaming was only a small portion of what her government cut.

In estimates, when asked about the arts legacy fund, what it was for, the minister said that the objective was "to ensure that we had an ability to provide for some of the demands of the arts and cultural sector. What we have been able to do is take a look at the requests, pressures, that come from arts and culture groups." That was her quote in estimates about what the money was for.

Can the minister please explain how municipalities across B.C. were surprised to find cheques that they did not ask for? I talked to the minister's staff, and she confirmed for me that the ministry actually did not receive applications or request applications. The minister might want to talk to her staff about that. Can they please explain how it's better to give money to people who didn't ask for it than to provide funds for arts and culture groups who are asking for it each and every day?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I want to share with the member that despite challenging fiscal times, we have maintained funding for our arts and culture sector this year, next year and going forward.

I want to also, again, correct the member that in fact a number of cities did approach our ministry, requesting assistance in their celebrations. Victoria, for example, is celebrating its 150th birthday this year — the capital city of the province of British Columbia — and they did request assistance. They did so because they were going to bring in local arts and culture groups to be a part of this.

If the member suggests that the local cities should not have this, then maybe they should have it turned back. I got a very nice letter from the mayor of Burnaby, who thanked me for the dollars that they're going to use to celebrate arts and culture in Burnaby.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: We're talking about a pot of $3 million. Not all of it was spent on these municipal celebrations. While they are worthwhile celebrations, this issue is about yet another Liberal hidden process involving taxpayer dollars.

Arts organizations are struggling across B.C. as a result of Liberal cuts — the deepest cuts to the arts in B.C. history. In my area the Nelson and District Arts Council laid off staff and closed its doors. They have been hurt by Liberal cuts, and now, to make matters worse, the minister won't disclose how she's spending the full amount of this pot of money.

This isn't the minister's personal slush fund, so why is she being so secretive about taxpayer dollars?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, let's have a look at 2000-2001 and the B.C. Arts Council, which in the last year of the NDP administration received about $14.7 million. Today they're receiving close to $17 million. I hardly think that that is a cut.

As I've indicated to members of this House, the B.C. Arts Council, who I have had a number of meetings with, has received the second-largest funding ever in the history of this province. In addition to that, the community gaming grant program provides additional dollars for non-profit arts and culture groups, and they are still receiving those dollars.

In fact, with the injection of an additional $50 million to that amount, more arts and culture groups are receiving funding. I think that it's inappropriate for members opposite to mislead, to suggest that there is a reduction
[ Page 11062 ]
this year and the year going forward.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
FERRY SYSTEM REVIEW

G. Coons: This isn't just a week-old story. This story is over three months old.

My question is to the Transportation Minister. The ferry commissioner's report has been sitting on his desk collecting dust since the beginning of the year. Since then fares have shot up again, and another Ferries' quarterly report has come out showing more losses and another massive drop in ridership.

When will the minister finally get on with it and act on the recommendations of the report?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I first want to say thank you to the close to 2,000 people that participated with Commissioner Macatee when he went out to engage British Columbians in this very worthwhile project.

We have been, on a daily basis, working on this report. I continue to do it. I expect to be able to debate the results of that very well done report in this House in the near future.

We have a great deal of work to do with B.C. Ferries, but one thing is very clear. Not only do we have a world-class ferry system, but we're going to ensure on this side of the House that that ferry system remains affordable and sustainable for the long term. That's exactly what we're going to present to you, Members, and to all British Columbians, and I think that it will be a huge success, Member.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present 14 reports from the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia in respect of the lobbying activities of a Mr. Michael Bailey.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will continue the conclusion of second reading to Bill 30. We will then go to Bill 32, intituled Energy and Water Efficiency Act, followed by the committee stage of Bill 33, intituled Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, and then committee stage on Bill 34, intituled the Limitation Act.

[1435]

In section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development will continue. Should they conclude today, we will then move to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to close debate on second reading of Bill 30, the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act. I'm going to try and address some of the issues that were brought up by the members during their debates in the last few hours with regards to this particular bill.

The first topic that I'd like to touch base with is on self-sufficiency itself. The work that went into a number of the decisions that were made back in 2007 and 2008 with regards to self-sufficiency and the Clean Energy Act started before that with about 180 presentations that were made to a special committee of cabinet that saw presentations from people like Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Mark Jaccard and also folks who observed the powers in jurisdictions across North America, who were trying to understand what was going on with electricity in North America and how it would affect us in British Columbia.

We were at a time when the rates in California were off the charts. There were brownouts across states in the United States. It looked like there was going to be a significant power shortage in North America, and we thought we could try and build a plan that would support that and support our climate action plan at a time when jurisdictions were cooperating to try and figure out how to solve this problem.

We talked with California utilities about building new transmission lines at that particular time to facilitate a treaty on clean energy, under what conditions it made sense to have a more expansive definition of self-sufficiency. All of those things took place. Then conditions changed. Our belief that we have to be self-sufficient in power has not changed. We need to be.

We do believe, though, that the definition can change. The definition is being changed to average water versus critical water plus insurance. That's what this bill does. It is better to do that because even though…. When we looked at this and the energy prices and we were trying to drive a different agenda, and the market changed — we have to adapt. Failure to adapt would have made a bad decision on behalf of British Columbians. But it's in this environment that we decided to better base those decisions with regards to energy in British Columbia on average water.

Now, as we do this, there are a couple of misconceptions that members of the opposition have decided to put on the table. One is how much we're paying for IPP power, which at a blended average is substantially lower than what they'd like to quote in their debates.
[ Page 11063 ]

At the same time, I think that it's important for a couple things. First of all, I sat here and listened to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke as he decried IPPs in British Columbia — how they were wrong, how we're paying too much and how these things were going on.

I want to quote from a letter from that particular member. This letter is actually written to Remote Structures Inc. in Golden, B.C.

"I am pleased to add my support to the Remote Structures Inc. run-of-river hydro projects at David Thompson Falls and Cedar Creek.

[1440]

"Adding clean, green power will contribute to the growth of the local economy. It will also help B.C. Hydro achieve its goal of having the most economic and environmentally friendly resource acquisition program in North America in the next five years.

"My support for these projects has not diminished B.C. Hydro's responsibility to implement a reliable second transmission line into Golden."

So not only did the member want to support the IPPs, he wants to have the Crown corporation invest more money into Golden, and then he will criticize its deferral accounts and criticize its rate increases, because he thinks another line into Golden just falls off a tree.

At the same time we should also recognize the value of IPPs. The value of the independent power producers isn't about just the companies that are doing IPPs in B.C., but it's really about a significant relation on the land base that's very, very important to the people of British Columbia, particularly to the First Nations in B.C.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is a quote. "We believe strongly that the IPP sector is resulting in more jobs, steady revenue streams and capacity-building for our nations." That's Chief Ken Brown of the Klahoose First Nation, former chief Walter Paul of the Sliammon First Nation and former chief Darren Blaney of the Homalco First Nation, in a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Sun on July 16, 2008.

Now, it's important that we understand this. "The health and well-being of our lands," another First Nation says, "and wildlife are always a priority for the 'Namgis. I am proud and confident of the work we have done on this project. I believe that we have embarked on a strong economic opportunity for the north Island that will ultimately prove to enhance and protect all species of fish who call Kokish home." That is Bill Cranmer of the 'Namgis First Nation in the Vancouver Sun, 2012. That was in support of the Kokish run-of-the-river project on the north Island.

In addition to that, the MLA for Juan de Fuca in the Province in 2006 said this — and I want to emphasize the first part of this sentence twice, because I wouldn't want the member to miss this: "We should pay a premium for renewables so that we can rid ourselves of technologies like coal, and it's why I get excited about the prospect of large projects like, perhaps, Site C." We should pay a premium for renewables.

Yet the member, just a little while ago, got up and criticized B.C. Hydro, which was doing IPPs that benefit First Nations and communities across British Columbia. He says, "We should pay a premium," and then he says: "I think you're paying a premium." Well, hon. Member, you can't actually have it both ways.

B.C. Hydro actually purchases about 12,879 gigawatt hours of electricity under electricity purchase agreements. This accounts for only 16 percent of B.C. Hydro's total power, but it is enough electricity to power 1.177 million homes. Small, clean renewable IPPS, independent hydro, biogas and biomass account for 6,598 gigawatt hours of electricity power purchased by B.C. Hydro under electricity power agreements.

I bring that up because the member for Skeena got up here…. And I don't know where he was going, actually, at some points. I just finally wrote it down. I don't really want to comment on half of what he says, because I had never heard anybody get up and say: "I really don't think that a $3 billion smelter in my community, which is going to have a bigger output than the one we had before, invested in the province of British Columbia, is the right thing. I don't think that anybody should be able to sell power" — even though they built the dams, in the case of Rio Tinto Alcan — "and I think I'm not happy about this $3 billion investment."

He should take a drive along Highway 16, go out on the other side of Prince George and then down through the Robson Valley and ask the people of McBride or Valemount or that area of the province, whether they think $50 million in a power line would make a significant difference to their economic future. And go down and tell them how upset he is about a $3 billion investment in Kitimat. I don't understand the thinking there. It just doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

[1445]

That member, of all members in this House, should know this. He should know that in his area of the province there is First Nations group upon First Nations group trying to put together partnerships with independent power producers and companies and investors so that they can participate in the great opportunities that face northwestern British Columbia in the future.

The partnerships they're trying to put together are in energy, whether it be run-of-the-river, up Highway 37 with the Tahltan, with the First Nations over on Banks Island, with the First Nations over on Haida Gwaii. All of them have been in to say they want to participate and be part of the opportunity for the downstream benefits of this massive investment that's going to take place in Rio Tinto and in liquefied natural gas and the opportunities they face and the thousands of jobs that come at them.

Yet if you listen to the members opposite, the first thing they would say to you is: "Don't buy any of that independ-
[ Page 11064 ]
ent power. We don't want you buying it."

I do agree with the member for Juan de Fuca when he says we need to pay a premium for some types of power. I do, though, think it's pretty disingenuous for the member up there to say, "Don't do it," and then ignore the fact of how important it is for the First Nations in those areas of the province. It is very, very important.

As we get the power needs that we need for the northwest and the northeast parts of the province right, it's going to mean a lot more electricity, because liquefied natural gas takes a lot of electricity. As an example, just the proposed Shell LNG plant would take all of the power out of Site C. That's the amount of power that's needed to fuel this opportunity.

All of these companies have said one thing, consistently, to me. They would prefer to make their liquefied natural gas in British Columbia with clean energy, so they can sell the fact to the rest of the world that they made it with clean energy. That means that we have to seize this opportunity on behalf of British Columbians.

As I also sat and listened, I had to go back and do a little research after the members opposite decided that they didn't have any time to debate the Clean Energy Act in this Legislature. I want to clear up one little thing. They actually spoke on the act on six separate occasions for 16.5 hours for a total of 1,011 minutes. In all of that speaking — 1,011 minutes — not one of them for even 30 seconds mentioned smart meters.

As a matter of fact, it didn't even go unnoticed by the B.C. Utilities Commission, which actually stated: "In addition, no member of the opposition asked any questions or expressed any concern regarding the intended smart-metering system." This was on March 5, 2012, by the BCUC.

With 1,011 minutes at second reading, 16½ hours on the Clean Energy Act, they say they didn't get a chance to debate it. You know, in this House you can decide how you use your time and how you want to use it.

Now, I can go back, and I've got some very interesting stories about boyfriends and moving in with people and those sorts of things in that second reading debate, which I saw had nothing to do with energy or energy production, but quite frankly, it was there. And it's interesting that they then go off on a tangent.

Now, the critic….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we'll check that out for you if you want, hon. Member…

Now I want to move to another piece — right? This is the information that was supplied to me, and it was a quote from the B.C. Utilities Commission, hon. Member. I guess I'd have to ask them where they got their information. I thought they would look. Anyway the beauty of it is that….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: I should answer that though. I once threw a no-hitter in Little League, and that's what you've done in this debate so far, hon. Member.

Interjection.

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, but you have no future as….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I was interested to hear the critic get up and espouse on the benefits of Burrard Thermal. Obviously, he's never driven out to the Fraser Valley and talked to people about the highest preponderance of asthma and nose and throat diseases by population out there.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, the interesting thing is that the member opposite hesitates to mention that they came out against SE2, which was a natural gas plant just south of the border, but all of a sudden has found religion with regards to Burrard Thermal.

The comments with regards to the members on wind energy I found rather interesting. What maybe they don't know…. I think it was the member for Skeena that brought this one up. Maybe he doesn't know about the fact that wind energy is so subsidized in the United States that they actually want to give it away.

If they don't give it out, if it doesn't move into the grid, they don't get their big subsidies from government. So we can actually buy power sometimes for less than zero because of the subsidies of government in the United States.

Now, does that mean that the member opposite wants us to subsidize power out of the Hecate Strait and Banks Island in the north in order to get it down to a place where it's affordable at a level that makes sense? Or do you want us to have an IPP program that makes sense economically and works with the customers that we have that are coming in for LNG?

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Now, I always know when I'm just getting a little under the skin of the critic opposite, when he wants to chirp. The more I say, the more he chirps, and the closer I'm getting to striking home.

J. Horgan: It's reality; I'm afflicted with it. I can't help it. Wherever I go, I want the truth.
[ Page 11065 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, that would be a first for you.

You know, the fact of the matter is that the changes we're making are because we still believe in self-sufficiency. We're changing the definition.

We know we'll need IPP power, so First Nations across B.C. should know that those opportunities will still exist for them. The power that's going to be required for British Columbia for the future, for liquefied natural gas, for all the power that we're going to need for industrial base, the mines that we have coming on stream — are all going to be important for the future of the people of British Columbia.

This change allows us to change in order to have the direction and the measurements we think are better for the future, because things have changed since the brownouts in California and the shortage of power in the United States. It's all due to natural gas and the quickness that the U.S. built natural gas powered plants and that they produce that power today that they weren't producing five or six years ago.

So having said all that, I would like to just move on to a couple of comments from the member from Quesnel — Cariboo North. The member got up and talked about oil and gas in the north. He talked about different issues with regards to it and the issues that we're doing with this particular act. And as usual, he usually goes to his Chicken Little approach, where the sky is falling.

Now, he actually spent nine hours — he did, and he said that earlier — with the Oil and Gas Commission. What he didn't say was that he immediately went out and dissed all those professional public servants that gave him nine hours of their time. He wasn't interested in listening. He wasn't interested in what they were providing. He just decided to go and then make up his own story as he came out of that.

Not so, frankly, for the member for Delta South, who actually did take a very responsible approach to all of this.

But in the oil and gas industry in the north I do believe that we're doing a better job than anywhere else in North America. I do know that we do follow-up on things. We were the first ones to put fracking fluids on line voluntarily by our industry. We're the folks that are doing the air quality and the water quality work up there and all the things that are important for the future of natural gas in B.C.

So in conclusion, I want to give two little pieces of history to remind people. One is that this government has always believed in this Crown corporation and believes that B.C. Hydro is a good company.

We believe that they're doing work that they should have been allowed to do 20 years ago, particularly during the 1990s, on building and improving their infrastructure. They should have been allowed to do the power lines. They should have been allowed to fix the John Hart dam, which we are going to do. They should have been allowed fix the Ruskin dam, which we're going to do. That in itself, those two projects, is $2 billion — important projects for both Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley and seismically for safety in B.C., which should have been addressed a long time ago.

[1455]

In addition to that, when I say we've never been the ones that want to sell B.C. Hydro, the opposition wanted to. In June of 2008 the caucus strategy document was leaked around ideas and on new policy initiatives. In that document it clearly stated that it proposed to sell off some big-ticket, symbolic assets. According to the caucus document, it included B.C. Hydro, B.C. Lottery Corporation and the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

"The sale would be a significant one-time source of revenue and would involve an activity that the government would no longer be involved with," the document said.

Hon. K. Falcon: The NDP government?

Hon. R. Coleman: The NDP government wanted to sell B.C. Hydro. Well, I think they probably got a…. It's interesting. I think they may have stepped back and taken a second look and said: "Maybe we could go at it a different way." But when we do that and say we can still meet our self-sufficiency goals by changing a definition, they think the sky is falling. You know, they're actually surprised that somebody could do this because they wanted to sell the very company.

As I close, we should know this. It is our intention to continue to fight for the ratepayers of British Columbia and get rate increases of 3.9 percent and 3.9 percent over the next two years — not 7.0 percent. And 7.0 percent is what the B.C. Utilities Commission is assessed for. Because we know, even with earning 5 percent allowance for deferral accounts, what we've done with B.C. Hydro in the last year, we can meet those goals on those rates.

We will not, like the NDP wants to support its union members, ask and accept a 9.73 percent and a 9.73 percent increase over the next two years. We're going to protect the ratepayers of British Columbia, and we're not going to sell one of their Crown jewels.

In conclusion, we still believe in energy self-sufficiency. We're just changing the definition. And with that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be moved to the Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30, Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 11066 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: Today we are joined by, I believe, 33 grade 11 students from Southridge secondary school in Surrey. Welcome.

They unfortunately weren't able to get in early enough to see the fireworks at question period, which is always much more enjoyable than this kind of debate, I can assure them. Nevertheless, we would like to welcome the teacher, Dale Kurylyk, and the 33 students that have joined — and the parents that may be with them as well. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I call second reading of Bill 32, intituled the Energy and Water Efficiency Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 32 — ENERGY AND WATER
EFFICIENCY ACT

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to present Bill 32, the Energy and Water Efficiency Act, for second reading. This bill benefits consumers by lowering energy bills, addresses compliance problems and helps industry enhance energy performance standards to save money.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The act will do three things. First, it will introduce administrative penalties for non-compliance. Our goal is to educate rather than punish, but sometimes you do need penalties in order to focus people's minds. These penalties will protect consumers from unknowingly getting non-compliant products and will create an even playing field for industry and business.

Second, the bill will set requirements for a variety of consumer products used to conserve energy, such as establishing classes of construction products, including energy efficient ratings for windows and doors; adding water efficiency standards for items such as shower heads so they will better align with the B.C. building code and goals of the water plan; and setting standby consumption standards to ensure that electronic equipment such as PVRs and digital cable boxes use less power when they are turned on.

In addition, we will continue to work with the federal government on the National Building Code to make sure that our construction products match up to their bill so that we will not have confusion in manufacturing in industries across British Columbia.

Third, the bill enables the minister to enact regulations for technical standards which are frequently updated. It'll help to streamline the approval process. My ministry consulted broadly about these changes with regards to the technical standards. We have engaged with more than 40 organizations and 60 individuals representing industry, utilities, governments, public interest and academia.

[1500]

Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to rise. As tempting as it is to rebut some of the comments that the minister just made about Bill 30, I will confine my comments, in the interest of continuing a good relationship with the Chair, to the issues laid before us in Bill 32, the Energy and Water Efficiency Act.

I do want to correct one comment the minister just said in his opening remarks, however. He said that the bill will lower energy bills. Now, I was told that smart meters were going to lower energy bills. I think behaviour can lower energy bills. But this piece of paper, in and of itself, is not going to do that. Nor will some of the regulations that will follow through.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: He will accept that. Well, there you go. I'm winning already. If only I'd had some accountability during question period today, we'd all be a little bit further ahead.

I do want to speak in favour of this bill, and I also want to talk about a couple of the points that the minister just raised. I do believe that we do need to have a carrot and a stick when it comes to energy efficiency and energy conservation. I've been in that school of thought for some considerable period of time. I know there have been numerous Energy Ministers over my time as critic. I think there have been five during my time — a couple of repeat visitors as well. The member for Kootenay East came back for a command performance before he was shuffled back to the back benches.

Throughout that time I have tried to engage with ministers in a thoughtful way, and by and large, I think we've been successful to a greater extent than not. I'm hopeful that legislation like this will be a precursor of other opportunities for all sides of this House to agree on taking steps that will lead to genuinely reducing energy costs for citizens and affordability issues, as well as those conservation mechanisms.

I also want to touch on the building code. I want to pay tribute to a member on the government benches, and I don't do that very often. When the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale was appointed to cabinet as the minister responsible for building codes, there were a lot of the watchers upstairs with their insatiable appetite for something exciting — they pooh-poohed the idea of updating and modernizing our building code.
[ Page 11067 ]

I approached the minister, now Minister of Advanced Education, and urged her to come to see a home in my constituency, Eco-Sense, a house that was built by the hands and feet, because they stomped the straw cob themselves, of Ann and Gord Baird in Highlands, to create a genuinely energy-efficient home.

That was a trip that the minister made to my riding. We had a great day looking at the work that had been done. I know that had she continued on in that ministry or had the government dedicated resources at the ministerial level to improving the building code so that we could genuinely find energy efficiencies in new home construction…. Opportunities to put photovoltaic solar panels on all new construction, geothermal — a whole host of other ideas that members in this House on both sides speak about with their constituents all the time.

Had we had a dedicated effort to continue on in that, I think we would have seen some really positive results, and I commend the minister for her visit that day. It's fondly remembered by myself and my constituents.

The issue that's raised by the minister today about standardizing National Building Code standards through this bill and other regulations is an important step in the right direction. But I do caution the minister — and he will know this full well, as the housing critic — that we had some challenges about building codes and condominiums in British Columbia over the past couple of decades. We were putting in place at that time standards that were characterized as national but, in fact, did not meet the tests of the climate here in British Columbia.

I know the minister is well aware of that, and when we get into discussion at committee stage I'm looking forward to exploring that a little bit more deeply, as are some of my colleagues. I know that the Environment critic from Victoria–Swan Lake is very anxious to look at some of these issues.

I have looked at the bill, and our briefing note that I worked on with our researchers in the basement speaks favourably about the consultation process that the ministry went through to get to this stage. Whenever you are using a carrot and a stick, whenever the stick is dominant in that discussion, people tend to be a little bit reserved about their responses, but based on my phone-around to the various stakeholders that the ministry deals with regularly, there was a positive response to this as a first step and one of many as we go into the future of setting standards and protecting consumers.

This is, at its core, consumer protection. We want to make sure that those that profess to meet the targets that governments — federal, provincial, municipal — set are actually going to be able to achieve those.

[1505]

Reselling is an issue that's mentioned in the bill. I'm looking forward to the minister having his staff with him at committee stage so we can explore in some detail how we protect consumers from resellers of technologies that may or may not achieve the results that are projected in their promotional materials as well as on any labelling that's required as a result of this act.

So with those brief comments, on behalf of the official opposition, we believe that we'll be supporting, certainly, this bill at second reading. The principles are sound and valid, and we want to pursue that.

I'm looking forward to a detailed discussion at committee stage, where we can plumb down into the rationale for some of these moves, and if we can come to agreement, which I know is entirely possible based on the minister's new-found magnanimity, we'll be able to, perhaps, put in an amendment or two to improve this bill after we come out of committee stage.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not even going to try that word, because you've got me confused as to how it's pronounced now.

J. Horgan: I'm regretting having tried it myself.

Hon. R. Coleman: I do look forward to committee stage.

I should mention to the member opposite that the building code, the whole rewrite in the work to harmonize the building code in British Columbia, continues as a project to government. It does have dedicated resources to it. It falls within this ministry, and we're continuing to have that going on.

We've had two sessions with UBCM with regards to it — one where we had actually unanimous consent from the members that attended the seminar — from about 40-plus communities — that this should go on to get rid of some of the duplication, the areas where people add things to the building code and confuse people. It actually makes it difficult for people to build, both for affordability but also for the fact of actually trying to achieve the goals we're trying to achieve. That includes the greening of the building code.

I'm sure we'll discuss that in estimates, as well, but I'm happy to have those discussions during committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the bill to the Committee of the Whole House for committee stage...

Deputy Speaker: At the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman: …after today.
[ Page 11068 ]

Bill 32, Energy and Water Efficiency Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call committee stage of Bill 33, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act.

Can we have a five-minute recess to allow for….

Deputy Speaker: This House will stand recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:08 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 33 — JUSTICE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 33; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:11 p.m.

On section 1.

L. Krog: I know everyone's anxious to get through this, but I am required, I think, to ask at least a couple of questions. If the Attorney General could at least explain the effect of this section and why it was being brought into the House. What impact will it have, if any, on our trade agreements, and how does it relate to them?

Hon. S. Bond: This will allow for us to add additional agreements by regulation rather than by having to come in and adjust the legislation every time. It would also mean that existing dispute mechanisms would apply to any new agreements that are reached.

L. Krog: Just to confirm that this references only agreements — I take it, in terms of an addition to the list — that relate to agreements entered with the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia.

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, if B.C. enters into an agreement, we would agree to be bound by it — for example, in the case of TILMA or other partnerships where we make those agreements. But when Canada makes an agreement, British Columbia agrees to be bound by it. So in other words, we would make an agreement with Canada and, as they negotiate and agree to something, we would agree to be bound by that agreement.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: If the Attorney General could just explain in a practical way and perhaps give an example of what the effect will be of section 2 in terms of practice.

[1515]

Perhaps I'll wait, because I see we're going to change staff in each section.

Again to the Attorney General, I just would ask her to provide a basic example of what kind of order this new section would apply to. What's really the purpose of the section, and will it in fact assist the court in perhaps speeding up justice?

Hon. S. Bond: The amendment has actually been requested by the Court of Appeal, and they have not given us a list. What it does, though, is give the court the flexibility to add to the list if it identifies other categories of application that it believes will consistently be denied leave to appeal. We obviously think this is a good idea. The Court of Appeal has advised us that it intends that the list will represent a codification of orders that have consistently been denied previously. So it's an attempt to speed up access to justice and probably cause less frustration for people who go all the way through that process only to be denied leave to appeal.

K. Corrigan: The previous section that's been repealed and now substituted refers to interlocutory orders. Are interlocutory orders the same as limited appeal orders?

Hon. S. Bond: It's our understanding that, in fact, interlocutory orders could be included on the list that the Court of Appeal will actually codify.

K. Corrigan: Just for clarification, interlocutory orders are usually interim orders. Could the minister just explain what other types of orders would be considered to be limited appeal orders?

Hon. S. Bond: The Court of Appeal will actually make that determination, and we don't have the specific list that the court wishes to prescribe. But they will have the flexibility to prescribe the list. In fact, we have been advised by the court that it would be a codification of previous orders. I don't have the specific list of the Court of Appeals here, but this, as I said, is a request directly from the court to potentially speed up access to justice.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Elmore: I have a question on section 3. With respect to the recommendation to remove the requirement of a door-to-door registration before the 2013 general election, I have concerns. Maybe the Minister of Justice can answer in terms of: what are the steps taken to en-
[ Page 11069 ]
sure that we have as high quality a voters list as possible, particularly with coverage to ensure that the highest percentage of eligible voters are on the voters list and certainly that it's current and up-to-date — that they're at their accurate addresses?

[1520]

My concern is addressing groups that are vulnerable citizens, particularly in residential care facilities, homeless folks, aboriginals and also immigrant communities, as well as high-rental areas. Often these are the areas that have the lowest coverage on the voters list.

Hon. S. Bond: I know that this is one of the sections that garnered the most passionate discussion during second reading. I think that it's very fitting that in the gallery today we have students that are here.

One of the challenges, I think, that both sides of the House would agree is a concern for us is that as we attempt to encourage people to take advantage of their democratic right to vote in our province and in our country, we certainly don't want to do anything that would discourage or disenfranchise. I think that there's a lot to be done in order to encourage people to want to cast their ballot. I think it has much more to do with being engaged and seeing their views translated into the actions of government.

But to the member's concerns, which are legitimate, all of us are concerned about making sure that particularly at-risk or vulnerable individuals still have the right to exercise their vote. Our decision to remove the requirement for a complete door-to-door enumeration is based on a recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer. It absolutely does not preclude the kinds of concerned and focused enumeration that the member is speaking of.

For example, after the general or targeted enumeration is done, regional officers can make the decision to look at site-specific enumeration. So for example, they may go to a care home. They may go to a homeless shelter. There is a concerted effort that is undertaken to ensure that those who may not take advantage of their right to vote are sought out.

Certainly, this does not put that in jeopardy at all. In fact, the change allows the flexibility for the Chief Electoral Officer to consider specifically targeted enumerations, of which door-to-door would still be a possibility. But it would also allow for other methods to be used more broadly.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister for the response.

Certainly, in terms of addressing the issue of our declining voter turnout as a challenge, the first step often is — in terms of enfranchising the vote — for individuals to be on the voters list.

One of the challenges, in addition, is our youth. Often there's a gap in terms of when they turn 18. They don't necessarily go onto the voters list. I was wondering if there's a specific initiative around that.

Also, if the minister has…. I've had reports that voter turnout is lower amongst new immigrant communities and that there is the challenge of the second language and the ability of being able to ensure that that is overcome and addressed.

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond: We do know that Elections B.C. does produce information in a number of languages — certainly, far beyond only English — and works very hard to try to share information in as many languages as possible. We were trying to think of the number, but I don't want to put a number on the record and then not be correct. It is a large number of languages in which information is translated.

When it comes to looking at how we encourage young people — and encourage not-so-young people — to exercise their vote, I think that it takes a collaborative effort. I think that some of the most effective programs are ones that are youth-led. I can think of Rock the Vote and a variety of other youth-led initiatives that encourage participation in the process.

I think that we need to continue. I think it is discouraging, when we look at what a privilege it is in our country to have the right to vote. I know that the member opposite will have been at citizenship ceremonies. I've been at many of them, and they're one of the most special things that we get to participate in as MLAs. I certainly recognize that people who become new Canadians are very excited about the opportunity they have to participate in the process.

There's obviously more work to be done, but I think what we're concentrating on here is responding to a request where the Chief Electoral Officer recognized that it isn't anticipated that this will cause a significant concern about the voters list.

In fact, one of the things that I learned in getting ready for the House is that British Columbia has one of the most accurate voters lists in the country. So while we may not feel that way…. If we're the best it is, there's obviously some work to be done. But we're responding to a request by the Chief Electoral Officer, and we think that this is an important recommendation from an independent officer, and we agreed to move forward.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister. The number is approximately 140,000 people — eligible voters who are excluded from the voters list for different reasons. That's the challenge in terms of trying to increase the quality of the voters list and to make sure that it's accurate.

Yeah, often there is a bit of a balance in terms of how you engage people to vote, to cast their vote. That's one matter. The process of having them on the voters list is often a first step in terms of being able to engage them.

I was wondering if the minister considered any specific
[ Page 11070 ]
ideas or other examples to be included in the legislation to address in a proactive way, for example, citizens who speak a second language, in terms of being able to engage them and have them registered.

[1530]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think there's been lots of discussion about how we improve the situation, but it isn't something that you would put in legislation. This is really about the practice of how we do this.

One of the things that emerged in the discussion — as I understand it, from the Chief Elector Officer — was the fact that this process is really not as effective as people think it is. That recommendation comes not from government. It comes from the Chief Electoral Officer, and he gave a number of reasons.

Specifically, to the member's question, there's lots of discussion and debate about how to improve the quality of the list, how to expand the participation rates of people. Obviously, both sides of the House care about having an appropriate and thorough check of the list, but from our perspective, we took the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer seriously and have agreed to move forward.

M. Elmore: In terms of the vein of trying to address not only the quality of the list but the aspect of having accurate addresses, that's also a low number. I think the average in B.C. is currently about 90 percent. So about 10 percent of people who are eligible to be on the voter's list are not. They're incorrect addresses.

Are there any specific initiatives or thought or discussion that you had around that, addressing that challenge — particularly that impacts the folks who live in high rental areas or who change and move around a lot?

Hon. S. Bond: When we look back over the last number of years, one of the things that Elections B.C. looks at statistically is the currency of the voters list. In fact, the number just prior to the 2009 election was at about 88 percent in terms of the currency of the list.

There is a concentrated effort before an election to make sure that the list is as current as possible. There is actually historic data that goes back, and actually, that was one of the best years — if not the best year — in terms of the currency of the list.

The very types of residences that the member opposite is referring to are some of the challenging ones. In the discussion at the Election Advisory Committee, where the discussion took place about door-to-door enumeration and the rationale was discussed…. Part of the challenge is that Elections B.C. is, first of all, challenged to ensure the safety of enumerators.

[1535]

Secondly, there is a worldwide trend that, in fact, people are no longer doing this. It's not just British Columbia. In fact, there are a number of other jurisdictions. The trend around the world is away from the model of door-to-door. Part of the challenge is that people do not like providing information on the doorstep. It's becoming a process that is…. You have to balance the utility and the effort and the cost to taxpayers against the potential outcomes.

In the view of the Chief Electoral Officer, it is time for us to make this change. There will be, obviously, a number of ways that the Chief Electoral Officer will be given the flexibility to target enumerations. Mail and door-to-door will play key roles. Door-to-door will not cease, but it gives the Chief Electoral Officer the decision and the flexibility to create the strategy to improve the quality of the list.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's answers. I trust she doesn't mind if I continue to call her the Attorney General, notwithstanding the government's decision to refer to her as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I just happen to think the second term carries a little more weight and gravitas in this place.

Having said that, the Attorney General did mention in her answer to the previous question that other jurisdictions are moving away from door-to-door enumeration. I'm just wondering. Perhaps she could advise the House. What's the status of door-to-door enumeration in the other provinces of Canada?

Hon. S. Bond: To the best information we have with us, and certainly…. I should have introduced Neil Reimer. Neil will check and confirm that for us. Currently the Yukon and Manitoba require and continue to do door-to-door enumerations. Alberta decided just previous to this election that they would actually do a door-to-door enumeration. But that's the list as we know it.

In fact, when you look at the coverage rates in 2011 in Manitoba and then also 2011 in Alberta, both of their coverage rates are lower than British Columbia's existing list. So in fact, even after they did the door-to-door enumeration, their list didn't have as much coverage as the province of British Columbia.

L. Krog: To the Attorney General, I wonder if she could explain to the House how the coverage is determined. I mean, is this a number that's reached as a guesstimate as a result of information from Stats Canada? Or how does one actually arrive at the concept that the coverage rate is 88 percent or 82 percent or whatever the case may be?

Hon. S. Bond: That coverage is determined by taking the eligible voter population and then balancing that against the total registered number of voters and what that percentage is. For example, in British Columbia on April 28, 2009, it would take the eligible voter population, which was over 3 million. The total registered vot-
[ Page 11071 ]
ers was 2.948 million, and so our coverage in terms of the list was 91 percent.

[1540]

When you look at Manitoba in 2011 and then Alberta, their numbers were only in the higher 80s. Manitoba was 87 and.... I think that says 84 percent. So their coverage rates are lower than ours, and that was done most recently.

L. Krog: The next question is obvious, I suspect. Where do we get the number of eligible voters from? Is that information received from Stats Canada? What's the source of that information? I'm asking a very basic, practical question here.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct. It's census data, and then it's updated with ongoing estimates of population growth.

L. Krog: I'm sorry. I had a little whisper in my ear. Just to confirm. Did the minister say that Stats Canada provides information? If so, are we satisfied, given the recent changes to the operation of Statistics Canada, that in fact that information is at a level of accuracy that it should be?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it does come from Stats Canada. We believe that that will continue to be an effective way of gathering that information.

We also believe, though, that B.C. Stats actually looks at a population profile. So in essence, it's probably a dual look. But the specific numbers do come from Stats Canada, and then B.C. Stats takes a look at the population profile and has a look at both of those.

L. Krog: I won't spend too much more time on this section. I think the position of the opposition is fairly clear, and I think the minister has been quite forthright in her answers.

My concern is this — that there may have been another approach to deal with this. I know that cost has been raised as an issue, the safety of enumerators, things of that nature. But for instance, we know in Australia, in order to encourage you to vote, you can be fined if you don't vote without reasonable excuse.

I'm not necessarily suggesting we do that in British Columbia, but it seems to me that it could be made an offence to refuse to provide the appropriate information to someone authorized on behalf of government — or Elections B.C. in this case, to be fair — who has come to your doorstep and is asking relevant information that would determine whether or not you were in fact eligible to be on the voters list.

I'm just wondering if the Attorney General has considered that as a possibility as a way of protecting the people who do this kind of work, especially given that, notwithstanding the change to section 42, an enumeration conducted by residence-to-residence visitation is still provided for in the act, although not mandatory.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sure the member knows that it's been a challenging 24 hours for me. I was relying on Neil, and both of us…. We're not sure of the clarity of your question. I'm sorry. If the member opposite could just clarify his question for us, we'd appreciate it.

L. Krog: Clarity is not my long suit, as the Attorney General may have noticed on the odd occasion.

My point is this. Even the new section 42, as proposed, still allows for a "residence-to-residence visitation." So the issues of safety and protection and the privacy concerns the minister raised in her earlier remarks, about people not being willing to disclose information on the doorstep, are still all there.

I was wondering if consideration had been given to making it an offence to refuse to provide that information to an enumerator sent out by Elections B.C. In fact, does that — and I'm sorry; I haven't had a chance to check — legislation exist now? If it does, it seems to me it should be enforced, because surely asking someone to provide the basic information that enables them to vote for government I would not regard as a breach of their privacy or rights.

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: We have not contemplated making it an offence. I think that part of the rationale behind flexibility is allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to more specifically target areas and the method of use in that particular area. So if there is an area where there is heightened concern about safety, then perhaps that would be done by a mail enumeration.

It really just reflects, I think, the concern of the Chief Electoral Officer. The member opposite may also want to…. I was reading through the Election Advisory Committee minutes, because before any major changes are suggested, there is a bipartisan…. Actually, it's more than that. It is a number of representatives from political parties who meet with the Chief Electoral Officer. In fact, the parties that were represented there, including the member opposite's and mine, agreed that as long as door-to-door enumeration remained a possibility, they were generally in agreement with this process. That included members of the NDP and, obviously, the B.C. Liberal Party.

That discussion and the commentary that I was reflecting are actually in the minutes of that meeting. As the discussion evolved, the issue was very much around a changing model and the trends around the world and looking at, for example…. I would quote this. "Elections B.C. is challenged to ensure the safety of enumerators and the voter information they carry, to gain access to secure buildings and strata communities." There are a number of complicating issues that are outlined in the minutes.
[ Page 11072 ]

I think there was a very thorough discussion which included members, as I said, of the B.C. Liberal Party, the B.C. NDP, also the Green Party and a number of others, including obviously Keith Archer, who is the Chief Electoral Officer and chair of this committee.

I think there's been a fairly significant discussion about the issue. All of us and, I'm sure, the committee agreed that we want as accurate a voters list as possible. We agreed to carry forward the recommendation and did not, at the same time, look at a potential offence.

L. Krog: I'm certainly conscious of the fact that my leader may be listening. To paraphrase Gilbert and Sullivan, one would hesitate not to always vote at their party's call. I appreciate the minister's remarks that a representative of the New Democratic Party was there. Nevertheless, having said that, it doesn't get past this as an issue for me personally.

My final question to the minister on this section is quite simply this. Will the ministry continue to monitor or ask the Chief Electoral Officer to continue to monitor the results in those jurisdictions in Canada, in particular, that continue to use a door-to-door general enumeration to be satisfied that the accuracy is in fact the same? I understand that there may be some differences in terms of how the Yukon and Alberta and Manitoba arrive at what they think are the figures.

[1550]

I mean, you know, lies, damned lies and statistics, as Churchill said — the three great lies. So I'm a bit concerned about that, that in fact we do ensure this. I think it is important. I wouldn't be standing here today if I didn't think it was important.

I'm just curious to know if the minister is prepared to make that recommendation or at least ask the Chief Electoral Officer, who I'm sure may be reviewing Hansard himself, to consider that over the longer haul. I think this kind of evidence-based change for legislation is important, because this is about very basic public policy.

Hon. S. Bond: We do know that the staff at Elections B.C. and certainly the Chief Electoral Officer — this is a very high priority for them as well. I think the recommendations that came forward from the CEO certainly were not made lightly and not without an understanding that for all of us, it's in our best interest and also our desire to see the quality continue to improve.

Despite the fact that we have one of the highest currency rates in the province, in terms of historically, but also in the country, doesn't mean we should stop looking for ways to improve. There are quality surveys that are done, and it's a very in-depth survey that looks at the quality of the list and ensuring that we are continuing to make improvements.

As other jurisdictions publish that information, the statistical data that we have here will continue to be compiled. I think that, certainly, we'll be sharing. I know the Chief Electoral Officer will be very interested in the debate that took place in the House and will recognize the importance of demonstrating that a move away from door-to-door enumeration didn't bring a negative impact, which is certainly what the premise was when the suggestion and recommendation was made.

As the member opposite knows, I appreciate his views. I think the members opposite have raised very legitimate and thoughtful questions about something that's important to all of us. I can assure the critic opposite that we will work collaboratively and share the views that were shared here in the House with the Chief Electoral Officer.

We will work to continue to do two things. I think one is to make sure we have a high-quality voters list. But I think, to the previous member's concerns, that we figure out how we encourage engagement in the democratic process, how we look at civics and how we make sure that people in our province realize what an unbelievable privilege it is to live where we live. One of the privileges is to be able to vote and make your choices known.

I thank the member opposite for his questions and will continue to share those with the Chief Electoral Officer.

Section 3 approved on division.

The Chair: Surrey–White Rock seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: We are joined in this House by a group of grade 5 students from White Rock Christian Academy in Surrey, their teacher Lorraine Whitmarsh and a number of parents. The school is famous for athletic, cultural, academic and humanitarian services, not just in this province but around the world. I ask the House to please make them feel most welcome.

Debate Continued

The Chair: I thank the members for their indulgence.

On section 4.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the changes are that are brought about by these sections, which amend the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act.

[1555]

Hon. S. Bond: We're very glad to have a class of grade 5s in the gallery today. It's unfortunate that they weren't here for the part about voting, instead of the part about
[ Page 11073 ]
the Arbitration Act and enforcement of Canadian judgments. You would have enjoyed the other part much more.

To the member opposite, this section is a companion to section 1, the Commercial Arbitration Act. Really, what it says in a nutshell is that when we make an agreement and there are things that need to be enforced in British Columbia, this makes sure that they're enforceable.

K. Corrigan: This section deals largely with enforcement of awards under domestic trade agreements — in other words, trade agreements that are between provinces and within Canada. I'm wondering, more specifically, if the minister can explain what changes there are in terms of the ease of enforcing judgments under this act.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, what it does is it adds the phrase "prescribed trade agreement." Really, what it precludes us from having to do is to come back into the Legislature to add an agreement that we make. We don't want to have to do that all of the time. So it means that we can do that by including the phrase "prescribed trade agreement."

There are currently three other agreements that are recognized, but in the future if there's another agreement, we won't need to come back into the Legislature to add that.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify, then, that the process with regard to enforcement is no different. This does not provide new and wider powers of enforcement. It's simply determining that new agreements as they come on board can be added, but there's no change to the process.

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

L. Krog: To the Attorney General, if she could just explain why this section was necessary, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. S. Bond: The existing provision refers to final judgment, which is relevant in a court judgment but not respecting an award under a domestic trade agreement. What this section does is it clarifies that an award in favour of the government or against the government may be registered under the act for the purposes of enforcement.

L. Krog: Just to clarify, presumably what this does is it makes it easier for a foreign corporation to enforce any claim that is successful against the Canadian government.

Hon. S. Bond: In our view, it doesn't make it easier. Actually, it simply clarifies the fact that final judgment is relevant to a court judgment and not to a domestic trade agreement award.

[1600]

So in fact, we don't think it makes it easier. It just clarifies the item that we've referred to — the issue around final judgment being related to a court judgment.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, I see that the member from Kamloops wants to get through the afternoon here today.

With respect to section 8, does this have any effect on the law, in the sense that right now a judgment is enforceable for ten years? I'm looking at the explanatory note in the bill itself. Is there now no limitation on how long a Canadian judgment can be enforced — as opposed to this section, which, according to the explanatory note, means that it's only good for ten years?

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: The existing section includes domestic trade agreement awards in the registration time limit that applies to court judgments. That is ten years after a judgment became enforceable in the province or territory where it was made.

What the amendment does is that it provides for a registration time limit for domestic trade agreement awards that is based on the date when the award was made, which is more appropriate, as such awards are not made in any specific province or territory. So it was, in essence, to clarify and make it distinct from the connection to the court date.

Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

L. Krog: The bill note suggests that this simply "clarifies that recalculations of support orders by administrative bodies are included in the definition of 'support order.'"

[1605]

I take it that what this means is, essentially, that FMEP, if they recalculate or determine what in fact is the amount outstanding under an order, that would constitute a judgment for purposes of enforcement. Or is there something more to this than I'm suggesting?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to be joined by Chris Beresford, who has been very helpful in the ministry in helping me understand FMEP and look at how we can
[ Page 11074 ]
find improvements to the program — always very happy for his advice.

There are currently specific administrative recalculation programs in five provinces in the country, and that includes British Columbia. Annually, they review a payer's income. So they annually review the income and then look at what the payment needs to be. Those programs did not exist when this section was created. What we're doing now is actually bringing the legislation in line with what current practice is.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand it in simple terms. I have a support order made against me in the province of Manitoba, and it requires me to pay $500 a month. Based on an income calculation, an administrative body has determined that in fact it should be $550. That calculation or determination made by the administrative body, as opposed to a court upon application, will in fact be enforceable as an order of the court if it's sent out here to British Columbia for enforcement?

Hon. S. Bond: That's exactly it.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

L. Krog: Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 all deal with, essentially, the difference between the terms "ordinarily resides" and "habitually resides."

I'm just wondering if the minister can clarify what we're talking about. Is there some definition — I'm sorry; I haven't had time to look — in the Interpretation Act or the court decisions? In other words, what does this actually mean?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, the change is to make the terminology consistent with other jurisdictions across Canada and also internationally. It is a matter of consistency, and the terms mean the same thing.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm what the Attorney General said at the close of her remarks. As far as court decisions are concerned, ordinarily versus habitually have been determined to amount to the same thing. Or is there some qualitative or quantitative difference in the use of the language?

Hon. S. Bond: No, they are the same.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

L. Krog: This reduces the amount of time from 18 to 12 months "within which a claimant must provide further information and documents requested before the court may dismiss a support application."

Is this consistent with other provinces? In fact, would we be better moving towards a system that provides for a more timely provision of information?

The reason I raise that is that it's often the case — as opposed to the incredible efficiency of FMEP in British Columbia, I'm sure…. I've had the odd constituent complain about the time it takes to enforce an order in another province.

[1610]

I'm just curious. Does this bring us into line with other provinces? Is this the standard across the country?

Hon. S. Bond: It does bring us in line, and in fact it was considered at the intrajurisdictional support subcommittee, so FPT actually looked at this matter. Just to be very clear and to provide clarity, this is about the establishment and variation of orders. It's not about enforcement. So we do have to consider the court times as well.

Yes, it brings us into line, and it is about establishment and variation.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, this section really means that if an application is made to establish a support order, regardless of where the respondent to the application may reside…. Does this mean that you use the British Columbia law first, and if there is no entitlement to support then you would apply the law of the jurisdiction where the child habitually resides?

In other words, for a concrete example, the application is brought on in British Columbia, and the child is habitually resident in Manitoba. The way I understand this section, for my application — if I'm the plaintiff, applicant, whatever the case may be — the laws of B.C. will be applied firstly. If the laws of B.C. say that I'm out of time for whatever reason or if there is some jurisdictional issue, then you would apply the law of the province of Manitoba, where the child resides, if in fact that would ensure that a support order is made.

Hon. S. Bond: The member is exactly right.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

L. Krog: In section 24 the bill notes suggest it "provides that on an application to vary a support order, the court must first apply the law of British Columbia and then, if under that law there is no entitlement to support for a child, apply the law of the jurisdiction."
[ Page 11075 ]

Again, this is just the following section, if you will. As opposed to initial application, we're now talking about a variance, and the same law applies. In other words, the courts will be required, essentially, to try and extend the benefit of the doubt to ensure that in fact a support order is made in favour of a child.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

The Chair: Minister, do you want a minute? Yes.

Could we take a minute, please, Member?

L. Krog: Yes.

[1615]

I appreciate the further attendance of ministerial staff. It's a bit like the Punch and Judy show here today. They're in and out, and they're in and out constantly. I do appreciate them attending.

Having said that, if the minister could simply explain why we need section 29, and in fact, what is a repairer's licence with respect to section 6?

Hon. S. Bond: I always like to recognize the staff that are here. So Tyann Blewett is here. Rob Termuende and Jason Luche from ICBC are joining us today.

To the member opposite, the details around section 29…. Section 29 is actually consequential to section 32. We'll get there, specifically, when we get to section 32. But I can certainly describe the repairer's licence for the member opposite. For example, it's when you have a mechanic, and they need to test-drive the vehicle, they would have a plate that would allow them to actually drive the vehicle. Or if they do any other incidental services, they would be required to have a plate to allow them to do that.

One of the challenges and one of the reasons that this is necessary…. It's particularly restrictive in rural and northern smaller communities. For example, if you sell gas, currently you cannot have a repairer's licence. Even if you're a mechanic on the side, if you sell gas currently you can't use the repairer's plate. We're trying to fix some of those things and make it easier for people in smaller communities to actually have the small businesses that we know are often doing multiple things to survive.

Then we'll move on to section 32 to deal with the issues that were also asked.

L. Krog: Forgive me for maybe being seen to be wasting the Legislature's time, but I'm just curious to know: how long has that silly regulation been in place?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't know the exact original date, but we can tell you that since the beginning of the plate it's not been possible. So in our estimation, it's probably decades.

L. Krog: If this wasn't corrected in the '90s, I just want to apologize on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

[1620]

I'm just shocked that the Minister of Finance, who was so proud of deregulating things, wouldn't have nailed one which seemed to me to be clearly ridiculous — having been raised in a small community myself, where the person who owned the local garage did everything. So I just want to pay my compliments to the minister and thank her.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

On section 31.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to clarify. Section 31 amends section 32 of the Motor Vehicle Act "by striking out 'verified by affidavit'." I'm just wondering if the minister could clarify. This removes the requirement, it says, for a parent or guardian to provide an affidavit when applying for a driver's licence on behalf of a minor. Under what circumstances would a parent or guardian apply for a driver's licence on behalf of a minor as opposed to them applying on their own behalf?

Hon. S. Bond: If a young adult child applies for a driver's licence, the parent currently either has to appear with their child and sign the document, or the only other option is that they have to do that by affidavit. As you can imagine, if it's hard for a parent to go to a driving centre to be there in person, it's probably equally as difficult to get an affidavit. It's also potentially expensive for them. So what we're removing here is not the requirement for parental consent.

In fact, ICBC will be building a parallel process, which will be rigorous. It will be similar, we believe, to what it requires to have a passport. A signature is required. But we do want to streamline the application process for parents. All this does is change the requirement to have an affidavit, but another process will be put in place — just one that is more efficient and, hopefully, less costly for parents.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

L. Krog: If the Attorney General could just confirm, this replaces the existing section, consolidates all of these licences into one section and, I assume, provides for greater ease for these to be issued. But I'm also wondering: what will be the anticipated cost or increase that
[ Page 11076 ]
may be required with respect to these licences?

Hon. S. Bond: This will carry no cost implications. What it does is it removes or revises outdated definitions. What we've attempted to do in the legislation is keep the key conditions and restrictions that apply to all of the licences. In fact, the current legislation is outdated. We needed to look at today's industry business practices, and this provides more modernized, relevant language. Most importantly, it repeals out-of-date definitions. There are some that come from the Motor Carrier Act and previous fairly antiquated acts.

[1625]

L. Krog: Just so I can clarify, in light of the minister's comments earlier when we were discussing section 29, the heroic small-town mechanic in some obscure community — and I'll use the example of Coombs because we don't even have a gas station anymore — who was perhaps doing some manufacturing work on their premises, building trailers, who has the gas station and who is the local mechanic, would now be in a position to apply for and to hold all of these various licences, as long as they met qualifications. There would be no prohibition against them holding that licence. So the jack of all trades could, in fact, truly be a legal jack of all trades?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member would know, there are still distinct licence categories. Yes, if you manufacture, you'd need the manufacturer's licence. If you're a repairer, you'd need that as well. But yes, it does allow, in essence, to quote the member opposite, the jack of all trades…. There will be categories of licences that would be appropriate, and they will be able to use all of those. This clearly defines the conditions that are required and the restrictions of use. It's just an attempt to clarify that and meet modern-day practice.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

On section 34.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, with respect to section 34, the bill note suggests that it removes the right to a show-cause hearing when ICBC "proposes to refuse to renew or to suspend a driver training school licence or driver training instructor's licence, consequential to amendments." They still have a right of appeal in this, but it's not under this section. Is that correct? Or have they lost that right to appeal? Am I reading this wrong?

Hon. S. Bond: There are no changes to the right to a show-cause appeal where ICBC proposes to cancel a driver training school licence or instructor's licence. There are no changes to that.

Sections 34 to 40 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:29 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1630]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — JUSTICE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Bill 33, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call committee stage for Bill 34, intituled Limitation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — LIMITATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 4:33 p.m.

Hon. S. Bond: I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank members of my team that are here today who have worked very hard. They work hard all the time. Renee Mulligan is legal counsel in justice services branch, and Nancy Carter, who we've had in the House on other occasions, is executive director of justice services branch. They're here to help support me and answer the, I'm sure, probing questions of the critic opposite.

On section 1.

L. Krog: As has been discussed in second reading, this is a very significant change obviously. I don't have the existing Limitation Act in front of me, but I do recall from memory a number of the very complex sections.

With respect to section 1, which is the definitions section, "'basic limitation period', in relation to a claim, means the limitation period applicable to the claim under Part 2." Then part 2, in fact, exempts a number of claims.

I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can per-
[ Page 11077 ]
haps advise of some of the examples and/or perhaps the number of recognized claims that will fall into this section that were formerly, perhaps, beyond a two-year limitation period but which will now be governed by a two-year limitation period.

In other words, how significant is the change? I think this definition is a critical part of the bill. So in other words, if the Attorney General can perhaps outline those causes of action, those kinds of claims, which will now be restricted to a two-year limitation period which formerly were provided perhaps for a six- or a ten- or an eight-year — or whatever — limitation period.

[1635]

Hon. S. Bond: I will give the member opposite the list and then just a reminder of the rationale. Breach of contract, economic loss, wrongful dismissal and collection of debt — those would now move to a single basic limitation period.

One of the challenges that has been a concern for many sectors…. In fact, B.C. Law Reform — the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, for example — said you need to have one basic limitation period. It is far too confusing for people. With different basic limitation periods, their claim might fall under a different category. So the advice we've been given is that there needs to be a single basic limitation period, and we've accepted that advice.

The other compelling feature is that in other jurisdictions, there have been moves similar to this to modernize and to bring a more consistent approach. Those are the categories that would be moving to the two-year period.

L. Krog: For practical purposes — claims for personal injury, those kinds of things — an existing two-year limitation period would all remain the same. Just to be very careful, specific limitation periods covered by their own individual statutes — the Family Law Act, for instance, statutes of that nature…. The limitation period would be prescribed by that statute and would not be affected in fact by the Limitation Act.

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct on both of those statements.

L. Krog: The term "caregiver" is defined. I'm just wondering. Specifically, what's the point of defining it in here as opposed to some other statute?

[1640]

Hon. S. Bond: Caregiver is defined to reflect the policy in the Family Law Act. What we wanted to do was avoid confusion. The current act contains a definition of "guardian." It is similar to the caregiver definition, but it uses the word guardian. To describe a guardian is within the definition, so it was changed to avoid confusion.

L. Krog: I note that in the definitions sections we talk about how "'defendant' includes a respondent" and "'plaintiff' includes a claimant and a petitioner." I'm just wondering why we're still using that language when, in fact, now you're a claimant and a respondent when it comes to modern process in the Supreme Court.

I'm just curious. What's the point of having the reverse here, in a sense, talking about using the term "plaintiff" to include "a claimant and a petitioner"? I'm curious to understand why we're doing it.

Hon. S. Bond: The term "defendant" reflects the language in the new Supreme Court rules. The definition includes "respondent" in order to provide clarity and consistency with terms used elsewhere in British Columbia, in other British Columbia statutes.

L. Krog: The term "local judgment" defines and references a judgment, order or award of the Supreme Court of Canada or B.C. Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Provincial Court of British Columbia, arbitration to which the commercial act applies and an arbitral award to which the Foreign Arbitral Act or the International Commercial Arbitration Act applies.

I'm just wondering, from a practical perspective, what wouldn't constitute a local judgment.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it is a comprehensive definition, and it doesn't reflect a change.

K. Corrigan: I have a question about the definitions. Comparing the existing Limitation Act and the new Limitation Act, there are a number of definitions that are in the previous, or existing, Limitation Act which are not included. For example, "action" and "collateral" are a couple that are there. "Trust" is in the existing act but is not in the new act. There are several which are in the existing act and are also the same and repeated in the new act.

I'm wondering. Does this mean that there is no need to have the definitions of "action" and some of the other ones that have been dropped?

[1645]

Hon. S. Bond: We'll start with the easier ones first. "Collateral" — the definition is no longer necessary. It's defined in the Personal Property Security Act, and it means "personal property that is subject to a security interest." So in fact, we don't need that definition any longer.

In terms of "trust," again that definition is no longer necessary because it's defined in the Trustee Act. It does include a number of things, including "(a) implied and constructive trusts, (b) cases where the trustee has some beneficial estate or interest in the subject of the trust." So in essence, we don't need that definition either, because
[ Page 11078 ]
it's in the Trustee Act.

When you look at "action," basically we're looking at a different approach to the law of limitations. In fact, the old act's definition of action is very broad, and it includes any proceeding that's in a court or exercise of a self-help remedy.

In the new act, as we would be learning, limitation periods will only apply to govern the time periods that people have to bring a claim in court.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: With respect to section 2, it exempts certain proceedings and says that the act doesn't apply and "has no impact on when or if such court proceedings may be brought." It includes, in sub (2): "This Act does not apply to court proceedings based on existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982."

When it talks about "existing aboriginal and treaty rights," I take it that has to be read in conjunction with "that are recognized and affirmed in the Constitution Act." Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

L. Krog: Does the Attorney General believe that this would have any restriction whatsoever on claims brought for lands in British Columbia by aboriginal and First Nations people in terms of aboriginal rights and title?

Hon. S. Bond: This reflects the status quo, so there is no change. That was an important consideration. So this will reflect current law.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Krog: Just to understand the basic thrust of section 3. I take it that when it says that this act "does not apply to the following," what that means is essentially that all of these claims that are listed in sub (1)(a) through to (m) have no limitation period whatsoever. In other words, if this right exists…. If this claim exists — I should say, in fairness — then there is no limitation period with respect to these claims?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

[1650]

L. Krog: Just to be clear — and I'm sure this is the case, but I think it's important to ask this on the record because it is such a significant change — when we're talking about the ultimate limitation period, we are talking about claims that persons may or may not be aware of. That is something different from claims with respect to section 3.

In other words, the ultimate limitation period says: look, if I'm an engineer, and I've made a boo-boo…. It's 16 years, or 15 years plus a day, after I made that mistake, the proposed legislation says I will have no claim. Is that my understanding of the law? Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, yes, the ultimate limitation period is changing so that it would be 15 years. So it's 15 years plus a day other than when there is an exemption. If there is an exemption, the exemption applies to both the basic and the ultimate limitation period.

L. Krog: So if I can use an example, with respect to section 3, and let's just pick one: "(e) a claim by a debtor in possession of collateral to redeem that collateral." So I'm a pawnbroker, and I take a security, the expensive bicycle of some young fellow, who then sets off for a trip around the world and disappears for 15 years plus a day. As long as I've got possession of that collateral, I could still move to seek redress for that, because I am in possession of the collateral, can take steps to redeem it, and we're not governed by any ultimate limitation period here.

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct. The only clarification I would have to make is that in essence, the member opposite's example would fit under (f), not (e). But whether you're in (e) or (f), the comment expressed is correct.

L. Krog: Just to be clear again, particularly with respect to section (i):

"(i) a claim relating to misconduct of a sexual nature" — if the assault occurred while the claimant was a minor, whether or not it was governed by any court proceedings — "(j) a claim relating to sexual assault, whether or not the claimant's right to bring the court proceeding was at any time governed by a limitation period; (k) a claim relating to assault or battery, whether or not the claimant's right to bring the court proceeding was at any time governed by a limitation period...while the claimant (i) was a minor, or (ii) was living in an intimate and personal relationship with, or was in a relationship of financial, emotional, physical or other dependency with, a person who performed, contributed to, consented to or acquiesced in the assault or battery."

For practical purposes, I would read this to mean, and I don't think it is really a change at all from the existing law…. Sexual misconduct, I suppose, might include voyeurism. Sexual assault would include, obviously, what we all understand a sexual assault to be, but a physical assault, reflected in (k)….

[1655]

So if you are in a common-law relationship and you are physically assaulted on April 30, 2012 — or any date, for that matter — you can bring that claim 20 years down the road, if you were involved in an intimate personal relationship with that person, so in other words, a common-law spouse.
[ Page 11079 ]

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct. There are revisions to some of the sections in terms of language, in particular. But the list that the member opposite has included is exempt. The final exemption that was referred to, whether it was assault or battery, is a new provision and would also be exempt.

L. Krog: Certainly, I'd be the last person in the world to be seen to be defending anyone who was guilty of an assault, but it strikes me that there may be a certain unfairness here in this sense.

I'm an engineer, and I make a fairly serious error. I don't attempt to cover it up. Death results, but it's 15 years plus a day past the mistake I made. You know, I decided that the load-bearing weight of a bridge or whatever was X and in fact it was Y, and that weight never actually comes rolling over that bridge until a time 15 years plus a day down the road. I can't be sued. But under this section, the way I read it, if you have lived with someone for two years plus a day, and they hit you, and you're 20 years old, then they can sue you when you're 70. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the rationale for including this is based on a number of things. Certainly — if you look at case law and academic literature over the last decade, in particular — one of the things that has been examined is that, you know, the physical abuse of a minor or someone that is involved in a lasting personal intimate relationship has very long-term impacts.

When the act was amended in the 1990s to include an exemption for sexual assault, physical assault was not included. In fact, no other province included an exemption for physical abuse. But recently there's been a great deal of concern expressed by stakeholders and other developments in other provinces across Canada.

An exemption for physical abuse claims has been added for minors and for adults who live in a personal or dependent relationship with their abuser. Currently, the Uniform Limitations Act and the limitation acts in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have provisions that exempt physical assault claims.

[1700]

So our view is that as we modernize the act, it was important to — like other provinces — recognize the impacts and bring British Columbia's provisions into line with those in other jurisdictions and what academics, literature and case law would tell us.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to make light of this in any way. But I take it from the Attorney General's answers that the examples I've given are in fact correct. I use those extreme examples because I think that's what you should do when you're considering legislation of this nature. You use the extreme example because you have to suppose that within the legal framework and the reality of life, almost any circumstance could occur.

I have no problem with the issue around a minor, perhaps. But if you're talking about two adult persons who are living in an intimate and personal relationship — that is, two mature, responsible people who are 20 years old. Those are adults. One of them — I don't know — in a fit of anger smashes some valuable private property of the other. You don't have to be gender-specific in this. If the other turns around and pops them in the nose, what this section says is that they could, in theory, hold off for 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 or 80 or 90 years before bringing their claim, and they'd still have the right to bring the claim. There is no limitation period on the situation I've just described. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: What's correct is that a claim relating to assault or battery will be exempt. It is based on concerns that have been expressed across the country. When the decision to include sexual assault but not physical assault was made…. Since that point in time, looking at the long-term psychological and physiological impacts of that type of behaviour, the decision has been in other jurisdictions to include provisions related to physical assault claims. British Columbia agrees, and we agree, that that is an appropriate exemption.

L. Krog: The examples I've used are extreme, but I'm going to ask the minister to respond after consultation with her staff. Is the doctrine of laches in any way affected by this legislation? In other words, the concept is that if you have a right to bring a claim, the courts recognize that notwithstanding whether or not the limitation period has expired, you may actually be able to successfully bring on an application to dismiss it.

I mean, with great respect, I appreciate the minister's comments. But you know, I'm talking about a fairly simple — and if you can use the language — basic assault. I'm not talking about a history of violence. I'm not talking about intimidation, because the language is very clear. It just says "living in an intimate" relationship. So you could include two people of similar physical size and courage, or lack of courage, who would potentially face the possibility of being sued many, many, many years down the road when, quite candidly, the ability to bring evidence to court either to defend yourself or to bring a claim is largely gone.

That was certainly the argument that was made by the engineers and others with respect to the ultimate limitation period. Historically at law, I don't know which is worse — a negligent act that leads to the death of somebody and there's an ultimate limitation period on that, as opposed to an assault which may cause somebody injury to their sense of dignity and self-respect but not leave any psychological scar. I understand what the minister is driving at, but it doesn't leave a psychological scar. You get to make that claim forever, basically.
[ Page 11080 ]

The negligence claim which may result in something very serious as a consequence…. I use a ridiculous example, a bridge that collapses and takes 50 cars and kills 100 people. You can't be sued civilly for that if it's 15 years plus a day, but you can be sued if you pop someone in the nose outside a bar after a couple of belts. You can bring that claim 40 years down the road. Where are you going to find the witnesses?

[1705]

I appreciate the minister's position on this, but I just want to confirm that the examples I use are in fact accurate. What is the doctrine of laches going to say? Has the minister considered whether there are court decisions in other jurisdictions, as well, that have dealt with this, where this law has been passed — although I suspect they've been passed so recently that you couldn't use the extreme examples I've been using.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, actually, there is a way to bar the claim. That's really the heart of the question that I think the member opposite is asking. It's in section 5. It says that where there is no limitation period that applies to a claim for equitable relief, a defendant is able to rely on an equitable defence to bar the claim. So there is an avenue.

The second thing that's important to recognize is that as a civil action, there would have to be the ability to show damage. It's not about a frivolous claim. In fact, when we look at what's happened in other provinces, there may have been an expectation that if we exempt claims based on physical assault, are we going to see a whole rash of those kinds of cases in our courts?

At the moment, certainly, it hasn't occurred in other provinces. It's unlikely that frivolous claims would be advanced, because it's difficult and expensive, you know, to move through that process in many ways. But we have not seen that experience in other jurisdictions.

Again, there is the avenue that the member opposite was talking about, so there is an opportunity to bar the claim. From our perspective, we believe that looking at that from a balanced point of view, looking at what other jurisdictions have chosen to do…. In fact, when you look at academic literature and look at case law, we believe that this is an appropriate inclusion.

L. Krog: Section (k) says the act doesn't apply to "a claim relating to assault or battery, whether or not the claimant's right to bring the court proceeding was at any time governed by a limitation period, if the assault or battery occurred while the claimant (i) was a minor, or (ii) was living in an intimate and personal relationship with, or was in a relationship of financial, emotional, physical or other dependency…," etc.

[1710]

In fact, what this section does is preserve the right to sue for assault or battery only if you're living in an intimate and personal relationship. Otherwise, the two-year limitation period, the general limitation as defined in section 1, in fact applies. Am I perhaps reading this incorrectly?

Hon. S. Bond: The key in terms of who this is protecting is actually the vulnerable. This is, potentially, individuals who are in a dependent relationship, so that could be a senior who is financially dependent on someone. So there is a differentiation and, in fact, this is about children or people who may be more vulnerable than others.

You know, I think that if British Columbia were contemplating this on our own, that would be one situation, but what we've recognized is that there have been other developments across the country. There have been significant concerns expressed by stakeholders, and it certainly has been included in other limitation acts in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. This is an attempt to protect those who may be more vulnerable to assault or battery.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments. We're not in disagreement on that. But my suggestion is that the plain reading of this section is pretty clear: "a claim relating to assault or battery…" — and I'm leaving out words that are not necessary to the understanding — "if the assault…occurred while the claimant (i) was a minor…." All right, so we're protecting the rights of children to sue. Nobody's got a problem with that. Or "(ii) was living in an intimate and personal relationship with…a person who performed, contributed to, consented to or acquiesced in the assault or battery."

I hope the minister is getting my point. If I'm a stranger and I hit you, you've got two years to sue me. You're stuck with that section. But if we live together in an intimate and personal relationship where there may be no dependency…. There doesn't have to be dependency. It says: "living in an intimate and personal relationship." So if we are a gay couple — two similar-sized, physically strong, able, not challenged, average individuals — the limitation period doesn't apply simply because we are living in an intimate and personal relationship.

In other words, what I'm saying is that that's not protecting the vulnerable. We're not dealing with two vulnerable individuals here. We're just looking at two individuals who, you know, love one another and live in a personal relationship. That's my problem with this section.

I've got no problem with the rest of this section, where there's financial, emotional, physical or other dependency. I need to hear the minister acknowledge that the effect of this section the way it's worded…. It may have been conscripted from some other jurisdiction, but the way it's worded now, it gives a special right to make a claim for assault and battery based on the fact that you live together in an intimate and personal relationship, regardless of whether there was any dependency.
[ Page 11081 ]

[1715]

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite and I have engaged in numerous debates in the House, and I know there will be many more in the weeks that lie ahead. There are points where we agree to disagree.

I absolutely understand the points that are being made. I can only reflect the fact that when we look at academic literature, when we look at case law, when we look at what other jurisdictions have done — not dissimilar to what we did with family law and with other significant changes we are making to legislation in British Columbia — we look at what we believe to be best practice and how other jurisdictions have treated this matter.

If you look at Saskatchewan's Limitations Act, for example, their language is virtually the same as ours. We've looked across the country at how this matter has been addressed.

I understand the member opposite's point, and again, we believe that this is a reasonable approach to dealing with the issue of physical assault or battery. We modelled it on what other jurisdictions have looked at, previous to us making the decision to change the Limitation Act.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to squeeze some admission out of the minister like this is some cross-examination in court, and of all days to do it. But if she will simply acknowledge that this section allows for the exemption to the two-year limitation on ordinary assault and battery — if two parties are living together who are adult and capable and simply happen to be living in an intimate relationship, that it extends that limitation. In other words, there is no limitation on that.

Hon. S. Bond: What the new section says is that if assault or battery occurred while "living in an intimate and personal relationship with…." Then there's the second part about dependency. Yes, that's exactly what the section says.

K. Corrigan: A general question about this section or about limitations generally, related to some of the questions my colleague was asking. I am wondering if the minister can give just a quick overview of why we have limitation periods.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I appreciate the member's question. That's a very broad discussion that we're about to engage in. But I think, generally speaking, what the Limitation Act does is set the basic ground rules for those people who wish to resolve their disputes in court. One of the things we attempt to do in limitation law is balance the rights of the individual to sue and protect those who will be defending.

[1720]

One of the biggest concerns…. Certainly, we've spent a lot of time talking about this. You know, why is it important to move from 30 years to 15 years? It's not only because British Columbia is completely out of step with what's happening in the rest of the country, but there is a fairness principle that's important as well.

A person should be judged under as close to the circumstances as existed when that particular action occurred. If you're 30 years out — or with no limitation, it could be 60, 70, 80 years — information is stale. It is very difficult to have a fair and appropriate court process when you're 30 years past. We know it's hard enough to find witnesses and look at information in periods much shorter than that, so I think there's a basic understanding that there do need to be limits.

The question is: what is fair, and what is reasonable? In our analysis of what is fair and reasonable, we looked at what was taking place in Canada. In fact, our immediate neighbours, Alberta, have chosen a ten-year ultimate limitation period. Other jurisdictions have chosen 15. British Columbia is currently 30 years.

Our view — and that of many other stakeholders, in particular, in the province — is: let's find an appropriate balance. Let's make sure there's adequate time to consider your rights to sue, but let's also be reasonable from the other perspective.

I think there's recognition that limitation law is important. I think what we seek to do here is to provide a balanced approach for British Columbia that is fair but recognizes the impact of very, very long-term limits.

K. Corrigan: I'm not going to prolong this, but the reason I asked that question — and it was a very broad question — is that the member for Nanaimo has raised some very serious questions about changing circumstances and the impact that having no limitation under subsection (k), particularly, could have.

The minister has highlighted…. In her response to my question about why we have limitation periods, one of the comments that the minister made — and I'm paraphrasing — was essentially that you want to have, if there is going to be a court case, as close to the circumstances as existed at the time.

I think the very real concern that the member has is…. The member for Nanaimo is correct in saying that those circumstances do change over decades, potentially 30 or 40 years. The minister, of course, talked about the problem of having witnesses and so on, so I think it is correct that the member for Nanaimo has raised the issue, because there is potential, I think, in this section, for a lack of justice to happen.

It's certainly not to minimize the circumstances which are described in this section, but to envision that there could be cases — albeit perhaps more extreme cases or unusual cases — where, for the person who is going to have the claim against them, there may be an injustice.

[1725]

Hon. S. Bond: I think in every piece of legislation there are key factors that are about choices that governments make when they create legislation and create law. We took the best advice of our advisory group. We listened to the Public Guardian and Trustee. We looked at other jurisdictions, and yes, we believe that there are certain acts, certain situations, that require exemptions.

We believe that physical assault, battery in a relationship where there is potentially dependence or an intimate personal relationship, whether that involves a minor or whether it involves sexual assault — we believe those are all worthy of exemptions. That is based on…. We had an advisory group that included a number of lawyers and others. We listened to advice, we looked at best practice, and we made the decision to include them.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Krog: I just wonder if the Attorney General can try and put in simple language section 4. Not an easy request, I might add and acknowledge, because if I could, I would, but I can't.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I'm delighted to hear the member opposite suggesting to me that this is complicated for him, because that makes me feel much better about how long it took me to actually attempt to understand everything we were trying to make a decision about.

Maybe what I could do is use an example, but I'll give an overarching explanation of what this section reflects. What the section is attempting to do is reflect that common law now considers statutes of limitation to be substantive law. Previously they were classified as procedural. That's what the purpose of the section is to do, generally. There are a few other things.

We've looked at the "Conflict of laws" provision, and again, we've looked at Ontario. We've looked at a number of other examples in terms of writing this section. Perhaps if I give the member opposite an example, it would be better for both of us.

If a B.C. couple were to have a car accident in California, the conflict-of-law rules are meant to help determine where a plaintiff can start a lawsuit and which limitation law prevails. So in section 4, which is what we've done, choice-of-law rules indicate that the substantive law of the place where the car accident occurred should apply.

[1730]

Let's say they come back to British Columbia. The injured passenger, who is the wife — I don't know what that says about the male driver — sues her husband, the driver, using the B.C. court system.

What this means is that assuming the limitation period in California is one year and the limitation period in B.C. is two years, the choice of laws rules indicate that the substantive law of the place where the car accident occurred is California's system. So the wife would have one year to start her claim to sue her husband, using the B.C. court system.

That's the easiest way that I can describe what section 4 is attempting to accomplish.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's example. So in fact, the effect of it is that unless the wife wants to sue in California, where damages indeed may be higher and potentially she could have that right, arguably, because that's where the accident occurred, she's going to be stuck with a one-year limitation.

The more complex part of this as well, as I see, is sub (2) "Despite subsection (1) of this section, the court must apply section 3 (1) to any claim referred to in section 3 (1) (i), (j) or (k)" — which are the three sections that we just talked a great deal about around sexual misconduct, etc. — "whether or not the substantive law of another jurisdiction is to be applied by the court in deciding the claim."

Do I take it from section 4(2), as proposed, that if there is an assault or a battery, then regardless, there will be no limitation period applied? Or do we apply the law of the other jurisdiction, which might have a two-year limitation period?

Hon. S. Bond: The exemption provisions in section 3 that we talked about in (k) and that relate to sexual assault, physical assault, always apply regardless of which jurisdiction's limitation laws apply to govern the claim, if you're using B.C. courts.

L. Krog: Just to be absolutely clear. I hesitate to use the partners in an intimate relationship. Assuming the B.C. courts would accept jurisdiction, the assault occurred 15 years ago in Alberta, and Alberta, say, has a ten-year limitation period on it for sexual assault, if the claim is brought in British Columbia, B.C. law will be relied upon, and in fact, the claim will not be statute- or limitation-barred?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct. It means that even though the limitation laws of Alberta apply, the new act's exemption for sexual assault guarantees there is no limitation period for claims of sexual assault.

K. Corrigan: In considering framing this section, was there any concern that claimants might go jurisdiction shopping in that they would be barred in one jurisdiction but could bring an action in British Columbia with regard to those subsections?

[1735]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: We did consider that. In fact, we
[ Page 11083 ]
looked at and had discussion with our advisory group about that very issue. I think we have to remember that the sexual assault policy is a carryover, so that is not new. That is an exemption and, I believe, was created under the member opposite's government when it was in power. That was a decision made about that particular policy issue.

We believed that it was important not to differentiate the sexual assault piece, which we've already had a long discussion about, and the assault and battery part. Our view is that this is a balanced approach, and the sexual assault piece is a carryover. We believe that it's important to include and not differentiate with the physical assault or battery piece.

L. Krog: I'm just curious to know why we didn't consider making the same exemption for the other claims that could be brought — that are otherwise exempted, in other words — in section 3. What's the policy rationale behind it?

Hon. S. Bond: We made a decision based on the current body of case law related to sexual assault, and we didn't want to disturb that case law. This provision was put in place and, in essence, was brought into place in the 1990s. We believe it's worth carrying over.

The decision then became: how do you look at other circumstances which are most similar and which should be treated in a similar way? We believed — and, certainly, with the advice of our advisory panel and others — that physical assault and battery, particularly regarding dependency — and again, that intimate personal relationship — merited being included. That's why the decision was made.

We decided to carry over that original clause and then looked at what might be treated similarly. That's why the inclusion of the physical assault piece.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

L. Krog: I just want to rely on the ability of the minister's staff — no insult to the minister when I say this. When I talked about the doctrine of laches, it has been a long time since I've even had to consider it in a case.

[1740]

I'm looking for a little more fulsome an explanation of what section 5 means in terms of dealing with the example I used repeatedly when we were in section 3, about ways of protecting individuals from people sitting on their claims for a long period of time that should otherwise have been brought. Most particularly, I'm referring to the assault in an intimate relationship.

This is a broad section. This applies to any claim, I take it — correct? I'm just looking for an explanation of what "a rule of equity that refuses relief, on the grounds of acquiescence" might mean.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you very much for your patience. This is a complex section, as the member opposite points out. There are two things necessary for this to apply. One is an equitable claim. An example of that would be an injunction. Secondly, only equitable claims that are not governed by limitation periods in the act. Those are the two things where this would apply.

Already the member opposite is — not rolling his eyes; that would not be an accurate description — looking at me quizzically. Those are the two things that are required for this to apply.

The exempted claims are noted in sections 2 and 3, and sexual assault is not an equitable claim.

[1745]

L. Krog: What I'm trying to get at is that…. Is the minister then saying that the doctrine of laches, as I understand it — it's a very general term, and I'm sure her staff can give a better definition than what might be rolling around in my head — would not apply to a sexual assault between intimate partners?

In other words, in what I call a situation of equals — the example I was trying to get at, not a question of sexism or gender imbalance or all the things that we associate the creation of these sections with…. In a situation of equals, but they are in an intimate relationship, laches would not apply in a defence to a claim brought for assault or battery.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

L. Krog: I take it that this has been the basic law for a long period of time, as I understand it. That is quite simply this. A judgment is only good for ten years. If you don't commence an action by suing on the judgment again, then at the expiration of the ten years, the judgment will become absolutely unenforceable.

Hon. S. Bond: Generally, the answer to that is yes. However, there are exceptions. That would be if you're in the middle of an enforcement process. If you're in the middle of an enforcement process, the limitation period would be suspended.

L. Krog: Perhaps the minister could give me a concrete example of that, so that I can understand.

Hon. S. Bond: It's in section 23, for the member's reference. Subsection 23(1) allows the continuation of en-
[ Page 11084 ]
forcement processes on judgments that are already in progress when the ten-year basic limitation period expires. This provision only applies if a claimant has already been awarded a money judgment and is in the process of enforcing the judgment when the ten-year basic limitation period expires.

L. Krog: Having looked at that section and trying to get a concrete example….

[1750]

For instance, would that include a process where the debtor was being examined — in aid of execution, as we used to call it…? Would that constitute an extension of the limitation period, or does it have to be a writ of execution?

In other words, the writ of execution is outstanding, and we're six months into it. I think they're only good —or were, used to be, could be — for a year. So that extends the limitation period. As long as I re-sued on the judgment within that period of time, I'd still be safe. Is that the concept?

Hon. S. Bond: I can give the member opposite an example, but I will be counting on him to fly right by section 23 when we get there, because that's where it is. Actually, the list is defined in section 23, so there's actually a list, but I can give the member opposite an example. We work in my office with lots of good examples.

So here's an example of an enforcement process — proceedings on an unexpired writ of execution. This is where a sheriff or other officer is directed in a court order to seize and sell the debtor's property in order to satisfy the judgment. For example, a sheriff is authorized to seize and sell the debtor's car to pay the claimant and the amount owing in the judgment.

That's an example, but the list that the member opposite is seeking is in section 23.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand. I issue my writ of execution nine years and 11 months after the judgment is granted. The sheriff is in process for another six months, and then says: "That's it. I've done as much as I can. It's over. I'm finished."

Is that when it finishes, or is it the technical length of the writ of execution that extends the limitation period? In other words, what's the last date in which I as a judgment creditor can bring action on my judgment once again?

It's a fairly technical question, I'm afraid. Forgive me, but I'm trying to understand this.

Hon. S. Bond: Once the money judgment was complete, that would be the end of the period. The process, the limitation period, is suspended while you're working through the process to reach the money judgment.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

L. Krog: This makes reference to special situations referred to in sections 9 to 11, but then says,

"Except for those special situations…a claim is discovered by a person on the first day on which the person knew or reasonably ought to have known all of the following: (a) that injury, loss or damage had occurred; (b) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission; (c) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is or may be made; (d) that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a court proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy...."

Is this any significant change in terms of language from the existing act? If so, what's the precedent for this, or is this some unique creation in British Columbia? I suspect it's been used in other jurisdictions, but I'm curious to know.

[1755]

Hon. S. Bond: There is a change, and one of the reasons that there is change is that this was fairly problematic in the old act.

In fact, our stakeholders told us that… They were critical of the current discovery provision and noted that the current language was very ambiguous and required revision. What we did was look at the modernized limitation acts that were in place in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and in fact the Uniform Limitations Act that was adopted by the ULCC, and they all follow a similar test of discovery.

It is a change. It was based on the fact that there was fairly significant criticism about the ambiguity of the language, and there was certainly significant concern expressed. This does line up with other more modern limitation acts.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand it and give a couple of examples, perhaps, section 6 sets the limitation period: "(1) Subject to this Act, a court proceeding in respect of a claim must not be commenced more than 2 years after the day on which the claim is discovered." So if I am conscious and you run me down in the intersection today, the average person should know that it's two years from today.

If I'm run down in the intersection, and I am unconscious and in a coma for a month, when I come out of the coma, and I'm informed about the accident, then I'm looking at two years and a month, basically, from the date of the accident. Is that fair to say?

Hon. S. Bond: With the example that the member opposite provided, in fact, the clock would start ticking when coming out of the coma, but it would be based on the fact that that would be determined as being a legal disability. So in fact, during that period where you were
[ Page 11085 ]
legally disabled, that period wouldn't count, and the clock would start when you came out of the coma.

L. Krog: Another example. It makes reference to injury, loss or damage, so I'm going to assume that that would include economic loss for breach of contract or a situation where I haven't discovered you're running an operation for me in a business in, I don't know, Pouce Coupe — a lovely example I love to use. I'm not conscious of the fact that you have breached your contract and you have been keeping my store open five hours a day instead of ten hours a day. Therefore, I have suffered an economic loss as a result. Revenue is down, but I'm kind of a clueless fellow, and I haven't gone up to check.

You've been doing this for two years. I go up there tomorrow, and I discover that you have breached your contract to keep my store open ten hours a day, and you only kept it open five hours a day. Does the limitation period start when I go up to Pouce Coupe and say, "Oh my goodness, you have been breaching the contract," or does it start from the time that you in fact kept my store open only five hours a day?

Hon. S. Bond: It is from the point of discovery. But as the member opposite would note, in section 8 it also points out: "…or reasonably ought to have known…." So that would be a point that would be debated — whether or not the member opposite should have known his store was only open half time. It is from the point of discovery, but there is the caveat that looks at whether or not the individual reasonably ought to have known.

[1800]

L. Krog: So knowing is very clear. In other words, the person knew. But "or reasonably ought to have known" is the tricky question which will lead to litigation. In other words, it creates a level of uncertainty with respect to discovery of the fact that you may or may not have a claim. Fair to say?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that's fair. The discovery test does incorporate the subjective-objective test that is used by the courts. In fact, it leaves the discretion to the judge to tailor their decision on the merits of the particular case. I think that's an important principle. It will, obviously, look at what is fair for the plaintiffs.

L. Krog: Actually, let's let section 8 go. We'll do 9.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

L. Krog: Section 9 says: "For a claim set out in section 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 or 17 of an adult person of full capacity, the discovery rules set out in that section apply." So I'm clear about how this is going to work, if I have a claim for fraud or recovery of trust property, if I have a claim for a future interest in trust property, claims for demand obligations — and you're going to have to tell me what that is — claims to realize or redeem security, etc., we go to those specific sections, but otherwise we will rely on section 8 around the discovery rules.

In other words, this is the complete process. There is no other statute or section or reference that we have to consider when it comes to making a decision, if you will, about the nature of a claim. So in other words, I will be limited, if I'm a claimant, by section 8 that says that once I know, the limitation period starts to run — or reasonably ought to have known — in all cases, except those which are set out in 12 to 17, where there are very specific discovery rules, and I have to rely on those.

Hon. S. Bond: Generally speaking, what this says is that if you don't fit neatly into section 8, this gives you specifically where else you need to go. Section 9 simplifies the act by clarifying where to go and look if you don't fit neatly into section 8.

L. Krog: I suspect I might have phrased it the reverse, and perhaps the Attorney General can confirm that she's right and I'm wrong. I'm happy to have that done. My read of this is that the general rule, the overarching rule, is 8. It says you discover, but in specific situations — 12 through 17 — that's where you go to that section. So 8 is in fact the catch-all.

Hon. S. Bond: I think we said the same thing, so maybe it's just the lateness of the hour. Section 8 is the general provision. That's absolutely right. It is the overall catch-all. Then if you don't fit neatly in that category, if it doesn't fit, section 9 outlines where else the other provisions lie.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

L. Krog: This is a fairly long and complex section. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can give examples of what would constitute a fraud or trust claim? I think it's fairly obvious. I mean, in some cases you are executor of a will, trustee of an estate, that kind of thing, but there are other kinds of claims that may be contemplated by this section. I'm looking for some interesting and intriguing examples, if the minister should have any.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, there are some special considerations in this section — special discovery rules for claims based on fraud, etc. So you have a trustee that is managing a trust fund for a beneficiary. The trustee fraudulently uses the funds and then willfully conceals that fraud
[ Page 11086 ]
from the beneficiary.

[1805]

The basic limitation period would start running from the time the beneficiary actually becomes aware of the fraud, firstly, and secondly, that the trustee is responsible for the fraud. So the time doesn't start running in accordance with the general discovery rule, which provides that the beneficiary knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The beneficiary has to become aware of the fraud and the fact that the trustee is responsible for the fraud. That's probably the best example I can give the member.

L. Krog: The language used in sub (2) is "…when the beneficiary becomes fully aware." In other words, there isn't that limitation that the Attorney General has pointed out where you ought reasonably to have known.

In other words, even if you are a bright bulb and one would expect that you would have known something was happening, this section says, specifically with respect to fraud, which we take a particularly dim view of in our society — or trust claims, breach of trust — we are giving you a bit of a break, so to speak, as a claimant. We're saying you have to become fully aware before the limitation period starts to run.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct. This says that the beneficiary must have actual knowledge of the legal wrong. The section carries forward the principle from the current act that vulnerable beneficiaries should be protected, and so they shouldn't be required to be reasonably diligent in ensuring the trustee acts properly. In fact, it does carry forward the principle from the current act, and again, it's related to the vulnerability of beneficiaries.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

L. Krog: This says quite specifically in section 13: "A claim relating to a future interest in trust property is discovered on the later of the following: (a) the day on which the claim is discovered under section 8 or 12, as the case may be; (b) the day on which the interest becomes a present interest."

To use an example, you are holding money in trust for me until I am 45. Say I'm 20 now. When I'm 21, you've scooped the funds. It's the later date. Am I correct? I'm aware at 21 that you've taken my money, but my interest isn't payable to me until I am 45. Does the limitation period extend until I'm 45?

In other words, do you, in theory, have the ability to stick the money back in the trust? In other words, do I get the benefit of those 24 years of knowing that you took my money?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, that would be correct, because the section provides that a claim relating to a future interest in trust property is discovered on the later of three triggers. The member opposite articulated those: the day the claim is discovered under the general test in section 8; the day the claim is discovered under the discovery test for claims based on fraud, or trust property, and those are in section 12; or the day the interest becomes a present interest. So of those three triggers, the later of those three.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

L. Krog: Section 14: "A claim for a demand obligation is discovered on the first day that there is a failure to perform the obligation after a demand for the performance has been made." I'm going to give a number of examples of what I might understand to be a demand obligation. That would include demand for payment under a promissory note that was payable on demand.

[1810]

Would that likewise include an obligation that says that I've hired you, next year, to cut the grass on my country estate — should I be so lucky — starting on May 1? I go up there on May 5, and you haven't cut the grass. Would that be a demand obligation which would entitle me to make a claim? Is that when the breach starts running?

Hon. S. Bond: Okay. Maybe what we'll do is trade examples here because we're having trouble sorting out the grass-cutting one. Some were easier. When you got hit by the car and were in the coma, that one was easier to understand. This one we're having more difficulty with.

Here's the example that I used when I was working through this. An example of a demand loan would be where a mother lends her son, let's say, a sum of money, $50,000, in the year 2000 so he can buy a house. But she doesn't ask for the money back until 2004. The loan is due in 2004, when the mother makes the demand. So that's the demand period — in 2004.

Under the current act, the six-year basic limitation period would apply. Time would start to run in 2000 from the date the mother and son entered into the demand loan. In other words, if the son does not pay his mother back as per her request in 2004, she has until 2006 to sue him in a civil court.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

L. Krog: It says: "A claim to realize or redeem secur-
[ Page 11087 ]
ity is discovered on the first day that the right to enforce the security arises."

If the minister could give me a simple example. I am assuming that perhaps it's a loan with a car as collateral — "or redeem some kind of security." I would assume that a car covered by a loan would mean that.

So the loan is due and payable on May 1, and I don't pay you. That's the day on which this "right to enforce the security" in fact arises, because it was due and payable on May 1.

Hon. S. Bond: Okay, we're going to trade examples again. Yes, a car is involved as a security. So let's say person A borrows some money from person B. Person A says: "Okay, I'm going to provide my car for security for the loan." But person A continues to drive his car as he pays back the loan to person B. So he still has it.

After a few months that person defaults on the loan. The terms of the loan agreement provide that the default occurs on the first day of the missed payment. Person B decides to start a claim against the person to sell the car to pay back the loan. The basic limitation period will start running from the date of the missed payment — for example, the first day that the right to enforce the security arose, not from the date on which the parties entered into the loan agreement.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

L. Krog: Again, to the minister, I won't even throw out an example this time. I'll let her give me an example.

Hon. S. Bond: A contribution claim. We'll start with what happens under the current act, and then I can explain to you what will happen.

Mr. Smith, we'll say, is involved in a vehicle accident in 2001. What he does is he rear-ends the car in front of him. The driver of the front car discovers that he has been injured, and that is in 2006. That's five years after the accident takes place.

[1815]

Just before the expiry of the basic limitation period — because we're talking about the current act now — the driver of the front car sues Mr. Smith for negligence, claiming a head injury. So it's now 2008, and due to several delays — the member opposite and I have had that discussion in question period — the trial is set four years later, for 2012. Now, we would certainly hope that would not be a realistic circumstance.

Just days before the trial starts, Mr. Smith decides to sue the autobody shop for contribution, claiming that the shop was negligent in servicing his car just days before the accident, resulting in faulty brakes. That would have contributed to the accident, so thus the contribution claim.

Mr. Smith serves a third-party notice on the autobody shop in 2012, 11 years after the accident occurred. The autobody shop argues that due to the delay in service of the third-party notice, they are prejudiced in defending the claim. Are you with me so far?

Under the current act it is unclear whether a limitation period applies to govern the contribution claim. Under the new act time starts to run in the basic limitation period for the contribution claim on the later of the date Mr. Smith was served with the paperwork suing him for the motor vehicle accident in 2008 and the date Mr. Smith realizes that his faulty brakes may have contributed to the accident.

Assume Mr. Smith realizes his brakes were not repaired properly one month after being served with the lawsuit. Therefore, the time starts to run in the contribution claim from the date Mr. Smith knows he has a contribution claim against the autobody shop, in 2008. So that means Mr. Smith has until 2010 to serve the third party.

L. Krog: In using the language "contribution or indemnity," would "indemnity" in this section include a guarantee situation? In other words, the bank loans George $1,000, and Sally guarantees payment. The terms are it's a monthly payment. The first month's payment is missed right off the bat. When does the limitation period commence in those circumstances, or is that indeed even covered by the terms of indemnity used in this section?

Hon. S. Bond: We're not certain about the guarantee or the way that the member opposite has referenced that, but indemnity, as the member knows very well, means the right that gives a wrongdoer the ability to recover from another party who is fully responsible for the same injury reimbursement of money paid to the injured person. So not sure about the guarantee. We're a bit confused about that example, but that's the application of indemnity.

L. Krog: I believe what the minister said is accurate and correct. I was just concerned that whether the language used, the term "indemnity," might extend to a commercial situation as opposed to the general situations the minister has talked about. I think I'm on the same wavelength. Thank you.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister again could give an example. This section relates to: "A claim of a person claiming through a predecessor in right, title or inter-
[ Page 11088 ]
est is discovered on the earlier of the following: (a) the day on which the claim is discovered by the predecessor; (b) the day on which the claim is discovered by the person claiming…," etc. A nice, simple example, perhaps a little less complex than the last one used by the minister, would be appreciated.

[1820]

Hon. S. Bond: Okay. An example of a successor claim is, I think, what the member opposite was asking for. So let's assume the new act is in force and person A owns a dairy farm. Person A purchases 100 cows from person B in 2014. Tragically, in 2015 person A notices the cows have mad cow disease, and they start to die.

Person A is planning on suing person B but dies before that happens. So person A dies before he gets to sue the person from whom he purchased the cows. Person A's dairy farm is inherited by his son or his daughter in 2016. This means that person C is the successor.

Person C discovers the claim on the earlier of the day person A discovered the claim and the day on which he discovered the claim in 2016. So the basic limitation period would run from 2015.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

L. Krog: With respect to section 18, is there any significant change from the existing law around minors?

Hon. S. Bond: There are no significant changes in that section.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. S. Thomson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On Vote 16: ministry operations, $1,333,291,000 (continued).

Hon. M. McNeil: Before we begin, I'd like to take this opportunity to get back with a few answers that were taken on notice yesterday. As promised, I'd like to provide the member the list of group homes with full names, so that I will do.

Second, on the number of reportable for children in care, the question actually was: what is the total number of reportable circumstance reports regarding children in care received by the ministry in 2011? The number of reportable circumstance reports regarding children in care of the director — this includes delegated aboriginal agencies — in 2011 was 834.

A follow-up question: does the ministry track the number of reportable circumstances that take place in group homes? Yes, the ministry's reportable circumstance report tracking system is currently child-based, so it does not break down reports by the location where the critical incident occurred. But I can confirm that as a result of your raising the question, this ministry will now track where each critical incident takes place as we receive the reportable circumstance reports for 2012 and '13.

There was one additional. You requested a line-by-line reconciliation for residential services budget between last year and this year. We're currently reviewing and will provide that for the member by early next week.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for being so prompt on her responses.

At the end of yesterday afternoon, if we might go back to that, we were talking about children and youth with special needs. I asked specifically about the question of wait-lists.

I'd heard reports that there were…. I'd raised the issue in question period last week about the Lower Mainland where we had social workers who work with children and youth with special needs with caseloads of 150. They also have wait-lists of about 190. I had asked the min-
[ Page 11089 ]
ister specifically about those wait-lists — how they are being managed and how social workers are expected to deal with them.

Hon. M. McNeil: The member asked a couple of questions. First, I do want to say that the front-line workers…. I'd like to recognize that they deal with some pretty complex situations and families with very high needs.

[1445]

Special needs social workers typically have higher caseloads than their child protection counterparts due to the nature of the work. Caseload numbers don't necessarily represent the numbers of clients they may have that require ongoing direct attention.

A majority of the cases a special needs worker carries — it's an average of 80 to 120 — are largely transactional in nature. By that I mean that it's such as approving the continuation of services they receive, or it requires limited contact.

We have introduced a standardization classification system to assist social workers to better assess their workload. What we have done is a standardized approach to case management. It'll allow MCFD to better assess the workload for child and youth special needs workers.

The new policy categorizes the open files into three levels.

Priority 1 response. These are the high need for support and assistance, usually involving families that are really in crisis or very active families that require a greater intensity of involvement.

Priority 2 response is moderate need for support and assistance. This is where they might be somewhat active, but they might meet with the families every six to nine months.

Priority 3 response. Those are low need for support and assistance. Those are usually transactional programs — i.e., renewals of agreements or once a year or on an as-needed basis.

So we've established criteria for assisting social workers to assess these categories and use their clinical judgment.

One of the ways that the ministry is working to reduce caseload challenges is through integrated case management, ICM, which will improve coordination of services, data collection and information-sharing. Once everyone is up on it, we're anticipating that it'll provide better and faster service. It'll allow people less time at the computer, if you will, and more time with the client.

The wait-list for foundational programs. That's the IDP, supported child development, early intervention therapies, school-age therapies. They're delivered through contracted agencies. They can be assessed by CYSN and their families directly through the contracted agency within the community.

These service providers are responsible for tracking their own service requests and wait-list information. Currently there is no consistent information system that all agencies use to record intakes, wait-lists or service provision.

But there are some mitigation strategies that we have here. I think, probably, in respect of time I can give these to you, because I know you're anxious about the time.

The wait-lists for family support services, however, are managed within the regions, which take different approaches to wait-list management and resource allocation, making it difficult to quantify the number of services provided, the amount of service provided and the level of demand.

Again, we have some mitigation strategies. I can read them here if the member would like, or I can give them to her off line.

C. Trevena: I'd appreciate it if the minister could just give them to me separately. I think that would speed things up.

I have a response to her response. I've got a couple of questions.

We hear from social workers. They don't have the resources. They say they can't cope with having 130 to 150 cases they are dealing with. While some are obviously higher needs than others, there are still 150 cases that they are dealing with, and they say that they don't have the resources.

I hear what the minister is saying — that there is a new policy in place — but I have two questions.

One is: is the ministry looking at providing the front-line workers with more resources to deal with this — for instance, possibly getting more workers in place or having strategies to deal with these large figures, the 150-plus families? Secondly, I understand that policies are being changed. When are these policies actually going to be put in practice across all the regions?

[1450]

Hon. M. McNeil: What I had just mentioned to you about the priority rating and doing that…. That's basically step 1 of how we're proceeding. It's to put a priority rating together so that we better understand the workload and have a consistent tracking system. That is in place now.

Step 2 — that's what we're doing right now — is working with the social workers on mapping a better understanding of the steps that social workers take in doing their work. What exactly is the process they go through? So map that through, and then step 3 will be that in a systematic way, the best we can, we'll make the changes and at that point be in a much better position to review the resource challenges that we do have. That's expected by the fall.

C. Trevena: As a result of the Isolated and Invisible report of the Representative for Children and Youth,
[ Page 11090 ]
the ministry agreed one of the recommendations was that they're going to be ensuring that each social worker has contact with every person on their caseload at least once a year.

I've had certain social workers tell me that this is because of the high caseload and the number of young people that they have on their list — that, effectively, it's just checking a box. They have really very little opportunity to have meaningful contact and believe that this is undermining the intent of the report. I wonder if the minister could respond.

[1455]

Hon. M. McNeil: As part of our continued response to the recommendations in the representative's report, Isolated and Invisible, child and youth special needs workers were asked to identify and see all current high-priority children and youth. Just to give you an idea about what the percentages are, as I mentioned, there are three priorities: priority 1, priority 2 and priority 3. High priority, priority 1 — that's approximately 11 percent of the cases in all regions. Priority 2 is approximately 21 percent. Then priority 3, which is the very low contact, is approximately 67 percent of the caseload.

C. Trevena: The minister didn't answer my question about how we can address the…. When you have 150 cases on a social worker's file — he or she has 150 cases — how can they have any real impact by doing little more than checking a box?

Hon. M. McNeil: Obviously, I didn't explain as well as I could have. As you mentioned, the representative's Isolated and Invisible report asked them to identify and see all current high-priority children and youth. Within a social worker's caseload, as you mentioned, the number could be up to 80 — as I mentioned, 80 to 120. Of those caseloads, the average priority 1, or the high-priority children and youth, is approximately 11 percent of those cases.

C. Trevena: So the recommendation, therefore, isn't to visit everybody once a year? I'll let the minister answer that. I had understood the recommendation was going to be, or the policy of the ministry was, that everybody was going to be visited once a year. If that's not the case, the minister can say yes or no — just a one-word answer.

[1500]

I'm going to move on. As the minister gets advice on that question, I'll raise the issue the minister has mentioned herself — that many of the IDP services are provided by the contracted agencies. I meet very regularly with various organizations which are providing them, as I'm sure the minister does. I have quite a good relationship — I hope I have a good relationship — with Sunrise Resources in Campbell River, in my own constituency. I meet with them very regularly, and they run through their caseload.

I'd like to bring to the minister's attention that Sunrise isn't alone in this. These are not completely current. This was from a meeting about six months ago, but every time I do meet with them, the figures don't change dramatically.

We have an infant development program — a caseload of 78 where it should be 50. This is, as I say, a few months ago. There are 18 children on a wait-list.

Speech language program — a total caseload of 141. It should be 25 to 30. Wait-list — 82. It takes eight months to maybe even see a therapist.

Occupational therapy. It was 120. The OT was really relieved it got down to 95. It's 78 on the wait-list.

These are not unique. I'm quoting the Campbell River ones, but these are not unique. Anywhere that you go, that you visit…. If the minister sits down and talks to IDP, those professionals who are delivering these services, she will hear the same — that these wait-lists are unmanageable. I would like to know from the minister how these agencies that are supposed to be delivering these services on behalf of the ministry are expected to do so.

[1505]

Hon. M. McNeil: The member and I have spoken about this before. I have said that I am aware of the wait-list issue. There are a variety of reasons, depending on the community, depending on the location.

Certainly, in my travels around the province, when I'm meeting with various folks, in some cases it's a matter of them not having enough resources. But often what I've heard, especially in some of the more rural communities or places that are a little more isolated, is that it is a challenge just getting the resource. They have the ability, but they don't have the body. I'm talking in special, in OT, in speech-language especially. These seem to be the ones.

It is one thing that we're trying to figure out. In our mapping and doing the process that we're doing with CYSN, we have got some mitigation strategies here. First off, as an interim measure, is to try to get a sense of the wait-lists for foundational programs delivered by the contractors. MCFD and the contractors are now developing a quarterly reporting process with basic information about the children who may be waiting for interventions and services. It's called a service indicators reporting framework, SIRF. It's an Excel document that's submitted to MCFD on a quarterly basis.

This reporting is by program area, and it does not differentiate unique children. The SIRF data also does not differentiate those children that may be in receipt of one type of service and wait-listed for enhancements. Are they getting a service but are waiting to get an enhanced level, or are they waiting for the individual therapy? But in future, under the balanced contract management and reporting project, we will be defining wait-lists and pro-
[ Page 11091 ]
cesses to support informed decision-making. It's one of the things that we're trying to get a handle on.

First off, as I mentioned earlier, within the different steps is: what is the extent of the program, the issue? What are the things that we can do to maybe assist with the processes? Then: how can we make it less of a challenge? It is a challenge in some of the smaller communities, and it's very hard to bring in people that we might need in specialties. It is something that we are aware of and that we have to keep working at. We have put an additional $400,000 into this situation, and we will continue to monitor.

C. Trevena: While it's obviously important to get a grip on what the situation is, and it's important to have good reporting, I would say that this is not new. I've been an MLA for seven years, I was a critic for child care beforehand, and I've been hearing this for seven years. It's not new. This is severely under-resourced. It's being provided by agencies that are working under contracts that have largely been frozen financially by this ministry, and we've got a flatline budget again.

We know what the problem is. The people on the ground know what the problem is. I don't think it's that much different, really, between…. Yes, in some small rural areas it's harder to get the people who can come and work. The pay is often lower, but I would say that in certain areas in cities you're going to see the same sort of wait-lists.

The minister didn't respond to my previous question, which is: are ministry social workers supposed to visit each member on their caseload once a year or not? I'd just like a verbal yes or no, as that's my understanding of the report. The minister said it was going to be just high risk, so if she could say yes or no.

I'd like to also ask the minister, from the families' point of view…. I'm sure she has also talked to the families. You've got a child with special needs. You've got a lot of pressures there. You may be unemployed. You may be struggling in whatever way. Or you may be a very competent person who comes from a very…. I've been talking to one person, and I know the minister knows of a number of people. You've got a very professional life, and you have a child with special needs.

[1510]

Suddenly your whole life changes, and you're faced with an unnavigable system. It's absolutely impossible to work out how to get from A to B to C, what it is that they are entitled to, how to access it, whether they're entitled to any money, what sort of spots they're entitled to — let alone that once they find out what they can, they find out it's an eight-month waiting list.

I'd like to ask the minister whether, as part of this review, there will be some effort put into making things much more accessible for the families.

[1515]

Hon. M. McNeil: We do have a policy for a once-a-year visit to all, which is now in place. Having said that, the high priority was the one recommended to those high-priority children and youth. That was the priority 1 group that I mentioned earlier. That has already been done.

We do recognize the challenge with wait-lists. Quite frankly, that's why we are reviewing the demand right now, and we have put an additional $400,000 into the budget.

In reference to the member's question on navigability of the system…. It's always a challenge, especially for new families, when there has been a diagnosis. I have it in my own family with a couple of members, and there is always the "now what?"

It is a challenge. What the ministry is doing right now is they're focusing on the high-priority cases first to assist them. Naturally, those are the ones that the greatest need is there.

As I mentioned, for the other — certainly the priority 3, which are 67 percent of the caseloads — there is the website that we have. We are actually in the process of simplifying the website to help families navigate through what they can do and what they can expect as they deal with a new diagnosis.

C. Trevena: Is the $400,000 going to ministry services, or will it be going out to the contracted services?

Hon. M. McNeil: The $400,000 — the majority is going to early intervention services, which are contracted out. I'm sure one of the next questions would be: where are they going? The ministry, I've been informed, is in the process of determining how the money will be allocated to that — to the early intervention services.

C. Trevena: I'm going to switch over to the extended family program now. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant this morning I think gave a very good description of some of the problems of the extended family program.

The minister at the time said that she is going to be looking at changes to the program, and I wondered if she could explain what those changes are. I know that there are people who are working on the front lines who have said that they are eagerly awaiting those changes. I wonder if the minister could explain what they are.

[1520]

Hon. M. McNeil: On the extended family program, I'll just mention that there are some changes that have already been completed: amending, of course, the CFCSA Act to allow for permanent transfer of custody to a person other than a parent without the child or youth having to come into the director's care — again, that's a big step that happened there; embedding permanency planning
[ Page 11092 ]
into the newly drafted policies for the child protection response model; and revising policy and procedures for the extended family program. But again, there are more things that have to happen.

As you heard from one of the members this morning, when they were talking about three different cases, there were three very different challenges within the same program. So there's complexity of the individual issues, and that's why we were very happy to be able to see if these three families, if we could look at these cases to see how it might inform some of the changes that we may need to do with respect to policy.

We're developing a new caregiver education framework, and then we're harmonizing payment rates to court-ordered out-of-care caregivers. As part of their residential review, we're certainly looking at the support that we can give to families, and I think all of these things together will make a difference within the program.

But I think what the member brought up this morning with respect to the challenges of three individual families was a point taken. I think it's something that we can take a look at and see what we can do to make it an even stronger program.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could just tell me, first, how many families are accessing the program and what the budget is for the program at the moment.

Hon. M. McNeil: The extended family program child caseload now totals 393 as of February 2012. That's an increase of almost 200 cases since March 2010, when the caseload was at 195. Budget for this extended family program is at $5.93 million.

C. Trevena: How many families are still receiving support under Child in the Home of a Relative?

[1525]

Hon. M. McNeil: For the '11-12 year Child in the Home of a Relative was 2,649.

C. Trevena: The program that is basically replacing Child in the Home of a Relative has a far lower subscription than the Child in the Home of a Relative. In the minister's review of the extended family program is she looking at ways to ensure that more families can actually access it and have the financial supports there that go with it?

Hon. M. McNeil: I want to clarify for the member opposite that it's not a matter of either-or. The Child in the Home of Relative is a program where, as you know, children are aging out, so it is naturally declining as children age out. The extended family program is the new one that has come in, so it is gradually building up.

You can't sort of compare the two numbers. One is a program that's phasing out, and the other is a program that's beginning and building up.

Having said that, not every family that might have been in the CIHR is necessarily going into the extended family program. There are other options out there, and it depends on new families coming in as to which option works best for them.

C. Trevena: What is the amount that a caregiver would receive under the extended family program?

Hon. M. McNeil: The total monthly amount after the child tax benefit is up to $844.69 to $915.42 for the extended family program. In addition to that, a child disability benefit, if that is applicable, is up to another $208.67 per month.

C. Trevena: The minister said in part of her review that she is going to be looking at harmonizing care rates. What does that mean?

[1530]

Hon. M. McNeil: One of the things that the ministry is doing is…. There is a variety of, as we mentioned, different programs that families have the choice of. What we're trying to do is take a look so that there is some consistency along the rates, so we're harmonizing them. Families are doing the program that's best for them, not necessarily the one where the dollar figures will have an influence. It's more to get some consistency across the board so that the family can actually choose which is the right program for them.

C. Trevena: Does that mean some programs are going to have their rates cut?

Hon. M. McNeil: No.

C. Trevena: There is actually, then, going to be an increase in this budget, because we're harmonizing upwards. We're not harmonizing any program within the ministry for caregivers. No caregiver will get less money under this harmonization of care rates.

Hon. M. McNeil: There will not be a cut, as the member opposite had mentioned. There's not much difference in the rates right now. But we do expect that this will be an area where the ministry will have an increase.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could respond. She also mentioned that in the review…. It doesn't seem to be like a fundamental review of the program; it seems to be sort of like just a bit of tinkering with it. She mentioned that there will be some training for the caregivers.

I wouldn't hesitate to guess that many of these are grandparents, because it's generally grandparents who
[ Page 11093 ]
have been looking after a number of children and really are not looking for training, as the foster parents get. In fact, I have had grandparents say to me: "We need money. We need resources. We don't need training."

I wonder if the minister could explain why the ministry is not looking at improving the resources available to the grandparents or the caregivers rather than training.

[1535]

Hon. M. McNeil: We were just having, I thought, an interesting conversation that I could have continued.

A few months ago I was with Carol Ross of Grandparents Raising Grandchildren. We funded a new phone line for grandparents for $100,000, to help them. They were very excited. There were a couple of people that were going to be answering the phones there that were very excited.

This is not about training grandparents. It's about giving them the supports they need. In the cases where there are some behavioural challenges, where there are kids with special needs, it's about support. They've asked us for that. They're very excited that we're there to be able to help them, because some of these situations they're inheriting are challenging. I think that giving them support is the right thing to do. That's exactly what this program is about.

C. Trevena: I'm going to quickly hand over to my colleague, but I just wanted to come back on that.

The Grandparents Raising Grandchildren is an excellent organization. I think, to be honest, that's about all the support that these grandparents get. They oftentimes feel forced into situations that are going to be…. Because they're looking after the best interests of their grandchildren and they don't have the money, they are very worried about how they're going to support them.

If they become the guardian, they lose all access to this program. Again, we've had this discussion before about navigating the ministry's programs. I think it's very detrimental. I think that if the minister had an open, honest conversation with Grandparents Raising Grandchildren, what she would hear is that while training is very nice, they need financial help.

I'm going to hand it over to my colleague.

N. Simons: Just a few questions about what's taking place with the phasing out of CIHR and the First Nations equivalent of GFA. Will there be a process, besides attrition, that will be transferring folks from the current system to the EFP system?

Hon. M. McNeil: To the member opposite, welcome.

Actually, the member brings up a good point. All families in the CIHR program got notice of the extended family program, and it was their choice whether they wanted to remain in CIHR or to move to the extended family program at that time. They are eligible for other MCFD services. It's not just that.

But with CIHR, what it is, is either they gradually age out of the program, or if they go back to their family, that's another way that they would. Or maybe another new connection with CIHR families to give them the choice, where they could go into the other, might be a good idea.

They had a choice of going in. They continue to have that choice if they like. They can't do both, but they can have either-or — or maybe they're eligible for other programs.

[1540]

N. Simons: Just to clarify. If someone is caring for their grandchild under Child in the Home of a Relative now, and their child's 15, that can stay in place with no changes whatsoever.

Hon. M. McNeil: That is correct.

N. Simons: Will there be a requirement that the CIHR homes now undergo criminal record checks for everyone over 19, and the other necessary checks?

Hon. M. McNeil: What the member opposite is speaking about is that in July of last year there were 1,371 previously unscreened families in CIHR. They were asked to consent to screening by end of September.

Most families have provided their consent. Of the 1,371 previously unscreened families, there are only 28 remaining families that have not. We sent them a third and final letter to let them know that their benefits would end if they chose not to participate in the screening. We've offered to explain the screening program.

I was very pleased to see how many have already gone through the screening. It's down to a remaining 28 families out of 1,371.

N. Simons: Will the families caring for their children under EFP be eligible for the same amount or more or less than under a Child in the Home of a Relative?

Hon. M. McNeil: Currently under CIHR the total monthly amount after the child tax benefit is $604 to $744. In the extended family program it's $844 to $915. So it is more with the extended family program.

N. Simons: Can the member explain the difference between the amounts received under EFP and under a restricted foster home agreement?

Hon. M. McNeil: The restricted foster care, as I mentioned with…. Sorry, I'll go back to the extended family program. The total amount after the child tax benefit is $844 to $915 — somewhere within there, up to there.
[ Page 11094 ]
With the restricted foster care it's $803 to approximately $909. The difference there is the restricted foster care are not eligible for that child tax benefit.

[1545]

N. Simons: I just want to figure out if, in fact, the ministry expects that there will be fewer children receiving supports from family members or non-family caregivers, with the elimination. Does the ministry project that the number of EFPs is going to equal the number of CIHRs in the average year, or do we expect the gate to be somewhat closed tighter and fewer children getting financial assistance through their parent or their caregiver?

Hon. M. McNeil: It's my understanding that Child in the Home of a Relative was a longstanding income assistance program established, as you know, in the 1940s, with little support for families. That's why we are phasing it out.

We're promoting out-of-care options within the ministry to support children to stay with their families. That's really what this is. Children do better. So we are expecting EFP, as a program, to continue to grow as one of the options within the out-of-care options.

N. Simons: I know I'm running out of time. I understand that some of the terminology is…. There's a lot of terminology in MCFD. CIHR was an out-of-care option, but it was also a family option. It was the option that kept children with families.

My concern, I think, just to summarize, is that you'll be dealing with a fairly constant number of children in care, probably not through EFP but through regular protection concerns, and you will see a dramatic increase in the amount of work that social workers will have to put into those EFPs. Social workers are not going to be able to simply ignore the extended family program caseload, as they were the CIHR caseload.

So my concern is that you have a program that requires much more intensive social work involvement and much more time on the part of the social worker in terms of home studies, regular visits and a number of other supports. How has the ministry contemplated or adjusted to the fact that their social workers' caseloads are going to increase because of this change?

[1550]

Hon. M. McNeil: MCFD is actually seeing a gradual decline in the children in care year after year. As well, we have now CIHR gradually declining. That gives us two sort of funding streams that we would be able to take advantage of to ensure that…. I mean, the member is correct. We need to pay attention to make sure that the family support is there for this program. There is an ability for MCFD to take a very good look and a hard look at what is actually happening, as the changeover slowly happens.

C. Trevena: Unfortunately, I don't think that you answered my colleague's question, despite quite a lot of deliberation there, in what are the closing few minutes of this year's estimates debate.

I also note that $7.7 million from Child in the Home of a Relative has gone to children and youth with special needs. It hasn't gone into the extended family program. It has gone specifically into that. My colleague was asking a very specific question that hasn't been answered. I would hope that the minister can provide an answer, perhaps in writing, to him.

I'm moving on now, for the short time we have left. I have a couple of questions on youth agreements. I'd like to know how much is in the…. I will ask these as one question, if the minister can take notes and possibly, before we wrap up, provide the answers on all these.

[1555]

How much is in the budget line for youth agreements? How many youth are on these agreements? How many actually apply for the agreements? And can the minister guarantee that these youth agreements are a stable line of funding so that young people know they can apply in the future?

Hon. M. McNeil: Currently the budget for youth agreements is $7.39 million. As far as how many we're receiving, in January 2012 there were 798 youth receiving services under a youth agreement.

The last question asked was: "Can the youth count on this continuing?" The answer is yes.

C. Trevena: I also asked the minister how many youth had applied for this — if she can respond to that. I also wanted to know from the minister what happens if a young person graduates before the age of 19 and can't get financial assistance for post-secondary until they are 19. So they graduate when they're 18, and they've come out of care. What assistance is the ministry providing there?

Hon. M. McNeil: The question the member asked about is: "Do we have the numbers of those who have applied?" No, we don't. You know, when a youth comes into the office, there are a variety of different options that they have. Youth agreements are one of those options, so it's not as easy to get the numbers. So unfortunately, I can't do that.

The second question you had was whether or not they, if they were on a youth agreement…. Part of that youth agreement is education. So yes, if they wanted, that could be part of the youth agreement.

[1600]

C. Trevena: To confirm with the minister on that, the youth could go for educational assistance when they are
[ Page 11095 ]
18? They don't have to wait till they are 19? If the minister could just make a note of that.

I also wanted to know from the minister what sorts of supports these young people get. Often we're talking about 16-year-olds or 17-year-olds. I'd like to read some quotes from some of these young people: "It seems like they just say: 'Here's your $500 for rent, and go away.' They told me to find my own place and fill out an intent-to-rent form, and they'd send me the cheque. I never knew about paying utilities or how much food costs. I was really on my own. The place was scary and dark at night, and sometimes I was afraid to go home."

Another one is saying: "It seems like it's different for everybody. One of my friends has no help and never gets to see her worker. She hates living on her own, but she has no family. Another person gets everything she asks for. There's never enough money for food, so we go without eating a lot." Another is saying: "The bugs were horrible, and I kept trying to figure out what to do. I felt really alone."

To the minister: what supports are there for young people who are leaving the ministry's care?

Hon. M. McNeil: To the member: first, I want to answer the question that you had about the youth in a youth agreement at age 18. Yes, I will confirm that they do not have to wait till they're 19. Education is part.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

I also want to sort of talk about the youth agreement. You were asking what it actually entails. It does provide residential, educational or other support services and financial assistance to the vulnerable youth, through the plan, for independence. Some of the things that the financial support can include are shelter, security deposits, telephone, hydro and other utilities, food, clothing, transportation, education fees and medical costs.

The ministry did ask the McCreary Centre Society to do a report on this, and they have done so. There were some good recommendations within it, and it's certainly something that the ministry is looking at.

C. Trevena: I was asking what the ministry is doing to support young people, as they are leaving care without…. I quoted some, I think, rather sad — and, for many people, quite shocking — statements from young people who feel that they've been left alone, that they've been isolated.

What I was asking was what the ministry is doing. Rather than just giving a cheque, what are they doing to help young people as they age? If they're not living at home, what are they helping young people to do? As I said, on the youth agreements, they are still the responsibility of the ministry. They don't just give them a cheque, and go away.

The minister said that there are lots of options for youth, that when they come in the door there are lots of options. Social workers do tend to know who is going home and who isn't going home. There are many youth who, I would say, are couch-surfing and who don't receive youth agreements. I wondered if the minister could explain how the ministry is tackling that.

[1605]

Hon. M. McNeil: The member specifically asked about what the services are that we do have for the transition to adulthood for youth agreements. Obviously, within the youth agreement there's the plan for independence, the one-on-one transition worker.

We offer a comprehensive plan of care for youth in care; supported independent living homes or transition homes; life skill courses; a coordinated cross-ministry transition planning approach for youth with special needs, and in situations where trust funds are involved, linking with the public guardian and trustee; youth transition conferencing; and a youth engagement toolkit to strengthen, support and sustain the practice of youth engagement with a focus on adult youth partnerships.

One of the things that our new operational and strategic directional plan does is it has…. One of our targets is to address the 19- to 24-year-old transition.

C. Trevena: I just want to wrap up with this. I think this might be my last question, and with that, I'd like to thank the minister and her staff for this session. I know it has been frustrating at times, and they feel a little bit under the gun. There are a number of areas that I don't feel we have covered, and we'll be writing to the minister for a response.

I just wanted to wrap up with one last question on the youth agreements and the actual support. The minister has sort of enumerated a list of an ideal world, possibly an ideal world. I don't know. What I have been hearing is the loneliness and isolation of young people who are on youth agreements. Obviously, they're in a very difficult situation.

How can the ministry make sure that these young people get that support, all the ones that the minister was talking about, so we don't get stories about what happens when a young person is on their own?

They don't know what they're doing about cooking. They don't know about paying rent. They're very much on their own. They're isolated, and their peers have all got families to go back to, whether it's foster parents or whoever else. How can the minister make sure that these young people can transition through, can grow into people who are productive young people participating fully in our society and not end up with…?

[1610]

What is very sad are the stories one hears of the young people who are in youth agreements, can't cope, end up
[ Page 11096 ]
with mental health problems and then, very sadly, either become mentally ill or potentially commit suicide later on because of a failing in the system. I wonder what the ministry can do to make sure that we aren't facing that and that there is something proactive happening.

Hon. M. McNeil: I think the member opposite…. I mean, she's raising an important issue, and it's one that I think we in the ministry certainly recognize. The best way to tackle it, I believe, is to engage with the youth. That is one thing that the ministry is committed to doing.

In fact, last week I did have the ability to have lunch with three youth in care who came to my office and then came to question period after. It was very interesting. It was a girl and two boys. One of the boys and the girl had very good experiences and talked to me very openly about how they felt they were lucky in the experiences they had. The other fellow who was there, and we had lunch together, said that it wasn't.

We asked why, and he talked to us. I thought, you know, that's the thing that we have to actually do. Rather than talk in formal situations like that, we have to meet with the youth. We have to engage the youth and chat about some of the issues. What are we doing that's working, and what can we do better?

I mean, that's what you need to do. I would be very happy, as is my deputy, to engage the member opposite in the discussion as we chat about what we can do better. Certainly, the McCreary Centre Society has some suggestions, and we also have the new operational and strategic directional plan. When we're able to share it, you'll see that there are some very good ideas. But we'll continue to do what we need to, to move forward.

I do also want to thank the member opposite for all of her hours here discussing things, and the other members who joined in. Thank you very much.

I also want to recognize the fabulous staff that we have here. They have just been very attentive. These are not easy situations, I think, for staff, because you don't know exactly what's coming at you. I do want to thank them all for their time.

Vote 16: ministry operations, $1,333,291,000 — approved.

The Chair: We will have a short recess.

The committee recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:23 p.m.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $806,921,000.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by making some introductory remarks. It is my pleasure to be here today to begin the process of estimates for our ministry. I would like to begin by introducing members of my executive team, to start, who are joining us today. As well, we will be joined throughout this process by other members who I will introduce at the time.

Joining me today I have Grant Main, who is my deputy minister. I have Dave Byng, who is my chief operating officer; Nancy Bain, who is the ADM of the finance and management services department; Dave Duncan, who is my assistant deputy minister for highways; Jacquie Dawes, who is my assistant deputy minister of transportation planning and the policy department. I have Mr. Doug Caul, who is the ADM for partnerships department, and Kevin Richter, who is the ADM of the Infrastructure department.

As I indicated, I have an incredible executive team as well as all of the staff in the ministry, and I will start by simply saying thank you to all of them who do the work on behalf of all of us as we're here.

I know that we will delve into a number of questions. We cover a wide array of issues within our ministry — transportation, all sectors. We cover Crown corporations. But I do want to begin by talking briefly about what we have in our province.

The transportation infrastructure that we have in British Columbia is world-class. It is the backbone to a strong economy. You have to continue to invest in your transportation infrastructure when the economy is going strong. As well, I've said on many occasions that you have to continue to invest in infrastructure when your economy is not as strong as you would like to see it, for the simple fact that you have to build that infrastructure to ensure that it's strong for both industry and the people that live and work here, and for their families, so that as we move forward, we continue to enjoy the quality of life we have.

We're very fortunate and blessed to live in a province of such diversity. We are blessed with resources, and we're rich in abundance, but those resources don't mean a lot if you can't get them to the markets that they have to go to.

[1625]

We have a vast array, as I said, across this province, some very difficult terrain to build roads in. We have other terrain in this province that isn't as difficult. But our transportation network is made up of roads, of rail, of our port system, our air system — all of which I think the members on both sides of the House would agree are world-class. We're very grateful to have the type of investment and the type of people that help us operate these services right across British Columbia.

Today we are going to begin the estimates process with members across. My critic, Mr. Harry…. I guess I can't say your name, Harry. I said it again. Pardon me. The member for Surrey-Newton, Mr. Chair. I apologize for
[ Page 11097 ]
using his name. We have developed a relationship in my year that I've served as the minister, not only with my critic but with other members of the opposition. We try and entertain the dialogue that's needed to continue that working relationship.

I won't take up a great deal of time in my introductory remarks other than to say thank you to the members that I get to work with, to the members of this Legislative Assembly, who are all here to try and build a stronger province and make a better quality of life for all. Members, I'm looking forward to your questions, and I will do my utmost to answer each and every one of them.

H. Bains: I'd also like to begin by saying that this ministry is one of the key ministries, in my view, when it comes to the development of our province and moving into future development and the well-being of our infrastructure.

When the minister talks about different modes of transportation, whether it's a rail system, whether it's a road system, or we have an air or water system, I think all of them say one thing. It is that we not only move people from one place to another; this gives us the opportunity to use our resources, work with the manufacturing industry, move those products across the markets all around the world — and not only just within but all across the world.

I think that pays for many of the social programs that have become near and dear to us. There's no doubt in anybody's mind. As a result, I'm sure, members on both sides of the House take this ministry very, very seriously, along with all of the other important work that goes on, on the government side.

I also want to say that as we delve into different parts of this file, whether it's TransLink, whether it's B.C. Transit, handyDART, B.C. Ferries — you name it — I think the questions sometimes, you know, could be a little painful for the minister. But I think the questions are not directed at the staff.

I want to say this. It should be recognized that I do have a lot of respect for the staff, because I also have had the opportunity to work with many of you in dealing with some of the issues that were brought to my attention and to the people on our side. When I talk about incompetency sometimes, when I talk about….

It has nothing to do with the staff. I think there are very, very competent people there. It is all directed at the minister and the government policies. The minister, I'm sure, has broad shoulders, and this will not be a hockey-like kind of contest here, I hope. You know, thinking about playoffs right now….

I do want to say this. We have limited time. I think that we will be going until the afternoon of Thursday, I'm told. Thursday morning, so that the minister and the staff can prepare, I think we will be dealing with B.C. Ferries. Between now and Thursday the other members from my side may want to come in from time to time. They may have some issues about roads and bridges and road maintenance or other transportation questions.

[1630]

I am looking forward to asking some of these questions. The idea here, again, is not… Yes, we will get into some debates on policy. Sometimes that happens. The idea is to get some answers on many of the questions that exist out there for people who are listening — or watching, perhaps — and who may have questions that they're not getting answers on when they are phoning the government offices, or they may not be getting the service that they feel that they deserve. So those will be some of the questions that will be coming from our side.

Again, like I said, it has nothing to do with the staff, and the staff should not take it as such. If there are faults in the system, it's all on the government, and it's the minister who's responsible for this file.

With that, I will start with just the overall budget questions. If you look at the Supplement to the Estimates — STOBs, as we call them, I believe — and if you look at the last line here, $806.921 million seems to be the total operating expenses. If the minister could confirm how he arrived at that number.

When you look at it, there are some external recoveries that we went through last time. Then there also seem to be two numbers here, and I will delve into that later. Perhaps the minister could explain to the House: what was the total expenditure for the ministry, both capital and operating, for this year?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I see we're off to a rousing start. And certainly, respectful questions will get respectful answers. I'll assure the member of that.

Our total capital spend, along with our operations. You touched on the operations at $806.921 million. Combined with our capital and operating, we will have a budget this year of $2,069,482,000.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could give me a breakdown. First of all, maybe the question is: could the minister perhaps could go through how we arrived at total external recoveries?

[1635]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think very similar to last year, as we canvass these questions…. Our recoveries come through the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority. I can read them into the record if the member would like. It'll take some time here.

Cost recoveries. Our rehabilitation projects, cost recovery of $146 million. Interior and rural side roads, $50 million. Oil and gas rehab infrastructure program, or OGRIP, as we refer to it, $44.752 million. Pine beetle roads, $30 million. Expansion projects, $523.372 million. P3 performance payments, $79.467 million. We will look
[ Page 11098 ]
to the provincial transit plan for $7.607 million. Moving on to the Bike B.C. grants, for example, we have…. Just bear with me.

The B.C. Transit plan is $322 million. Inland ferry operations, $5.915 million. Inland ferry, for the Francois Forester capital, is $9.705 million. We will go down to other project support at $1.682 million.

The list goes on, Member. That goes to the total of $1.22 billion on the recoveries. It is all through the BCTFA — is how that recovery happens.

H. Bains: So that everyone who is listening understands, the different areas under British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority, are we talking about…? Those are the areas that the minister had mentioned are the revenue-generating areas? If you are investing $1.2 billion, plus $800 million operating, you're talking about a $2 billion total budget.

Perhaps the minister could clarify if this is the expenditure or if this is the revenue generation by the British Columbia financing authority.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Our recovery is through the BCTFA. How that works is…. There's no staff in the TFA. For the Ministry of Transportation, our capital, they will incur the debt. The money is then recovered from the TFA to fund the projects that we actually deliver on behalf of British Columbians. So hopefully, I'm explaining that, where the TFA will secure the funding. They do it on theirs. They also get the gas tax — the BCTFA.

[1640]

Then the revenue we need is recovered from the BCTFA in order for us to pay for our capital programs each year.

H. Bains: So as I understand, BCTFA is a government Crown corporation that generates financing for the projects that the ministry takes on. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, it is, Member.

H. Bains: So what are the revenue sources for BCTFA?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The revenue sources for the BCTFA…. Obviously, one is the fuel tax that goes to them. The other is their borrowing.

H. Bains: Last year I think we went through this. The third revenue source that was identified was the sale of property. So there might be some real estate sales. Now, are those still the only three revenue sources for BCTFA?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Obviously, the majority is the fuel tax and the borrowing through the TFA. Other revenue sources — we canvassed this I think before, last year. There is some land sale revenue that goes in.

There will be the transfers from the federal government when there are partnership projects where they will share in the cost-sharing of those. That would go in there. There will be interest in sinking fund earnings under the other revenue. But the vast majority of the revenue for the TFA is fuel tax and their borrowing.

H. Bains: Can the minister give us a breakdown. What is the total revenue generated through fuel tax? How much was borrowed, and was there a sale of real estate in this year?

[1645]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Fuel tax collection in this year's budget, $435 million. That goes to the TFA. Real estate, $1 million in sales. Obviously, how much was borrowed? The remainder, between the $1.22 billion that I talked about earlier in our comments, would be the amount left to be borrowed by the BCTFA.

H. Bains: Lines 89 and 90, I think, are the two that I'm looking at — or the STOBs, we call them. So 89 is recoveries within the government reporting entity, and 90 is recoveries from the external to the government reporting entities.

I think the question I will start with will be…. The items listed under 89 — these are the amounts under different parts here listed — for example, transportation and infrastructure improvement, $537 million, and then it goes on down to a total of $1.22 billion. The way to read this would be that this is the total revenue generated through BCTFA, and the ministry expended an equal amount.

[1650]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Obviously, it's STOBs 89 and 90 that you are referring in the blue book that we are dealing right now with in this question. As we recover that revenue from the BCTFA, that is the money that we spend on our programs. There's gross, obviously — so 89 and 90. When you look at it, 90 is the other sources.

So yes, the money we recover from them is money that we spend as a ministry to deliver the programs that we talked about earlier. It's a flow-through in the sense that they get the money. We deliver a program; we recover the money we've spent to deliver those programs from the BCTFA.

H. Bains: Whether they're internal to the government reporting authority or external to the government reporting entities, the total comes to $1.262 billion, the total of the two, because 89 is within the government reporting entity and 90 is external. Perhaps the minister could explain what some of the external to the government reporting entity areas are that this revenue is recovered from.
[ Page 11099 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The external recoveries — the vast majority come through the TI Corporation, where ministry staff within the Ministry of Transportation do work on behalf of the TI Corporation. We recover $35 million under those external recoveries, out of the total of $42 million. I think that is the number that the member is referring to — on the external.

[1655]

Another significant number would be ICBC, under the road safety projects — another $3 million recovered there. Then there's miscellaneous on the recovery of the other dollars.

H. Bains: Can the minister advise the House…? Part of the recoveries from within the government reporting entity is write-offs of uncollectible revenue related to accounts. What are those, and can you list them?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm not aware of any write-offs as far as…. I have to believe the member is referring to the external recoveries and the $42 million. Correct me if I'm wrong, Member. I guess your question leading to the fact: is there extra money that wasn't recovered due to write-offs or write-downs that we had to do? No, is the answer to that.

H. Bains: No, it is part of the $1.22 billion, I believe, because it is within the government reporting entity area. This is the revenue sources — the recoveries. It totals to $1.22 billion. Part of that is the write-offs of uncollectible revenues.

It seems to me, reading from here, that there must be some revenues that were to be collected, and they were uncollectible, for whatever reason. What this means, because this is what it says…. It talks about "costs and amounts recovered from government corporations, organizations and agencies; the offset for commissions paid for the collection of government revenues and accounts; and the write-off of uncollectible revenue-related accounts."

Perhaps if you could clarify: what portion of that $1.22 billion, if there's any, makes up from this particular area of write-off that I asked earlier?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I understand the member's line of questioning, and I follow that. You're reading the definition of that STOB, and it says that. What I'm saying is that although that's in the definition — the budget you're referring to, and the question — there is none in that $1.22 billion.

H. Bains: Three revenue-generating areas were identified for BCTFA — fuel tax, sales of property, and the remainder was borrowed. We know, the minister has said, that the fuel tax brought in $435 million and sales of property brought in about $1 million.

As the minister also is fully aware, in this year's budget the government announced $708 million to recover through sale of government properties all across the province.

My question to the minister is: does this become part of that government revenue-generating plan? Is this in addition to it, or is this not something that is tied to that portion of this year's budget?

[1700]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Out of the $1.22 billion that you're referring to — and, Member, again, because these are some very significant numbers, some very finite accounting when you go into this — the land sale portion of that on the recoveries is $1 million in the budget we're talking about this year.

H. Bains: I get that. I think that was the answer you gave us earlier.

The government, as a separate item this year, announced that, in order to balance the budget going forward, they will be selling government property to the tune of $708 million. Is any of that, that portion of the budget, coming out of this $1 million? Or the question would be: is the Minister of Transportation selling any land anywhere to the tune of…? I mean, this is what you've already sold, as I gather, but is there a plan to sell it?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, the $1 million isn't money we've already received. I just want to go back to that number. That is the budget that we are talking about this year. So I'm going to go forward.

The $708 million you're referring to in '13-14 is led by the Minister of Finance for that. I'll encourage the member to discuss that when the Minister of Finance does his estimates and, certainly, get the answers there. He is the lead minister on this, and that ministry is the lead on that file.

H. Bains: We move on to the total, then. Between $1.262 billion…. We have $435 million that was generated through the fuel tax, and $1 million through a property sale. The remainder, the minister said, was borrowed — which, just from rough calculations, comes to about $726 million. My question is: the $806 million — is any portion of that going towards paying and servicing that debt?

[1705]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, none of the $806 million operating budget is going to pay debt.

H. Bains: So how do we pay and how do we service that debt?
[ Page 11100 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The $806 million — that is our operating. As I said, none of that goes to fund the debt. The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority is a separate entity. They will raise the funds through — as we've talked about this and canvassed — the gas tax, for example. There will be land sale. There will be the borrowing that you've put your numbers to. That's an entity unto itself. So that's how they generate, and then we recover, once we've delivered the program, from that entity.

H. Bains: When we are talking about a $2 billion expenditure by this ministry this year, when you add $1.22 billion, $42 million and $806 million — that is the operating — is any of that amount debt being generated and added to the provincial debt?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, any of the money that is borrowed — by the BCTFA, for example — will go to the debt, the bottom-line debt of the provincial government.

H. Bains: Just to further clarify, so this year we would be adding $726 million to the provincial debt. If I recall last year's estimates, it was about a similar amount. So each year we're adding to the tune of $700 million plus to the provincial debt. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I didn't introduce Mr. Dave Stewart, who has joined us as well, Member. He is our chief financial officer.

[1710]

Yes, we incur that debt on a year-over-year basis. It fluctuates some. This is the money that goes to projects in every corner of this province. It drives our economy. It goes back to what I talked about in my opening comments — about infrastructure and the development of that. And it certainly generates jobs and opportunity in our province — so money well spent on behalf of the people of British Columbia, I believe.

H. Bains: I just want to clarify how these numbers work. We have established that this year, at least, $726 million will be added to the provincial debt. Previously this is how we have managed these finances. Any money borrowed by BCTFA becomes debt to the government. The minister is nodding, which means yes.

I will move on to some of the other areas. The $806 million that is the ministry's operating budget this year — how much of that is…? I guess I'm trying to get to the provincial transit plan. How much of that, Minister, can you say that you could allocate in order to manage that particular part of the file?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Out of the $806 million operating budget, $161.217 million goes to the provincial transit plan.

H. Bains: Maybe I may have to further clarify. I think the $161 million the minister mentioned is also listed under public transit. Is that what the minister has suggested? I'm talking about the provincial transit plan that was unveiled — $14 billion. Then there are different projects that come under that.

I'm not sure if the minister was suggesting this $161 million is used to manage that particular part of the file. If that is correct, then perhaps the minister could tell me.

[1715]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think what the member is referring to is the capital, which is not the $806 million. That's the operating budget. Maybe when the member wants to go into the capital side, we'd probably be better versed to do it at that point, because the numbers that I referred to are out of the $806 million.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Member. I think you're referring to, probably, capital expenditures. Under the B.C. transit plan, for example, they would be dealt with under capital, not the operating budget.

H. Bains: No. I'm actually not talking about the capital part. That file still has to be managed.

Perhaps I could go into a different mode of questioning. How many staff members or ministry staff are allocated or are responsible for managing projects such as…? Because part of that capital project has many of the projects under it — TransLink and others, perhaps Port Mann or the gateway projects. Many of those are there — and the Evergreen line, where the ministry is the lead, as I understand it, of constructing that line.

So there would be a number of staff responsible to manage those different files. My question is…. Part of this $806 million operating would be to pay for the staff, or their salaries and other expenditures, to manage and look after that particular part of the file.

Maybe you could break it down. How many members are actually responsible for the TransLink file? How many members are responsible for the Evergreen file? And perhaps the minister could tell me, if it's not a full person at any given place, about how many FTEs. Maybe we could talk about that. The idea is that I'm trying to figure out how much of the resources are set aside to manage the public transit plan, in the Lower Mainland at least.

[1720]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: In the transit branch we have 12 employees. They cover a wide range of issues when it comes to the public transit side.

You mentioned the Evergreen line. We have nine additional people that will work specifically on the Evergreen line itself.

H. Bains: Those nine will be in addition to the 12.
[ Page 11101 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes they are, Member.

H. Bains: So nine for the Evergreen line and 12 to deal with different other projects in the Lower Mainland. That could be TransLink. There could be other projects that those 12 are responsible for managing. Their salary, their cost comes out of the $806 million — right?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, it does come out of the $806 million. It's not just for the Lower Mainland, though, Member. That is across the province.

H. Bains: Let me ask some questions on TransLink. Last year the minister also reported that there were 12 members responsible for TransLink and other related files.

Let me start with the governance of TransLink. As the minister full well knows, the Mayors Council has been asking for it for a long time now. When the previous minister, the current Minister of Finance, restructured the TransLink board, the governance structure, the members were originally appointed. I understand that now they come through the Mayors Council, and new members are appointed as the need arises.

The mayors are saying they are disconnected from the decision-making process. They are saying that if they need to fix something, they are alienated at TransLink. They are saying that they feel they are held responsible for all the problems at TransLink.

When the board comes up with the policies relating to public transit in the Lower Mainland and it goes to the Mayors Council for approval, they are only allowed to say yes or no. They cannot even recommend anything. They cannot amend that policy. If they say yes, then they are asked to pay for that policy as well.

My question to the minister is this. Given that they have been asking the government; given that they have said that the current structure does not work; given that they are saying that we are the ones who are making land use decisions, that we are the ones who actually know what the needs of their communities are as far as the public transit is concerned…. All experts agree, and I think the minister will agree, that the land use decisions and public transit decisions go hand in hand.

They are saying that we are making decisions on land use every day, and there are public transit policies being developed somewhere else, so we are not connected. They have asked to have a better role to play on the TransLink board.

The minister decided to unilaterally add two members from the Mayors Council, rather than waiting for the Mayors Council, which has established a subcommittee to come up with a recommendation on how to improve the governance structure. Rather than waiting to get their recommendations from them, the minister went ahead again, like his predecessor, who said: "I will tell you what's good for you, and I'm going to appoint these people. They are going to run TransLink, not you, because that's good for you."

[1725]

I think that's how it has failed today. They're saying that the appointment of two members does not go far enough, and it will not work. They have rejected that. They're quoted in public by the vice-chair and by the chair of the Mayors Council.

So my question to the minister is this: how are you going to involve the mayors fully, in making the decisions that are important to their communities, at the TransLink board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know we have canvassed this on different occasions, Member.

I have now served on this portfolio just a short time, over a year. I have had the opportunity to meet with the Mayors Council on TransLink on numerous occasions. The question was raised early on: "Is there a way that we can work together to find something that would work better than what we have now?"

I certainly made that commitment to the Mayors Council, but I also made it very clear that I was not there to blow up the existing governance structure. That was not in the cards, for myself. I made that clear from the first meeting I was at through every meeting I was at.

We have actually put forward a proposal to the Mayors Council. I have not yet received a formal response from the Mayors Council. But the addition of the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council to the nine-member board that presently sits is, I think, a very positive move. In the direction that…. The Mayors Council have said that they haven't had input at the board level. They're looking for input. I'm very interested to see the response that comes back.

Again, I want to be very clear. There was never an indication at any point in the term that I have served as the Minister of Transportation, in my meetings with the Mayors Council, that there was a discussion that we would blow up the governance structure. We would look to a full new…. I have always said that I would work with them to refine it, to have it work better.

I'm certain the member…. You can clarify this, Member. I won't put words in your mouth. I hope you're not saying that the previous system worked much better, because I think that would be a stretch.

H. Bains: I can say this much, Minister. The system that was put together by your predecessor certainly did not work. Everyone agreed on that one. The mayors agree on that. The communities agree on that. The riders of public transit agree on that. By the minister changing and adding those two members, I think that the minister also acknowledged that that system did not work.
[ Page 11102 ]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The question is this, with respect, Minister. The previous minister back in 2008 decided that his actions were going to be the best for TransLink. But that was not asked by the mayors. That was not asked by the community either. It's just because that minister, at that particular time, had a huge disagreement on what kind of policies needed to be delivered at what time, the timetable — right?

[1730]

He decided: "I'm going to exercise my right as minister. I'm going to fire you all, I'm going to bring people in, I'm going to appoint people, and I'll get my own way." He said that that was the best system that he could come up with. It didn't work, and then we are in the mess that we are in today, both on the financing side and on the governance side.

My question, again, remains with the minister. Yes, you may not have promised them anything. My question is how you arrived at this decision, that this is the decision that is going to serve the need of those mayors and the communities and TransLink overall in order to deliver those services. How do you justify that decision when the mayors were saying one thing…? They are on record publicly, both the chair and vice-chair, that this does not go far enough. Since that time they have suggested that the Auditor General of the province should come in and review the governance of this inefficient structure that we have right now.

The mayors are the ones that we will be asking, again, to fund many of those projects, but we are not consulting with them when we are making these changes, or we are not listening to them when we are making these changes. How do you justify those actions, Minister, by simply saying: "I'm going to do this because I feel that's a good thing to do"?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You asked: how did I come to that decision? Obviously, through, I think, a great deal of discussion. If having a discussion is "it's their way or no way," I don't think that's much of a discussion. You try and find that balance.

I do think, and I'll follow with what the member said…. I don't believe the first attempt at what was taking place at TransLink was working well. What we've heard is that the change that my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance, at the time serving in this position, made.

I have heard that there are challenges there, in working with the Mayors Council over the last year. I've determined that there are some changes. I call them refinements, because I'm not blowing this up and starting over.

I think that they wanted access into the planning portion. They needed input into that. I think that putting the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council onto the board allows that to happen. I think it is a window into that planning.

You also mentioned, Member, that they have to answer for the money. They're asked to fund part of this as well. I do want to be very clear that not just they are asked to fund this. I'll use the Evergreen line, for example.

[1735]

The federal government has injected $417 million into that line. That comes from all Canadians. The provincial government is in for $583 million. So people in Pouce Coupe, people in Terrace, people in Smithers, people in the Kootenays, people on the Island are paying to fund the Evergreen line. So this is a collaboration of everybody trying to work for a better system, and I think we're moving towards that.

I think the suggestions I put forward to the Mayor's Council…. As I said, I'm waiting for a formal response. I think they're going help us get there. I'm looking forward to their reply.

H. Bains: The issue is this. There is no question there's collaboration and cooperation from different levels of government when it comes to these types of projects. I think that's how we run the country. We put money in a pot, and we allocate where the money is needed so that everyone benefits.

The mayors are a big part of the funding source. If you look at the Evergreen line, TransLink was to come up with the $400 million, their portion. Now, that money comes from the communities — right? They need to go out and borrow, and that needs to be paid back, and the debt needs to be serviced. As the minister knows, that's where the two-cents-per-litre gas tax came in, and the mayors had to pass that.

I think they're saying: "Look, we are prepared to play a part, but we need to be at a decision-making table." And they're not there. With this new move, they still feel that they're not there yet. I would have thought the cooperation and collaboration….

If you were to meet somewhere, not exactly what the mayors wanted and not exactly what the previous minister wanted…. Somewhere in there the mayors are comfortable that their voices are being heard, that they have real input in that decision-making process.

By adding just two — I heard them loud and clear in public — they are saying that that doesn't go far enough. Anyway, I think the decisions are made. I'm not sure whether the minister is willing to change his mind if the mayors come back with certain different recommendations.

They are already on record saying that we want the Auditor General of the province to come in and do the review of TransLink governance. Is the minister prepared to listen to their request to bring the Auditor General to review the governance structure and perhaps look at those recommendations to make it work?
[ Page 11103 ]

At the end of the day, I have respect for the minister — this minister, Mr. Chair — because you generally try to deal with the issues. There's no doubt in my mind. But I think that how we approach this is the issue that we are raising here. The mayors, on one hand, are saying that there are different ways of doing it but there needs to be real consultation before we make that final decision. But the minister here is saying that we have already made our decision.

Now they're saying: "Well, bring in the Auditor General to see what the third-party, totally independent body reviewing the governance recommends." Then put that structure together so that we can move forward, where everyone feels part of the decision-making process.

Then once those decisions are made, Minister, you know — in your life and my life — that those decisions are carried through, and they will make them work because those become their decisions. Now they feel that it's somebody else's decision that they have to carry through and they have to fund.

I think that's the debate that is going on. But it does not help the people south of the Fraser, for example, and other Lower Mainland communities who are waiting to have improvement in their neighbourhoods so that they can leave their cars home, leave less of a carbon footprint and have an affordable, efficient public transportation system — by leaving the cars at home, because that would be a real alternative to moving around and going to work or doing their business. That's where I think the debate is.

Why don't we listen to the mayors, bring in the Auditor General to do a thorough review of the governance, look at the recommendations and then move forward?

[1740]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we go down this road and discuss the governance issue or TransLink, just a couple of quick points. The mayors approved the two cents per litre. You said the mayors asked the government of that. That was a request of the Mayors Council — to come up with a portion of their funding for not only the Evergreen line but the Moving Forward supplement.

Again, I know the member mentioned, and with the greatest of respect, that the communities pay for their portion. That was certainly an agreement that was reached some time ago. Other communities — and I think the member is aware of this — will pay. If there is a new hospital capital project, for example, throughout the province the regions pay 40 percent of that.

When the model was put together for Metro Vancouver and TransLink, they no longer had to pay their 40 percent of that hospital capital. But in exchange, they would have to fund their portion of the transit. I think it's a pretty reasonable approach to do that. I guess an argument could be made: how much would cost more? Would it be more to fund the capital on the hospital or on the transit? But that was an agreement that was reached.

I do think — and I want to go back to this — again, most people would agree that there were challenges with the previous system in how it operated. There were challenges because communities couldn't always agree. I understand that. There's give-and-take, but at times they couldn't agree.

There was a professional board put in place, and I think they've made some very good decisions. I think they've done some good work. But I've heard, without question, that — you know what? — the mayors need some input into that planning.

Through the discussions, I have come, certainly, with my idea that I think adding the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council to that professional board of directors on TransLink is a great window to have the Mayors Council's issues represented at that board.

I have a great deal of respect…. The work I've done with the chair and the vice-chair over the last year in this position…. I've known them before, but certainly, focused very clearly on the work we've done together, I have no doubt that they will serve the Mayors Council well. I think this model is one….

I guess what I really have to say, though, is that I have to wait. I can't predetermine what the Mayors Council is going to come back to me formally with. But I do know that the direction I've set — and responded to the Mayors Council, through my discussions over the past year, with the offer — and what we're going to do with the chair and the vice-chair going onto the board is, I think, a very positive step and will work well.

H. Bains: They passed some resolutions in response to Mr. Crilly's report. One of them was, as I understand, to ask the Auditor General to come in and do the review of the governance. My question is: is the minister willing to comply with that request, if that request comes to the minister, to review the governance and adopt the governance? Or is it a done deal?

[1745]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, I want to go back to the fact that although the motions you're talking about they released publicly, I sent a formal letter to the Mayors Council. I know they've requested more time to look at that letter. I believe they're meeting in May. I do expect a formal response from the Mayors Council at that time, at which time I will take the letter, and I will go through it.

But again, I don't want to speculate on what may or may not happen. We are going to do an efficiency audit. We made that very clear. A number of the mayors began asking for that some time ago. I think — I don't have the quote in front of me — it was to the tune that "we do not want to approve a single other funding source until we have an efficiency review done of TransLink."

I think that resonated very well with the public. I think the public are saying: "Look, TransLink, if you're coming
[ Page 11104 ]
to us and Mayors Council to ask us for additional funding for future projects and ongoing operations, we want to be assured that the operation is run as effectively and as efficiently as possible."

I agree with that. I think that is a reasonable request. We are doing an efficiency audit, and I'm looking forward to those results. It will kick off within the next month. It will be concluded by the end of the summer, and I'm looking forward.

That audit will build upon Commissioner Crilly's work that he has just released in the report which I'm sure the member, I know, has had the opportunity to look at already as well.

H. Bains: Yes. That's where I wanted to go next — the efficiency audit.

I think before I do that, the question still is out there. The mayors will be making a decision. My question is: is the minister open to recommendations that may come from the mayors? That may include — I'm just going by the motions that they passed — either asking for review by an independent auditor general or some other recommendations that they may come out with.

Is the minister open to receive those recommendations and comply with them — or go some distance in making those requests be included in the final decision?

The Chair: I'll remind the member that questions that are hypothetical or require the minister to speculate are not in order. So I'd ask the member to ask another question.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: One more time on that. We've obviously, I think, made great progress over the year. I am going to await the response from the Mayors Council. But again, if the request is to change the governance structure to do that, I couldn't have been clearer since the first day I met with the Mayors Council to the last time I met with them. I am not, as the minister responsible, about to blow up the governance structure at TransLink.

I committed to them that I would work with them to refine it and make it work better and to try to address the concerns that they raised — of which I concurred, or I wouldn't be standing here saying that we are going to make some refinements through the appointments of the chair and the vice-chair to the board. I think they raised a valid point. I think this addresses that.

H. Bains: I'll move on, but I will say that the mayors have got their answer: don't waste your time in recommending anything to change the governance. As the minister is saying — as I read it; the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — the decision has already been made as far as the governance structure is concerned.

On the efficiency audit. Minister, you mentioned in the coming month. Is there a specific timeline of when this efficiency audit will begin? Who's involved, and who's conducting this?

[1750]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The Ministry of Finance internal audit team will be the people who will do the efficiency audit. We are presently, as I indicated, building the terms of reference, building upon Commissioner Crilly's work.

It is my intention to have that internal audit done as quickly as possible starting, as I said, within the next month, I hope, but concluding by the end of the summer. There are some time sensitivities to this. I don't think it should take longer than that. The commitment I have made to the Mayors Council — the ones I've talked to on this — is that it is my intent to have that internal audit done by the end of this summer.

H. Bains: In order to put the real dates or the timelines, is the minister suggesting that next month means…? It could be the beginning of the month. It could be the end of the month. Are there any specific time frames being looked at right now? What would be the final date — end of summer? Are we talking about the end of August or before the end of August?

Also, while we're at it, this will be the third efficiency audit, I think, in the last couple of years. The first one was with the previous minister, commissioned through the comptroller general's office, and Mr. Crilly has conducted his own, and now we are doing a third one.

My question to the minister is: aside from the timelines and who actually will be conducting this review, I would also like to know what the terms of reference will be and what the scope of this investigation or review is. How is this different than those two reviews that they have conducted?

The comptroller general came out with a number of recommendations for how we can realize efficiencies. They looked at the management structure and made some recommendations. Since that time, my understanding is that TransLink made some changes and adopted some of those recommendations.

Mr. Crilly has also conducted a review. Mr. Crilly also talked about the governance part and actually said — not in his exact words — that it has caused less efficiency than previously and that it cost extra to run TransLink. How is it going to be different? He came up with, I think, about 13 different areas where the efficiencies can be realized to the tune of $40 million to $60 million per year. Over ten years it's about $500 million — a lot of money.

My question to the minister would be this. How is this efficiency report going to be different than Mr. Crilly's report and the comptroller general's report? Is this going to come up with something new?

[1755]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll do the time frame first, Member.
[ Page 11105 ]
You asked on that. We're moving as quickly as we can. We want to make sure that in developing the terms of reference, we will build upon Commissioner Crilly's work. By the end of summer — and I'm talking about summer in our province, not just up north where sometimes it can be a little shorter than other areas…. The end of August is the time frame I expect this to be completed.

Now, if that is the third week in August or the fourth week…. I don't want to say the third week, and it comes in, in the fourth week because then the member will be asking those questions. So by the end of August I'm very confident that can be done.

The comptroller general did a report on this. TransLink has acted on a number of those recommendations — I think on the executive, the size of it and so on. So there was movement made on that. Commissioner Crilly, in his work, obviously indicated, when you go through it, that there is room for more in-depth study to find that, to find savings in there.

Without question, the other side of it is that the board has certainly received well the audit that we have proposed. And not only that, the mayors have asked for an efficiency audit, and I don't want to lose sight of that. The request came, and the statements were made that not one new funding source would be entertained until we have this efficiency audit. I think building upon Commissioner Crilly's work, the comptroller's work — on which some actions have been taken already — is going to be positive.

You know, I hear and I'm sure the member probably hears from the public a great deal. I have not had a negative response to the request for an efficiency audit or the efficiency audit that was announced. People are looking forward to that. I do believe that people expect and enjoy right now a world-class Metro Vancouver transit system — without question.

There is significant demand on that system as the population grows. I do think people understand that as that system's needs grow and the requirement for additional capital, there will be the requirement to pay for that. If people are asked to pay for something, they want to ensure that where their money is going is to the most efficient, effective organization. I think this is going to give the people that comfort once this work is done.

H. Bains: I don't believe anybody would disagree to do a review or audit to make sure that we could find some efficiencies so that our institutions are run as efficiently as they can and so that they are spending tax dollars as prudently as possible, as they can be. I think the question becomes…. When there's a review, then there's another review, and now we are talking about a third review….

[1800]

Yes, the mayors asked for the review. But they have since said that since we have Mr. Crilly's report, and he has done an in-depth review and come out with the recommendations on where to find efficiencies…. Now they're saying that there perhaps isn't a need anymore for the audit. I've heard that from the mayors. They're in the media, making those comments.

So my question is: what is this new review going to find that Mr. Crilly and the comptroller general couldn't find? Are we saying that those two reports did not go deep enough? Are we going to expand the scope?

I mean, the public needs to know if it's an audit for the sake of an audit, because somebody asked for it. Then they say: "Well, we've already got one audit. We don't need it." That's what the mayors are saying. The public will be questioning why we are wasting all these resources and time when we should be actually fixing the problems we have that had been identified in those two audits.

What extra, new information is the minister looking for that those two reports couldn't find? Perhaps the minister needs to convince the public that their investigation or their review was too narrow in scope and that Mr. Crilly didn't go far enough or didn't have a mandate to go far enough.

I mean, something of that nature, of substance, needs to be put forward so the public can really understand that, yes, the third one is needed because of these real issues that weren't addressed in the first two audits.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You know, I think we are fixing the problems at TransLink right now, working with the Mayors Council. You indicated that I should have to convince the public that this audit is needed. I don't think there's any convincing needed out there with the public — certainly, with the information I've gathered, the e-mails I've had come in.

[1805]

A couple of issues. We aren't going to do an audit, Member, for the sake of doing an audit. I concur with that. I will read the media release for the report itself, and I'll read this into the record for you, Member.

"The commission has completed an efficiency audit of TransLink. This indicates scope for new cost savings. The review offers ballpark estimates of savings in illustrative areas such as bus system logistics, bus maintenance and overheads." We are going to build upon that ballpark figure that the commissioner refers to.

Is there room for a more in-depth audit? If the explanation you're looking for is "what will we gain?" it will be more in-depth on different subjects than Commissioner Crilly was able to delve into. So there's that.

I would also point out a letter to myself from Nancy Olewiler, who is the board chair, stating: "I am writing on behalf of the TransLink board of directors in support of the government of B.C.'s request for an audit of our organization and its operations."

I think this is a positive. This is not something that we would do just for the sake of doing. I think there are opportunities there, that we can actually work on behalf not
[ Page 11106 ]
only of TransLink and the Mayors Council but the people that we all represent at all levels of government.

H. Bains: I'll move to the next area. As the minister will acknowledge, when Mr. Crilly rejected the fare hikes that were proposed to him that left a funding gap to the tune of $30 million. As a result, TransLink has announced that they are putting on hold many of those projects that were to be delivered as part of the Moving Forward plan. Many of those projects are south of the Fraser.

My question to the minister is this. This is a real blow to the hopes of those folks who live in that region. They were hoping to have better bus service, hoping to have extension of light rail into their neighbourhoods. That community actually was hoping to build community along the transit routes, and then decisions could be made as a result of that. Now all of that is on hold.

Many of the proposals that the mayors are proposing…. In some of the letters and some of the motions they have passed, they identified different funding sources. They are being rejected by the minister or the Premier.

I think my question is: what assurance can the minister give to people who live south of the Fraser, those communities who were hoping to have those projects delivered on time and those services available to them during that time frame rather than now waiting? And no one knows how long. What will it take for those projects to get back on track and be delivered on time, as they were scheduled and promised earlier?

[1810]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Thanks to the member for that question. I think it is a very important question that members and constituents south of the Fraser are wondering about.

To be very clear, I've had a couple of people contact me, saying: "Why did they cancel these?" They haven't cancelled them. TransLink has not. They're on hold until the funding source can be achieved.

There are two things. In working with the Mayors Council, we made a commitment that we would work together to find funding sources for the Evergreen line and the Moving Forward supplement. That did not include light rail. I want to be very clear. You mentioned light rail, so I don't want the people south of the Fraser to think this funding that we're talking about has anything to do with that.

In those discussions we were going down that road, talking about it. Then a number of the mayors brought up the idea of an efficiency audit before a single new funding source would be entertained. Again, I would have to get their quotes, but it will be very close to that.

We concurred with that. The public concurred with that. I think the Mayors Council has concurred with that.

Now, to come back, we said: "Okay. We agree with you. That's why we want to expedite this and make sure that it is done as quickly as we can, to be completed by the end of summer." I'm an optimist. I'm hopeful that the….

We're talking $30 million for the Moving Forward supplement. The Evergreen is funded. The Moving Forward supplement portion, other than the Evergreen, is not.

If the money is found, everything moves ahead at that time. TransLink then has their funding; they have found the dollars. If it isn't, my commitment to the Mayors Council stands true. I will sit, and I will work with them to find new funding sources. I have never wavered from that, nor will I break my word to the Mayors Council. That commitment stands.

What we're doing now, though — and one I support — is this efficiency audit. If the money is found, I think it will bring comfort to the public to say: "Look, we thought there was something there." If it isn't found, I think the public, on the other side of that, will say: "You know what? We asked. If you're coming to ask us for more dollars to fund things, then obviously we're comfortable that that organization is run as fine as it can be run."

H. Bains: There was a memorandum of understanding signed back in September 2010 by the Premier and by the then Minister of Transportation. In there, there was a commitment made that everything was on the table. Speaking at that time, the chair of the Mayors Council, Mayor Fassbender, said: "Look, we didn't want you…." The mayors didn't want to put the property tax portion on the table.

The government said: "Everything has to be on the table." They said: "We asked the government that the carbon tax should also be on the table."

The understanding, according to talking to some of those mayors, was that everything was on the table, which to me made sense. Many people thought: "Well, there's a hope, because now what we are talking about is putting everything on the table. Then the minister, or the minister's office, and the mayors and TransLink will sit down and come up with what would be acceptable to all."

That's the commitment in the memorandum of understanding, but now we're picking and choosing. We are asking mayors to keep the property tax portion on the table, which, by the way, they have rejected since Mr. Crilly's report, saying: "Look, we're not going to use any property tax dollars to pay for any additional transit projects."

So here they are taking one stand. The minister is saying no to the tolling, no to the vehicle levy. So they're all making their decisions, without actually sitting down at that table, based on the commitments made under that MOU.

I think the ordinary folks out there watching this debate going on in public are seeing, on one hand, that they made the commitment that they would sit down in good faith and put everything on the table and find the long-
[ Page 11107 ]
term, stable funding that we need not only to pay for Evergreen line, not only to pay for the Moving Forward supplement, but for the long-term public transit plans, which include light rail. And we talk about B.C. Rail. All those need to be on the table because we need funding for those as well.

[1815]

Their MOU…. That long-term funding was to be found and realized. But when we are seeing mayors taking one position, saying no to this, and the minister and the Premier saying no to another proposal coming from the mayors…. The public is saying: "I guess nothing's going to get done."

The question to the minister is: how is that approach conducive to concluding a final solution to this long-term stable funding that all parties committed to back in 2010?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, I think it is questionable in the minds of the public, saying: "What is going on?" You touched on it, Member. The mayors have said, you know: "No property tax, no more to that." The Premier, our government, made it clear that a vehicle levy isn't something that's a satisfactory part of the solution either. Not only did we say that, but I can tell you that the many e-mails I received said that clearly. What we're going to do…. I'll try and be very clear here.

There are two issues on the funding side. One is the short term. One is finding the $30 million to continue with the Moving Forward supplement, which many of the projects are south of the Fraser. I'm confident we can do that. An efficiency audit is going to go in and look at TransLink to see if that money can be found internally. If it can, then there's no need to go to the taxpayer for the short-term portion of what we're talking about.

If it can't, then the commitment I made to the Mayors Council is that we will be at the table working together to find funding solutions that will work. But what we have to be clear about, and very clear — I have spoken to the Mayors Council on this many times — is that no matter what we come to in our discussions, if the public are not on side with that, it's probably not a good idea. A big part of this is that it's the public that are going to be asked and the businesses that are going to be asked as we go forward, whether it's the short-term or long-term funding. They are going to have to be part of this solution.

The idea of doing more with less, I think, has reached a crescendo. I think people and organizations have tightened their belts and tightened their belts. Again, I'm hopeful the efficiency audit will go in and find that little bit of extra tightening that's available. But we are going to have discussions. Regardless of what happens with the audit or the short-term issue, we need to discuss the long-term funding options as we go forward.

Nobody wants to go through, I don't think, another saga like the Evergreen line, for instance, when the province was there with their dollars, the federal government was there with their dollars, the Mayors Council committed the $400 million on their side, but they didn't have a way to raise that funding. As we move forward, there is no doubt in my mind that we're going to find solutions to both the short term and long term. It's going to take give-and-take.

For instance, the document that was put out by the technical working group said: "Here is a wide array of ideas that you could look at to raise funding." I didn't get a lot of people that I spoke to saying: "Gosh, those are great ideas." What I had were people saying, "Oh my goodness, you're going to ask for more money. We don't think that more money is needed at this point. Find out if there is excess money left within TransLink," and that goes back to the efficiency audit. We're going to do that, and then we're going to move ahead not only on the short term, if needed, to find funding sources, but on the long term so we can have a long-range solution to this.

Certainly, Member, I hope you're not back asking the same questions. We have found a solution. The public are going to say: "You know what? After everything we've engaged with our locally elected mayors and their councils, and with the involvement of the minister, they've found a solution that works for all of us." I'm confident that can happen.

[1820]

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:21 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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada