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)
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Morning Sitting
Volume 35, Number 6
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Committee of the Whole House |
11165 |
Bill 34 — Limitation Act (continued) |
|
L. Krog |
|
Hon. S. Bond |
|
M. Farnworth |
|
Report and Third Reading of Bills |
11174 |
Bill 34 — Limitation Act |
|
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room |
|
Committee of Supply |
11174 |
Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued) |
|
G. Coons |
|
Hon. B. Lekstrom |
|
N. Simons |
|
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Polak: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 34, intituled the Limitation Act. In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and, if we get finished with those, the Ministry of Education.
Committee of the Whole House
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; D. Black in the chair.
The committee met at 10:05 a.m.
Section 18 approved.
On section 19.
L. Krog: To the minister: good morning. Nice to see her and her staff here this morning. I wonder if she could just explain the effect of section 19. Does this represent any significant change from the existing Limitation Act?
Hon. S. Bond: In essence, this carries forward the rule in section 7 of the current act that the basic limitation period does not run while a person is under a disability.
L. Krog: My reading of it is that if a notice to proceed in accordance with section 20 is provided, then in fact that would force the person under disability to make a person who is their guardian, etc., make the claim earlier. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.
Section 19 approved.
On section 20.
L. Krog: Again, if the minister could simply explain the effect of section 20 — whether this represents any change and, if so, what change from the existing Limitation Act.
Hon. S. Bond: I think the most significant change — and I know the member and I discussed this previously under another section — is the inclusion of an adult under a disability. This actually means that the ultimate limitation period would be suspended during that period that an adult is under a disability — as well as, previously, a minor. So we've added adult.
L. Krog: In fact, what this does is provide a benefit that didn't exist before to adults who suffered some period of disability that isn't provided for in the existing Limitation Act.
Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. We were having a bit of a discussion about the fact that this adds the ultimate limitation period. Previously the basic limitation period would have included an adult under disability. This adds the benefit of the ULP.
Section 20 approved.
On section 21.
L. Krog: I wonder if, again, the minister could explain the effect of section 21. This represents a fairly significant change from the existing legislation. I'm curious to hear a fair commentary on it, because I know there are lots of lawyers in the province who are very interested in this debate.
Hon. S. Bond: I know that the member and I have had some discussion about this, and certainly, I know that it was discussed in second reading. The member is correct. This is a significant change for British Columbia. It is based on looking at best practice across the country.
I know that all of us love it when British Columbia leads and is unique, but this is one area where British Columbia is unique. It is time we brought into line our limitation law with other jurisdictions.
The Uniform Law Conference has a model statute and looked at the whole issue of limitation law. We looked across the country, and this is the section which reduces the ultimate limitation period in British Columbia from 30 years to 15 years. We were unique.
It brings concerns with it in terms of the 30-year length. There is an issue regarding competitiveness. Our neighbours directly next door, Alberta, have a ten-year limitation period. We've chosen to look at other jurisdictions — which include Ontario, Saskatchewan and others — that have a 15-year limitation period.
The member is correct. This is fundamentally the heart of the change. It's based on best practice and on concerns that have been expressed, over a long period of time by a number of stakeholders, that it's time British Columbia caught up with the rest of the country.
[ Page 11166 ]
L. Krog: Just to confirm so that I'm clear and that everyone understands, under section 21 of Bill 34, with the exception of the exempted claims set out in section (3), unless the claim is concealed by the person against whom it's being made, wilfully….
What that means is that regardless of what act occurred — negligence, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, whatever the basis of the claim is — 15 years from the date the act occurred, regardless of whether you ought to have known or whether you did know, the right to make the claim ceases absolutely to exist. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Bond: The principle that the member articulates is correct. In fact, this does move British Columbia to a 15-year ultimate limitation period. Again, it is important to note that the Uniform Law Conference has a model statute regarding this and that numerous jurisdictions have already made these kinds of adjustments to their limitation law. So the principle is correct, and British Columbia is now moving into alignment with most other jurisdictions in Canada.
L. Krog: Can the minister confirm: is the language used in this section the language of the Uniform Law Conference? Is it British Columbia's own creation? Or is it based on other statutes from across the country?
Hon. S. Bond: The statement outlined in subsection 21(1) is language from the Uniform Law Conference and, in fact, mirrors the language in Saskatchewan and Ontario and New Brunswick.
L. Krog: With respect to sub 21(3), which states, "If a person against whom a claim is or may be made (a) wilfully conceals from the claimant the fact that (i) injury, loss…" etc. The term "wilfully." Are there court cases which the ministry has relied on in terms of drawing the section this way or using this language? Perhaps the minister can explain what her understanding would be of the term "wilfully" when used in the context of subsection 21(3).
I think the minister understands what I'm getting at. Is there case law? Is there language used in other statutes? Has it been tested by the courts? What is wilfully, as opposed to, maybe, grossly negligent?
Hon. S. Bond: The language is from the Uniform Law Conference. In fact, Ontario then included it in their statute. It has been used and heard in the courts, and the courts agreed that that should be considered.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to just put forward a scenario and ask the minister how the legislation would impact on that. A crime is committed against an individual that, let's say, is not solved for 25 years. After the crime is solved, would the fact that 25 years has now passed prohibit the party that was injured from being able to pursue, for example, a civil claim against the original party?
It's not a common scenario, but certainly, it's not unusual. Given the advances that we have seen — in technology and DNA and all those things, for example — we do see cases from time to time where they're actually resolved many, many years later. I think there would be an unfairness if someone was not able to access because of a limitation.
Hon. S. Bond: The first point of clarification is that this does not apply to criminal cases. It's only civil actions. If, for example, there was fraud involved or wilful concealment, then the 25-year period would be irrelevant. There would still be an ultimate limitation period beyond that period of time.
But without those two factors or the exemptions that have been listed — and there are a number of them, including things like sexual assault and a variety of other things; there is a long list of exemptions — yes, there would be an ultimate limitation period that would be in effect.
The key is that if there was fraud or it was wilfully concealed, then the period of 25 years that had passed would be irrelevant. You would still have the opportunity to take advantage of the ultimate limitation period.
I think the point that needs to be made is that whichever number you attach to the ultimate limitation period, it's arbitrary. Currently it's 30 years, and if it happened to be 31, we would be in a similar circumstance.
It is a test of being reasonable and balanced, and it is a test of looking at the plaintiff, the defendant and all of those things. The view here, certainly our view, is that we need to pay attention to what other provinces have looked at, have moved toward and, most importantly, the Uniform Law Conference. We need to actually bring British Columbia's statutes in line.
M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying in terms of balance. These things are not easy. But at the same time, we often see cases and examples where you go: "That's not fair." What I want is to make sure, in this legislation, that those are kept to as much of a minimum as possible.
I understand what the minister is saying about a criminal issue. That's fine, but often out of a criminal issue also arises the opportunity for a civil action. I think that's where the particular concern is.
I'd just like to ask the minister, then, on the term "wilful concealment." Is wilful concealment that a person deliberately tries to conceal an action? Does that include, for example, the fact that they just didn't get caught?
I say that in this way. Someone could take steps to
[ Page 11167 ]
conceal and deliberately try and hide the fact that they did something, but someone could also just as easily not have taken steps to do that and just did not get caught, for whatever reason — for a lack of evidence, not on a deliberate attempt. There just was no evidence to do it, and then later they are found to be guilty.
I'd just like the minister to clarify that particular issue.
Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct in defining wilfully concealing something as a deliberate act. It has to be a definitively deliberate act. Just not catching someone doesn't….
To the member's point, he has expressed a concern about latency periods. That exists today as well. It is fair to say that if there was an extremely long period of time, there would be a limit on the ability of that person to pursue an action, and that exists today. Ultimately, what we're doing here is shortening that period of time.
L. Krog: There is a general doctrine of law that you cannot profit from your crime, in a sense that if I killed my spouse, for instance…. This is an example I think the member was perhaps thinking of. If you murdered your spouse, the law says you're not entitled to inherit.
So the spouse you've murdered has a will and leaves the estate to the murderer. Assume for a moment the murderer has taken no steps to wilfully conceal that they're complicit in the crime, and they're not required to disclose anything to the police. The police discover this 20 years after — or we'll say 15 years plus a day; it doesn't really make any difference — past what is the ultimate limitation period.
In the normal circumstance, that would allow for the other beneficiaries under the terms of the will — the alternate beneficiaries and/or persons who would otherwise inherit, even in the case of an administration, where there is no will — to make claim to the assets received by the murderer.
I'm just wondering. Considering what the law is today, is the minister of the view that even in that circumstance, with the ultimate limitation period, the aggrieved parties — the parties who would ultimately be entitled to the estate because the law says you can't profit from your crime…? Would those persons still have a right to make a claim and go after the assets of the murderer who's inherited from the person they killed?
Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure if this was the member's intent, but he stumped the panel. We have exceptional staff, but I think the challenge is that there is an intersection of a number of laws there, including wills and estates and a number of things.
All I can do is be repetitive in answering, in the sense that there will be a 15-year limit unless there is an exemption. We've spent a long time talking about those exemptions — not a long time; a reasonable time, actually. We've talked about those exemptions, and we've also talked about the other contributing factor, which would be wilfully concealing something.
Other than that, yes, this is a distinct change. We've reduced the period of time. It would be 15 years.
M. Farnworth: I know this example is a bit extreme, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time that something like this has happened. I will put on the record, just as my colleague used me as an example, that if I decided to knock off my partner — which I have no intention of doing…. But that issue of the inheriting of an estate and the problems that causes, I think, could have very serious consequences.
I would suggest to the minister and the ministry that that may be something that they should look at in terms of a capital offence involving a murder — that that be something that could be added to the list of exemptions. I think it would be terribly unjust if a situation arose where someone did profit because of a statute of limitations around the death of a spouse or a partner because there was no evidence to prove it at that particular time.
There was a case recently in the paper where there was a suspect but there was never any evidence. Twenty years had passed, and the woman was just sentenced because finally, after 20 years, she admitted it to an undercover police officer, but up until then they had no evidence. So I suggest to the minister and her staff that this be something that they look at and perhaps add to the list of exemptions.
Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, very thought-provoking. The best I can offer on the floor is that we will take that under advisement. It's very complex.
Our advisory panel actually did look at the probate of wills under this circumstance. We don't have all of the detail with us in terms of the advice that was provided there, but there was a very thorough look at the list of exemptions. I'm reticent to commit to another exemption when, in fact, there are other issues.
For example, we don't want to see us waiting to deal with…. Obviously the murder is a concern to all of us. I'm glad to hear you're not going to bump off your partner. I'm sure he is relieved this morning as well. But on the other hand, I want you to know that the Attorney General's critic did not give me that assurance, although I am sure that's not on his mind either.
But I think you've made the point. This is very complex law, and limiting anything comes with risks that there are cases that will fall outside of that framework. So I think it has caused us to think through that. We'll go back and look at the advice that was provided to us around probate in particular, but we certainly don't want to hold up
[ Page 11168 ]
the ability to deal with a will for 20 years either, so there is that give-and-take.
I appreciate the advice, and our team will certainly go back and take a look at that and make sure that we have a good sense of what cases — complex ones like the member opposite has noted — may be impacted.
L. Krog: I want to assure the House and the Attorney General that the little cupcake and I, who will celebrate 39 years of wedded bliss this fall, have gotten way past the stage we might consider offing one another, which I think is the language of the member for Port Coquitlam.
Having said that, with respect to sub (3), in the alternate (b) it talks about "wilfully misleads the claimant." I'm just wondering if that language is used in any other statute. Has it been court-tested? What sort of example is the minister thinking, where the court would find that to be appropriate? It seems to me that it must contemplate a situation where some person is in authority or something like that, because the concept that you should be protecting, with great respect, someone who is stupid enough to take advice from someone who has injured them, it seems to me, may not be the intent of the law.
Hon. S. Bond: In sub (b), "wilfully misleads" is part of the Uniform Law Conference language. It is also replicated in other jurisdictions.
L. Krog: So I'm clear on this section, to read it all through, trying to get this through my head:
"If a person against whom a claim is or may be made (a) wilfully conceals from the claimant the fact that (i) injury, loss or damage has occurred, (ii) the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission, or (iii) the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is or may be made, or (b) wilfully misleads the claimant as to the appropriateness of a court proceeding as a means of remedying the injury, loss or damage, the act or omission on which the claim is based is deemed to have taken place on the day on which the claim is discovered under Part 2."
This is in the ultimate limitation period section.
To understand my reading of that, is it saying that in that kind of a circumstance, the ultimate limitation period would apply, or basically are we just really saying: "Look, if you've wilfully misled or concealed, then you're still stuck with the general two-year limitation period"?
Hon. S. Bond: We always look for consensus to make sure we all agree with the answer before I get up, which is the safe thing to do.
To clarify for the member opposite, what it simply says is that the ultimate limitation period will run on discovery in cases of wilful concealment. Obviously, you can't start it until you know, so the ULP does run on discovery. It doesn't limit it to two years.
L. Krog: I guess that's what I'm getting at. In other words, this section makes reference only to the ultimate limitation period because we have dealt with the issue of discovery under part 2 in its entirety, which is fairly lengthy. It says: "Look, you discover the omission. You've got two years from the date you discover the act or omission."
Section 6 says: "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." Then we go into all of those special provisions that say, "Look, you discovered it then; you discover it now," etc. This section is really simply saying that for the purposes of the ultimate limitation period, again, it's the discovery date, even in a situation where it's been wilfully concealed or you've wilfully misled the claimant, etc.
I appreciate the language being used, "wilfully misleads the claimant," but I'm wondering if the minister can give some kind of example. I'm thinking that from a public policy perspective, if a lawyer, a person in authority, misleads you as to your rights….
Your employer perhaps says, "No, look, you really don't have a claim against me, so don't bother going to speak to a lawyer," when in fact you do have a claim. I think that is one where most of us would say, "You know what? The employer shouldn't get away with that." Or a teacher who has, I don't know, struck a student or something like that. Crazy examples, if you will.
Having said that, the way I read it, it simply says "wilfully misleads the claimant." So two equally intelligent, educated, able people, etc., and one says, "Look, you really don't have a claim," and I'm silly enough to believe it. Does it apply in that situation as well, or in the examples I've used, where there is a person in authority or with some power or influence over the claimant?
Hon. S. Bond: In many ways, it's a bit sad that…. Well, it's not sad. I mean, we're doing the work that we're supposed to do.
I see that we have a gallery full of young students this morning, and we're very glad to have them here. We don't often get to see them. They're waving. That's awesome.
Really, what they get to see and hear is what happens in the Legislature. This is the hard work that we do every day in creating and changing laws.
This is a very complex aspect of law, so the member opposite is asking us some very challenging questions. We're working our way through that, but we're glad to have you here today as we work through this issue.
In terms of the issue related to wilfully misleading, obviously this is an area where the judge would have the discretion to look at how you would determine whether it was wilful or not. But there would need to be a demonstration that it was wilful. For example, if someone created a series of documents to cover something up, I think it's much clearer in terms of what would trigger
[ Page 11169 ]
that particular clause.
So there is discretion here. The judge would have some room for flexibility. The advice I've been given is that there would need to be evidence, if you will, about the deliberate nature of that act.
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's response to this.
What I'm trying to get at and perhaps not phrasing it very well is the concept of authority that I think a court may be tempted to read into this section, in a sense. That's why I'm asking these questions — so that they're on the record.
The example I used, again, was a person in authority as opposed to persons of equal status or stature. Does the minister think, the way the language is worded, that it would apply to all of the examples that I used, as opposed to those situations where there is some kind of power imbalance, if I can use that phrase?
Hon. S. Bond: I think I have a sense of where the member opposite is trying to go. The answer to the question is that it applies to all of those circumstances. There is not an attempt to separate out a particular relationship or look at power imbalance — those kinds of things. Really, I think that's where we talk about the flexibility for the judge.
I understand the inherent concern that's expressed, but the answer is that it applies to all of those circumstances.
Section 21 approved.
On section 22.
L. Krog: Again, a fairly standard question. This talks about the issue of factors affecting limitation periods and, in particular, counterclaims. I wonder if the minister can just give an example and explain how this would impact in terms of the commencement of limitation periods.
Hon. S. Bond: What we see in this section is actually a carry-forward of the principles from section 4 of the current act, so there is no new law. What it does do, though, is remove the section to claims for contribution or indemnity, and the member and I had a significant discussion about that in section 16. Basically, it's a carry-forward and the removal of contribution or indemnity, which is covered off in section 16.
L. Krog: I appreciate that this is one of those ugly sections of the Limitation Act and not one that any lawyer really wants to have to read, lest they go mad trying to understand whether or not, in fact, they are in a position to advance a claim on behalf of their client.
Having said that, though, certainly the ultimate limitation period is a change. When the minister said basically…. Perhaps she could be a little more explicit, if there are some examples that might assist me in understanding. If it's basically the same, fine and dandy. But what does "basic" mean, and what is this change?
Hon. S. Bond: We're trying to find a way to create those short examples. Here's a very simplistic one. There is a breach of a contract. You sue, and it is in time, so you meet the basic limitation period.
Further down throughout the process, you find out that you want to add someone else. You want to add someone else to that. You can do that, even though the original basic limitation period has expired. You can add someone throughout that process if you find out after the original claim is made.
Section 22 approved.
On section 23.
L. Krog: Just to confirm, section 23 relates back to section 7, which we discussed at some length, which is around the enforcement of judgments. I read this simply to say that as long as you commence within time, despite any other provision, if on the expiration of the limitation period, etc., an enforcement process is outstanding, "the judgment creditor…may do any of the following: (a) continue proceedings…."
In other words, you can carry on even though you've let it expire and chosen not, potentially, to renew. You can still continue with an unexpired writ of execution, and you can also, at that point, "commence or continue proceedings against land on a judgment registered under Part 5…."
If my recollection is correct, a judgment has to be renewed every two years in the land registry. So you've passed the ten years since the date the judgment was granted. You've got the judgment registered in the Land Title Act, however. It's been renewed, so it's not going to expire until a year after the ten-year period. So we're talking 11 years if you go from the day of the granting of the judgment. You would still be in a position under this section to commence a proceeding to force the sale of the land. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.
Section 23 approved.
On section 24.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
L. Krog: My quick read is that section 24, which allows
[ Page 11170 ]
for the extension of limitation periods, is a fairly significant change. I can just ask the minister to explain. Firstly, is it based on legislation from other jurisdictions? How much of it does it carry over from the existing act? And were there any special requests or groups who brought forward or raised concerns around the acknowledgment of liability?
Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we looked back at the general commentary that we brought with us regarding input to the various papers along the way. We don't have a specific group that we can remember at this point in time. We certainly have a limited number of binders here.
The language is similar, obviously, to the Uniform Law Conference, so it does line up with the ULCC. Also, again, our language is very much similar to Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Most of the work was parallel or, in some cases, almost identical to those jurisdictions.
This section replaces section 5 in the current act, and it substitutes the old terminology of "confirmation" with "acknowledgement." That's the change — not really significant. Where the significant change is, is that now when an acknowledgment is triggered, it resets the timing of both the basic limitation period and the ultimate limitation period.
L. Krog: Correct me if I'm wrong. The guts of this section really is sub (6), where it says that it
"does not apply to an acknowledgment, other than an acknowledgement referred to in subsection (7), (8) or (9), unless the acknowledgment is (a) in writing, (b) signed, by hand or by electronic signature within the meaning of the Electronic Transactions Act" — and perhaps the minister can outline what that means — "(c) made by the person making the acknowledgment or the person's agent, and (d) made to the person with the claim, the person's agent or an official receiver or trustee acting under the Bankruptcy…."
That's the guts of it. It still has to be, essentially, in writing or an electronic transmission.
Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, there are two types of acknowledgment. Certainly, writing is one of them, but it could also be an action. A good example of that would be that you make a payment on a debt, which would acknowledge…. So yes, there is in writing: "I acknowledge that I'm responsible for this." Or there's an action such as payment of a debt.
L. Krog: I appreciate that. But we have sections (7), (8) and 9 — when it's a case for claim of a liquidated sum, a debtor's performance, a creditor's acceptance. But what I'm getting at is that in terms of the law, historically, it's always been for other kinds of claims that it has to be some kind of acknowledgment in writing.
Let me give an example. I don't make a claim under the Motor Vehicle Act against you. You ran me down in an intersection and 23 months after the accident, if I send you a letter saying: "Gee, I'm really sorry I ran you down in the intersection." That would constitute an acknowledgment — correct? And it would extend the limitation period.
Hon. S. Bond: In fact, that example is one that staff actually looked at, in terms of motor vehicle accidents. The member would be correct.
Section 24 approved.
On section 25.
L. Krog: Earlier this morning in our discussions of this the minister talked about the change with respect to persons under a disability. I'm just wondering if she can explain the effect of this session. Is it substantially different from what we have now, and is it consistent, again, with what's happening in other provinces?
Hon. S. Bond: Yes, we have discussed this — that this is new. Both the BLP and the ULP would be suspended for an adult who was under disability during that claim. The language, again, is based on the model statute and jurisdictions including Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta. All of those suspend both the basic and ultimate limitation periods during periods of adult disability.
L. Krog: Just to put it in a fairly simple example — at 23 months I've got my motor vehicle claim. It's a basic two-year limitation. I get struck in the head. I'm rendered incapable for a period of a full year. I would still have a month at the end of the year once I recover my abilities. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Bond: Our statute actually is a longer period of time, so the remaining basic limitation period would be the longer of two periods — the length of time that you have remaining in your claim, or a year. That is different from Alberta and Saskatchewan. They do not provide that extra period of time.
Section 25 approved.
On section 26.
L. Krog: This section deals with notices if a limitation period is suspended under section 25. I'm just wondering if the minister could explain the practical effect of this section. Does it represent any significant change from the existing act?
The Chair: Hon. Members, Surrey–Green Timbers seeks the floor to make an introduction. Shall leave be
[ Page 11171 ]
granted?
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
S. Hammell: In the gallery today there are actually 40, I think, grade 6 students from the Sikh Academy in Surrey–Green Timbers.
They're accompanied by Ms. Jas Bains and by eight adults from the community. They're here to see how this place works. I told them, when I was there speaking to them, that I worked in a castle. They can kind of see the ornate building that we do work in. I would like the House to please make them welcome.
Debate Continued
Hon. S. Bond: We do want to welcome more students to the gallery. It's a busy morning here at the Legislature, so it's fantastic to have them with us.
To the member opposite, this section sets out the rules for a notice to proceed to activate the running of both the BLP and the ULP of a person under a disability, if they have been suspended under section 25. It's very similar to section 20, which we've discussed, which is the notice to proceed if the basic limitation period is postponed under 18 or 19.
It's set out in a separate provision because it applies to a different situation. It only applies where time has begun to run, both in the basic and ultimate limitation periods, against the person who is capable or of full capacity, but at some point, the person becomes under a disability, and the BLP the ULP are suspended.
Section 26 approved.
On section 27.
L. Krog: Again, with respect to section 27, if the minister could just advise what this section actually refers to. It says: "'…non-judicial remedy' means a remedy that a person is entitled, by law or by contract…without court proceedings." That's fairly broad. I'd like her to give some examples, perhaps.
Hon. S. Bond: B.C. was in a unique position in terms of the use of the language around extinguishment, so the advice we received was that we should change that. It was complex, and it was wordy. The advice was to remove it and make sure that we clearly articulated what we meant.
An example of that, when we talk about a non-judicial remedy, is if a seller sells a person a car on credit and the buyer fails to pay off the balance, the seller can't go and take the car back or repossess the car once the limitation period has expired. The act of repossessing the car is a non-judicial remedy.
L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, an acknowledgment of payment or anything of that nature wouldn't have any application with respect to this section and/or the example used by the minister?
Hon. S. Bond: An acknowledgment will not revive an expired claim. The only time acknowledgment works is when you're within the time frame.
L. Krog: In that case the limitation period would be extended as an acknowledgment. We're back to square one, and this section wouldn't have any application anyway.
Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.
Section 27 approved.
On section 28.
L. Krog: With respect to section 28, I'm just curious if the ministry staff, on any occasion, because it's such an odd section…. Candidly, I've never had a case of adverse possession, never run across a case in the practical way. Did the ministry do any research? If so, is there any interesting case law to which this section might have made a change in terms of the judicial decision that followed?
Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite's point is valid. It's rare, but there is case law. In fact, ironically, one of our staff has actually looked at one of the cases. So it does occur. It is rare, but this is a straight carry-forward, and there is virtually no change.
Sections 28 and 29 approved.
On section 30.
L. Krog: I appreciate that the member for Burnaby-Lougheed wants to get somewhere quickly, but perhaps he could give me a moment to actually stand up. I'm not quite Jack-in-the-box yet.
With respect to section 30, I wonder if the minister could explain how this will work in a practical way and if she could give some fairly straightforward examples. They're always complex, these transitional sections and what limitation periods you're covered by, when you're entitled to commence an action and when you might lose the right to bring that action.
Hon. S. Bond: I think that the most straightforward way to do this would perhaps be for me to walk through
[ Page 11172 ]
the three rules. There are actually three included here, so rather than trying to include three fairly lengthy examples….
The section sets out transition rules for determining how to calculate the limitation periods established by the act for claims based on act or omission — we've worked through all of that — that took place before the effective date of the new act. Claims that are statute-barred before the new act comes into force will not be revived — that is, if your limitation period expired before the new act comes into force, a person is unable to revive their claim. That's the first rule.
Secondly, claims that are discovered before the new act comes into force are subject to the limitation periods in the current act. Thirdly, claims that are discovered after the new act comes into force are subject to the discovery provisions of the new act.
There are two situations. If the claim was previously subject to the special six-year medical ULP, the six-year medical ULP continues. The ULP continues to run from accrual of the cause of action or the date of damage, as we've discussed. If the claim was previously subject to the 30-year ultimate limitation period, the new 15-year ultimate limitation period applies as if the act or omission on which the claim is based occurred on the later of — and here are two subsets to that — the effective date of the new act or the date the act or omission takes place under section 21(2). That is the special act or omission dates for conversion, fraud or trust claims, contribution or indemnity claims. That's probably the most succinct way that I can explain the three rules.
Sections 30 to 33 inclusive approved.
On section 34.
L. Krog: I just wonder if the minister could explain the effect of this amendment to the Apology Act.
Hon. S. Bond: There is no substantive change. It's merely a matter of reflecting the numbering in the new act.
Sections 34 to 37 inclusive approved.
On section 38.
L. Krog: This is a new section. It provides, with respect to the Financial Administration Act, that when the government has a claim…. My reading of it is that the rules change. I wonder if the minister could just explain what their change is.
Hon. S. Bond: The intent here is to retain the status quo for taxpayer-supported entities. The rationale for that is that those entities do not operate on a commercial basis.
L. Krog: If I can put it in language that I can simply understand, the government gets a benefit here in terms of being able to bring a claim against British Columbia's citizens and corporations — corporations being persons to law anyway, I suppose — that otherwise doesn't exist for ordinary British Columbians or corporate entities.
Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. This does retain the status quo for those entities that are taxpayer-supported. We certainly looked at jurisdictions across Canada. They have taken a variety of approaches. There is not unanimity, but all of them have grappled with the very same issue. In fact, this does retain the status quo for taxpayer-supported entities. Again, the basic principle is that those entities do not operate on a commercial basis.
L. Krog: The minister will have to forgive my ignorance. At the present time, does the government in fact have an extended limitation period under the existing statute — in other words, the benefit of being able to sue at a date later than British Columbia's citizens or corporations?
Hon. S. Bond: Currently, the basic limitation period for collecting debt for taxpayer-supported entities is six years, and this statute retains that.
L. Krog: Just to confirm, when the minister talks about taxpayer-supported debt, my recollection is that under the existing statute — for instance, a breach of contract claim — if you breach a contract with me, I have six years to sue you under the existing Limitation Act. I could be wrong, and I'm sure the staff will assist and correct me.
But this section relates specifically, under the Financial Administration Act, to debt owing to government. I wonder if the minister could give me examples of the kinds of debt that we're talking about.
Hon. S. Bond: This really is the heart of the debate, and I think that the question is a very legitimate one. When we examined this principle, we looked at what levers do government organizations have that compare to commercial levers, and there is not a similar ability there.
Let me give the member opposite an example of that. If you, today, as a British Columbian citizen, owe fees, for example, related to ambulance fees or MSP premiums…. If you owe that debt, we don't stop sending an ambulance.
[ Page 11173 ]
We can't curtail a service, and neither would we. Same thing with MSP premiums. If you build up that debt, we don't stop providing you with medical services.
The view is that while we continue to provide those services, we also believe that on behalf of British Columbians, we want to maintain that six-year period to attempt to recover that debt. It's very much based on the principle that we have programs and services that are provided to British Columbians that don't make commercial arrangements.
Other jurisdictions have grappled with this very same issue, and it is dealt with, as I said at the beginning of discussion. There are variations of that, but basically, we continue to provide the service to British Columbians. We don't have the lever of withdrawing those services, and neither would we want to.
L. Krog: To give an example, a person in receipt of social assistance who has received in the past a benefit to which they were not entitled. The ministry does, in fact, as I understand it — and I can be corrected if I'm wrong — allow for collection of that debt. It may be a nominal payment. It may be $10 a month, but reducing the amount of assistance that's paid. In fact, that remedy is fairly readily available. Can the minister confirm that that's the case?
Hon. S. Bond: The type of debt the member opposite describes is debt that would be captured. When we looked at how it's dealt with in other jurisdictions, there were some jurisdictions where general limitations legislation does not apply at all to the Crown and there are no limitations in terms of the period of time that government has to recover debt.
Again, I think it is a matter of looking at a balanced approach — balancing the need to provide services and continue to do that for taxpayers but also the responsibility that we have to try, in a reasonable period of time, to regain some of the debt owing to the Crown.
L. Krog: I can't resist, this morning. The minister will forgive me. I have a certain partisan nature.
The member for West Vancouver–Capilano, as I recall, who I know is listening carefully to this debate, did express some concerns around this section. It struck me that he might be interested in taking part in this debate this morning and asking the Attorney General some questions that relate to this. It does provide a statutory exemption and, arguably, a benefit — maybe that's not the best word — to government which doesn't exist for British Columbia's citizens and corporations in terms of being able to make that claim.
I certainly appreciate the Attorney General's response with respect to such things as ambulance service and medical care. These are pretty basic things that no British Columbian would ever want anyone to be denied — regardless of the cost to the taxpayer, if you will.
But it strikes me that with other situations, extending it to six years…. The minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but under the Financial Administration Act, does this extend only to those situations where government is owed money for specific fees and licences, or would it also include, for instance, breach of contract?
Hon. S. Bond: It has to be a debt that is…. As we go back and look at the definition of "government claim," it means "a claim in debt, or any other claim for payment or recovery of money in a specified or ascertainable amount." There has to be a monetary value attached to what it is that we're trying to recover on behalf of taxpayers. So more than likely, it is a fee; it is a service; it is something that has an ascertainable amount attached to it.
L. Krog: To give an example, if the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure sues a contractor because they didn't do the bridge well, obviously it's a damage amount that a court will have to determine. I understand that that would not be covered by this section.
But in a situation where perhaps the contract provided for a specific penalty that said, "If you do not commence work on October 31, then you will pay the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure $10,000 a day," would that be covered by this section or not?
Hon. S. Bond: This is not about creating a special exemption that is related to commencing a lawsuit or a breach of contract. It is very specifically focused on a debt that is owed and that there is an ascertainable amount — so fees, MSP premiums, those kinds of things. Again, the basic rationale is that we do not have the levers that commercial entities would have.
We continue to provide a service — the ambulance will continue to show up at your house — but we, like other jurisdictions, believe that the Crown is responsible on behalf of taxpayers for trying to recover that debt in a reasonable period of time.
L. Krog: And as the prophet Elijah said, the sun will come up tomorrow, and the grass will continue to grow. I'll only have one more question, though.
With respect to this section, "government claim" means "a claim in debt" — I think I've got that — "or any other claim for payment or recovery of money in a specified or ascertainable amount." That's where I'm having a little bit of difficulty, because an ascertainable amount arguably would include moneys that flow from a breach of contract, because the court will ascertain and determine what those damages are.
I'm just curious to ask whether or not the ministry has considered, when the language has been used in this way…. When you talk about an ascertainable amount, obviously, pretty much what a court is always left with is a money judgment. Pain and suffering — you get a dollar amount. You don't get a fairy that taps you on the shoulder and says that you have no more pain.
It is always an amount that has to be determined. So when you use the language "or any other claim for payment or recovery of money in a specified or ascertainable amount," it seems to me that opens this up in a much broader way.
Hon. S. Bond: This section does not extend the limitation period to make a claim in breach of contract. That's not what it does. It is intended to preserve the six-year period to recover the debt.
If we've made a claim and there's a money judgment, that's when you'd be able to use the six-year period to actually seek recovery of that money judgment. But it is not intended to extend the time frame or the limitation period to make a claim. That is not the expectation of this section.
Sections 38 to 47 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 34, Limitation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.
The committee met at 10:06 a.m.
On Vote 43: ministry operations, $806,921,000 (continued).
G. Coons: It's always an honour to spend the morning with the minister to talk about B.C. Ferries and our coastal ferry service, to get some sort of a perspective of where the minister sees us going. I always look forward to that.
I'll start right off. We have probably about an hour, 45 minutes, so I'll get right into the budget line. It's a pretty easy budget line, $170.614 million. That's what I believe the line item is for coastal ferry services, and that's up a little bit from last year.
I do have to acknowledge that the budget for B.C. Ferries is a significant amount. It's more than the budget for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Finance. So it is quite a sum when you look at it being more than four other ministries. I think it's quite significant that we do have a meaningful debate on this.
When we look at the line item, there are a number of categories in the budget. As the minister knows, there's a provincial transportation fee, or the subsidy. There's a social program reimbursement, which are the seniors, the students, the medical. That comes from other budgets, I believe. There's the federal-provincial subsidy, and then there's the unregulated, the contracted, routes.
I'm wondering if the minister has available how that amount, the $170. 6 million, is divided into those four main categories.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: We do have the breakdown, Member. It is as follows: the ferry transportation fee, which is us, $125.714 million; social programs, $14.934 million; the unregulated routes, $1.9 million; federal-provincial agreement, $28.066 million. That would total $170.614 million. On top of that, there is other money that comes from the Ministry of Health for health travel, to the tune of $11.6 million.
G. Coons: I do want to get a bit into the federal-provincial subsidy. I noticed a bit of a discrepancy, through B.C. Ferries' documentation when they did their annual report. But as we know, the federal-provincial agreement signed said that the province will provide "ferry and coastal freight and passenger services in the waters of British Columbia." And the subsidy will increase by the average consumer price index for the two preceding fiscal years — published by Stats Canada for Vancouver. So there is an increase.
What I did notice was that last year — and I think I do have a copy of this for the minister — there was a discrepancy, I believe, with the amount that B.C. Ferries is putting for their provincial subsidy.
If you look at the annual report to the ferry commissioner and you look at the corporate total — I think I've highlighted it for your benefit — the two amounts…. In 2010 B.C. Ferries is saying that they are getting or spending $26.924 million, and then in 2011 they're spending $26.924 million. There is no increase at all in the federal subsidy. I went over the previous seven or eight years, and every year it has gone up with the cost of living.
I'm just wondering if the minister or his staff can explain why, in the corporate total there, the federal-provincial subsidy agreement did not increase at all over 2010 to 2011.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Obviously, ours is a budgeted amount that we base on. The numbers that you're showing being the same, if I understand the question — '10-11 on the document you've shown me — the CPI….
We take our budget on the budgeted amount. We put our number to it. Then when the actual numbers and CPI are adjusted by the federal government, they flow their cheque to us and we directly flow that through to B.C. Ferries. So there's no adjustment there.
This one here I will have to delve into with B.C. Ferries. Obviously, that would show a zero rate of inflation. That's what it would look like to me. And I'm not sure that's the exact number. I do want to get that for the member, and I will do it.
But ours is a flow-through from the federal portion based on CPI. Once those numbers are finalized, we get the cheque and the cheque is flowed through to B.C. Ferries.
G. Coons: Somebody, a constituent, asked me about the federal subsidy. I started to look into it, and I noticed that, and I actually did send a note to the commissioner. So you guys can tie in together and perhaps tag-team B.C. Ferries to find out what happened to that.
I think it's important, because that's a fairly significant contract that we sign that goes up every year. I know the federal government would like to reopen that contract, but of course we wouldn't want to because it may change the parameters of it. I think it's important that we ensure that the money gets to where it was. It seems to me that it would be somewhere between $500,000 to $600,000 — over the years that I've looked at — that seems to be missing in that component from B.C. Ferries' financials.
I guess I'll get into some other things. I usually get into a lot of the finances of B.C. Ferries, but I think that the third-quarter results that just came out — ending December 31, which came out last February — show a net loss of $23.1 million compared to $12.5 million last year.
Vehicle traffic fell by 3.6 percent. Passenger traffic fell by 3 percent. Interest debt is up $9 million to $54 million per year, and there's a long-term debt of $1.3 million.
The numbers seem gloomy, but I know the minister also acknowledges where we've been and where we need to go. He commissioned the report — the ferry commissioner report. And the minister agrees — we both agree — that it comes down to affordability to actually ride our ferries.
I found it interesting. My neighbour from across the street wrote a letter to the minister about a ferry from Prince Rupert, travelling with TAP. She wanted to go with them, and it appeared that she thought it shouldn't cost $1,142 for two people to make a one-way trip from Prince Rupert to Port Hardy, not including meals and food and gas to get to Vancouver. It's a pretty expensive trip.
It comes down to affordability. It seems that the ferries are being used for TAP — travel assistance plans — purposes, and especially…. I'm sure the minister realizes that it's actually cheaper for two people to take a seven-day cruise to Alaska on $1,200. We have to really come down to something to ensure affordability for families and communities and businesses.
I'm just wondering, just a philosophical question, with the ferry commissioner report out over three months ago, what the minister is doing to ensure affordability for families, communities and businesses.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: as you've indicated, the commissioner has concluded his report. I think January 24 was the date, if memory serves me. I'm very close to having the formal response for certainly not only the opposition but the people of British Columbia. I think it was a tremendous report.
The other things we are doing and have done. Bill 14 that we introduced. There was a request to increase fares at 4.15 percent as well as 8.23 percent, and we capped all of the routes at 4.15 percent.
But you did mention the expense for two people to travel from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert, or Prince Rupert to Port Hardy — just over $1,100. You might have said $1,142, Member. That is expensive — without question. That goes to, obviously, utilization rates. It goes to a number of things as well.
[ Page 11176 ]
I do want to put on record that although they put that money in, there's a cost to the taxpayer in the range of about $600 per ride. We subsidize that through the fees that we put in. Although that is a significant amount, in the $1,100 range, there may be people watching today that think that covers the entire cost, which it doesn't. That's what the provincial and federal subsidies go to ferries for — to offset those costs.
G. Coons: Yes, and there was some allusion to, I think in question period the other day, that something may be coming forward soon.
The minister says the province salutes the over 2,000 people that participated in the report done by Commissioner Macatee. In the report it talked about restricting fare increases, increasing government's contributions and developing a long-term vision.
I think the key point is that increases have "reached the tipping point of affordability, imposing significant hardship on ferry-dependent communities and the ability of people to visit family members and friends as frequently as they would like." Again, it's affordability with fares — pretty significant.
I guess I just wanted to ask the minister: will there be legislation coming this session re the ferry commissioner's report? I read through the report and see up to, I believe, at least a couple of dozen places for changes to the legislation. I'm just wondering if we'll be seeing any in the next month or so.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Certainly, within the report there are recommendations. There's a total of 31 recommendations in that report. A number of them would require legislative change. It's certainly my intent, and I'm working towards that now, but I cannot commit the House leader or the Legislature to that in estimates.
Without question, it is my hope, as I work toward this — and I recognize that legislative change would be necessary as a result of some of those recommendations — that I will be able to proceed. As you know — how our governance structure works and how we work in the parliamentary system — it will be the House leader that will bring that forward.
G. Coons: Just getting off the report for now, the minister referred to the fare increase that he legislated. Since the legislation there was a fuel surcharge and a fare increase — continuing to pile on, so to speak. I just think that people in ferry-dependent communities and on the islands want to see the social and economic contract that we have with them revitalized to ensure that the ferry services are meeting the needs of the communities and the people.
I do want to talk about what the ferry commissioner referred to as efficiencies — or inefficiencies. We need to look at everything from top to bottom with B.C. Ferries — paying down costs, looking at redundancies, savings wherever we can.
On a positive note, we all must agree that B.C. Ferries…. I think David Hahn said that he was looking at a series of initiatives. One of them was looking at their advertising and the Canucks ads on the JumboTron at the Canucks games, etc. It's a real thumbs-up for cancelling that.
I just want to get back to this, because B.C. Ferries claimed to have no documentation about the cancellation of the advertising agreement with the Vancouver Canucks. The Premier was fairly blatant when she was saying that ferry users want to know that B.C. Ferries is providing all the information they can in a very upfront manner about the costs they're incurring. The minister said he was going to look into it.
We haven't got back to that question. No, I think we did. I think I asked a question about that, about when the minister is going to keep his commitment and stop delaying the game, so to speak, with the Canucks agreement. I think the Premier stepped in and ended the session. We didn't get a chance to have that question answered.
I'm just wondering: any luck with finding out about the agreement with the Vancouver Canucks and B.C. Ferries?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just on a couple of points. Obviously, as we talk about B.C. Ferries — the member and I have talked about this — affordability is a significant issue. You talked about that B.C. Ferries has a responsibility to make sure they're as efficient as they can be. As well, I concur with that.
I think the resolve to the affordability issue, Member, is probably a three-legged approach, with B.C. Ferries doing exactly that. The B.C. government, or the taxpayer, is obviously part of that as well. Then, the other side of that are the users themselves. I think there has to be a realization…. We have a world-class ferry system that I think people from around the world look to. We are going to find that resolve.
The issue on the advertising. I know the member has approached B.C. Ferries. That is an operational question you're asking of B.C. Ferries. I'm not here to answer their operational questions, but I would have to believe that the information you receive back, if any, would have had to deal with commercial confidentiality on such a deal like that.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. Again, I guess that's a problem when we've got $170 million of taxpayers' money going into this entity with no accountability, no transparency. We got rid of the FOI component, and still it's difficult to get what's going on and, actually, whether the JumboTron, the ads on the boards at Vancouver Canucks were paid through the service fees that we're giving them. It is something that we need to deal with. I
[ Page 11177 ]
hope the legislation coming up, whenever, will cover that.
I do believe the minister understands the issue of trying to get to the inefficiencies, as discussed over the last estimates and in our conversations, whether it's advertising; whether it's the vacations centre in downtown Vancouver, 2,700 square feet of a place; whether it is the Tartan Group, the PR firm that they've hired to — this is a quote from their website — "reposition B.C. Ferries from an extension of B.C.'s road system to a travel and tourism product"; whether it's the Pacific Marine Ventures that they have; or the insurance company that they've created; the Operations and Security Centre, open 24-7 with nine managers in it; or the new Fleet House, the Atrium, where they sell property and rent.
A lot of situations where you've got to scratch your head. You have to look at the efficiencies and inefficiencies of where we've been with B.C. Ferries and where we need to go. I think it's incumbent on the minister to try to get a grasp of it. I don't think we should be crying "independence of the corporation" when we've got so much at stake and so much taxpayers' money going into it.
I do have a question about B.C. Ferries and a partnership agreement they're entering, a five-year partnership agreement. Again, maybe the minister knows about this. Hopefully, the staff have been versed on this. It is with SNC-Lavalin. It's a five-year partnership agreement for "the management of all master planning, engineering, maintenance and…construction of new…ferries and terminal facilities."
One of the key recommendations in the ferry commissioner's report, that I jump in on, is that B.C. Ferries plans to spend billions of dollars in the next 12 years — I think it's $2.5 billion — without a long-term strategic plan or a vision.
We need to sit down — the government, B.C. Ferries, stakeholders — and get a vision. I'm just wondering if the minister or the staff have any input on this five-year partnership agreement with SNC-Lavalin.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just a couple of comments, Member, maybe mistakenly spoken. You indicated that they weren't under the FOI Act. B.C. Ferries is under the FOI Act. Just for the people watching, I think it's important that they are aware of that.
The transparency comment that you made — that there's no transparency. We have an independent ferry commissioner that deals with them, holds them accountable. I think he does a tremendous job — our previous commissioner, our present commissioner, who has just concluded the work with the close to 2,000 people that the member mentioned in looking at his report.
I do think there is transparency there. I think the commissioner holds them to account and does the job that he needs to do. I'm sure just maybe a slip of the tongue, but indicating that I should get a handle on the B.C. Ferries. I think I do have a good handle on it, Member, and I will continue to do my due diligence.
The last question you asked: do we have input into the issue with B.C. Ferries and SNC-Lavalin? No, that's an operational question. B.C. Ferries will make those determinations.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I think if I didn't get the point across, I was referring to that we didn't have FOI, and under the bill…. I think it was Bill 20 that we got it back under FOI.
Again, yes, I agree that the ferry commissioner is the regulator, but I do believe that in the report that he did, he deemed that he needed and wanted more power and authority so he could do his job.
I think it was recommendations 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 — over a dozen recommendations; I just happen to have this written down, Minister — out of the 31 where he is requesting more authority so that he can do the job, the power, under the legislation. It's approving long-term capital plans, major capital investments, approving service plans, fuel deferral accounts, municipality involvement, dealing with extraordinary situations. We have talked about that with the fuel surcharge — and quite a few others.
He wants the power also to require B.C. Ferries to prepare a plan, review a policy, do public consultation, make information public. So when you say we have a regulator looking after B.C. Ferries, and then he sets out a wide range of recommendations, saying he's not really looking after the public interest — and I think this was the key to the whole report and the consultation process — we sort of question…. I think we differ right now on whether or not the regulator from here previously has really had the power to control B.C. Ferries and regulate them. It appears that he's asking for quite a bit more power — that I think he should have.
On that note, getting back to the SNC-Lavalin. Again, I guess the minister sort of put it off, saying that there's a ferry commissioner who will regulate it and that it's an independent company.
But when we start looking at what's happening with B.C. Ferries and this five-year partnership agreement…. I put in an FOI, so that's the only way I can try to get the amount of it. Right now the agreement is for the engineering, maintenance, construction, new ferries and terminal facilities, and right now B.C. Ferries has a minimum of 46 management positions dealing with terminal operations and engineering.
I would think that it must astound ferry users and those watching this, that they've signed a multi-year contract to deal with this, and we have 46 management positions within B.C. Ferries who deal with terminal operations and engineering.
I'll leave that right now. But it just astounds me, and
[ Page 11178 ]
I hope to get information through an FOI, and maybe I will share that with the minister. Hopefully, the minister is monitoring the FOI situation on B.C. Ferries's website, and the staff is doing that.
I do want to get into something that I think is vitally important. That's the exclusion process that's happening with B.C. Ferries, where we're looking at…. Under an award, Vince Ready…. They've allowed about 155 senior officers, senior chief engineers, chief engineers, senior chiefs, chief stewards, masters to be excluded from their positions and morphed into management. There's been a huge situation with that.
I think the officers marched and rallied about a year ago, marching down the street in uniform. Not too often do you have that. The people that look after the safety of our vessels and ensure public safety are having issues about what is happening on their vessels.
I'm just wondering if the minister agrees with the exclusion process. I'm sure he's been briefed on it. He's done a few media situations in the last month or so.
A year ago I wrote with a concern about safety and about the cost of exclusions and the service contract and how that may impact. I'm just wondering: does the minister, after analyzing what's going on in the last year, still agree with the exclusion process? Where does he think we're headed with that?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Through to the member, just a couple of things he touched on. The commissioner's powers — you talked about those. Obviously, part of the report. And as I answered earlier, I think we're extremely close to having our formal response to that report. I think the commissioner did a great deal of work, put a number of very good recommendations forward.
Do I agree with the exclusions? Yes, I do, Member. But that is not my decision. That is an operational decision of B.C. Ferries.
One thing I want to be very clear, as I said yesterday to your colleague. There may be hundreds of thousands of people watching this debate again today, and I do not want them left with the impression that safety has been compromised one bit. Safety is the primary focus for B.C. Ferries. They have an obligation, and so do the men and women that work for that organization. I'm proud of the work they do, and British Columbians should be proud of the work they do. We have an extremely safe fleet, recognized around the world as such.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I think there was an issue last week where there was a shortage of officers, and a ship was tied up for a bit. There's quite a bit of stories going around about the exclusion process and concerns with safety and operational service.
I'm wondering: has the minister been told of or is he aware of any safety concerns due to the exclusion process?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think the member is referring, probably, to an article in the Tyee. I think it's what he's referring to on that delay.
Let me answer. Obviously, again, safety — primary focus. Regulated by Transport Canada, there are obligations and commitments. Our ferries will not sail if they are not safe. Certainly, our system is a safe system.
Mr. Morfitt. Obviously, his follow-up report — released, I believe, in January — indicated again that the safety of our fleet and our operations is very good.
But I do want to go back. You raised it. I think it's a result of that article in the Tyee about the delay and what could be taking place. Let's put this into context, Member. We have had one 20-minute delay — one 20-minute delay — out of 250,000 sailings since senior officers were moved out of the union.
G. Coons: Again, I don't know if the minister answered the question. Is he aware of any safety concerns brought to his attention or to his staff's attention due to the exclusions?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Certainly, I receive e-mails. The ministry will receive information from individuals across our province on occasion that indicate that they have concerns about safety. We obviously immediately share those with B.C. Ferries, with Transport Canada, to have them looked into. Just because I receive something in writing, I have to do due diligence as well, as I'm sure the member does when he receives something. All of that is investigated and looked into.
G. Coons: Well, I think it comes down to a key decision by the minister where operational safety…. He says that safety is the number one priority, when we have the people at the helm of the ferries in this province expressing a concern, a long-lasting concern, about management excluding senior officers and threatening incumbent senior officers. They're replacing these experienced officers with ones less experienced than the incumbents. It seems that B.C. Ferries wants to manage the vessels from shore. There's a real disconnect, I think.
One of the FOIs, the minister may be aware, was 61 pages of concerns from officers to the safety and security manager at B.C. Ferries. I think it's very telling when they say: "Excluding shipboard employees…will cause officers to make decisions that could compromise safety." The last thing we want are the people at the helm of B.C. ferries — our officers, engineers, captains — thinking that decisions from the management of B.C. Ferries could compromise safety. There are concerns.
Here's a real good issue here — a note in one of these FOIs. B.C. Ferries hired a bunch of retired engineers
[ Page 11179 ]
from the navy to fill the exclusion ranks. There are about eight of them, I think, and they are making $95,000 a year. They had to be trained for a year because navy engineers do not normally hold Transport Canada certificates. They have to be upgraded. They were paid while they were in training, not working. They got meals, hotels, and the total cost was about $760,000 to bring in eight navy engineers to fill the ranks of the excluded ships' officers.
I think it is incumbent on the minister to know whether or not we're getting value for money here. I'm wondering if the minister has done a cost analysis or has been presented with a business case for the exclusion process from B.C. Ferries.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do follow the member's line of questioning. I'm quite confident the member is aware that the exclusion process was arrived at through an agreed-to process, arbitration process. I do understand the union doesn't like the results of it, but it was an agreed-to process. And they differ on that. I accept that. I've spent 17 years in the labour movement. I understand it quite well. I follow through that.
The other thing…. Maybe the member wants to clarify this, and I hope he will. I get the impression he's indicating that we have people at B.C. Ferries that will sail our ships if they aren't safe.
The ultimate decision before a ship leaves the dock, in the sailing of that, is with the master, the captain of the ship. I have a great deal of respect for these men and women. They will not put people's lives in jeopardy. Safety is a primary concern. As well, they are looked after by Transport Canada.
I want to be very clear for the people that are watching. This is a serious issue. I enjoy the dialogue that we're having and the discussion, but safety at no time is jeopardized.
I do understand the, I guess, difference of opinion that the union has, based on the result of that arbitration. But again, I want to point out it was an agreed-to arbitration going in. Again, the master of the ship or the captain has the ultimate call on whether that ship sails or not, and I put my utmost trust in those people.
G. Coons: I have to agree that for the last many decades we have had the best ferry system in the world. Again, when we look at the Coastal Ferry Act…. There was an experiment tried by the B.C. Liberal government to quasi-privatize the system. We've got the commissioner coming out with his report. The main principles of the whole concept of the legislation now basically should be wiped out in the next legislation, whether it's user-pay, cross-subsidization. The financial sustainability of the corporation should be the number one priority. It should be the public interest or the interest of the users.
We've had an experiment that we need to turn the ship around on, and I think doing it with the exclusion process and creating a management regime. Back in 2001 there were about 255 managers for 40 vessels, so about 6.3 managers. In 2010 there were 415 for 36 vessels, which is about 11.4 managers per vessel.
With exclusions, that's going to increase that. I don't have those numbers in front of me, unfortunately, but there has been a huge cost to this increase in management. You've got this senior chief engineer from the Queen of Cowichan that I learned about now working as a terminal attendant and another chief engineer, 25 years of experience, who is working as a catering attendant — at their same salary. So you've got a huge….
They did not want to go to a management position and lose the flexibility of making decisions, that the minister said, under the pressure from the management. That's how they felt. These increased costs are being downloaded onto the users. So there has got to be something going on, along with all of the other associated costs with the exclusions.
Now, I just want to ask the minister. There are a bunch of exclusions. I'm sure the staff and the minister are being kept up to date on this. He felt comfortable with B.C. Ferries being independent with no business plan. I guess he hasn't seen one. He didn't mention whether he had seen a business case or business plan for the exclusions to see whether it was worth the while.
Does the minister know if the newly excluded officers…? There are up to 150 of them. Will they be receiving a bonus this year?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, Member, a couple of comments you made…. Management of B.C. Ferries will not and has not and will never direct people to jeopardize safety. That is just not in the cards.
I will give credit to the men and women. We have an incredible team that does that. I hope the member wasn't implying that management would at times direct union staff to jeopardize safety to carry on operations, because that is just not the fact.
The business plan that you've asked for — that would be an operational issue. I've asked the member to do that.
The other one you asked about was the bonuses: would they receive that? Again, I think that what you want to do is direct that question…. It would be best directed at B.C. Ferries for their pay scale.
I know the member has gone through the report of the commissioner, which he put together in great detail, I'm sure. In that report, B.C. Ferries' success at minimizing cost increases has been recognized by several independent sources that have looked at it. They took into consideration the work of the excluded, their exclusions that took place. So all of this, I think, comes together.
G. Coons: We're hoping it comes together, Minister.
[ Page 11180 ]
But I do want to note that, yes, at this point in time there is a concern from those at the helm. Morale is at a 20-year low. That's what I've heard from lots of people. I was at the B.C. Ferries annual general meeting a couple of weeks ago, and morale is not great with B.C. Ferries. As fares skyrocket, ridership goes down, and it seems there's management ballooning at the top.
Again, the minister says that I should talk to B.C. Ferries about their operational decisions. But when it comes down to the finances, Minister, B.C. taxpayers are putting in $170 million, and we're seeing fares skyrocket. We're seeing ridership go down. We're seeing huge losses. We're seeing a debt of around $1.3 billion. Taxpayers want to be assured by the minister that their service fees are not going to bonuses or that any other of the fees of the $170 million are not going towards bonuses.
I can say that a memo came out last March. I did get a memo March 15, and it's talking about the new exempt staff and how they are going to be evaluated for their performance feedback. So these 155 new excluded people will be getting 10 percent bonuses, along with a 20 percent salary increase from going from another past position to this new excluded position. So there's a huge cost to this exclusion process.
I think it's incumbent on the minister to at least go to B.C. Ferries and let the taxpayers know whether or not any of their $170 million…. Whether it's provincial subsidies or federal subsidies — that missing $500,000 to $600,000 that we talked about for the provincial-federal subsidy — people need to know that that's not going to bonuses. So when the minister says I should do some footwork here….
Well, I try to do my due diligence. I look at the paperwork that B.C. Ferries puts forward, the financials, and there are mistakes in there. So I think that the minister needs to assure taxpayers that none of their service fees are going to bonuses. Can he do that?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, a number of things you touched on, Member. Ridership. You have talked about how affordability has caused ridership to go down. I do know — and I would hope the member has done his homework — that the inland ferries are free, and ridership went down. Ridership has gone down on most ferry systems when you look at what's taking place with the global economic situation. So to tie the link….
N. Simons: Are you denying it?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Am I denying it, I heard a member say. Has ridership gone down? Yes. Member, I can't wait for you to ask questions. I see your one hand is in a cast. I'm not sure how it got there.
To indicate again, ridership has gone down, yes, but to say that it's directly as a result of only fare increases would not be correct, Member. When you have inland ferries that are free and ridership has gone down, I think you have to see some correlation there.
I found it interesting that the questions you asked…. Then you stood up right after and said: "Well, I actually have the answer. I just wanted to ask it." I hope that at the end of this you don't complain that we don't have enough time to get through all of your questions, Member.
The other thing is: do the service fees that we contribute to B.C. Ferries…? They will be included in their monetary system at B.C. Ferries, without question. I would expect that it will go to payroll.
G. Coons: Well, again, quite often when we go through this, everything is deflected to the independent company that has $170 million of our taxpayers' money — more than four other ministries. I think it's important as we move along that we try to set the stage for….
Of course I do my due diligence, and I do ask questions where I may have the answer. That's all part of the process, I believe, Minister.
I want to ask one more question about this. It's getting back to bonuses. The Premier was totally upset with bonuses — with TransLink, with B.C. Ferries. The minister came out on secondary pensions for David Hahn, and they were outrageous.
Again, it comes back to the ministry knowing what's happening with this entity that they set up. I think we need to get a grasp on that. The commissioner's report is asking for more power and authority because it seems to be a caged animal let loose and we need to control it. Hopefully, legislation will come down that will control what's happening with B.C. Ferries.
I'm just wondering: when B.C. Ferries submits their performance term submissions to the commissioner and the government, and the government reviews their performance term submissions — whether it's performance term 2 or 3 — they don't seem to identify management bonuses.
The only time they did — I think it was back in 2006 — they ended up getting some tax refunds. I think the minister may remember that, where they ended up getting tax refunds from terminals.
The only time that they did identify management bonuses is when they got a reduction in property taxes. That was reported to be used for terminal and fleet maintenance. David Hahn basically said that all this gets ploughed back into maintenance and repairs, but in their financials or their report a good portion of that went to bonuses.
It says it right in their OM and A that with their performance term 2 submission to the ferries commissioner, this reduction in property tax expense was partially offset by an increase in wages and benefits of $3.6 million. So again, they talk about wages and benefits.
[ Page 11181 ]
I'm wondering if, out of the three major sources of income — service fees, auxiliary revenue they may get and subsidies…. I've got fares, subsidies and any other revenue. Does the ministry know what source is paying for bonuses in B.C. Ferries?
I know the minister can say that I should go to B.C. Ferries, that I should try to find their finances. But my question is: does he know what stream is paying for the bonuses, and does B.C. Ferries give the minister or the ministry information about bonuses and secondary pensions?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Out of the three revenue sources that the member has talked about with B.C. Ferries — the service fee, the fares and then ancillary revenue generated through other opportunities — no, I can't tell the member what portion there is used to say: "That goes to your pay; this goes over here." It all goes into their revenue.
I know you know business, or I would hope you do. I think you probably knew the answer to that question. That's why we have an independent regulator, as well, of B.C. Ferries. I think that's very important.
I want to read a couple of things that have come, and these are ferry commissioner's quotes. "Costs appear to be reasonable, based on a number of independent reviews and on substantial improvements in several areas since 2003." There's one. "Amongst publicly owned systems, B.C. Ferries appears to be relatively efficient based on the analysis." We have an independent commissioner for a reason, Member, and I think he does a very good job for us.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I did look at the power and authority recommendations, the over 12 of them, that he needed for more power. I find it interesting that the comptroller general had issues with the previous ferry commissioner, or the commissioner's office, validating the information it gets from B.C. Ferries.
When you have the comptroller general questioning the information coming from B.C. Ferries to the commissioner and having that questioning of — I don't have the exact terminology — the validity of the information coming from B.C. Ferries, you can see that it should raise a few red flags, not only to the minister but to taxpayers and ferry users.
But I do want to get on to the Morfitt report. The minister mentioned Mr. Morfitt, the Morfitt report, and I do want to add one thing. Mr. Morfitt is also the chair of WorkSafe B.C. In his reporting there was some sort of question that he wasn't able to cover WorkSafe B.C. things in his report. That's just sort of something the minister, I guess, or staff should confirm, that that is true.
In the Morfitt report he had a real concern with on-time performance. His report came in June 2007. There were 41 recommendations. There was a page there on "specific risks inherent in B.C. Ferries' operational safety." On-time performance was a real key. He talked about the bonus plan, that it "involves the president and CEO, down to the senior master, master…." So there's a bonus for on-time performance. A significant number of staff, including ship officers, thought that operational safety could be impacted in a negative way, with on-time performance being a key indicator.
B.C. Ferries — safety remains a number one priority. There should never be a conflict between on-time performance and operational safety. The recommendation was: "B.C. Ferries should continue to communicate to operational staff that in making decisions around on-time performance, operational safety will never be compromised."
This safety audit, which was pushed heavily, I think, by the opposition…. People working for B.C. Ferries came forward. I asked for a follow-up. I kept asking for a follow-up to these safety recommendations. But B.C. Ferries did put out their own status report in 2010, and on this particular issue of on-time performance, they said: "Completed. On-time performance is no longer part of the B.C. Ferries bonus plan objectives." I did notice that in the compensation reports put out that the CEO and other management were still getting bonuses for on-time performance.
Then the Morfitt report came out in 2011. I'm not too sure when in 2011. It basically said: "The bonus plan is no longer linked to on-time performance. The recommendation has been fully implemented" — Mr. Morfitt.
Again, I have my memo, March 15, 2012, from Glen Schwartz about exempt managers and their performance bonuses. It says: "As per past practice, only the executive management committee will have on-time performance objectives for compensation purposes." So March 15, 2012, Glen Schwartz is putting out that management will continue to have on-time performance for bonuses.
There's a real disconnect when I start to read Morfitt's report. I do respect Mr. Morfitt. I understand he's the chair of WorkSafe B.C., which is a bit of a conflict with the safety audit and review he's done, but a real disconnect between what is actually happening with bonuses at B.C. Ferries and how Mr. Morfitt saw it or how he was told they were happening.
I'm wondering if the minister knew that on-time performance was still part of the bonus structure for management at B.C. Ferries.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Member, I think you raise a valid point. Obviously, Mr. Schwartz in that memo…. My commitment is I will get the answer for you. I don't have it here with me today. I will get that. I will get it back to you as quickly as I can.
There may be more to it. There seems to be a conflict, as you've pointed out, in what actually was said and now
[ Page 11182 ]
what is said as a result of the memo from Mr. Schwartz on March 15. Let me get the information for you, Member.
I do want to point out that our on-time performance in B.C. Ferries has increased every year since 2004.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for that. Yeah, and when I find disconnects, whether it's the provincial-federal subsidy or something like this, I think it's really incumbent that we do our due diligence and find out where we're going — especially, as I mentioned, $170 million of taxpayers' money.
I do want to look at on-time performance. Just to comment before my next question, the TSB, the Transportation Safety Board, has identified the pressures for time performance and maintaining rigid schedules as an issue in numerous incidents — whether it's the Queen of Victoria collision, the Queen of New West premature departure, the Queen of Prince Rupert grounding, the Queen of the North sinking, the Queen of Alberni collision and many more.
When we talk about on-time performance and tying it into performance bonuses, there's a huge issue, not only with Morfitt in his report but also with the Transportation Safety Board. I think it competes with the principles of good seamanship and safety when you have that. That's what Morfitt was trying to get across. I appreciate the minister looking into that.
Now, this is something the minister…. I want to get into next…. The minister doesn't like ripping up contracts. I appreciate that. I really acknowledge his stance on many issues on that. But I have to look at, and so do ferry users….
Secondary pensions were given out to David Hahn of close to $300,000. I believe Mike Corrigan and Glen Schwartz are going to be getting…. Corrigan's going to get an extra $224,000 a year for life, including his public sector pension, and Schwartz is going to get an extra $102,000 for life. Like David Hahn right now is collecting…. It was going to be $315,000, but I think there was a reduction in that because he left a year early.
These are lifetime costs to ferry users for fares. We talked about whether or not bonuses were put into the performance term submissions, but when you've got lifetime pensions going to the CEO and the vice-presidents…. You add them up, and it's probably close to a half-million dollars when they're gone, per year, just for secondary pensions. It's a huge amount, Minister, when you're increasing ferry fares and putting fuel surcharges on.
I'm going to make a suggestion to the minister, and hopefully, this could be an out to look at the secondary pensions.
In the Coastal Ferry Act, under section 40, it talks about the establishment of price caps for performance terms. The ferry corporation must "provide to the commissioner, the Authority and the Minister…satisfactory to the commissioner, respecting the following in relation to each designated ferry route." And looking at the "ferry operator's administrative expenses that the ferry operator has reasonably allocated to the designated ferry route."
So we're looking at administrative expenses. How do we define that? Is that like current expenses, or is that administrative expenses that are happening 30 years from now, with David Hahn and his $300,000 pension?
I'm wondering if, in section 40 and in 41, where it says that the commissioner must be guided by the following principles in doing the price cap: "The portion of administrative expenses that can reasonably be applied to the route group…." In setting the price cap for the route group, determine the portion of the following that in the commissioner's opinion acting reasonably can reasonably be applied to the route group re operating expenses and administrative expenses.
I would hope that if we haven't been doing this thus far with B.C. Ferries, they would allocate all the expenses — whether it's salaries, bonuses or secondary pensions — so that British Columbians and the minister…. I don't think they're doing this. I don't think the minister has ever seen any documentation where we saw David Hahn getting up to $300,000 a year for life in a secondary pension added onto his public sector pension.
It's pretty hard to comprehend that one, Minister, when we say it's an independent company and we can't touch it. But David Hahn is getting a public sector pension out of it also.
I'm wondering if the minister has seen, anywhere in writing or in the performance term submissions, anything that talked about secondary pensions and the amounts that would add up over the years to come — whether that was part of the submission and the minister said: "Yes, I think that's pretty good spending of our money."
Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, the performance terms don't go into that detail. They will deal with the four-year term, the performance terms. The first one I have dealt with as the minister, we dealt with by actually putting a 4.15 percent cap on. While we looked at the affordability issue, the commissioner did his work, which I know the member and I have discussed at length. We will have a response in the very near future on that. These performance terms are to deal with their operational and capital costs over the four-year term of that performance term.
G. Coons: It sets the price caps and what we should be charging for fares, etc. When you've got expenses going many, many years into the future onto our children and grandchildren for their ferry fares, it's a real problem. As the Premier said, it's way, way too big — saying it's too high.
Even though the Premier and the minister vowed to block them in the future — and they did, but not for the current executives…. That's the bonuses.
The secondary pension…. If in setting price caps for four-year terms and way beyond and if all of the information re salaries and pensions and bonuses were not disclosed, would the minister consider investigating whether the secondary pensions given to the highly paid executive management at B.C. Ferries be looked at, especially since in the Coastal Ferry Act, section 71 says: "In the event of a conflict between this Act and any other enactment, this Act prevails."
If there has been some information not submitted to determine fares — like secondary pensions for years and years to come — would the minister investigate looking at the secondary pensions and seeing if we can do something to look at that issue?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Member, you asked…. I think you're aware that under Bill 20 we corrected, certainly, the issues that you've spoken about before here as well as in the House. We limited compensation to ensure that B.C. Ferries would be no higher than public sector Crowns, for example. It is a cumulative compensation package. I think that certainly was the correct move and one that I fully support.
G. Coons: I've got three or four more questions, but I think I'll communicate with the minister on my question. I was talking about the secondary pensions. It might be some advice to the minister to work forward.
Also, you're speaking of the compensation in legislation. Yes, but all the current executives were grandfathered in unless they left their position.
Mike Corrigan left his position — from COO to CEO and president of B.C. Ferries. He's making $563,000. Actually, he's making $364,000 a year plus a 55 percent short-term bonus. He's still getting a short-term bonus, I'm assuming, because it says he's going to make $563,000. You add 55 percent of his base salary, and it gives you your $563,000, plus he's getting a 20 percent bonus on his annual base salary. So I think Mike Corrigan…. I think we do have to question….
I did have a question on this. I was actually going to put it in writing. But since the minister talked about it…. It says that this individual's compensation should be consistent with a similar size and scope at B.C. Ferries, hold similar positions, and not greater than provincial public sector employers in British Columbia.
I just want to confirm that the salary that the new CEO is going to get falls under that. Has the minister looked at whether or not the new CEO and president's salary and compensation falls under the current legislation? Has that been confirmed to the minister from the board of directors?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, it does fit within those guidelines.
G. Coons: Would the minister be able to share the report that did the comparators with that so that it falls within the realm of that? I think that's what the legislation said — that it would look at similar positions and do a report to get that salary. Perhaps the minister could share that with me if he has it.
I wanted to look at multiple account evaluation. The Ministry of Transportation uses MAEs for its ranking and prioritization of projects to provide British Columbians value for money. Does the minister or his staff use multiple account evaluation with B.C. Ferries when they look at the subsidy that should be given to them?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, multiple account evaluation is not what is used. We enter into a coastal ferries contract, and that contract is determined. That's what our service fee is for — services determined in that.
G. Coons: Perhaps when we get to the next performance term, some thought could be put into using the MAE approach, since ferries are an extension of our highways. To provide safety and mobility and benefits to British Columbia, perhaps that should be part of the picture. So just a suggestion that when we're looking at a suggestion from the ferry commissioner that there should be thoughts to increasing the subsidy, this might be an approach for the minister to use.
I've got one more question, and then my colleague may ask a question.
There's been some talk recently about vessels and shipbuilding and big news about British Columbia shipbuilders. In the next three performance terms, which is about 12 years, as the minister knows, there is about, I think, $2.5 billion in new vessels and supporting infrastructure.
There has been talk of Washington State exploring the benefits for them of working with B.C. Ferries to build vessels. The press article I read says that, by law, Washington State ferries must be built in-state. B.C. ferries can be constructed anywhere. The last batch was built in Germany.
Knowing that we have to build vessels and knowing that the ferry commissioner said that there should be in our long-term vision a statement, a policy directive, on vessel-selection criteria and talking about having it standardized — small, medium, large — for refits and maintenance and equipment on it, would the minister support our ferry vessels being built in British Columbia by British Columbians versus being sold out to Washington State or, again, to Germany?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just a quick comment. Obviously, interoperability, as you've touched on, is important. I
[ Page 11184 ]
don't think we have seen that in the last 30, 40 years. We're going to have to get there so that we have some continuity in those vessels.
But no, what I will support, Member, is the best deal for the taxpayer. I think that has to be very clear. I'm surprised you're going down this line of questioning. I think you know what my response could be on the amount of revenue that was lost on behalf of taxpayers with our fast ferry fiasco, but I won't delve into that too much.
What I support is an open tendering process. I think we have some incredible people here that can be competitive. But I don't get people banging on my door saying: "I'd rather pay more. Just build it here." I get people saying: "Look, we can compete with anybody in the world on the vast majority of things that we produce here. Let's have a free market and get after the tendering process."
N. Simons: Thanks to the minister and his staff for being here. I represent the only completely ferry-dependent constituency in the province. We have four ferries that serve the people of the Sunshine Coast. Ridership is down. There are very few discretionary trips being taken. People still have to go to their soccer games, their violin lessons, often to their doctor's appointments.
I'm hearing from seniors in my community about the lack of ability to stay in touch with families. This isn't just simply about ridership being down everywhere. There is no option on the Sunshine Coast. There is absolutely no option except for floatplanes.It makes a difference.
You might want to be able to compare the major vessel trips with the inland ferries, but on the Sunshine Coast you have no choice. Until very recently you had to go to the Lower Mainland for essential government services.
This is about affordability. Businesses on the Sunshine Coast are surviving simply because of their ingenuity. It is despite government policies that they're succeeding. But I still see businesses shutting down. The economy of the Sunshine Coast is being choked by government policy and the lack of action.
I'm really hoping that the minister can provide some reassurance, at the very least, to the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast and other ferry-dependent communities that action will be taken, reflecting and recognizing the huge increases, versus the cost of living, that have taken place over the last seven or eight years. When you look at it in those terms, they are higher and faster than any other previous time in history, despite the fact that I recognize that fares did go up in the '90s.
They've gone up significantly. On Texada Island — which is home to approximately a thousand people, which has quarries and other businesses that keep this province going — their fares went up 104 percent over the last seven years. This is troubling. People are talking to me about just having to move somewhere else.
If that's the government's strategy, then it should be stated that way. But I'm hoping that the minister can offer some assurances to the people of my riding and other ferry-dependent constituencies that government will be taking action that will reduce the burden. Can the minister provide those assurances?
The Chair: Minister, I'm wondering if you could answer the question this afternoon. The other House has just wrapped up.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I can give an answer, and then we will rise. Obviously, we did begin addressing the affordability issue with Bill 14. I think the original increase for the constituency you represent was at 8.23. We capped it at 4.15 percent.
The work from the ferry commissioner and the affordability discussion that we've been having…. I am hopeful that we are going to find solutions, but again, I think it's very important to point out that the solutions won't be just government solutions. I think they will be government, B.C. Ferries and the users themselves. I'm more than confident that we're going to find solutions to this, Member.
Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.
Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada