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, May 17, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: It's my pleasure, in my capacity as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a delegation of visitors from the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature in the Republic of South Africa.

Joining us in the gallery this afternoon are seven members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Masiza Maxwell Mhlati, Neo Moerane, Mkhangeli Matomela; Michael Peter, Nomvula Ponco, Nkosinathi Kuluta and Xola Pakati. The staff accompanying the committee members are Tom Brokolo and Ntomboxolo Sylvia Peter and Lwandile Fumba.

This morning the delegation had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the members of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, observe the Committee of Supply, attend meetings with other key officials and now are here on the floor of the Legislature to observe this afternoon's proceedings. Will the House please make our guests very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. M. Polak: Today I had the privilege of hosting an event to celebrate the signing of an important agreement between the province and the Kaska Dena Council on behalf of three northern First Nations. The agreement is the fifth strategic engagement agreement signed by the government with First Nations in British Columbia.

Among the honoured guests at the event and in the gallery with us today are Deputy Chief Peter Stone of Daylu Dene Council and the Chief Donny Van Somer of Kwadacha First Nation. Chief Carol Ann Johnny of Dease River First Nation had hoped to be with us today, but unfortunately, she was not able to join us.

Also at today's celebration and in the House are Kaska Dena Council chairman George Miller; vice-chair Danny Case; Dave Porter, chief negotiator for Kaska; members of the Kaska Dena drummers and several other Kaska members. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are two constituents of mine, Kathy Cook and her daughter Emma, who is being homeschooled. After the proceedings here today we're going to go for a bit of a tour. While I was saying hello, I met three new friends from the great state of Oregon who are going to come with me for a tour into the basement to see where all the secrets are buried. Will the House please make my constituents and our friends from Oregon very, very welcome.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Joining us in the House today is my former ministerial assistant, Ms. Corrie Delisle, and also a number of other guests with Corrie. Her first son, William Delisle, joins us; and her newborn son, Noah Delisle, who was born April 2 — six pounds, six ounces — and brother of William joins us as well; as well as Corrie's mother and grandmother to both William and Noah, Jill Allick. Will the House please help me welcome them here today.

C. James: I have two guests in the Legislature today who are visiting us from the Victoria Foundation, which is, as many members know, a community foundation and registered charity that does extraordinary work in our area and around the province.

In fact, it was one of the first charities in Canada to receive accreditation through Imagine Canada standards program.

Today we have Louise MacDonald, who is the director of governance and executive operations, and Maureen Grant, the administrative assistant. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Les: In the gallery today we're honoured to have the Dutch consul in Vancouver, Mr. Johannes Vervloed of the Netherlands. The consul general is here today with a delegation that includes Mr. Ralph de Vries, who is a member of the provincial executive for the province of Utrecht in the Netherlands, and Mr. Peter Glas, president of the regional water authorities in the Netherlands.

They are here to participate in a flood management and mitigation seminar in Richmond tomorrow. I was pleased to be able to join them for lunch today at the Empress Hotel, and they will also be hosting a reception this evening at the Hotel Grand Pacific, to which members of the House are invited. I would ask the House to please help me make them very welcome.

L. Popham: I'd like to welcome Dan Pollock to the House today. The West Coast Social Media Awards have nominated Dan for the community builder award, and we would like to wish him good luck on June 8.

Hon. I. Chong: All of us will know that one of the organizations that we deal with closely is the provincial body that oversees our mayors and councils, our regional districts, and that's Union of B.C. Municipalities. They have executive meetings three or four times a year, generally in Vancouver, but one of those times they usually come to Victoria.
[ Page 12176 ]

Last night they had a reception to host many of us who were able to attend. Today I understand that some of the members are here attending question period.

I would like the House to help welcome Mayor Mary Sjostrom from the city of Quesnel; Coun. Harry Kroeker; Mayor Dave Pernarowski from the city of Terrace; Mayor Galina Durant, the district of Stewart; and Marie Crawford, who is a staff member from UBCM. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

[1340]

J. Brar: I am very pleased to introduce a family who are visiting Canada, Mr. Ramesh Rai and his wife, Jothi. They are visiting from India. They are here to see their son, Abinav, who graduated from UVic and now lives and works in Victoria.

Mr. Rai is also air vice-marshall in the Indian Air Force and the chief instructor at the Defence Services Staff College in Wellington. I would ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

I also see a friend and famous Burnaby councillor here, Sav Dhaliwal. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

R. Cantelon: Joining us in the gallery today are John Phillips; his wife, Leslie; and their daughter Emily. John is the past chair of Vancouver Island University, and Emily works for us very diligently in caucus. They're all here to see how events unfold in question period, and I'm sure that we'll entertain them suitably. Let's please make them welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see a frequent visitor to the gallery of this chamber, Ryan Clayton, who has moved to Victoria. He's a strong advocate for lesbian, gay, bi and trans rights. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Tributes

COURAGE TO COME BACK
AWARD RECIPIENTS

Hon. M. McNeil: Coast Mental Health has announced recipients of its 2012 Courage to Come Back Awards. I would like to recognize two of this year's recipients.

Rebecka Hill serves as an inspiration for all at-risk youth across this province and is a former foster child. After struggling with drug addiction and being involved in a life of crime, Rebecka turned her life around and is now a mother with a two-year-old daughter. She has drawn on her own life experience to be a mentor, teacher and role model for at-risk youth at the Okanagan Boys and Girls Club.

I'd also like to recognize Margaret Benson. Margaret was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at 14, and she was given only one year to live. But she never stopped believing, and her belief kept her alive for 30 more years before an organ donor provided the lungs she needed for a new lease on life. Margaret now raises awareness about transplantation and returned to her profession as a schoolteacher, is a public speaker and participates in athletics to prove that organ donation really works.

I also want to recognize that Margaret Benson is the teacher of my grandson Roger, and they are very proud of their teacher for winning the Courage to Come Back Awards.

PATRICIA LEE

R. Fleming: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the passing of a wonderful British Columbian and lifelong public servant who made a difference in the lives of so many in our province. Earlier this year Patricia Lee passed away suddenly and unexpectedly, having only recently received the province's 35-year service pin for recognition of her public service to others.

Pat Lee's career began at the Catholic Children's Aid Society, which then became the Vancouver Resources Board and later the Ministry of Human Resources. She worked across our province, from the east side and greater Vancouver area in youth services as well as many northern and aboriginal communities.

Pat worked in the Ministry of Children and Family Development's After Hours office providing emergency child protection, and for many years with Car 86 alongside Vancouver police department officers on high-risk cases.

She was a highly respected social worker noted for her exceptional, almost instinctive ability to assess the risk of harm to children, and her work was largely unsung. She worked as hard as is humanly possible every day for British Columbians.

Tonight at the Vancouver Heritage Hall there will be a tribute to Pat Lee's life. I would ask the House to join me in sending condolences to her daughter, Jenny, and her family, friends and colleagues in appreciation of her life of service to making British Columbia a better, safer and more socially just province for children and families.

Statements

VICTORIA DAY PARADE

Hon. I. Chong: I have two further introductions I would like to make, and I hope the members of the opposition will indulge me, those from the capital region.

I want to today acknowledge that on Monday we will be celebrating one of our civic holidays, and in Victoria the Island Farms Victoria Day Parade will take place, as
[ Page 12177 ]
it does each and every year. This annual event is the largest parade in the region with 143 floats, vans and other attractions. It is the longest-running consecutive parade in Canada, celebrating its 114th year.

The parade chairman has been a gentleman who has been giving so much to our community. The parade chairman for 21 years is Mr. Ron Butlin. I know he is not in the gallery because he is putting on those last-minute touches on all those floats himself.

[1345]

I hope that members, if they are here this weekend, will avail themselves to watch this parade. This year in particular the parade will have a 150th anniversary theme in honour of the city of Victoria's milestone. I'd ask the House to show our appreciation to Mr. Ron Butlin, who is the parade chairman.

VICTORIA HIGHLAND GAMES
AND CELTIC FESTIVAL

Hon. I. Chong: Secondly, I want to acknowledge, perhaps more for the member for Victoria–Swan Lake — I think it's in his riding — that the headline this morning was "Big Men in Kilts Toss Heavy Objects for Your Pleasure." That is the celebration of the annual event at Topaz Park this weekend for the 149th annual Victoria Highland Games and Celtic Festival.

If you've never seen big men in kilts toss heavy objects for your pleasure, please consider visiting that. I hope members will also give a hearty congratulations to all the participants.

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: In the gallery joining us today we have a really exceptional communications team from our offices. I'd like to have the House welcome Mike Lowe, Joni Li, Jen McWilliam and Veeno Dewan. They are here to join us today. For a couple of them, it's their first time here in question period, so I expect we're going to put on a nice, civilized show.

L. Reid: The three Richmond MLAs are pleased to welcome to the gallery today Mr. Ed Montague. Ed has been a lawyer for 25 years this year and 20 years with the fine law firm in Richmond of Campbell Froh May and Rice. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the interim annual report of the Merit Commissioner, 2011-2012, and the Annual Report of the British Columbia Legislative Library 2011.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL DAY
AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA AND TRANSPHOBIA

M. Elmore: Today thousands of people around the world in 70 countries are celebrating the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. Transphobia refers to the disdain for or fear of transgender or transsexual people, and today marks the World Health Organization's decision in 1990 to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders.

Last year the United Nations Human Rights Council passed their first resolution ever on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has also produced a study documenting discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Although many important social and legal gains have been made, many lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer members of our community still face the reality of homophobia and transphobia in their daily lives. While Obama's personal support is an important step towards ensuring the rights of LGBTQ adults, we need to take urgent steps and lead on another front, LGBTQ youth.

We're not doing enough to protect our youth. The truth is that LGBTQ youth do not have equal access to a safe and inclusive education. Many are exposed to harassment and bullying on a daily basis at school. Research finds that almost 30 to 50 percent of all gay, lesbian and trans young people experience homophobic harassment at school. Many gay, lesbian and trans kids are afraid to go to school, and for some, they're being pushed to suicide.

A 2005 youth risk behaviour survey found sexual minority students to be 2.5 times more likely to hurt themselves on purpose, three times more likely to have seriously considered suicide and four times more likely to have actually attempted suicide.

We must stamp out homophobia and transphobia in the very places our young people feel so vulnerable, our public schools. That's why the need for an explicit provincewide policy to protect our youth in schools in B.C. is needed. We have a responsibility to provide a safe and inclusive environment for all kids, and we need to adopt discrimination against transgender and transsexual people as prohibited grounds in the B.C. Human Rights Code.

As we mark this day, I ask all members to join the struggle to overcome homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism, and work towards a B.C. where everybody — regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity — is able to achieve their full potential and participate fully in everything that our province has to offer.
[ Page 12178 ]

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

J. McIntyre: I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to recognize all child care providers and early childhood educators in communities across B.C. on a special day that celebrates their work and dedication to the young children of our province.

[1350]

Today is Child Care Provider Appreciation Day, proclaimed during the month of May, Child Care Month in B.C.

If you're a parent and have your child enrolled in child care, you know firsthand just how important and valuable a role child care providers play. They're helping to teach and guide our children at their earliest stages in life, allowing parents to participate in the labour force or pursue education opportunities. Child care providers are specially trained and bring a high level of skill, care, compassion and dedication to their work.

I'd also like to take this opportunity today to congratulate last week's winners of the Child Care Awards of Excellence. There were ten awards for outstanding work on behalf of B.C. children and families.

There were four regional awards for licensed early childhood educators or licensed family child care providers, as follows: Vancouver Island region, Nancy Dobbs, Saanichton; Interior region, Linda Roth, Kamloops; Coast-Fraser region, Maria Rodrigues, Richmond; Northern region, Elaine Kopetski, Quesnel.

There were two aboriginal awards, one for an aboriginal-descent worker in a licensed child care setting. That was Melanie Chickite from Campbell River. The aboriginal organization winner was the Dakii Yadze Centre, Moberly Lake.

There were also two awards for innovation in child care programming. The winners were Shyrose Nurmohamed in Richmond and the Clubhouse Child Care Centre in Kelowna. Then two final awards for local government, for demonstrating leadership, and those are Burnaby and New Westminster.

I ask that members of the House join me in recognizing and celebrating the outstanding work of thousands of child care professionals right across B.C.

VICTORIA FOUNDATION
VITAL YOUTH PROGRAM

C. James: The Victoria Foundation's vital youth program provides students from seven local high schools with hands-on experience in philanthropy and community development. Earlier this month representatives from the program presented $17,648 in grants to 18 local charities.

This was no ordinary selection process. The recipient organizations were chosen on recommendations by the students themselves. Using the foundation's Vital Signs community report as a tool, they researched potential charities, they conducted interviews, and they completed on-site visits. Then the teams from each school made written recommendations to Victoria Foundation's board of directors for final selection.

The students from Belmont Secondary, Frances Kelsey Secondary, Oak Bay High, Reynolds Secondary, St. Michael's University, Stelly's Secondary and Victoria High participate through youth advisory committees and leadership classes. Each project team is allocated $2,500 by the Victoria Foundation to distribute to registered charities on southern Vancouver Island.

The dollars from Vic High, a school in my constituency, were allocated to the Fernwood Community Association, the Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team, Victoria Cool Aid's youth housing support and the Threshold Housing Society. Threshold offers at-risk youth aged 16 to 21 a safe place to live and work towards their future at their Mitchell and Holly houses.

Each year the Victoria Foundation provides a grant of $500 as a fund for each school that participates. That goes towards an endowment fund for future granting.

The vital youth program is a tremendous way to help young people understand the value of giving and the outstanding work that charitable organizations do in our community every day. So I hope the members will join me in thanking the Victoria Foundation for helping to inspire our youth and encourage tomorrow's leaders by showing them the remarkable difference that just giving back can make.

BOMBING OF AIR INDIA FLIGHT

D. Hayer: On June 23 of this year Canadians mourn once again the loss of 331 people who died as a result of terrorism hatched here in British Columbia. Twenty-seven years ago over the skies of Ireland, Air India flight 182 was blown out of the sky, taking 329 people to their deaths. Within an hour of that tragedy two Japanese baggage handlers were killed at Narita Airport as they were loading a second Air India plane.

Stunningly, despite our country spending more than $130 million trying to bring the criminals to justice, all but one of those who committed this most terrible crime still walk free. The victims and their families, after 27 long years, still have no closure, no justice for their loved ones.

[1355]

Aboard Air India flight 182 were 280 Canadians, 27 British citizens, 22 Americans. Eighty of those murdered were children who were between the ages of one and ten years old. Instead of a wonderful trip ending in India, they became victims of the worst mass murder in Canadian history, as the well as the deadliest air disaster to ever occur over the water.

What makes this terrible, disgraceful tragedy worse is that it was planned here in British Columbia — here on
[ Page 12179 ]
Vancouver Island and here in Vancouver. Terrorists plotted the attack and built the bombs. It was here that someone placed the explosive-laden bags at the Vancouver Airport, and it was here that they were loaded onto planes destined for Air India flights.

I ask everyone in this House and every British Columbian to remember on June 23 this terrible act of terrorism and also to remember that those perpetrators, the people who were involved in planning, financing, organizing and helping with this bombing, still walk free among us.

APOLOGY BY UBC FOR
EXPULSION OF JAPANESE-CANADIAN
STUDENTS DURING WWII

M. Mungall: Seventy years ago marked a dark time in B.C.'s history. British Columbia's involvement with interning Japanese Canadians during the Second World War was unconscionable. This House unanimously supported a formal apology. The Minister of Advanced Education not only initiated the apology, but she shared the powerful story of her family, illustrating how important the apology is in rectifying the past.

Others in B.C. are also seeking to rectify the past, and one of them is the University of British Columbia. In 2008 Mary Kitagawa approached UBC to honour 75 students who were forced from their studies and interned in 1942. She asked UBC to grant them honorary degrees. UBC knew that Ms. Kitagawa had brought forward an initiative that they needed to take on.

Two months ago they announced a new Asian Canadian studies program that will draw from the past to better the future. UBC is also preserving the historical record of that time.

On May 30 all students who were interned in 1942 will receive their degrees. One of those students is 93-year-old Fred Sasaki. The night Pearl Harbour was attacked, two plainclothes RCMP officers took his father away. As Fred says: "It changed our lives forever." Shortly after, Fred's mother and sisters were sent to an internment camp in my area, in Kaslo, on the shores of Kootenay Lake.

Separated from his family, Fred was forced out of UBC. The racism was dehumanizing, and it was cruel. While professors spoke out against the injustice, it took 70 years for them and the students to finally be heard.

I want to congratulate Fred and his classmates. You have overcome incredible injustice, contributed to your communities and made Canada a better place.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS WEEK

J. Les: May 20 to 26 has been proclaimed Local Government Awareness Week in British Columbia. The purpose of this week is to generate awareness and educate the public on the important role that our hundreds of locally elected officials play in making decisions through municipal councils, regional district boards and school boards. It's an opportunity for the public to learn more how local governance works and how citizens can participate in creating strong and family-friendly communities.

Communities are celebrating Local Government Awareness Week throughout our province. For example, the district of Squamish is holding a number of activities to get youth engaged in and excited about local government. These include a mayor-for-the-day contest for students in grades 5 to 7. The winner will have an opportunity to co-chair a committee-of-the-whole meeting, speak with downtown merchants and have lunch with council members, amongst other things.

Elementary students will also be able to tour the public works yard, followed by lunch with the mayor. Staff from the district of Squamish are delivering presentations to students in grades 5 through 7 at local elementary schools, upon request, to share information about local government and the important role that citizens play in shaping their community.

I commend Squamish and all of the other communities holding events next week for taking the initiative to engage with residents and to educate them about the local government system.

The timing coincides with National Public Works Week. This year's theme, "Creating a lasting impression," calls attention to the importance of public works in community life. Public Works Week is about acknowledging the efforts of many people who provide and maintain civil infrastructure and services, whether they are in the public or the private sector.

[1400]

I encourage members of the public to call their local government or their school district to see what activities are being planned in their areas. As you know, our government has made it a priority to build livable communities where families can thrive, where businesses can flourish and create jobs, and where the needs of people of all ages and abilities are met. It all starts at the local government level where elected officials make decisions that have a direct impact on the quality of life of their citizens.

Oral Questions

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CORONER'S
INQUEST INTO FARMWORKER DEATHS

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, we now have the recommendations from the B.C. coroner's inquest into the tragic deaths and injuries of mushroom farm workers in 2008. The jury has done its work. We have 15 recommendations, and now the ball is in the government's court.

My question to the Minister of Labour is: will the government now accept all 15 recommendations and ensure
[ Page 12180 ]
that they are fully implemented so that this kind of tragedy does not happen again?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you to the member for the question. The coroner's jury worked hard through a very complex process and delivered their recommendations last evening. The majority of those recommendations are for WorkSafe, although some of them are for the Ministry of Environment and the Ambulance Paramedics.

Before I say anything else, I want to say that this inquest was incredibly difficult for the families of the workers who were injured very seriously and the three who died, as have been the last several years. It's hard for any of us to understand what that would have been like. The family members talk about the hole that it has left in their families. There's nothing we can actually do to make it up to them for that.

What we can do and what we will do is take these recommendations very seriously. I spoke with the CEO of WorkSafe this morning. He had begun work last night on the recommendations, and work is underway. We will work very carefully, and certainly, the recommendations for WorkSafe…. The intention is to implement those recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: This case exemplifies serious negligence on the part of an employer. Where there's real negligence, there should be consequences beyond the fines such as those levied in this case. Most British Columbians believe there should be stronger consequences. Is the government going to strengthen penalties to deter employers from putting workers at risk?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite is speaking of something that wasn't part of the coroner's recommendations. Certainly, we currently have some of the most stringent penalties in the world. They are already in place.

What I would say that I believe is the most important, and what I heard very clearly from the families, is that we endeavour to do our very best, one, to make sure that something like this does not ever happen again on a mushroom farm. Indeed, WorkSafe began work on that immediately after this terrible tragedy. There's been a great deal of work that's been done since 2008.

Secondly, that we look at workers' safety generally. In British Columbia, bearing in mind that this was a terrible tragedy…. Looking overall at what's happened in the province over the last decade, I am very happy to tell the House that the number of injuries is down year over year as well as the number of fatalities. It doesn't mean the work is done. There is still more work to do, and we're absolutely committed to it.

ACCESS TO WORKER SAFETY
INFORMATION AND TRAINING

M. Elmore: One of the recommendations is that spaces in hazardous areas are labelled with appropriate signage in various languages as required. This is a critical recommendation, and it should not have taken this kind of tragedy for such a requirement to be brought in. There is also a recommendation for better training for employers and workers.

Can the minister commit that all safety materials and training sessions will be available in the workers' language?

[1405]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, thank you to the member opposite for raising an important issue. After this incident and, in fact, even before this incident, WorkSafe was keenly aware that British Columbia is a multicultural society and that many people who work not only in agriculture but in other areas do not have English as their first language.

The employment standards branch and WorkSafe have translated materials on their websites as well as printed materials in a number of languages. WorkSafe has translation available in over 170 languages by telephone, so we are paying attention and being mindful to this.

With respect to the contained spaces piece of the recommendations, certainly the CEO of WorkSafe acknowledged that this is important but technically going to be very challenging work, as there are literally hundreds of thousands of spaces like this in workplaces around the province. He has committed to me on the telephone today that work is already underway and that WorkSafe will be working on implementing all of the recommendations, and we will do that.

Again, the key thing that we want to do going forward is to make sure that safety is addressed in the best way possible, that plans are in place. Some of the recommendations that the member opposite has mentioned will require regulatory changes on the part of WorkSafe, and when that happens…. Under the legislation there's a process that has to be undergone, and part of that process includes a consultative process, so it takes them time.

B.C. HYDRO
ENERGY PURCHASE AGREEMENTS

J. Horgan: B.C. Hydro provided information to the B.C. Utilities Commission advising that they were going to buy 3,000 gigawatt hours of energy during the spring freshet between April and June of this year. The average price of that energy was going to be $68 a megawatt hour. The spot market today, the mid-Columbian price for peak power, is $8 — not $68 but $8.

The calculation is that that's going to cost us $180 mil-
[ Page 12181 ]
lion more than it would have if B.C. Hydro had been allowed to play the market, as it has done historically. I know the Minister of Finance is a student of economics and a friend of free enterprise, and maybe I missed the seminar, but my question is to him.

Maybe he can tell me at what economics course does it make sense to buy something at $68 a megawatt hour when the market is selling it for $10.

Hon. K. Falcon: The most important thing you learn is that you don't build an energy plan around the spot market. One of the things that we have done as the government is to make sure that we meet the commitment to create as many green energy opportunities as we can, because we know that's what the public in British Columbia wants to see.

Our investments and encouragement of wind power, of run-of-the-river power and of other green energy investments are delivering exactly the kind of capacity that allows British Columbia to ensure that we will continue to have the overwhelming majority of power generated by clean, green energy sources in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I'm still not sure why it makes sense to buy something at five times the market rate, and again, I'm not a free-enterpriser as avid as the Minister of Finance. I'll put the question, perhaps, in a different way. It might make a bit more sense to those that are watching at home.

If you take the $30 million that we wasted on the Boss Power settlement to expropriate rights for a uranium mine, if you take the $6 million we gave to the B.C. Liberal insiders in the Basi-Virk corruption trial, if you take the $40 million we wasted on the TELUS naming rights and you double that, you still won't come up with the $180 million that the B.C. Liberals are wasting in three short months this year.

Again, if the Minister of Finance could help us on this side of the House. Where in the world does that make sense?

Hon. K. Falcon: I feel like I'm almost having an out-of-body experience here. It sounds like the NDP are trying to give us lessons on how to manage anything, something. I mean this is remarkable.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hold on, now. This always happens. They get too enthusiastic early on, and they haven't heard the rest of the story.

[1410]

I do think it is important to recognize…. I know that the member opposite, the Energy critic, certainly won't take my word on it, so let's not take my word on the comparative economic management skills of the NDP while in power for ten years and our government while in power. Let's look at the people that make a living, in fact, out of measuring performance.

During the decade in which he worked in the government of the NDP — in fact, the opposition leader was the chief of staff to the former Premier, Glen Clark — we saw multiple downgrades of credit rating, a doubling of the debt and one of the worst economic performances at a time of North American economic growth. That was the record.

Now, I will try and be very modest here, but during our decade of government we have seen seven successive credit rating upgrades to where we enjoy the strongest credit rating possible — triple-A.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Let's look at what Helmut Pastrick at Central 1 Credit Union has said — that economic growth in the 1990s was superior to economic growth in the first decade, to 2010.

Let's look at B.C. Hydro…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Horgan: …deferral accounts. At the end of the 1990s, one. At the end of 2010, 27. The cost to B.C. ratepayers, $2.5 million.

Let's just focus on the next three months. Yesterday the spot price at mid-Columbia on off-peak power was negative $1.15. What that means is that while we were buying independent power for up to $68 to $100 — between that range for that power — Bonneville Power authority was giving us money to take the power away.

Again, I am not as steeped in free enterprise as the Minister of Finance. Could he please explain to me in what universe does it make sense to buy power at that much above the market rate? Where?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, on this side of the House over the last 11 years we have seen record levels of investment by B.C. Hydro in capital, billions of dollars invested in British Columbia in expanding and encouraging more generation of good, low-priced power for British Columbians.

Now, the reason they had one deferral account in the 1990s is that they were making no capital investments in hydro. That's why there was no investment necessary to smooth out. The investment they did make was in a Raiwind power project in Pakistan where the promoter disappeared. The money has never been found, and we
[ Page 12182 ]
are still left asking why in the world the NDP were investing millions of dollars in Pakistan when they should have been investing in British Columbia.

TREE POACHING IN
CARMANAH WALBRAN PARK
AND STAFFING LEVELS IN PARKS

S. Fraser: As we roll into what I hope is a lovely long weekend, many British Columbians may be considering a B.C. parks experience. Last year an old-growth cedar was cut illegally by poachers right next to the small parking lot area in the Carmanah Walbran Provincial Park. There are so few people working in B.C. parks that no one noticed them.

This giant old-growth cedar measured nine feet at its base, making it one of the largest cedars in the park. It's one of the reasons that people go to the park.

To the minister, how can he justify critically underfunding the staffing in the B.C. parks system to the extent that there's no one there to ensure that the integrity of the park is protected?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: The B.C. parks system is the third-largest park system in North America and the second-largest in Canada. We have over 125,000 square kilometres in our system.

Of that huge 14 percent of the land base, only about 2 percent has a human footprint on it. There are vast areas of this province where there is virtually no human footprint in our parks and protected areas. To suggest that anyone is going to be able to protect all of those areas to the level that the member suggests is, I think, fiscally irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Fiscally irresponsible? I'll tell you what irresponsible is.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: Ten years ago there were 194 park rangers in British Columbia. There are under 100 now. Now, that's irresponsible.

This old giant was cut down. The poachers were able to return with heavy equipment. They skidded this cedar out. Then they returned repeatedly and with impunity to buck it up into cedar shakes — this was in a park — and there was no one there to stop them.

I'll give the hon. minister maybe a chance to answer an age-old question. If a tree falls in the forest in B.C. and a piece of heavy equipment drives in and drags it out and breaks it into shakes, are there any rangers left to hear it?

Hon. T. Lake: As we start the unofficial beginning of summer on the long weekend where so many British Columbians are going out to visit our wonderful B.C. parks — reservations up 6 percent this year over last year…. When so many British Columbians have a smile on their face, enjoying the weather and the great outdoors, only the NDP could turn that into a bad-news story.

The biggest challenge that families will have this weekend is finding a spot in B.C. parks, because they are so popular that just about all of the spots are sold out. I want to encourage anyone who wants to come out to our day use areas, and it's absolutely free.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AND
ROLE OF CHIEF FORESTER

B. Simpson: An e-mail from the Deputy Minister of FLNRO went out last week with more news of staff changes and reassignments of responsibilities in that ministry. In the middle of the e-mail is a statement that the assistant deputy minister responsible for land tenures, forest tenures, forest initiatives, competitiveness and innovation, compensation and business analysis, and Crown land opportunities and restoration will now have to add to his workload the responsibilities of being B.C.'s temporary chief forester for the next 18 to 24 months.

At a time when B.C.'s forests have been devastated by the mountain pine beetle and fires, when our inventory system can't be trusted, when we've got a short-term log supply crisis, why is the minister allowing a further downgrading of the responsibilities in the role of the chief forester of B.C.?

Hon. S. Thomson: The role of the chief forester is one that is very, very important. The Forest Act clearly outlines the responsibilities of the chief forester. It's a quasi-independent position that acts in the public interest. I have confidence in the professional capabilities of the individual who has been tasked with that position to represent the interests of the chief forester.

[1420]

Again, as we go through the process with the special legislative committee looking at the mid-term timber supply issue — which we appreciate the cooperation of the members opposite in doing — we've provided the support of the two former chief foresters in that process to ensure that those obligations and those responsibilities are recognized as they consider the options.

The experience that is placed in those two individuals, providing technical support to that legislative committee, will be critical to ensure that that role is recognized and the responsibilities of the chief forester are recognized all the way through the process.
[ Page 12183 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: In 1913, B.C.'s first chief forester warned that a comprehensive knowledge of the quality, condition and extent of the forest resources is essential to the efficient administration of public forests. Today the Auditor General, the Forest Practices Board and the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals say that we don't have the inventory to effectively and efficiently manage our forests.

Yet instead of responding appropriately to that, this government, on the 100th anniversary of the B.C. Forest Service, has effectively killed the Forest Service in the name of integration and is now further downgrading the role of the independent chief forester. B.C.'s forests are the province's largest asset, valued at one-quarter of a trillion dollars, but their state of health is in question, and our ability to effectively administer them is as weak as it's ever been.

I ask the minister responsible, who I believe genuinely wants to do the right thing for B.C. forests: would he consider today, rather than downgrading further the role of the chief forester, to create the chief forester function as an independent officer of this Legislature reporting to the Legislature, not to the politicians of the day?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I outlined in my first response, the role of the chief forester is clearly outlined in the Forest Act. It's a quasi-independent position and acts in the public interest. I believe the responsibility is in that role and in the legislation: act in the public interest. I do not see the need for the chief forester to be an independent officer of the Legislature.

TransLink TAXISAVER PROGRAM FOR
SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

H. Bains: The TaxiSaver program was designed to work together with the handyDART service to allow people with disabilities to get around. Now TransLink has announced to cut this very vital program, leaving many people with disabilities worried they will have no more means to get around to do their daily deeds.

Jane Dyson, from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, said: "The TaxiSaver program allows people to take trips when they need to. I think that it will really mean that some folks are not going to go out as much as they do now."

My question to the Minister of Transportation is this. Will the Minister of Transportation take action to ensure that the people with mobility problems aren't stuck at home because of the loss of the TaxiSaver program?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I share your concerns, Member, as does my colleague the Minister of Social Development. I have expressed our concerns to TransLink. We have a commitment that they will engage the affected parties on this.

Again, I do want to express that what you have raised is a concern not only for the people in this House but the people outside this House as well. I believe TransLink provides a good level of service to the public, but this decision is one that I question as well, and we're in discussions at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: The minister has to understand that as it is, with both the TaxiSaver program and the handyDART service, people are having to wait longer and extended periods of time after getting treatment. There are some reports that after getting their dialysis treatment, they had to wait so long that their oxygen tank ran out. The service needs to be improved, not cut.

[1425]

Lilo Ljubisic is a Paralympic athlete who has relied on this program to get around. She said she was dumbstruck that the TaxiSaver program was cancelled. "This program being taken away will mean that many of us will decide not to go out."

My question again is to the minister. Why is the minister allowing such a vital program to be scrapped when it means so much to people with disabilities?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: apparently, you missed my first answer. I share your concern, Member. We actually are in discussions right now. This is the concern expressed not only by yourself but other people out in the public.

The one thing that I do want to reiterate…. You said: "Why are we not doing it?" I think the member is very aware that we don't make the decisions for TransLink. They have an independent board. We're presently in the situation where we are going to discuss a piece of legislation that will allow both the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council to sit on that board, to be part of the decision-making process.

Member, as I said earlier in my last answer, we are working on this. I share your concerns, and I'm very hopeful that a proper resolve will be found to this.

K. Conroy: Seniors are relying on this program as well. One senior I talked to called the decision to cut TaxiSaver harebrained. She said: "Vulnerable seniors and disabled people might be excused for feeling picked on by their government."

Seniors are rightly concerned to feel picked on. They have seen numerous cuts from this government. They've seen increased fees and cuts to services for residential care. They've had the whole fiasco with DriveABLE. And now this.

Would the Transportation Minister please do whatever he can — not just engage in discussions but actually do something — to stop this cycle of cuts to seniors? Seniors
[ Page 12184 ]
need the services that they deserve.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: I know your questions are written before we start question period, but I can't be clearer in my answer. We share your concerns. We are in discussions. We have expressed that concern to TransLink. I do not make decisions on behalf of TransLink. I know the member understands that.

We are going to make sure that the proper procedure is put in place, one that meets the needs of our seniors in this province. We're committed to doing that.

ORGANIC CERTIFICATION
OF FARMED SALMON

M. Sather: Under the new Canadian organic aquaculture standard, farmed salmon can be labelled as organic, even if they are raised with synthetic pesticides. And unlike other certified organic meats, there's no requirement to use organic feed. What's even more baffling is that our world-renowned wild Pacific salmon cannot be labelled organic, while Atlantic salmon raised in open-net pens and treated with chemicals can.

Mary Forstbauer, president of the Certified Organic Associations of B.C., notes that if consumers lose confidence in the organic label because it is applied to fish raised on non-organic feed that are exposed to synthetic pesticides, B.C. farmers who raise organic pork, beef, poultry, vegetables and fruits will suffer.

Why is the minister sitting idle while British Columbia's world-class reputation as a producer of organic food is being put at risk?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm proud to say that Canadian farmed fish can now be certified as organic. This is something that is brand-new in British Columbia and Canada.

Now, like many things, this is the first step, and I look forward to where we will take this path down the road. The standards today are prepared by a committee of the federal government, the Canadian General Standards Board, and were approved by the Standards Council of Canada. They've been working on this for several years now, and they've been working through their draft since about 2010.

The reality is that Stephanie Wells, who represented the Canadian Organic Trade Association on the CGSB committee, said: "Critics should view the new Canadian organic aquaculture as a beginning, to be reviewed within five years." I'm pleased they've made these steps, and I look forward to see where this initiative will go forward into the future.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

INVASIVE SNAKEHEAD FISH SPECIES

M. Farnworth: Channa argus is known as the northern snakehead. It is a predatory, aggressive fish that grows up to a metre in length. It's already established in waterways in the eastern United States. It's a highly invasive species. Recently one was spotted….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

M. Farnworth: Members may think it's funny, but the economic impact of invasive species on our marine and freshwater ecosystems in this country is no laughing matter. One only has to look at the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes, and the spread of the mitten crab and the green crab up the west coast to recognize the damage that can be done here in British Columbia if a species like the northern snakehead becomes established in our fresh waterways.

My question to the Minister of Environment is: will he do everything in his power to ensure that this species is no longer imported into British Columbia? It means talking with Ottawa and using whatever provincial powers are available to him to keep this fish outside of the province of British Columbia and joining every other jurisdiction in North America.

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, we will.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE FOR
FINANCE COMMITTEE

Hon. T. Lake: By leave, I move:

[That Doug Horne replace Rob Howard as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I have the report of the provincial health officer pursuant to the Drinking Water Protection
[ Page 12185 ]
Act: Progress on the Action Plan for Safe Drinking Water in British Columbia 2011.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: This afternoon in this chamber we will have continued second reading of Bill 54, intituled the Provincial Sales Tax Act, followed by second reading of Bill 51. If that is finished, we will go into second reading of Bill 49, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, followed by the second reading of Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will have continued committee stage of Bill 37, Animal Health Act, followed by committee stage of the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, followed by the FNCIDA Implementation Act and, if time, the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

In the Birch Committee Room this afternoon we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, followed by the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 54 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ACT

(continued)

S. Chandra Herbert: I am resuming my place in the debate on Bill 54. Bill 54, for those at home, is the bill that brings back the provincial sales tax, the bill that extinguishes the HST, the tax known as the hated sales tax.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It's a bill that was brought in because the people spoke. The people organized. The people got out in their communities.

[1435]

I know that in Vancouver–West End it didn't seem that I could go a day without seeing somebody out on the street corner with their table or in the middle of a block or near a community centre or even knocking on doors, bringing along a petition.

First there was a petition, and then there was, of course, the initiative petition. They worked hard because they felt that the provincial sales tax, which is being brought in with Bill 54, was more beneficial to their future.

Certainly, they wanted Bill 54 brought in much sooner. They'd hoped that we would have had the provincial sales tax back by now. For their own economic self-interests, they felt this was the best thing for them and their families. Constituents in my constituency and in the vast majority of constituencies in B.C. made that decision, which is why we've got back to Bill 54 today.

I was speaking earlier about how disappointed I was that we've had three years of tax chaos. It really seems to be an example for me….

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might draw you to the contents of Bill 54.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think Bill 54's contents show us how working methodically, working slowly and listening to the public is how we should do provincial taxes in British Columbia. We should listen to the public rather than trying to sneak one by, as the Liberals did with the HST.

The provincial sales tax was not perfect — far from perfect. Taxes in themselves are never perfect, but they are the price of civilization. We have to pay taxes in order to have health care, education, public safety and many of the other services that our governments provide.

Some people took the vote against the HST and the vote for the PST, which brought us to Bill 54, as a sign that people were just against taxes. I think what I understood it to be, through bringing back the provincial sales tax with this bill, is that indeed what people were saying is that they wanted to be involved.

They wanted the opportunity to have a say about their future. They wanted their public representatives, their MLAs, to be straight with them and tell them the truth, to say what they're going to do and to actually do it.

Those are lessons that I take from the HST. Those are lessons that I take with the reintroduction of the PST. I think it is vital that we understand how this bill got here and why it's before us. That really brings to bear a greater understanding of the province that we live in.

Legislation is not brought here to just be debated because some minister wanted it that way. It should be brought here because the public was interested, or there was a public safety or a public necessity to have it here. Indeed, by law there is a public necessity that this bill be brought here, and that was through the initiative process.

So what do we have here? We have an imperfect tax brought in after three years of debate, huge fights, arguments and millions upon millions of taxpayers' money spent by this government to defend the previous tax. Then it was, of course, defeated by the people of B.C. who would not let themselves be taken advantage of by their government.

It's unfortunate that we had to get to this place. It's unfortunate that the public response was not enough, that this government couldn't see that the PST was the preferred tax of the population. It's unfortunate, but indeed, here we are today bringing back the PST — a more modernized approach to PST, which is what we should have done before. There were business interests, there were community interests, and there were concerns about the provincial sales tax — things that we could work on and indeed governments had worked on improving.

Now, I know the government said the HST was the
[ Page 12186 ]
single biggest thing, the best thing they could do to improve the economy. Of course, they wouldn't say that in the election. They would only say that after the election. They wouldn't take on the PST before the election, only after the election. But the PST is what we have today, and the PST is what is being brought back.

It'll be brought back March 31, is my understanding. The government commits to bringing back all of the exemptions that were part of it. Restaurants will benefit from this — exemptions that will benefit the hospitality sector; exemptions which will benefit the tourism sector, barber shops, coffee shops; exemptions which will help people save some money in tight economic times; exemptions that will help small businesses.

[1440]

There are those, I know, in the film industry and elsewhere who've been saying: "This is it. This is what we're getting back." Now let's work with those industries, because they are concerned around their competitiveness, as they always are. Businesses always are, and that's a good thing.

If we as government are going to be responsible legislators, if we are going to be responsible MLAs, shouldn't it be our job to listen to those folks day in, day out, work with them, debate with the public and come up with solutions that bring us together? That's how I think government should work, not through sneaky, backhanded manoeuvres and millions of dollars to try and convince us the government is right. That's what brings us to Bill 54 today — a government with egg on its face for trying something which failed so disastrously.

The members on the other side have acknowledged that now, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that they have acknowledged that this was a problem. I just wish they would have listened to the people of B.C., who showed them it was a problem much, much earlier.

Now, the provincial sales tax has a long history. I know the Minister of Finance spoke about that in his opening remarks, speaking about how it had been here since 1948. It had made many modifications over its time.

Back in the 1980s, I understand, a Social Credit government decided that exemptions should be expanded to bicycles. Well, bicycles —why bicycles? If we want to encourage people to use alternative modes of transportation that don't harm the climate, that get them fit, the government of the day thought this would be one small way to do that, one small way to help local manufacturers.

I'm happy to support Bill 54.

J. Brar: I'm very pleased to stand up in my place to respond to Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act. Bill 54 will reinstate the provincial sales tax, called PST, on March 31, 2013. That's the final outcome of this bill. In other words, on March 31, 2013, the unfair tax, HST, will die and PST will come back to life.

Bill 54 is a huge, huge victory for the people of British Columbia who came out in big numbers to sign 700,000 petitions to stop the HST. They came out to cast a ballot to defeat the HST in the referendum. British Columbians said, "Enough is enough," to this government, and they said: "We must stop the HST and bring back the PST." That's why we are here debating Bill 54 today in the Legislature. This is actually a huge victory for British Columbians. This is a huge victory for democracy.

There is no doubt that Bill 54 is a bitter pill for B.C. Liberals and their corporate friends. In fact, it is the most painful bill they have ever introduced in this House. This is the first time in the history of this Legislature that the government of the day had to support a tax bill described by their own Finance Minister as a "better stupid" tax. But they don't have a choice, because the people of British Columbia have very clearly spoken on this issue.

There are four key elements of Bill 54 that I'd like to make some comments on. The first one: Bill 54 is one step needed to reinstate the PST on March 31, 2013.

Second, Bill 54 does not provide the complete list of exemptions that were available under the old PST. In that respect, Bill 54 is incomplete until we see the list of all the exemptions yet to come through regulations.

Third, Bill 54 proposes to eliminate time-limited exemptions, mostly for energy-efficient projects.

Fourth, it took 11 months for the B.C. Liberals to bring in the HST, but it will take 19 months after the referendum to see the end of the tax. The people ask: why?

[1445]

This bill has a long, painful history. During the last election the B.C. Liberals promised to the people of British Columbia that they would not impose the HST. They gave that commitment in writing to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. They gave that commitment in writing to the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. But that was before the election and during the election campaign. After the election was over, the B.C. Liberals did just the opposite.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I could bring your attention to the contents of Bill 54.

J. Brar: Yes, Madam Speaker. We are debating Bill 54. There's a history attached to it, and that history is the HST. Just a few weeks after the election the B.C. Liberals betrayed the people of British Columbia and broke the promise not to impose the HST. That's why we are here today debating Bill 54, which reinstates the PST.

Clearly, the B.C. Liberal government was not honest with the people of British Columbia during the election. That's why we are here. We are here today debating Bill 54 to reinstate the PST, changing that decision made earlier.

Clearly, they did not tell the truth to the people of British Columbia, because the B.C. Liberals knew at that time that telling the truth meant losing the election in 2009. We are here today debating Bill 54 in the
[ Page 12187 ]
Legislature because the B.C. Liberals promised to the people of British Columbia during the election that they would not impose the HST, but in fact, they did that as soon as the election was over.

The people of British Columbia got upset and angry with the B.C. Liberals because they imposed the HST that they said before the election they would never impose. The people of British Columbia said: "Enough is enough. We must stop the HST and bring back the PST." That's why we are here today — out of that bold action of the people of British Columbia to stop the HST and reinstate the PST. That's what we are doing today in this bill, in this Legislature.

They were so upset that the people of British Columbia from all walks of life and all parts of the province came together to stop the HST. Over 700,000 British Columbians signed petitions.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

J. Brar: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I'm not sure how that direction could have been unclear — the contents of Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act.

J. Brar: Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill 54 today to reinstate the PST. As we know, there used to be PST before. The PST was replaced by the HST, and there's a history attached to it. That's what I'm talking about. We are here today debating Bill 54 because that history of the HST is part of Bill 54. That's what I'm making comments about. Those are very relevant comments. That's what I think.

So if you'll allow me to proceed, Madam Speaker, I can continue my speech.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you have clearly heard the direction of the Chair.

J. Brar: The reality is that we are debating this bill today that we call PST. We are going to reinstate the PST in the province of British Columbia.

Under the previous PST, we had a large number of exemptions given to the people of British Columbia. This bill proposed today, Bill 54, is mainly silent about those exemptions which were available under the old PST. Although the government has a clear commitment about that in this House and outside of the House….

[1450]

The government is fully committed to restore all the exemptions which were available under the old PST. When we see this bill, which is a very long, extensive bill, a list of those exemptions which were available under the previous PST is missing from this bill. This bill does state that those exemptions will come later on through the regulations. That's what this bill says, but there are a number of exemptions that were available under the old PST and that people of British Columbia would like to see when we go to the regulations.

That is not part of this legislation today. I would like to read that list — all the exemptions that were available to the people of British Columbia under the old PST. That list included residential electricity and home heating fuel. Prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs, vitamins and certain other health care products and appliances. Children's clothing and footwear. Clothing patterns, fabric and notions. School supplies. Magazines, books and newspapers. Basic telephone and cable service, 1-800 and equivalent telephone services. Specified safety equipment. Labour to repair major household appliances. Clothing and footwear.

Miscellaneous consumer exemptions — for example, used clothing under $100. Bicycles. Livestock for human consumption and feed, seed and fertilizer. Production machinery and equipment. Production machinery and equipment for local government for power production. Equipment to produce energy from ocean currents, tides and waves. Rental of passenger vehicles for eight hours or less. Services to maintain or modify software. Logging machinery and equipment, and also mining and oil and gas and export. The list goes on.

But this Bill 54 only mentions a few of the exemptions which were there under the previous PST and available to the people of British Columbia. So we have to wait and see, basically, until the regulations come out, and we don't know when the regulations are going to come out.

The question is pretty simple. The people of British Columbia would like to ask: how can they trust the B.C. Liberals now to actually restore all the exemptions that were available under the old PST and that the government, the Minister of Finance, subsequently committed to restore as exemptions under the new PST Act? Those exemptions are not part of this. How can people of British Columbia trust the B.C. Liberals now, before the next election, when they've done completely the opposite? They made the promise not to impose the HST, but in fact, after the election they did impose the HST. That's why we are here, Madam Speaker.

The other thing I want to speak about on this bill is that this PST is completely different than the old tax, HST, which we are going to replace with this. The HST was a tax shift. It was almost a $1.9 billion tax shift from the big corporations onto the backs of the people of British Columbia, when we know that we have a huge and growing inequality in the province of British Columbia. That tax, in that respect, was very, very unfair.

I'm very pleased to see this Bill 54 — that we are having debate on this one, because that is now going to change the tide which took place under the HST.

[1455]

It is very hard for me to believe that we have had an
[ Page 12188 ]
HST-like tax which actually shifted $1.8 billion from the rich corporations onto the backs of the people of British Columbia, when we have almost 137,000 children living in poverty in the province of British Columbia, when we have about 70,000 people using food banks every month — and almost one-third of those are children — and when the gap between the rich and the poor has been growing for the last many, many years. Now the top 10 percent of people make way more money than the entire 50 percent of people at the bottom.

A tax we call HST, which was a tax shift from those 10 percent — even less a percentage of those 10 percent — on the backs of the remaining 90 percent of the people was a mistake. That was an unfair tax, in that respect, and that's why I am pleased to see that we are actually debating Bill 54 today in this Legislature that in fact reinstates PST, which is good for the people of British Columbia.

Bill 54 is a victory. It's a final victory of the people of British Columbia, because the people of British Columbia stood up and fought for their rights. They went to the end to basically eliminate the HST and bring back the PST, and that's what we're doing today. We are talking about exactly that — to bring back the PST.

Before, when PST was actually eliminated to bring in the HST, the HST made life very costly for people. It made life costly for middle-class people and for the people who are at the lower end of this society.

The cost of many things went up under that tax, and that's why we are debating today Bill 54, which actually reinstates PST and, hopefully, will reinstate a lot of exemptions which were available under the previous PST. The costs of many things went up under the HST. Restaurant meal costs went up. Many grocery item costs went up. School supply costs went up. Services such as taxi fares went up.

Live theatre, movie tickets, amusement parks, campground fees, museum admissions, whale-watching tours — costs for all of those things went up. Accounting services, tax preparation and mutual fund management fees went up. Veterinary care went up. Other professional services like architects and real estate agents went up.

Classes for yoga, dance, cooking, martial arts went up. Costs for membership for clubs or gyms and player fees for team sports went up. Costs for facility and ice rink rentals went up. Costs for haircuts went up. Costs for vitamins and dietary supplements went up. Costs for magazines, newspapers, newsletters and student books went up. Costs for bicycles, as I said before, went up.

So the costs for many, many items and services used by the people of British Columbia went up because of the HST. That's why people got upset, and that's why people stood up to this, and that's why people defeated the referendum. We are here today in a direct response to the fight the people of British Columbia took on, on the issue of HST. We are back today debating Bill 54 to reinstate the PST, which is a way more fair tax for the people of British Columbia.

The other point I want to raise when we talk today about the PST — this is Bill 54, the PST — is that this is going to be a kind of big relief to much of the small business community.

[1500]

As you know, when the HST was introduced, a lot of small business people were up in arms against the government, because the cost of lots of services provided by the small business community at that time went up because of the new tax added to their services. The restaurant and food services industry was very upset at that time. The construction industry and real estate industry were very upset with the HST. The tourism industry, the taxi industry, the veterinarians and many other small businesses were not happy with that decision. They also came out, basically, to oppose the HST and to support the reinstatement of PST.

That's what we are doing under Bill 54 today. We are here to debate Bill 54 to reinstate the PST. It is because it had a history, and that is related to the HST.

The only group under the previous tax, when we talk about HST and PST, which we are debating in this House today…. The only one difference between these two taxes is this. There was only one group of winners under the HST, and that is a group of big corporations and friends of the B.C. Liberal Party. The HST was a tax shift from big corporations to the people of British Columbia.

The PST does include a number of exemptions, as I said many times earlier, that make life more affordable for the people of British Columbia.

The other thing I want to speak about is that the B.C. Liberal government did not have the mandate to impose the HST on the people of British Columbia. They did not have the mandate. That's why we are here today debating Bill 54.

The B.C. Liberal government did not have what you call support from the people of British Columbia. This was not part of their election platform. If the B.C. Liberal government really believed that the HST was good for the economy, they should have put that choice before the people of British Columbia during the election.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you have been cautioned to debate the contents of Bill 54.

J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

So we are here today talking about Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act. I will try my best to limit my comments to just Bill 54. But, as I said, there are so many things happening in this House that sometimes we get confused about different things. We are on Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act.

I'm very pleased today to stand up in this House and speak for the people of Surrey-Fleetwood, who actually stood up during that time and asked the B.C. Liberal
[ Page 12189 ]
government to reinstate the PST tax. Finally, we see that we have this piece of legislation, although it took a longer time than I expected, but it is here. People wanted the HST to go away sooner than this and the PST to come back. But we are here today after a long time, and we are talking about it.

This Bill 54 proposes to eliminate time-limited exemptions, mostly for energy-efficient products. I can read from the list. I'm a little surprised to see that Bill 54 will actually eliminate a number of good green initiatives that were there under the previous PST.

[1505]

For example, under the previous PST, for hybrid passenger vehicles, there was 100 percent PST exemption up to $2,000. I think that was a good policy, but that will not be available under this new PST legislation we have, Bill 54.

I'm a little surprised to see…. There was a lot of love for the environment that we saw by the B.C. Liberals a few years ago. But that is gone, as is indicated from Bill 54, because all these items, green initiatives, were there under the exemptions of the previous PST bill, but not anymore.

In that respect, there was a time when the government said they were very excited, actually, to reduce greenhouse emissions, and they wanted to become leaders in the country on that issue. These exemptions, which were mainly focusing on the green initiatives, were in line with those commitments made by the government.

They are gone under the new PST, and that will not be available to the people in British Columbia. That's a huge change. That's a huge departure from the past, if we look at what kinds of promises and what kinds of commitments were made by the B.C. Liberal government.

The other thing I want to speak about Bill 54 is that it took 11 months for the B.C. Liberals to bring in their HST, but it will take 19 months after the referendum to see the end of the tax. Why? The people of British Columbia are asking why — why it is taking so long now; why it was so easy and it was so quick to implement the HST; why it is so hard to bring back the tax policy that was there for many, many years in the past.

Until we have the PST implemented, the PST reinstated as the commitment made by the government, the small business industry is going to suffer. The people of British Columbia are going to suffer, because they continue to pay for those services which they will not pay under the new PST tax.

Now the date given by the government is, I think, March 31, 2013. That means this whole issue of HST took almost four years — the whole term. What it means is that until the PST comes back, the people will continue to pay those higher taxes.

What it means is that big business will continue to benefit from the current tax known as HST and the people of British Columbia will continue to suffer. Small businesses will continue to suffer until that transition is made, which is almost now about a year away from today. That's the big question the people of British Columbia are asking.

I don't know how much time I have. I would like to probably summarize what I said. We are here today debating Bill 54. And this is a huge, huge victory for the people of British Columbia. This is a victory of democracy.

[1510]

This gives people a reason to be part of the democratic process, because people now know that they can come out and stop a policy introduced by any government, a policy which people don't like.

That's what happened here. People came out in big numbers. People signed petitions. People came out to defeat the HST and bring back the PST in the referendum.

It's good for the people of British Columbia, it's good for the small business, and it's good for the economy that we are going to bring back the PST. It will certainly make life for many people, particularly people at the lower end of society…. It will make their life way more affordable as compared to the HST, because that made people's lives very, very difficult.

In my riding of Surrey-Fleetwood a lot of people came out. They were very excited to participate in the democratic process. About 11,370 people came out to cast their ballot, basically, to bring back the PST.

I appreciate all the volunteers and all the people who came out, basically, to kill the HST and bring back the PST.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Brar: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I tried my best to stay on Bill 54. Thanks for the opportunity.

D. Routley: Before I begin to speak to Bill 54, which I will be supporting, I'd just like to express my appreciation to my partner, Leanne, and my daughter, Madeline. There are certain days when you feel even more distant than others when we're down here in Victoria and would like to be with our families, and this is one of them for me. I'd just like them to know how much I appreciate their support and love and how much I return that to them.

Bill 54, like other bills in this House, is an exercise in trust. In fact, governance is an exercise in trust. Bill 54 represents an attempt to patch up a broken trust.

It's a broken trust between the people of B.C. and their government. Their government betrayed them during the 2009 election. That betrayal has dominated the public affairs of this province for the past four years. Now, we see Bill 54 as an attempt to put right some of what was put wrong as a result of that broken trust and the deceptions and betrayals which occurred in 2008 and 2009.

Bill 54 is something that the people of B.C. have been waiting a long time
[ Page 12190 ]
for. We've been waiting a long time for the B.C. Liberal government to address that betrayal. Having waited so long for Bill 54 to appear on the legislative calendar of this House, it's disappointing to see that, yet again, we are asked to engage in a massive leap of trust when it comes to the content of the bill.

Many of the promises that were made by the B.C. Liberal government, in addressing their failure to defend their decision to implement an HST, aren't really met by this bill.

Now, we're going to support the bill in an effort to bring back the PST, but again, we're asked to trust that the exemptions that existed before the HST will be implemented through regulation at a later date.

Since we're being asked to exercise trust when we consider Bill 54, it seems appropriate to examine the record of trust of the B.C. Liberal government, even when it pertains to the issue of the HST versus the PST.

Trust has been a challenging concept for the B.C. Liberal government. Whether you go back to the time of the sale of B.C. Rail, which was a promise that was broken, or the tearing up of the HEU contracts, which was a promise that was broken, or the HST itself, a promise that was broken, it challenges a person's capacity for trust. The record challenges the people of British Columbia and their capacity for trust in this government.

[1515]

Governance indeed is an exercise in trust — the promises made during the elections, the promises made on the impacts and effects of bills, the devil that resides in the details of every bill, particularly bills brought forward in the recent past by the B.C. Liberal government.

I could refer back to Bill 3, which amended the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of the province referred to that as another bill that lacked detail, that so much of the impact of the bill would be determined by its regulations — just as Bill 54 is. The Information and Privacy Commissioner even used the phrase the devil is in the details.

This bill, Bill 54, like other bills brought forward by the B.C. Liberals, is indeed an exercise in trust, a request by the Liberal government for trust from the people of B.C. and from the opposition.

Now, we got to this place, we got to Bill 54, through a broken trust. We got to Bill 54 through a three-year chaos brought on by a deception over the deficit which preceded the 2009 election.

The same government that asks us to trust the details that are yet to be included in Bill 54 was the same government that stood in this House repeatedly, dozens of times, promising that the deficit in 2009 would be no greater than $495 million. Well, the people of B.C. found out after the election that the deficit indeed was projected to be $2.8 billion.

That original deception has set in motion a chain of events that has dominated public life in the province. Now, by the time the HST is removed in 2013, it will have dominated the agenda of this province and this government for four years — a period of crisis that has put us in a place where the government must introduce a bill to reintroduce a tax which it removed without the permission of the voters, essentially.

Yet even in the act of introducing a bill to put right that deception, we are asked to exercise trust. This is a problem.

This betrayal of public trust led to something that had never been seen before in this province: a response from the public, in anger against this deception, that led to 700,000 British Columbians signing a petition against the HST. The campaign that ensued on both sides was long and drawn-out, and on the part of the government involved huge amounts of public spending to defend the tax that we are here with Bill 54 to remove.

Everyone remembers the Stickman ads. Everyone remembers the millions upon millions of dollars.

Deputy Speaker: Member, to caution you on the contents, to bring your comments in line with the contents of Bill 54.

D. Routley: Yes, absolutely.

The history of what got us to Bill 54 was indeed a campaign that led to a referendum which the government had to acknowledge. The government made promises during that referendum campaign, and one of the promises of this sitting Premier was that if the HST failed, the Premier would reintroduce the PST as it existed before the HST.

Now we are offered another opportunity to examine whether our trust is warranted, whether our trust is warranted for this government and for Bill 54.

Since the Premier did promise to reinstitute the PST with all of the existing exemptions, as it was before the HST, one of the first questions we would ask, if we are examining whether or not to trust the government, would be: did they meet that test?

Unfortunately, even though all of the exemptions aren't spelled out yet, and won't be until the regulations are in place for this bill — and that won't happen for many months yet — we do have an indication, and the indication is rather negative.

[1520]

We've been told that permanent exemptions will be reintroduced, and the permanent exemptions are important — residential electricity, prescription drugs, children's clothing and footwear, school supplies. There are very many permanent exemptions that will be reintroduced by Bill 54, which are exactly the kinds of things that drove people to sign the petition to defeat the HST and turn back the betrayal of the B.C. Liberal government during the 2009 election campaign.

What we see in Bill 54 is a failure to meet that promise
[ Page 12191 ]
by the Premier to return the PST as it existed before the HST, and the failure is that the time-limited exemptions will not be returning. They are exemptions that were persuasive in people's purchasing patterns, which attempted to encourage people to purchase energy-efficient appliances. Energy Star residential heating equipment, for example, will not receive its exemption through Bill 54.

One of the reasons people voted to defeat the HST, voted to turn back that B.C. Liberal betrayal of 2009, was the fact that the HST essentially surrendered our tax autonomy. Under the HST we would no longer be able to set exemptions for things such as Energy Star refrigerators, Energy Star windows and doors, Energy Star residential heating equipment, energy-efficient residential gas-fired water heaters. These are important things as we attempt to meet the climate change goals of the very same government that now is failing to include these exemptions in Bill 54.

That autonomy to set tax policy for the betterment of the public interest of B.C. was one of the more thoughtful reasons that people went to those tables at malls throughout the province and signed that referendum to defeat this unfair HST. Yet Bill 54 fails to reintroduce some of those autonomous decisions that were made by this government and previous governments to set tax policy in this province that would encourage people to make purchasing decisions that were in the interests of the province.

It does restore the exemption on bicycles. As an avid cyclist, I can tell you I'm very happy about that. I can tell you that the bicycle store I was in this morning was happy about that. It was the subject of conversation at the bicycle shop this morning.

But those who are deciding whether or not to purchase hybrid passenger vehicles and will fail to receive an exemption through Bill 54, an exemption that existed in the PST before the HST, won't be as happy. They won't be inclined to trust the government, having been told that those exemptions would be reintroduced.

This is important. This is important not simply for the $8 million to $10 million that was going to be added to the cost of bicycle purchases annually in the province or the people who are making decisions about whether or not to buy an energy-efficient appliance or heating unit or car. Those are important decisions. But it's important for a much higher reason.

It's important because of something that is an absolutely booming commodity in this province, that being cynicism. Cynicism is the most booming commodity in British Columbia. It's absolutely everywhere to be had.

Madam Speaker, one of my favourite functions as an MLA is having grade 5 students visit the Legislature. They come studying parliamentary democracy, and I ask them every time whether they understand what the word "cynicism" means. Rarely do they, until I explain that it's a failure or a loss of faith based on experience.

The cynicism that the HST betrayal created in this province is augmented and added to by the failure of Bill 54 to meet the promises of the Premier. That is a very important matter, important to democracy.

[1525]

One of the most reassuring things about this whole experience of the past three years — the chaos and crisis that has ensued since the original budget deficit deception of 2008 — was the response of the people of B.C. The people of B.C. didn't simply resign themselves to this outcome. In fact, the people of B.C. responded, became politically engaged and active, turned back that betrayal and caused the circumstances that allow us to be here debating Bill 54 and the reintroduction of the PST.

One might ask oneself how we could ever end up in such a place, where a government would promise in writing during an election campaign not to do something — we will not introduce the HST — and then do it. One might ask oneself how we could end up in a place where the government felt it could so directly and obviously betray the trust of the people and simply walk away from that.

Bill 54, in a sense, is a reaffirmation of the notion that government needs to serve the people and be responsible to the people. That's the good side of what we are doing here. The downside is that it fails to really, truly meet that test.

It is, I think, out of arrogance that a government could, in the first place, feel that it had the latitude to betray its own constituency. It is, again, arrogance that would allow a Finance Minister to refer to the PST as a dumb tax and his new PST as a little bit less dumb tax.

The people who are being asked to trust that Bill 54 answers their call to turn back that betrayal in the very introduction of Bill 54 take another slap on the cheek — an arrogant slap from their own Finance Minister, who would call their choice about taxation dumb. That is a measure of arrogance that I cannot really comprehend.

The Speaker has offered some latitude in referring back in history and the chronological context of how we got to Bill 54. But if you want to examine the chronological context of the arrogance that brought the government to this, perhaps we could go all the way back to a 77-to-2 result in an election in 2001. The government felt that it had no check, that it could do exactly as it pleased, no matter what.

Arrogance, I believe, politically is the most toxic element to any politician or any government. Arrogance is also the most difficult stain to wash away from a government. Even through the bitter experience of having been exposed for the betrayal of the HST through the referendum campaign and being forced to bring legislation to turn back its own betrayal, this government apparently learned little if its own Finance Minister can utter such arrogance as to tell the people of B.C., essentially, that they're dumb.
[ Page 12192 ]

Bill 54 is the choice, essentially, of British Columbians. Bill 54 is answering a demand from British Columbians that they be heard. Bill 54 was an attempt by the government to answer a berating by the people of B.C., and although I will be voting to support it, I am being asked to trust that same government.

[1530]

So much of what they have promised to the people of British Columbia is not represented in this bill. So much of what they promised in terms of returning the PST to what it was before the HST is not achieved by this bill. So much of what will affect people's lives and indeed their faith in this process, in this House generally and that government specifically, is not answered in Bill 54.

You have a government that betrayed the people of B.C. with the HST, with B.C. Rail, with HEU. The betrayals mount. Again it stands in the House and offers paper that says: "Trust us. We've heard you. We think you're dumb, but trust us." That is, frankly, unfortunate. The people who paid the price for the decision in 2009 — the homebuilders of the province, the realtors….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm listening carefully to your remarks. I need to hear some reference to the content of Bill 54.

D. Routley: Absolutely. The content of Bill 54 unfortunately, dismally and utterly fails to answer some of the promises made by this government.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Those promises that still remain unbroken are simply repromised. Well, I know the Premier says: "We will reintroduce the PST as it existed before the HST." Should we trust the Premier? Well, the Premier did say a few other things about this matter. She said that she thought it was sneaky that the government introduced the HST. She used those words. She used the word "sneaky."

She said: "It's an insult to British Columbians for the government to, first of all, have brought in this tax in what most of us regard as a very, very sneaky way and then refuse to bother explaining why they did it. They can't even be bothered to mount a defence, and I think that's an insult."

Well, I agree with the Premier. I think it was an insult, and I think it remains an insult with Bill 54. I think the words of the Finance Minister, in saying that it's a slightly less dumb tax, are an insult to the people of B.C. — a continued insult.

The Premier also said, when she was referring to whether or not the tax could have been implemented after the election without having been considered before the election — as was the claim by the government — that she thought it was impossible that it wasn't contemplated before the election. She said: "I just don't think it's possible that that could be the case."

The Premier, who said that it wasn't possible that the government had not betrayed the people, in essence, is now, after having flipped and defended that tax with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, standing before us with Bill 54 and saying: "Well, I said it was sneaky, I spent hundreds of millions of dollars defending it, I then promised to reintroduce the tax that the people had chosen without alteration, and now I offer you a bill that offers alterations to that tax. But please support me and please trust me."

It's rather sad, really, that people can look at what's happening in this House and what has happened that has led us to this place and resist becoming even more cynical. That booming commodity, cynicism, and the refreshing response from the public in reaction to the HST, where we saw that people had not indeed become so cynical that they wouldn't respond to such an insult, as the Premier put it…. In fact, the people felt rightly angered and responded and became politically engaged, politically involved, and forced this government to the point where we now see Bill 54.

[1535]

But each time the people win a victory over deceit, they are served another helping, and that is difficult to resist becoming cynical about. This bill will earn support, but a measured support. This bill needs to be examined in the context of those pieces that are missing. The description of what will be exempted, the description of how the tax will be implemented — all of that is missing, and again, we're asked to trust.

I've talked a little bit about some of the components of this bill, some of the exemptions that will be reintroduced, which will save British Columbians money and reintroduce some fairness to the retail tax regime. For instance, bicycle purchases will again be exempt from taxes. There will be a number of other things such as school supplies and clothing for children, all spelled out in this bill, and that is good.

Unfortunately, other exemptions that existed before the HST clearly will not exist in the new PST. Those were important considerations. Those were pocketbook, dollar-and-cents considerations that drove people to sign the referendum. They knew that their haircut was going to cost them more. They knew that their children's dance classes were going to cost them more, and their hockey registration. There were so many particular, specific increases in costs to average British Columbians represented by the HST and now corrected by Bill 54.

There was the enormous betrayal of trust represented by the HST — an unprecedented level of broken trust, of misleading the public. There's a three-letter word that I'm not allowed to use, Mr. Speaker, but no one can avoid coming to that conclusion.

Deputy Speaker: You're coming close to using it right
[ Page 12193 ]
now, Member, so I'd caution you.

D. Routley: I am. I am very close to using it, and I accept the Speaker's advice very willingly.

That was an enormous betrayal of trust — unprecedented. No one could have ever seen it coming because they had never seen anything like it.

On the other hand, there is another reason that drove people to sign that petition, which is partially answered by Bill 54. That was the enormous tax shift from the largest corporations onto small business and consumers — a $2 billion increase to consumers and small businesses, a $2 billion tax holiday to the largest corporations in the province.

One of the things that need to be considered when we think about that tax shift is obviously fairness. Is it fair? Is it in the public interest? Which corporations benefited from that enormous tax shift?

Well, I feel very thankful and hopeful for the forest industry of British Columbia. We need the forest industry, and we need to see it thrive. But the forest industry has, in recent past, engaged in practices that 70 percent of British Columbians find to be wrong, and that is the increased exporting of raw logs. They find the forest practices to be insufficient and not sustainable environmentally. Those are the corporations that benefited.

The small businesses, which create the bulk of employment in this province — the bicycle shops, the hairdressers, the homebuilders, the home renovators, those businesses that we need to encourage, support and nurture — were the ones who paid the price. The middle class of this province — who struggle under increased costs brought on by the B.C. Liberal government, struggle under hydro cost increases, B.C. Ferries — are the ones who paid for that tax shift.

So some of that unfairness of that tax shift, which drove 700,000 British Columbians to sign that petition to defeat the HST, is answered by Bill 54, but only some.

[1540]

The reasons that people responded as they did to the betrayal of the B.C. Liberals when it came to the HST were multiple. There were many reasons. Some are answered by Bill 54. But the key and probably the number one reason that people responded with such anger was the sense of having been betrayed. Bill 54 may answer that and may put some of that right.

The problem we have is that Bill 54 continues a path of the B.C. Liberal government putting forward policies and legislation that are poorly defined and in many cases poorly thought out, and simply asking people: "Trust us. We know what's best. Trust us. We'll do what we said we'd do." Bill 54, again: "Trust us. We'll put the PST back the way it was before the HST — even better."

Now, if better means without some of the exemptions that people counted on, without some of the exemptions that in fact drove them to those tables sprinkled throughout this province at malls and city halls, if it fails to do what this Premier has promised, then I think it will only contribute to the continued loss of faith in the B.C. Liberals by the people of B.C.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to stand up and speak about Bill 54, as it has impacted and will be impacting all of us — all of our constituents, our family members and everybody who lives in British Columbia.

Now, the question we need to ask is: why are we debating Bill 54? What gave rise to this need? So in order to debate Bill 54 and have second reading, it is important for us to put this into context. We can only do so if we understand the background of it. By putting this whole thing into context, one must make sure that we know the history of Bill 54, why we are discussing it here in the House at this late time at the end of session.

This Bill 54 we should have been debating a long time ago, rather than in the dying days of this spring session of 2012. People were told in 2009 that we will not have HST, that we can trust this government. As a result, what we saw was that people trusted, and shortly after the 2009 election, people had this tax imposed, the HST. That's why we're discussing Bill 54 today. If the government had not done that, if the government had been truthful, if the government had been forthright….

Deputy Speaker: I'd remind the member to watch his language.

R. Chouhan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm discussing Bill 54 in the context — why we are doing it now and why we hadn't done it many, many months ago. The only way, in second reading, that people who are watching us can understand is when they see the history of it.

[1545]

I know that when my constituents in Burnaby-Edmonds…. We went through it, where people were asked to sign petitions, and people were signing. Thousands and thousands of people were doing it. Had the government listened to that, had the government learned a lesson, if they had accepted the verdict not only of the petition but later on of the referendum, we could have done this a long time ago. Now still, even under this Bill 54, part 14 of this bill is telling us that the regulations will be drafted later on, and those regulations provide a huge amount of power to the cabinet.

And we are told again: "Don't worry about it. You can trust us. We will do everything right." But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's not easy to trust this government anymore. I have lived through that betrayal myself. The example of that is when the HEU, the Hospital Employees Union, was told: "No, don't worry about it. Your collective agreement will not be touched." Later on we saw the B.C. Rail thing that happened, the deficit and now the HST.
[ Page 12194 ]

Now we have Bill 54, and we have part 14 of that basically asking us to give the government a blank cheque. The people of British Columbia have seen through this. They understand that this government has lost their trust. This government cannot simply now pull a fast one on them anymore.

I am pleased that Bill 54 is finally here and that we will get rid of that tax — the HST. By doing it, the government has shifted that tax burden onto the consumer from the big corporations — billions of dollars which was supposed to be paid by those corporations and suddenly now had to be carried by the consumer. Why? Why did we have to do it?

When that was introduced, we were told not to worry about it. It's going to be revenue-neutral. Not to worry about it — all that money raised will be spent on health care. Not to worry about it — it will be all taken care of. Now we have seen a $1.8 billion tax shift. That's what it is. Now Bill 54, hopefully, will correct it.

That's where we are, yet it's not done immediately. People still have to wait till April of next year before this HST is removed, and then we have the PST system. But under the old system that we had, the PST tax system, we had a lot more exemptions. Now, people have told this government that when you get rid of HST, when you bring back the PST — that's what Bill 54 is trying to do — we want the same exemptions. We are not seeing that. There are some items on the list that are going to be left out.

Even the former Minister of Finance, Carole Taylor, recognized and said publicly that it was a tax shift. It was a burden put onto the consumer, and that means more money in the pockets of the rich corporations. It was disrespectful. It was arrogant, what the government did, and now the government is trying to correct it through Bill 54.

Again, they are leaving a huge gap in there by asking us…. Under part 14 of the bill, they are saying: "Don't worry. We will take care of it. Yes, we are nice people." But the experience people have seen…. It's not going to be easy for this government to win back that trust of British Columbians.

Had they done it right after the petition or at least after the referendum, maybe the outcome would have been different. Maybe we didn't need to go through this, the huge amount of debate and discussion under Bill 54, but now we have to do it. We have to make sure that all the steps are taken care of, and we will be debating Bill 54 clause by clause at the next stage, the committee stage.

[1550]

In the meantime, in second reading it's important for us, for my constituents, for people in Burnaby to understand what brought us here. What was the cause? What was the reason behind it? As we have discussed many times in our city, in our constituency, people have been calling me and telling me that that was the most ridiculous step. The tax actually introduced through HST was a bad tax that people had to live with. Families are already struggling with whatever little money they have, and the HST didn't make it easier for them. It really made it even harder for them to make a living.

I want to close by saying that I hope the government does not repeat the same mistake. Part 14 of Bill 54 is going to be drafting and introducing the regulations. I hope the government will really understand the anger, the frustration that people have gone through, that they would be careful and would be drafting those regulations which are truly representative of workers, seniors and individuals — their concerns — rather than telling us and asking us to give them a blank cheque, which we are not going to do…. If the government tries to make that same mistake, the government will hear that very clearly.

Again, I just want to say this. I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and say a few words about it, and I hope that never in our history any government will again betray British Columbians. I hope the government of British Columbia will always be very truthful and straightforward and respect the people's views and, when they stand up and say something and tell the government, accept it and move on. That's the only way.

I take my place, and my colleague will continue debating this bill, Bill 54.

G. O'Mahony: I'm pleased to be here to speak to Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. As this is my official speech, I'd like to take a moment to send greetings to members of my constituency, community members from Spuzzum, Harrison, Hope, Agassiz, Cultus, Chilliwack, Chilliwack River Valley and Columbia Valley. I am pleased to stand here and speak to Bill 54 on behalf of my community members.

I'd also like to take a moment to briefly express my gratitude to everyone here in the Legislature for warmly welcoming me. As a newcomer, I wanted to state my opinion over the last few weeks. With witnessing the introduction of 16 new bills over, I think, about a 12-day period, thus prompting extended hours and the use of a third House, I will say that my orientation to the Legislature has surely been a baptism by fire. That brings us to the current debate of Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

As I mentioned, I have some concerns about the amount of time that we can dedicate to debating the bills. I agree with my colleague who mentioned that it would have been nice if this bill had been presented earlier and that much more time could have been put into the debate had it been started earlier, as this has been a pressing concern for some time certainly for members of my community and members of the province.

Time to consult with local business owners, non-profit societies, seniors advocacy groups, consumer protection groups — the list goes on. In other words, important stakeholders that have a vested interest in Bill 54. I will
[ Page 12195 ]
do my best today to put forward their concerns upon my reading of the bill and my understanding of it.

First, I'd like to say that we cannot discuss Bill 54 without putting it into context — the reasons why we must be concerned by what is not present in this bill.

[1555]

The bill does not include the following exemptions that were formerly under the PST. I am going to read them out now, if you could just give me a moment. From my understanding, they are not going to be part of the legislation, but they will be dealt with, as promised, in coming regulations.

I'll read them out really quickly: residential electricity and home heating fuel; prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs, vitamins; children's clothing and footwear; clothing patterns, fabrics, notions; school supplies; magazines, books, newspapers; basic telephone and cable service; 1-800 and equivalent telephone services; specified safety equipment; labour to repair major household appliances; clothing and footwear. You can see the list is quite exhaustive.

Miscellaneous consumer exemptions — i.e., used clothing under $100; bicycles; livestock for human consumption and feed, seed, fertilizer, production machinery and equipment; insulation to prevent heat or cold loss from hot water tanks, water pipes and ductwork.

I'm reading this off because I want to make sure we really do mention exactly what was exempt before to ensure that it will be exempt in the future.

Production machinery and equipment for local government for power production and co-generation; aerodynamic devices; equipment to produce energy from ocean current, tides and waves; rental of passenger vehicles for eight hours or less; biodiesel fuel used for heating; services to maintain or modify software; logging machinery and equipment; also mining and oil and gas M&E and exports. There's quite an exhaustive list that is not included in this legislation.

In order to put my concerns into perspective, I do have to draw upon history leading up to Bill 54, the bill that is now being discussed to reinstate PST. It speaks to the most integral issue regarding this bill, and this is the issue of broken trust. I have to speak to broken trust because this is what my constituents would want me to do.

I was a candidate in 2009. I was aware of the Liberal platform at that time, and the Liberal platform did not mention HST. It was just a matter of weeks after that election that we came to realize two truths that were not mentioned ahead of time. One truth had to do with the current state of our deficit, which was grossly understated, and the other, of course, was the introduction of the HST.

I feel we wouldn't be here today — we wouldn't have had the referendum, and we wouldn't have had the chaos that occurred — if that HST had been put in the 2009 Liberal platform. We could have dealt with it with public debate and in accordance to a vote then, and we wouldn't be here now.

This is essential to understand the current climate of extreme distrust that should be expected in light of the decision to use regulation rather than legislation in Bill 54 for the aforementioned exemptions that I read out — quite the lengthy list. As we know, the public outrage was unprecedented, setting off the first-ever historic referendum. Let's remember that is why we are here now debating Bill 54.

I recall clearly attending public meetings and hearing the disappointment from concerned business owners, seniors, people on fixed incomes. The response from government at that time in history…. Again, let me say I speak to the history of the HST because it is inextricably linked to the debate on Bill 54 and speaks to trust.

The response from government was to issue statistics and the following reasons for the HST. So there was an attempt to clarify the situation. That was the following: that HST would provide an incentive to hire, invest or expand. British Columbians were promised 100,000 new jobs by the year 2020, price reductions and that it would be revenue-neutral.

I speak to these promises because they are essential in speaking to broken trust and the fact that once again members are being asked to trust government that all the aforementioned exemptions will be granted, which are not in Bill 54. History has shown us that perhaps that is a bad idea. In relation to the HST, we were told that inflation would not be a concern.

[1600]

Finally, the government issued the Jim Dinning report that cast a very different light on the proposed benefits of HST. Indeed, the differences were stark: 24,000 jobs by 2020; cost to B.C.'ers in extra tax, $1.4 billion by 2020. That is what is amounting to an estimation of 2,400 jobs per year at a cost of $1.4 billion — so roughly $600,000 per job.

Again, this led to the climate of distrust that I'm speaking to now and the discussion surrounding Bill 54 and my concerns about using regulations.

What the vote from the referendum clearly stated was that the people of British Columbia would like to see the PST return to its absolute original state. So we have to go back one more time, if you don't mind, to history. There was another promise that was made, that the HST would be revenue-neutral, and then we learned from that report, as I mentioned, that roughly $600 million per year in new tax was being garnered.

So as I said before, I'm concerned about having appropriate time to consult with stakeholders, but I did take time over the last few hours to consult the local Retail B.C. website to get feedback from an important aspect of the business community that will be affected by Bill 54 and the changeover. I'd like to share some of the information from that group, some of the feedback and the discus-
[ Page 12196 ]
sions that are going on.

I also think, for clarity's sake, that I should probably explain that one of the groups that I'm citing that is on the site is called Shelfspace. It is the Association for Retail Entrepreneurs, established in 1917. "Shelfspace, the Association for Retail Entrepreneurs, is a non-profit organization that represents the retail communities of B.C. and Alberta. Governed by a dedicated group of retail leaders, Shelfspace exists to serve the retail community through advocacy, cost savings, education and community engagement and by sharing the passion for retail."

This is a western non-profit society that has been keeping a careful watch on this new piece of legislation, Bill 54. So it's good to kind of sum up some of their concerns and then some of their ideas, which I think are really interesting in light of the fact that I mentioned that the following exemptions are not in the legislation but will be dealt with later in regulations.

First of all, their site basically sums up that they like some of the changes that have come into place with Bill 54, and I agree with most of what they're saying on their site. But they're also calling for the regulations to be simplified. There's a great deal of concern about the cost of transition. As I was running in this by-election, speaking to business owners, what I felt time and time again was the anger and the uncertainty. Some businesses supported HST; others absolutely hated it. But together, they all agreed that uncertainty was the most dangerous position that their businesses had found themselves in.

There have been business owners — for example, a florist company which HST was negatively impacting — who have already paid the money to buy new sales tills and set everything in place for the HST and now are worrying about that cost of transitioning back to the PST.

They were also concerned on this website about rules around exemptions that were less burdensome for retailers. The question of exemptions really came up in the website.

I think what concerned me most was this group, Shelfspace, that had suggested they call on government — and this is a quote from their site — "to maintain the existing HST youth exemption…based on size of clothing" rather than age. In other words, there is a thought out there in the business community that the exemptions that are supposed to be covered under regulations have some fluidity and perhaps can be influenced.

I would suggest right now, as much as I respect this non-profit organization, that I'm absolutely against doing anything to change the PST exemption for children's clothing. That would be a further insult to the voters.

[1605]

As I mentioned, going through the extensive history leading up to Bill 54, it would cause further agitation and anger. I know that. I'm speaking as not only the representative for the communities that make up Chilliwack-Hope but also as a parent with two children. I just want to speak for one moment about this particular exemption.

When the HST came into effect, it virtually cost parents quite a bit more money. As you're probably aware — I'm not sure if you've spent some time shopping — most children purchase their clothing from adult retail stores. In most of those stores, the clothing is adult sized, although I would argue because it's quite small. Taxes were being issued on this clothing, which had not been there before.

In regards to this idea of lobbying government because these exemptions aren't in the actual legislation, I'm very concerned. It makes me wonder if there are any other areas where perhaps the government is being pressured to maintain the HST-like scenario on some of the aforementioned items that I listed, which were quite expensive. In that case I'm absolutely opposed to any suggestion of that. Members in my community are expecting me to stand up here today and state very clearly, unequivocally, that we must return to the PST exemptions that existed in the former legislation.

As a newcomer I want to provide a bit of hope as well as — areas where perhaps we can restore the trust with the public. I want to speak to some of the name-calling that has gone on with the tax. I think it is quite an insult that ministers of the government have referred to the PST as the stupid tax. Now they're returning to the so-called stupid tax. I support the stupid tax, by the way, if that is indeed what it's being name-called.

In doing so, by calling the PST a stupid tax — and I know this might be a silly point to make — you're also calling the people who voted for that tax stupid. I think we need to just stay away from that altogether. It's derogatory, and it really shouldn't be something that occurs.

In conclusion, again, I need to state really clearly that I am concerned about the exemptions not being listed in the legislation. But I do support Bill 54, and I think it is well overdue that it has been introduced. The time period it's going to take to actually bring it into effect is quite drawn out, and that's unfortunate.

Again, it's a pleasure to be here and to speak to this issue, the first issue ever that I've raised in the House — if I can be taken very seriously in terms of my concern over the exemptions and also care in how we discuss this tax and care in how we respond to some of the pressures that might be launched now that people realize the exemptions are not actually in legislation and are going to be coming in future regulations.

This is a promise, so my final little bit of advice to the government is that they have to stick by this promise. This time they've got to. They can't stray at all, not from one item that I mentioned on that list. They must stick to this promise. I just can't imagine if they decided to change even one little bit of the PST exemptions that existed before or tried to be sneaky or manipulative. There is just no more room to do that. There is absolutely none.
[ Page 12197 ]

[1610]

S. Hammell: I rise to speak in support of Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. I rise enthusiastically in support of this bill, Bill 54. What I'm doing through supporting it is giving voice to my constituents. During the period of time that they had to participate in the debate around whether to eliminate the HST or to continue with it, they participated very enthusiastically, and their position was very, very clear.

In the final analysis, the constituents in Surrey–Green Timbers voted 75.51 percent in favour of scrapping the HST. By scrapping the HST, it would lead them directly to Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. So it is with delight that I stand up to validate that position of the people of my constituency. They not only participated, but they participated enthusiastically.

If we step back from this act as it is presented today, Bill 54 in the House, we know that this bill has had a long and tortuous history. Actually, Bill 54's genesis was prior to the election of 2009. In fact, it was embedded in the presentation in February of 2009 of a budget that suggested that despite the economic forecast and the turmoil that was around the world, we would have a $495 million deficit.

Bill 54. The genesis started when that deficit was posted and campaigned on through an election. Then after the election the deficit ballooned to $2.8 billion. As a consequence….

Deputy Speaker: I'd remind the member we're talking about….

S. Hammell: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I'm very clear that I need to address where Bill 54 came from and how that plays out in terms of my constituents.

The mobilization of my community was directly in the direction of Bill 54. They wanted, once they understood that….

Deputy Speaker: Member, second reading debate has to do with the merits and substance of the bill, and while some background will be accepted….

S. Hammell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will get there.

Probably, my lingering on the background is something that I'm more likely to do than others may want to because I'm actually quite engaged by the fact that over 75 percent of my community wanted the substantive articles, or sections, that are in Bill 54.

My community wanted to go back to the PST and not continue with the HST. My community wanted Bill 54, and they wanted it in its entirety. They wanted us to return the exemptions. Instead of moving to an HST model, they wanted the government to eliminate that and bring in a Bill 54 or something similar to a Bill 54, because they felt that the HST was not to their liking. They did not think it came forward in a rational and reasonable way.

[1615]

They believed the former Minister of Finance when she said it would be a cost to consumers. They wanted the HST removed, and they wanted the substance of a bill similar…. I mean, they would not have said, "Oh, I want Bill 54," but they certainly wanted all the substance that is found in Bill 54. They understood, despite the arguments contrary to it, that they were more comfortable. Having Bill 54 and the PST returned to them through the Legislature is what they particularly wanted, and they went out to make sure they got it.

They understood that there was a deficit. They understood that this was a way of addressing the deficit after the election, but once they had listened to the arguments and had examined the conditions that they were being thrust into, what they said was they wanted to return to a regime where there was a provincial sales tax.

To get to what they wanted — exemptions for books, exemptions for children's clothing, for a system that they felt served them well, despite…. As the Minister of Finance has said, the history of the PST is long, and it has evolved through many, many iterations, very many amendments. As the Finance Minister said when he presented Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act, the PST has had a very long history in British Columbia. Although it has had a history, it has evolved over time and it has had some complications, the people preferred that system to the system of the HST, where they felt that they were being taxed unreasonably as consumers and that the benefits were largely with big business.

They listened also to the former Finance Minister when, in fact, she said that. She said that the new tax "takes the tax off of businesses." This is what the former Finance Minister said: it takes it off businesses and puts it on consumers. "Many people will be paying a 7 percent increase on a lot of services and consumer goods, so there's a really strong reaction against that." She continues to say that she thought that "the bigger issue is that just before the election he promised they would not — they would not — do the harmonized sales tax and right after the election decided to do it."

The people in my community — in fact, over 75 percent of them — did not want the HST and wanted the government to bring back the PST. In fact, they wanted to have in this House a bill similar to Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. Probably, if they could have described it, they would have described almost the identical bill that we see, because they, like me, would celebrate the fact that there has been some streamlining and some attention to some of the anomalies and the historic sort of messiness of the PST.

Hon. Speaker, I do want to maintain sort of where you want me to continue, to focus on the substance of the bill.

[1620]

I do have to reflect on the fact that the people in my community — and that's who I give voice to, that's who I stand here and speak on behalf of — first signed the petition in great numbers and would have preferred at that time to have something similar to the Bill 54 that we are now debating come back at that time and be presented to the House. That was clearly an option of the government at that time. They could have brought back a tax identical or very similar to Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. They could have brought it into this House. We could have debated it, and we could have passed over a year ago what we're debating here in the House today.

Instead, despite the fact that they signed petitions…. The citizens of our province signed petitions from one end of this province to the other. Actually, for the first time in history their desire was to have a bill like Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act, come to the Legislature. They made history. Never, never in this province had any citizens' petition been passed by the citizens of the province.

It was not from not trying. There was in the past a petition — if I recall correctly — to outlaw bear trapping. I think it was the bear legholds. And there have been a number of other attempts to have a citizens' petition, and none of them were successful. They wanted a bill like Bill 54 that substantively gets rid of the HST and brings back the PST much like it was prior to the implementation of the HST.

I'm really sorry in some ways to say that at that moment in time, the citizens of British Columbia did not see in this House Bill 54 and the substance of the bill that eliminates the HST and brings back the PST, despite the fact that they signed petitions. People went door to door. They had them in the malls. They did everything they could to tell the government that they wanted the PST back, much like Bill 54.

The government chose instead — and it was quite rightly their decision — to go to a referendum to really test with the community at large, with the citizens of British Columbia: did they really want a bill like Bill 54? Did they really want to bring back the PST with all its warts and its exceptions and its anomalies and its peculiarities? Did they want that back, and did they want to eliminate the HST?

I believe that they believed Carole Taylor. They believed her when she said that this is a shift from business to the consumer. It was a promise that they wouldn't do it, and they did it. So not only did they want the substance of Bill 54, I think they were a little annoyed at the process.

Despite the arguments mounted by the government to maintain the HST — therefore, we would not be here debating Bill 54, the bill that brings back the PST in all its glory — the community spoke loud and clear through a referendum where over 50 percent, almost 55 percent, of the province of British Columbia said they wanted to scrap the HST. We could have had a petition in the Legislature brought to this….

Deputy Speaker: I'd remind the member again that we're debating Bill 54.

[1625]

S. Hammell: Sorry, hon. Speaker.

During the time when the committee thought about what they could have done, either they came to the Legislature with Bill 54 and scrapped the HST right at that moment…. In doing so, they would have scrapped the notion that a 12 percent tax, which was pretty much universal except for about 5 percent of consumer goods….

They wanted that tax, which was 12 percent, removed and the more responsive PST brought back in, where there were different exemptions based on different notions. They would have been very, very pleased if the bill had been brought into this Legislature by the committee to go back to the PST rather than go to a referendum. Instead, we went to a referendum. I think in some ways that was, to quote the Finance Minister, a "better stupid."

In politics, I know, it's hard to say: "I was wrong." You will automatically get attacked, I'm sure, for saying: "I was wrong." Going to a Bill 54, or something similar to a Bill 54, instead of pushing forward with the referendum, was difficult. I understand, hon. Speaker, that there are times….

I remember there used to be a famous quote from a former Premier of this House who used to have sober second thoughts. He used to step back. If he'd done something that got a reaction from the community, he would step back, think twice, maybe pull back and say: "I need to think about this. I need to have a sober second thought."

But then you would have to listen to the people. The people said that they wanted the PST back with all its differences. They wanted the luxury car surtax back, which taxed cars of over $55,000. They thought that was fair. They thought it should be brought back. That's what this PST Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act, is doing.

Instead of going to the referendum, it would have been better at that moment to listen to the people, respect the decisions of the people and take direction from the people. They were saying very clearly that they wanted to bring back the PST where they had sensible exemptions that had been tested over time and that people were comfortable with. They were absolutely pleased that they were there. They understood them. They understood the reasons for them, and they had a system that they thought reflected and responded to their needs.

It's stunning, really, that the decision to bring in the HST was then compounded by defying the direction of the people to bring in a bill like Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. Instead we went to referendum. It is hard to imagine it sometimes — what the motivation was. I mean, I do understand it in retrospect. I know that when
[ Page 12199 ]
you have promised a deficit of $495 million, and then you end up with a deficit of $2.8 billion and you're being offered $1.6 billion to bring….

Deputy Speaker: I'd remind the member that we're debating Bill 54.

S. Hammell: Yes, but I'm just kind of reflecting on how we got to where we had to bring in….

Deputy Speaker: Bill 54 has to do with the provincial sales tax.

S. Hammell: But you could not, hon. Speaker, get to this bill without having something there to replace this bill with. So there was a tax regime there that we have now…. We had a PST. We went to an HST. Now, because of that, we're bringing back the PST.

[1630]

We have this bill before us that we have. We still have, right this minute, the HST, which this bill is replacing. This bill is allowing us to remove the HST, because we still go out and pay it. If you go out today, we have to pay the HST, and this bill is eliminating that HST and bringing in the PST.

Actually, to be able to debate Bill 54, you have to sort of have some sense of what it's replacing. It is replacing a system of a 12 percent almost-universal tax. In other jurisdictions the 5 percent that was allowed for exemptions allowed the governments of those jurisdictions, such as the provincial government of Ontario, to be much more flexible than we could here, because we had a carbon tax. I assume the government did not want to bring in a further tax on gas after having a carbon tax over time, so the room for exemptions was taken up by not having the tax go on gas.

That act did not allow the HST to have as much flexibility as it would have needed to reflect the regime that had been in place before. So with the gas tax continuing, the carbon tax on gas continuing to move, the government did not want to add more tax to it. So the tax — the elimination or not having the HST — on gas did not allow them to do some of the exemptions that were in the former PST and, therefore, made it more difficult.

In many ways, eliminating the HST or having the citizens debate whether to keep the HST, which we still have right now, or instead go back to the PST was a rather amazing moment, because in fact the actions of the community have resulted in the situation we have today. We can say this bill is a direct result of a historic moment where there was a complete triumph of citizenry, a triumph of democracy, a triumph of the people saying that this is what they want — that they've listened to the arguments, they've heard both sides of the story, and they are quite happy to make a decision.

Their decision was, very, very clearly, that they wanted exemptions on things like prescription drugs, which makes perfect sense. Where you had before, with the HST, a tax on prescription drugs, with returning to the PST, you will now not have that extra tax on prescription drugs. Neither will you have it on non-prescription drugs such as vitamins and certain other health products and appliances.

I have complete confidence that the government has said they're going to make these exemptions through regulations that are provided for in section 241. Again, we will go back to where you had exemptions for children's clothing and footwear; for clothing patterns, fabrics and notions; and for school supplies. It is just seems to me to be absolutely logical that you would have school supplies exempt from additional taxes.

[1635]

It has been a long and honoured tradition in British Columbia that magazines, books and news services, newspapers, not have additional taxes. By moving back to the federal sales tax and the provincial sales tax, we will have more control over our destiny in terms of being able to reflect what our community needs and wishes in terms of a tax regime.

There has also been a lot of discussion, as we've debated this bill, around the fact that by bringing back the PST, we've been able to improve the administration of collecting the tax. I just think that is absolutely wonderful. I think that anything that makes, in terms of administration, something simpler, something clearer…. Things are more transparent. When decisions are made, they're based on clarity rather than what people think something might mean. Governments become more accountable.

Actually, this exercise, to many extents, has been in accountability — accountability of government to its people. So you have the old PST, with all its anomalies, its warts, its historical context. We have now moved it off the books and then brought it back, despite the fact that it has been a rather long and tortuous journey. It's not over yet, because we are still living with the HST right this moment. Eventually it will be gone and replaced through the direction of this bill and in the way this bill directs.

It is good news that things will be done more efficiently, more effectively. That is all good news — not only for government, for us.

Hon. Speaker, I again say to you that I am standing here giving voice to the actions of my community. Out of the eight constituencies in Surrey, six of them supported the fact that we needed to bring back the PST through something like Bill 54. My constituency, I'm very pleased to say, was the constituency that voted, if you compare all constituencies throughout the province, the strongest to bring back the PST.

You can sense that I'm absolutely delighted to be standing here and supporting something that my community supported. They went out. They worked hard to ensure that the exemptions that were there prior to bringing in
[ Page 12200 ]
the HST were returned, that the tax regime that was there before the PST was returned. It just gives me great pride to stand here in this House and to celebrate the people of my community.

K. Conroy: I, too, rise to speak to Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act — the bill that has been brought into this House, the bill to extinguish the HST and to return the PST, as per the requests of the people of this province, as per the democratic message of the majority of the people of this province.

It is unfortunate that the government has not only chosen to take so long to introduce this bill, Bill 54, but that it won't be implemented until next year, not implemented till March 31, 2013.

Now, this bill, Bill 54, is the direct result of democracy in action, democracy that was initiated by the people of this province. Unlike the majority of my colleagues, I wasn't able to be actively involved in the actual process — the gathering of signatures, the referendum — that precipitated the introduction of this bill. I was actually, two years ago, away in Toronto having a wee bit of surgery right as this campaign was being kicked off and was away convalescing long after the deadline had passed.

[1640]

But did my constituents get involved? You bet they did. Not only were they involved; they managed to get one of the higher percentages of votes in the province and one of the highest in rural B.C.

I heard about it, though, from people actively working on the campaign, excited to be able to be involved in a true democratic process, the opportunity to ensure their voices were heard, which has resulted in this bill, Bill 54, being introduced.

Now, there are some concerns about this Bill 54 that we and so many British Columbians have waited for, for such a long time. We understand that the government is committed to returning to the same list of exemptions — no more, no less. But we don't know for sure what these regulations are, as they aren't contained in this legislation but are, in fact, going to come later in regulations.

I must say it is frustrating to have waited so long for this bill to be introduced in this House and then have to wait even longer for the regulations that will lay out how it will actually impact the people of B.C.

The people in my constituency are asking me: what does this bill mean? What's it all about? In fact, just the other day I had a constituent asking: "Please tell me if funeral expenses are in the excluded list." She's been selling prearranged funerals for the past couple years and has had to charge 12 percent HST.

After we'd looked at what we could with this bill, we said: "Well, funeral services are not taxed under PST, and services in general are not taxed. The exemptions are the services that are taxed, so those would be things like legal services, short-term accommodations like hotel rooms, but not funeral taxes. But you should not be collecting HST on prepaid funeral services, as long as those services are to be delivered after March 31, 2013," which can be a rather difficult thing for people to guess at. Not too many people know the exact date that they're going to be needing those types of services.

So we also recommended to her that she'd have to listen very closely as the regulations were introduced, and check with the government's website for the specific transition rules where they are posted. It was a difficult situation. She expressed thanks but is still under somewhat of a cloud with that.

There are, of course, other questions about Bill 54. We understand that the exemptions will be coming back on a number of items, all in the regulation due to come. It's in a stay-tuned type of message. We don't know when they are coming, but people are asking.

For instance, will there still be a PST on school supplies? Children's clothes? Children's clothing — I know how tough it is when moms have really tall kids or with really big feet, and they have to actually go to adult sections to buy clothes. I have experience of an 11-year-old who is in adult-sized clothing. To pay that additional 12 percent on children's clothing is tough for people. I know people who've talked about it, who've said that it was tough to have to pay the additional percentage, additional tax, on children's clothing.

Another issue in our area, of course, was bicycles, and that was huge across the province. I'm really hoping that Bill 54 will take away those additional taxes on bicycles. We know that when the member for Saanich South did up a quick little petition, thousands of people answered it. When she asked: "How are you feeling about the HST on bicycles?" thousands of people from across the province expressed their concern. Now with Bill 54, we're asking that, hopefully, it will be gone.

I know I had the pleasure of meeting with a fellow, an owner of a former bicycle shop in Trail, Gerald Klassen who owned Gerick Cycle. Actually, the Leader of the Official Opposition and I met with him. We were talking about how the HST was affecting his business last summer.

He has decided to retire and has sold his business and, unfortunately, won't reap the benefits of Bill 54. He won't see the benefits of this coming in — if, in fact, the bicycles will be under the excluded list and in the regulations. We certainly hope they will, because we all know that bicycles are a really good thing, and the different equipment that goes with bicycles.

[1645]

I know that Gerald is probably wishing that he could have seen the benefits of Bill 54. It would have benefited his business, but I know that he's gone on to retirement, even though he's far too young for retirement. I just know he won't be retiring. He'll be working at something, but he has gotten out of the bicycle business. We will have to
[ Page 12201 ]
wait for those regulations to find out what exactly they hold for the people of B.C.

On this trip, one of the other places we visited included Common Grounds coffee shop, with owner Colleen Kalnins, and Bagels and Brew, with Maria McFadden. Both expressed their concern about what the additional tax had done to them and their business. Hopefully, with Bill 54 their concerns will be alleviated, but they will still have to wait another year of paying the tax before we go back to where food will be exempt. And for them it's been a struggle. I know some coffee shops that have shut down and have really struggled with this additional tax.

Then what we do know, what we have been told with this bill, is that there are exemptions that we know won't be returning, exemptions that would be and have been extremely valuable to British Columbians in so many ways. The fact that environmentally friendly exemptions like Energy Star refrigerators, clothes washers and freezers; Energy Star windows, doors, skylights….

We're all being told to renovate, get better windows, get better doors. Energy Star residential heating equipment, energy-efficient gas-fired water heaters, alternative fuel vehicles, electric power–assisted two- and three-wheel cycles — bicycles that I'm sure, especially in rural B.C., we could certainly use on some of the hills — and electronic motorcycles — just to name a few of those very environmentally friendly initiatives that it looks like will no longer be part of the exemptions.

They were not only environmentally friendly, these items, but they were really good things to encourage folks to buy things that were not only good for the environment but good for our children and grandchildren. We have to think that our children and grandchildren will be inheriting this world, and we want to make sure that not only are we implementing practices now that are going to ensure that we have a sustainable environment; we want to make sure they're going to inherit something that's a good thing.

Things like bicycles — you don't want to penalize people. Or things like environmentally friendly things that you should be buying and getting that little bit of exemption on. Maybe — I hope — during committee stage on Bill 54 the minister will explain all these things and will make us see the light on why they would no longer include such important things as environmentally friendly appliances that would no longer be exempted.

Also, it's interesting. In Bill 54 there is a tax on private sales of used vehicles. Now, I know the minister is based in the big city down in the Lower Mainland and might not understand how things happen quite often out in rural B.C. But one of the things that we tend to do out in rural B.C. is to sell our vehicles, our boats, primarily in private sales. It's just something that people do, and now they'll be penalized for it.

Previously these transactions were taxed at 7 percent with no GST. Then with the HST it went to a 12 percent tax. Now instead of going back to the 7 percent tax that we thought it would have with Bill 54, it is in fact going to stay at the 12 percent. I understand that there's some rationale around similar tax treatment between private sales and sales by GST-registered businesses, those dealerships that sell new and used cars. But individuals don't get the same tax breaks that dealerships would get.

Dealerships have the ability to get their money back, where a private seller just doesn't have that. They don't have those tax breaks that dealerships actually have. So it's something, again, that I'm hoping the minister, when we get to committee stage on Bill 54, will have the opportunity to explain what the rationale is and why he would be, from my perspective, penalizing people who are selling things like their cars, trucks and boats in rural B.C.

[1650]

I did go to the explanatory notes in Bill 54 to try to find some answers to some of my questions and concerns about this bill, but Bill 54 only has, as explanation, five bullets with some very general comments. No real explanations. I mean, I get the basic…. It would have just been far more enlightening to get a bit more of an explanation, as you do see in other bill notes when they come to the Legislature.

I understand that Bill 54 is going to impose taxes. It's going to provide exemptions from taxes. It's going to provide for refunds of taxes. I see that. Then you wonder: where's the detail in it? It's going to establish an administrative scheme, which is a good thing.

I think one of the comments in this note that really…. I had to read it a couple times, because I thought this is something that I'm sure the people of B.C., the thousands of people of B.C. that were involved in the democratic process which precipitated Bill 54 coming back….

When they read "makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act to end the harmonized sales tax" — just that little piece there — I'm sure people will be very, very thrilled to know that that is actually in the bill, to know that part of Bill 54 is what people got excited about, when people in this province said: "It's my democratic right to get out there, to ensure my voice is heard."

Here it is, right here in the bill, right in the explanatory notes, saying that it's going to end the harmonized sales tax. It's interesting. I think that people will read that, and they'll think: "We've done a good thing. We've spoken out, and our voice has been heard."

It's taken a long time for the voice to be heard. It's taken two years, and now it'll take another year because this bill will not have many of the issues of regulations and legislation implemented until March 31, 2013, which is another year away.

By the time it all gets done, when you really think of the timeline…. I mean, if you look at what precipitated this bill, if you look right back to 2009 when we were told there wasn't going to be an HST, then we get an HST, then we have the process of the people speaking out to
[ Page 12202 ]
say: "We don't want the HST." Now we finally have this bill, Bill 54, that has put it out very clearly that it will extinguish the HST. We will finally have the PST back, but people will have to wait. They will have to wait another entire year.

I know my daughter went and bought school supplies last year. She came and showed me the additional taxes on her bill. She's got three kids. She said: "Look at this. I hope this is gone by next year." Well, unfortunately, sweetheart, it's not going to be gone by this year.

Once again, people in this province will be paying additional tax on school supplies because it's not going to get implemented until March of next year. That's frustrating for people. It's frustrating for moms. It's frustrating for people who are trying to make ends meet.

I talk to seniors who are trying to make ends meet. Seniors are saying to me: "How much extra…? How much longer do we have to keep paying HST? I thought that we got our voices heard. I thought we went out and did the due process, the democratic process." Yet again, I have to say to them: "Well, the bill has just been introduced into the Legislature. We are only at the point now where we are actually debating this."

We still don't know. I still have to tell those seniors that I'm not absolutely certain that they won't still be paying on their coffee when they go to the coffee shop.

I'm hoping that the minister will take us through committee stage and will say definitely in committee stage that the things that were excluded under the PST will still be excluded. There will still be exemptions. I am hoping that we will learn that when we go through the process.

I just want to tell a quick story about Bill 54. Just before Mother's Day I was in the store, and there were a few people ahead of me. There was this young girl in there, and she was counting out her pennies. She'd obviously…. She had nickels and dimes. She was buying mom a gift for Mother's Day.

[1655]

She was so excited that she'd saved enough money for it. She'd put it down, and the clerk looked at her and said: "I'm sorry, dear. You're 24 cents short." The girl said, "No, no," and she showed her the price tag. The clerk said: "Well, there's tax." And the girl said, "Well, my dad said the tax is gone," and the clerk was trying to explain to this young girl — she must have been about ten — that: "Well, I'm sorry. No, you still have to pay that tax."

Thank goodness, her dad arrived and said, "What's going on?" and she said, "I don't have enough money, Dad," and he's like: "What?" Anyway, he gave her the additional 24 cents. I could see him trying to explain to her, as they walked out, what was happening.

I was a few people away before I got to the till, and the clerk looked at me and burst out laughing and said: "Oh my god, if I'd known you were in the line, I would have had you come and explain why this is still happening." And I thought: "How do you explain to a child what's happening with the HST and Bill 54?"

How do you explain to them that, yes, in fact, the people of the province have spoken, but it's two years since they spoke, and we're just getting Bill 54 here in the Legislature, and it's going to be another year before you won't have to pay this tax? But the good news for that little girl, the good news for her, is that she won't be paying HST next Mother's Day. This bill, actually, will have made sure that little kids around B.C will be able to have enough pennies saved up for Mom's Mother's Day gift, because this bill will be in place by next year, March 31, 2013.

It kind of makes you shake your head. People like the young girl, like her dad, like the clerk are all…. I just get the sense that the 70 percent — almost 70 percent; it was pretty darned close — of people in my constituency that were looking forward to this bill, to Bill 54, are frustrated that it hasn't come soon enough.

They are thrilled that it's happening. They're thrilled that we're extinguishing the HST. They are thrilled that this bill has finally come to the Legislature and we have the opportunity to debate it.

But at the same time, the 30 percent who voted to maintain the HST also want to get it over with. They are tired of the uncertainty. They are tired of having to wait. They are frustrated with the lack of some kind of explanation of what's going to happen, the consistency that they're waiting for. They're tired of it. They know that Bill 54 is here now and it's going to bring the PST back, but they want it over with. They're tired of waiting. They want to know what the differences are going to be.

Now, I do want to acknowledge one thing about Bill 54 that I think is a good thing. It is a really good thing in that the bill is going to, I would say, untangle the snarl of administrative rules that come with combining the GST and PST.

I want to commend the minister and his staff and all the people — the lawyers and all the people — who have worked on this bill. I want to commend them for untangling that snarl of issues that people faced, because that was one of the things that people said to me when they voted to keep the HST. They wanted that streamline.

Now, not only are they going to get the streamline; they're going to get the benefit of people not complaining to them that they, in fact, had to pay more when they went to their store to buy a bike or went to their store to get school supplies. They won't have to pay any more because Bill 54 will ensure that.

For those 30 percent in my constituency, I'm pleased to see that. I'm pleased to see that they are able to make sure that it's going to be easier for them — easier for them to make sure that they pay their taxes as they should. I'd like to commend the minister and all the people that worked on the bill for that.

A lot of people have talked about this bill and what it means to the province and what it means to people
[ Page 12203 ]
in their constituency. A lot of people have talked about the fact that the minister has been quoted as saying that it's a "better stupid" tax. Well, I've heard a lot of people comment on that, my colleagues, and it brings me to….

[1700]

Where are we going with this? I mean, yes, okay, I think the minister needs to.… Well, there probably might even be some explanation in committee stage of how, in fact, we could get to that point in this province. I mean, a comment like that is precipitated by everything that was done to the people of the province prior to Bill 54 being tabled in the Legislature. For us to hear that's it's a "better stupid" tax is, I think, derogatory, and it's a statement that is not parliamentary. I'll be the first to say that. I know my granddaughter would tell me it's inappropriate. She's very quick. Our five-year-old granddaughter is very quick to correct us if we use any kind of language that's not considered appropriate.

Also, it's disrespectful to the thousands of people in this province who were waiting for Bill 54, the thousands of people in this province who got out and voiced their opinion, their democratic right to say they didn't like what had happened. They were waiting to have this bill come in. It was disrespectful to say to them, all those thousands and thousands of people, that your opinion is that it's a "better stupid" tax but still a stupid tax. I have concerns about that.

I'm hoping that in the minister's musings, he might reflect and actually ensure that in committee stage we will get to the regulations, that we will find out some of the items that will be exempted and that there will be some kind of explanation of why items that are environmentally friendly — things that we are encouraging people to buy and things that we're encouraging people to do — would suddenly not be accepted.

The little bit of benefit people get from that is sometimes enough to say: "Yes, I'm going to go and buy this new dryer. I know it's going to cost me a little bit more, but I'm going to get a tax exemption, some kind of credit for it. It's going to help the environment, and it's going to help with my energy efficiency." I think those are good things. I am looking forward to the minister explaining why, in fact, things like that have been excluded from this bill.

With that, I add my voice to many of my colleagues who support this bill, many of my colleagues who were very, very involved in what happened in 2010 that precipitated this bill, Bill 54. I want to commend the people in my constituency, commend the people in this province who said, "It is my democratic right to have my voice heard," and got out there and made darned sure they did. Today we see we can speak to this bill. We can say to them: "Your voice has been heard, and we are thrilled that the process you took enables us to speak to Bill 54 in this Legislature."

So I, too, will be supporting the bill. I have my concerns with some of the aspects of it that I'm sure the minister will be addressing in committee stage, and I take my place and thank the hon. Speaker for his indulgence.

G. Gentner: It is a pleasure to be able to stand up on an issue and a bill amongst so many of us here today. I know the gallery looks like it's full, and all the members across from us are waiting with bated breath to hear the comments from the member for Delta North.

This is in many ways a historic day. It's a historic day. It's a victory for democracy, it is a victory for fairness, and it is a victory for all the little people. W.A.C. Bennett used to call us the little people. It was way back in the 1950s and '60s, when provincial sovereignty and provincial identity really meant something. What the HST did was put us in the sort of harmonized context, a context which brought together the regulations relative to taxation federally and provincially.

But not one glove fits all in this country. I think the people of British Columbia rose and recognized that very early when the HST was —in many ways, I think — imposed upon the people of British Columbia. That is why we're here today.

[1705]

When I talk about the Provincial Sales Tax Act…. We have to understand that it is 160 pages long. It is quite lengthy and onerous, if you will, for good reasons. This is part of our revenue stream. It's an important issue. People took issue with that because the revenue stream didn't seem to be very fair.

When I talked about this before, I used the analogy — and I'll continue to use the analogy because it was accepted then — to be able to put it into context for me and for many I talked to…. I know the Speaker is very much involved with history. It's kind of akin to the Charles Dickens character of the Artful Dodger, Jack Dawkins.

The Dodger was a pickpocket. He was running around and was able to slide his hands into the pockets of citizens. No matter what mechanism you look at, whether it's the HST or the PST, people do have that view since the Income Tax Act was initiated because of the First World War way back, I believe, in 1914. Maybe it was 1915. It was supposed to be a temporary tax. But as you know, once government gets its hands on a revenue stream, it's very reluctant to let it go.

When you look at the Oliver Twist novel and you look at Dickens's view of the Artful Dodger, he eventually would get caught. I think that's what Bill 54 is all about. We got caught in this province. We got caught in something that was being expedited, and I think Bill 54 makes those type of amends. It puts the Dodger on notice. He's now on probation, and he may be thinking he can break it. We don't know whether or not he will get through curfew. That's what Bill 54 is all about.

We don't know, because there are these exemptions that have not been fully explained. I know the minister
[ Page 12204 ]
in his wisdom did explain to the House. I quote: "The new PST Act implements a tax that applies to the same goods and services and provides for all the same permanent exemptions as the old PST and hotel room tax but in a new, modern, clear and more comprehensive act."

Well, that may be so, but the jury is still out. Unfortunately, when you look at someone like the Dodger, he may go through a lot of rehab. He may clean himself up, but regressive taxation is serial. It's something that government can't get its hands off. Regressive is easy money. It's easy to take, rather than having a strategy of progressive taxation. Although Bill 54 is still somewhat regressive, with these exemptions we are able to make exceptions for those who are in need and to bolster our economy, whereby we have a glove that fits British Columbia. This is the benefit of Bill 54.

I think that like government…. I'm not going to say any government — this specific government. Every day there are those who lobby government. They are friends of government. They, I hate to say, want to line their pockets. It may be through subsidies; it may be through tax breaks, by slipping their fingers into the pockets of working people to pay for exemptions, other subsidies.

Whether it be banks…. We know all that story of $200 million per annum. The gift to oil companies — another subsidy worth close to $350 million. Meanwhile we're asking, through sales tax, people who really can't afford any more increases to pay the freight for exemptions for subsidies to major corporations. Many of us here have shares through our RSP. We all benefit, I guess, in many ways. But it's a burden, particularly for those who are vulnerable, to have to pay a sales tax that really isn't fair.

Again, the polls show quite clearly that the people of B.C. really can't trust the Artful Dodger. I just want to leave that alone because I know it could be seen as a stretch. But that's the analogy — not of this government, but in general the people have….

For some time we've seen the TV ad where you're running around, and the banks have their hand in your back pocket. In many ways people see that of government.

[1710]

People want fairness. Unfortunately, I think we've had three years of dodging in this province, trying to figure this out. The government now has relented and, I think, has figured out that there's no way the province is willing to accept this.

I understand Bill 54 is not perfect, but I believe it is a start. It's not a start for the B.C. Liberals. It's not a start for the government or the opposition. It's a start for democracy itself — the fact that people stood up. They didn't like it; they'd had enough. There was a promise made that we wouldn't have such an incredible deficit — I believe it was $495 million — before the election. Lo and behold it was revealed that we had this humongous deficit.

We were told they didn't believe there was going to be an HST, and suddenly it was foisted upon us. People stood up. If I have a chance, I'll talk about that in my constituency very, very briefly.

I also, last time I spoke on this, talked about some of the exemptions in the old PST that were being lost through the HST. If the minister is correct on his promise that we will find exactly the same goods and services as provided in the previous old PST, then we could be all right.

The one example I always make is getting a haircut. We wait for regulations that will bring back the familiar exemptions. I know many barbers, including my own, are waiting. They're waiting to know when these exemptions are going to come back — a tax break on haircuts to occur. They're getting by, but it sort of cut into….

We heard through the restaurant association, the waiters. It cut into their gratuities — the inability to pay extra when you're bumped up, the increase because of the HST.

I look around this room, and there are some members who reluctantly haven't grown their hair a little longer because of it. I don't know. I can tell you this. I know the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure certainly attempts to, and perhaps many of us will have the ability to go get our hair cut. Maybe you're going to see a whole new culture in the streets of British Columbia with people, particularly men, wearing shorter hair. I don't know.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It's going to be a very, very interesting time. Not only that, if we had the exemption instead of having to wait, we could get a break on a haircut as the summer is about to involve us. The hotter weather could mean shorter hair and a break. I don't mean that the government should play god with our locks, but it's a time where we're waiting and waiting. This is one example of many of the exemptions that people are waiting for. I worry when these rightful exemptions will come back, because although it's suggested in the bill that they are, we don't know exactly when it's going to happen.

One issue of the exemption that really hits us, particularly in the context of summer, is that of tourism. In British Columbia since 9/11 we've had a real problem with border security and the decrease of American travels, and now the need to acquire a passport to come through the borders. The Nexus line may be of some help. But then the Canadian dollar went up. We had a major recession in 2008, and we were stuck. We somewhat still are stuck relative to bringing in the tourist trade.

Tourism also was hit very much by the HST, the increases — whether it be hotels or restaurants. Particularly for the real economies, the small cities and towns who are dependent upon it…. They rely on the camping, the RV campgrounds, the fishing charters. These are vital, important parts of our economy, and they will now be stimulated. But unfortunately, it doesn't come soon
[ Page 12205 ]
enough. We've got to wait for the exemptions through regulation instead of legislation to do what is right.

We're going into a long weekend. Many people here in this House are anticipating a little well-deserved break, because the government has foisted a lot of bills on us, including this one — this 160-page bill, which is to be debated. I don't want to get it wrong that we're not pleased it's here. But the government could have, at the beginning of the session, introduced the bill much earlier and put us on notice so we could have a longer and better exchange.

[1715]

The minister may call it a stupid bill, but we can make it even better than better. I think that's quite unfortunate.

We'll be out there this summer. You could be relaxing in your RV park and helping the local economy. I was up at Powell River, when the HST just had come up and was first being opposed, and talked to RV operators. They were seeing a 40 percent decrease of their business. It pretty much crippled them.

I would certainly like to see the statistics. It would be interesting to see how many tourist operators have shut down because of that little bump caused by the HST. Many, of course, are hopeful and waiting for this new, revised PST to come into place.

I know that the member for Nelson-Creston also mentioned the weddings — the exemptions galore. Weddings was one. Maybe with cheaper weddings, there'll be more weddings. Maybe the birth rate will even go up.

It's kind of funny what taxes do to people's habits. I know that's being a little over the top, but if you look at the demographics and how people work, pocketbook issues determine what people do in a social, economic and environmental perspective.

We think of the legacy left in this province. I remember Grace McCarthy talking about "Super, natural British Columbia." Maybe it's time we should start calling it "Super, natural PST," or maybe we should call it "Super, natural NDP." Hopefully, maybe in 362 days we finally will implement a regressive tax system that will benefit all British Columbia, regardless of their income.

Nevertheless, I believe the PST will stimulate the economy not from the trickle-down approach but from the bottom. I think that has long-term benefits for all of us. I could go on and on about some of the benefits and some of the exemptions we're hopefully going to see.

One, for example, is a simple thing such as animal feed for farmers. Let's say in Chilliwack — dairy farmers. Very competitive nature right now. Not only here in British Columbia but of course in eastern Canada it's a very competitive market. The HST on seed will also now be waived if we go back to the exemptions as spelled out by the other PST, the old bill.

Home maintenance. Not that I always listen to Shell Busey, but you think about it. Those little things will stimulate the economy. Your drywall could be cheaper. Your home improvements could be cheaper. I think that overall, we'll be spending more time and our hard-earned dollars on making our province a better place.

I think that in many ways, as I said earlier, it sort of rights a wrong — Bill 54. I think it addresses the wrongs of what was done earlier, and I think it's fair and more honourable. When you start talking about taxation, people get upset.

With all due respect, I think what happened is that the government got caught in its own tsunami of populism, so it thought it could just sweep through the HST without consultation. It seemed to hide when the resistance started coming. I think it was a little cowardly of the government to assume that it could just suddenly put this through.

The minister said that now we have a tax that is stupid but better. I have to share this with you. I've had a few phone calls from people. They're quite upset with that comment. People don't like being called stupid.

In my constituency 59 percent voted to extinguish the HST. I have to tell you my demographic. We are probably the most average upper-middle-class anomaly, if you will, politically, in the context that New Democrats have won that seat.

I was quite moved. People were knocking on doors. We had longtime Liberals who were so opposed to it. I was quite surprised by the reluctance of the B.C. Liberal government to correct its way. But here we are. I think they were forced to.

Certainly, we don't want history to repeat itself. People will stand up. They stood up, and it's sort of like….

[1720]

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I ask you to direct your comments to the contents of Bill 54.

G. Gentner: Bill 54 — absolutely, hon. Speaker.

So when you look at the bill itself on the exemption side, what we're looking for hopefully, when we're looking at the so-called regulations — the regulations rather than the legislation that's being proposed…. We're going to be waiting, according to Bill 54, for decisions by cabinet to implement what the Minister of Finance has said would be basically reinstating all the provisions, all the exemptions. We will hold the government accountable to that perspective.

Residential electricity and home heating fuels. Prescription drugs. We talked a great deal about seniors and how they're impacted and people in general and how taxation can impact.

The other ones, of course, are the non-prescribed drugs, the vitamins and certain other health care products and appliances, including many…. I'll go back to seniors who are relying on walkers and other aids. They, too, have had to pay an extra tax. When you're on a fixed income, this is a very regressive tax.

Now, with Bill 54, we will actually start dealing with
[ Page 12206 ]
children's clothing and footwear. The member for Kootenay West mentioned the difference of shoe sizes and how that impacts people. School supplies. We're looking at magazines, books and newspapers.

Basic telephone and cable service is an interesting one, because we're into the digital world, and it's quite costly. People do need that. It's almost a necessity in today's world — in the e-world, if you will. To have that exemption is certainly going to help people to reconnect, to network.

Specified safety equipment. Heaven forbid. We need those exemptions. Maybe it will stimulate built-at-home safety equipment manufacturers. Labour to repair major household appliances. Clothing and footwear. If the government is true to its course and is going to implement the basic old PST act, we will see these coming back. Again, it's very hard for the dodger to change his ways. But hopefully we'll see that.

Labour to repair major household appliances is another one. Miscellaneous consumer exemptions. Bicycles. We're talking about the greenways, the bicycles and what's important in our modern economy. Above all, it encourages preventive measures. The cost savings — 85 percent of our health budget is devoted to chronic illnesses. Why wouldn't we give a break to people who want to get on a bicycle, and reduce the larger costs to all of us when it comes to health care costs?

We couldn't do that under the HST. We could not do that under the HST because it was a harmonization, and expediting the needs and the will of the province and, of course, revenue-grabbing by the federal government.

Maybe bicycles are not a big deal in Saskatchewan because of climate change or different climates. But here's an example where a made-at-home PST bill addresses the needs of British Columbia. We want people on bicycles. No, we don't have snow eight months a year in most parts of British Columbia.

Livestock for human consumption and feed, I mentioned earlier. Production machinery and equipment. Insulation to prevent heat or cold loss from hot water tanks, water pipes and duct work. Why wouldn't we do that? Our heating bills are maybe not the same as, let's say, Edmonton. I know Edmonton is eating up a lot of power these days, because they're now getting into — believe it or not — air-conditioning.

The world is changing, and we now have the mechanism, because of a made-at-home PST, to change those exemptions according to the world that's changing among us and what's important to British Columbians.

We talk about our own sovereignty, the needs of the province. British Columbia entered Confederation as its own entity. The understanding, when the PST was introduced…. It was introduced, as the Minister of Finance pointed out earlier, at the same time Mackenzie King was around in 1948 and, of course, Harry Truman. That was when the old provincial sales tax act was introduced. Back then British Columbia was very, very different than the rest of Canada, and it is today as well.

[1725]

The aerodynamic devices for commercial vehicles will also be exempt, and there are other exemptions. In my constituency we have something that's very much involved in the aeronautical field, a huge company. Perhaps the PST is going to help them in a very competitive world, a very competitive market.

Equipment to produce energy from ocean currents, tides and waves will be exempt. Rental of passenger vehicles for eight hours or less. Biodiesel fuel used for heating was another one. Maybe that'll be changed. We'll have that ability.

I hope that change will not be done arbitrarily. I hope those changes will not be done through order-in-council. I hope those changes will come here in the House so we can discuss the future of British Columbia and how it's going to be shaped by our provincial sales taxes.

Services to maintain or modify our software — vitally important. Logging machinery and equipment, and also mining and oil and gas — all important parts of a resource sector. They, too, will now find exemptions through the new PST — and because of it, a stimulus within our economy.

I want to talk again about, in Bill 54, the difference between regulation versus legislation. I think in many ways I don't understand why the government is holding back on the need to put it out to legislation, so we can have that discussion. It's not in Bill 54. Again, I'm hopeful that the minister will be able to do that — come back to the Legislature so we can have that discussion.

I'll tell you another classic example why I believe in the PST. There are needed changes. The Minister of Health talked sometime — and I was with him on this — about the possible need to tax sugar in soft drinks. Obesity is growing rampant in the province of B.C. What are we going to do with that?

We may have that mechanism within the PST, with exemptions, where we can address those issues. Maybe it'll be done through exemption or excise taxes as well. I'm not about to suggest the Big Gulp is on the way of the dinosaur, but we now have that ability as a province to implement that concern and deal with this obesity.

The other situation is — and I'm sure maybe the Minister of Health would agree, too, as we look at cholesterol levels skyrocketing in this province — the problem we have with sodium, the problem we have with salt. It's supposed to be labelled in certain processed meats.

There's now, by legislation, exemption of food, and I agree with that. That's a primary function, and so it should be. I also think shelter and water, now it's being bottled, should be exempt.

I also think that what shouldn't be exempt are those detrimental aspects where we can…. If we believe in the total free market, we wouldn't tax anything. Anything
[ Page 12207 ]
would go. But through regulations — and in particular, hopefully, through legislation — we can earmark those things that are not in the best interest, and we can steer people, like we do with tobacco. We do with, of course, alcohol — limited success, mind you. But we do have that mechanism to control some habits and steer people, particularly our children, who are inundated with all the mass marketing of food substances which may not be helpful.

I bring this to your attention because the minister talks about modernizing the PST through exemptions. We have a crescendo of opportunity to make good. There are some things on the list of exemptions we have today that may not work. We may be able to do some wiggle room, move them away and introduce other things that are beneficial to British Columbians — in particular, our young people.

[1730]

Again, I wish that we had more time to be able to talk this through. Of course, we do know that in the House of Commons they go through committee stage before a lot of the bills hit here. I would love to have been in that situation on Bill 54, to have an all-party re-evaluation of what those exemptions should be rather than allowing cabinet to make decisions. The problem with that is that all governments will be heavily lobbied by interest groups who want exemptions. That may not serve the best interests of all British Columbians.

Again, those fundamental exemptions are there in the legislation, according to what the province and the government have clearly spelled out. But the consumers of British Columbia may want something different — and the public interest itself.

I want to harken back very quickly to the view about the whole need — the taxation without debate, taxation without representation. I think that's what's been lacking through all this mess, and we are in a mess, I believe, on this issue. Maybe the government can now move on. I think government has been in a state of paralysis because of the tax issue. Perhaps rather than rushing this bill through and starting sort of a committee stage, we could have had that open debate relative to Bill 54.

Hon. Speaker, don't underestimate — as we found in British Columbia — the power that people have relative to taxes. I want to remind all members of the House that empires tax colonies, and they rebel. In fact, the whole American revolution was fought because of taxation. There was a salt tax imposed on India, and Gandhi arose and fought that. The salt wasn't there for consumption. It was there for preservation of food. People then rose.

I'm not suggesting in any way that we have a war here in British Columbia or a civil war. No. I think we need debate, and that is what's been lacking. Perhaps this is a new beginning for the province of British Columbia and maybe even for this government. I don't know.

I see that time is running out. I do want to say the following. It's time for us to seriously have a taxation policy that isn't all based on a regressive nature. It doesn't matter what your income is; you pay the same tax. I think we've got to be fair. We have to understand that we have the highest poverty level in all of Canada relative to child poverty.

I can tell you that with the casework in my own office, there are changes. I see more financial assistance needed and more mental health cases coming through my office — very different than seven years ago where it was more middle-class. Maybe it's my own, but the overwhelming issue in my office today is pocketbook, pocketbook, pocketbook. That is what stirred this whole debate: the insensitivity of a government that, through its own ideology, thought it could foist it upon the people of British Columbia.

I thank you, hon. Speaker, and I'll take my place in the House.

R. Austin: I am delighted to take my place for second reading of Bill 54, the purpose of which, of course, is to reintroduce the provincial sales tax into the province of British Columbia and get rid of the HST, which has been with us for considerably too long, according to not only the majority of British Columbians but I believe at least 66.74 percent of those who reside in the constituency of Skeena.

First of all, I'd like to say that this is very much a victory not just for those of us on the opposition side, but I think, more importantly, it's a victory for the public for their right to actually say to government: "You've made a mistake, and we want you to get rid of this and make it right."

We, of course, did not need to be here at all discussing this bill. I think my colleagues have talked about it being 160 pages. I know the government has alluded to the fact that it took enormous resources of this government to actually be able to write this bill and try and bring back the PST in a way that is renewed for the 21st century.

[1735]

I've certainly seen media reports of the fact that the folks who work in our legislative departments that write the legislation here are quite overwhelmed by the writing of this bill. With 160 pages of a lot of detailed work, that's understandably taken them a lot of resources, which presumably could have been spent better doing other things.

Needless to say, we are where we are and, of course, I am supportive, as indeed are all of my colleagues here today, that we are finally seeing the destruction of the HST. Although it won't be immediate, we're finally seeing the wrong being righted.

I'd like to start my comments by speaking just generally around the whole notion of jurisdictional sovereignty. One of the interesting things about the HST versus the PST was the whole notion that in a country as large as Canada, where our federal government has the ability to tax the most and to get the most revenue and then de-
[ Page 12208 ]
cide what they want to do with that for all Canadians….

We do have, fortunately, a federal system that enables provinces to decide on certain levels of taxation. Of course, the income tax in a province is only a portion of what we pay in income tax to the federal government. But I think the important thing about the PST is that it did enable each province to decide for themselves what kinds of revenue they wanted to get internally within their province and then make decisions based on that.

Of course, in the province right next door to us, in Alberta, they have made a conscious decision to not have any form of provincial sales tax, while every other province in the country does have a provincial sales tax. Some of them have chosen to amalgamate it and go to an HST. But they did it in very different ways than was done here in British Columbia.

They put forth the arguments to their citizens ahead of time and were able to have that public debate around the benefits and the costs of it. Then, they obviously made that decision, and there wasn't a lot of anger from the public. That, of course, didn't happen here.

To get back to my point about jurisdictional importance. What it does by enabling us to have our own PST is not only the ability to decide what level of revenue the government decides to require in order to supply all of the public services that British Columbians want, but it also gives us the ability to make decisions around policies in regards to our provincial sales tax that enable us to create a large list of exemptions, many of which have been spoken about by my colleagues.

When the government decided to arbitrarily go to the HST, we lost that ability to make decisions locally that benefit British Columbians. That, of course, is not only a crying shame but really is not what was imagined when this country was set up.

We should have the right in each province to decide what kinds of revenues we want to bring in on a provincial level and to decide what are the best policies for our population. I think that's something that people were very angry about — that we were losing that ability by moving over to a nationally collected HST, with simply our portion being sent back to the province of British Columbia.

I'd also like to mention something which I don't think has gotten a lot of publicity during the debate, and I have listened to quite a few of my colleagues speaking. That is the reintroduction of the ICE fund, or the innovative clean energy fund. When the PST was around, prior to the HST, there was a very small incremental tax — in fact, it was 0.4 percent tax — on all home energy purchases. That money was collected in a separate fund, the ICE fund, and was used in order to help assist new, innovative clean energy products getting going in the province of B.C.

That's just a perfect example of us being able to do something here in British Columbia that would benefit a policy goal for all of us here to try and attract new investments into the province of British Columbia. I know for a fact that at one time there was a company that was interested in coming into the community — one of the communities that I represent, in Kitimat — and they needed to get some extra funding to make it worthwhile to come here, as opposed to another province.

[1740]

At that time the proposal was going to be paid for out of money that came from the ICE fund. So I think the fact that that is coming back just shows that this is one of the benefits and the abilities that we have by having our own provincial sales tax.

I'd like to follow on, also, from my colleague in terms of having a few comments around what kinds of taxes we have, and what's regressive and what is progressive. Now obviously, ultimately the most progressive form of taxation that we have in this country is, of course, income taxes, because it is based on a scale. Those who earn more get to pay a higher percentage of tax, because it goes up depending on your income.

With sales taxes, of course, it's not nearly as progressive. In fact, many would argue that it is quite regressive, because sales taxes are on a broader section of goods and, of course, people have to purchase things. Every family has to purchase the same things. Even if one has a very high income, you still only sleep in one bed every night. You still can only drive one car at a time. You can still only live in one house.

But sales taxes are on a whole slew of goods that are much smaller than those items, and so to that extent, it hurts families with a lesser income more than it does with a higher income. I think that one of the reasons why people were so upset with the HST was that the HST broadened that set of goods as to what was taxable.

People felt that, "You know what? If we're going to have to now pay for services such as funeral services and haircuts" — things that everybody can't avoid and, in terms of haircuts, have to happen regularly…. They, naturally, felt really, really angry.

One gentleman here says that he doesn't have to go to the barber very often. Obviously, it didn't make a big difference to him, but I'm going to speak very briefly about my barbershop, and I'll tell you why.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

My barber was one of those people — I would imagine many in the province of British Columbia — that actually swallowed the HST internally. She and her sister who run her barbershop — it's a very small business — recognized very early on that if they were to charge the HST and add it on, people would simply either not come as often or it would hurt her customers.

So she swallowed that, and I think that there are lots and lots of businesses around the province which lost a
[ Page 12209 ]
lot of income by swallowing the old HST. I know that it's only a small issue, a barbershop, but you know what? Every town has multiple shops that do this, and it'll certainly help them.

I also want to speak for a moment about one of the major industries that was really adversely affected by the introduction of the HST. In fact, I guess that was the industry that created a lot of the debate around this, because they were the ones — the restaurant industry was the one group — that sent a letter to the government during or prior to the 2009 election, specifically asking whether the government had any notion of bringing in an HST. They, of course, were told in writing that that was not the case.

I spent many years in the restaurant industry, in the food service industry. In fact, I owned a restaurant here for a number of years that's only about a ten-minute walk from the legislative buildings here. Now my restaurant was a fairly high-end one, and I can tell you that suddenly having an increased tax on restaurant meals had a huge adverse effect on the ability of people to go out and spend as much money as they did before.

It didn't only hurt those business owners who owned restaurants. It also hurt many people who worked in the restaurants. We saw a reduction of staff right around the province of British Columbia — people who were laid off due to the lack of sales.

Obviously, when your sales go down in a small restaurant business, the first thing you have to look to is how can you cut your costs? Needless to say, a lot of people lost their jobs as a result of that. It's an important industry, the restaurant industry, because it is very often the entry point through which young people first come in and get their first jobs.

[1745]

So it's a critical industry in terms of being able to provide jobs that don't require a high level of skill, jobs that are easily trainable and jobs that are part-time in nature and have the flexibility to work around. For example, teenagers, seniors, people who want part-time jobs and not full-time jobs, people who have kids — under-age kids at home or kids coming out of school, and the parents want to be able to work just for a few hours a day. It's a critical industry.

I know that by bringing in the HST, it really created a lot of problems for this industry. This was the industry that got the most angry about it and certainly helped to organize basically the revolt against the HST.

I'd like at this point also to thank many of the citizens who got involved. We don't often see in this province, indeed in Canada in general, people getting very engaged in a public policy issue. I think that if there was any real benefit to the HST, it was a recognition that — you know what? — people can actually pay attention to public policy debates. They can actually get involved in them. And guess what, hon. Speaker. They can make the change, the very change that we are seeing here today.

That's a great thing, because one of the frustrations for those of us, I think, who work in the political field is that we sit here and discuss a lot of very important issues, things that matter to British Columbians every single day. But all too often British Columbians are extremely busy with their lives. And I'm not blaming them in any way. When you're raising a family, paying a mortgage, going to work and doing all those important things, it's hard to actually pay attention to the kinds of things that we do here.

The HST was an issue that actually inspired British Columbians to pause for a second from their busy lives and to actually sit and watch what was happening and to start to think about — you know what? — taxation policy does make a difference.

Yes, we want to have enough revenue to be able to provide the services we want. British Columbians definitely wanted that. At the same time British Columbians also wanted that taxation to be done in the fairest way possible. And what they saw was a tax shift that moved the burden onto them as consumers and away from big businesses, and that's what upset them

Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I would like to adjourn debate and reserve my right to continue at another sitting of the House.

R. Austin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until May 28 at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 37 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 37; D. Black in the chair.
[ Page 12210 ]

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On section 3 (continued).

L. Popham: We're on section 3, "Must not cause disease." Again, I'll review: "A person responsible for an animal must not, in engaging in animal management or, if applicable, a regulated activity, act in a manner that the person knows, or ought to know, (a) will cause, or will likely cause, conditions that contribute to (i) the presence of a notifiable or reportable disease."

[1440]

Does E. coli fall under one of those, notifiable or reportable?

Hon. D. McRae: In reference to a specific E. coli disease, I guess, E. coli 0157:H7, which is a type of E. coli that spreads from animals to humans…. An example could be perhaps if an individual was at a petting zoo, and they were petting animals there. It is something we could possibly consider. It is under consideration by the chief veterinarian officer, and he will make his recommendations when he sees fit.

L. Popham: I guess I'm considering more the E. coli strain that would be found in feedlots, for cattle. It's known that in large feedlots where there are thousands of heads of cattle waiting for slaughter, the conditions that they live…. They're often deep in excrement and urine and water, where E. coli levels are quite high. If you tested it, there would be E. coli. I don't know the strain, but I know that it's there. There is a risk, because if that would transfer into the meat through slaughtering the animals, that can make humans sick.

Are the practices of feedlots and the standards of feedlots being considered when we look at section 3?

[1445]

Hon. D. McRae: In this section, section 3, E. coli is not, at this stage, notifiable or reportable. It would not, basically, cause this part of the piece of legislation to come into effect.

L. Popham: How is it decided what's notifiable or reportable?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, to the member opposite, the decisions will be based on science and whether there is a threat to human or animal life. That would be a distinction made by the chief veterinarian. We would listen to his recommendations; I am without doubt.

L. Popham: I understand what the minister is saying, but for me right now we're passing legislation. Section 3, the heading is "Must not cause disease." It talks about the way we manage animals. We're talking about animals that are used to go into the human food system. Why is the legislation not more clear? It seems quite arbitrary.

Hon. D. McRae: My science lesson continues. I want to wash my hands after this, but I've been informed by the chief veterinarian that E. coli pretty much exists everywhere. There's a good chance it's on my hands right now. I guess I'll get some gel later. But the reality is: this section of the bill is dealing with notifiable or reportable diseases, and at this stage, E. coli is neither.

L. Popham: I understand that, but given that we know that…. I understand that E. coli is everywhere as well, but the levels of E. coli in a place like a feedlot are very high. I don't think there's science against science there.

I think the science says that the levels are high, and there are practices that can be done that take the risk down, in between the cattle standing in the feedlot to the point where the product gets to our plates. Because we're talking about legislation, and we're passing legislation around must not cause disease, I'm curious. Why is the minister not adding a list of notifiable or reportable diseases? Why are we doing this at a later stage?

There have been a lot of comments through the…. We haven't gotten very far in this bill, but there is a theme that we're taking precautions for the future. I think this is a situation that we know is happening right now. I don't understand why it's different in this circumstance than in prior sections, where we're making rules for all animals on the planet. This is a situation that's actually occurring.

[1450]

Hon. D. McRae: E. coli is not causing significant disease on the feedlots right now. It does exist everywhere. However, if things were to change, a nice thing about this act is we have the ability — not through legislation, but again, being forward-thinking — to react quickly through regulation, making sure that animal health and, by relationship, human health are protected.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Sather: Section 4, under "Duty to train and equip," says: "(2) A person responsible for an animal must ensure that the person's employees are adequately trained and sufficiently equipped to (a) prevent, to the extent reasonably possible, the presence, transmission or spread of notifiable and reportable diseases."

The phrase "to the extent reasonably possible" would, I think, be a lawyer's dream. What is reasonably possible? Wouldn't it be much more effective to take out that phrase from the section?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, it refers back to some legalese
[ Page 12211 ]
and not quite the equivalent of my favourite things. But it does come down to…. It allows for discretion.

The other thing about using the term "reasonably possible" — again, it does allow for some forward thinking. We're also planning for issues that we have not thought of yet in the year 2012. Potentially, perhaps if more understanding comes or a new disease were to come or new protocols were to be developed, it allows the employer, down the road, to make sure their employees are trained.

But "reasonable" is a legal term. It's one that is significantly used in many, many pieces of legislation and one that the courts would recognize.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

L. Popham: Section 6, "Must comply with veterinary advice." When I was reading through this it occurred to me that the owner effectively loses control of the animal once the provincial vet makes a decision over that animal, if there is a disease. But the owner of the animal must still pay for the prescribed treatments that the provincial vet would prescribe.

I guess my question is: can the person who owns the animal get a second opinion, other than the opinion of the provincial vet?

[1455]

Hon. D. McRae: I guess we'll do the scenario walkthrough. If person X was to take their animal to a vet…. Vets are very well trained. We're very lucky in British Columbia to have an amazing group of veterinarians. They wouldn't just look the animal in the eye and make the diagnosis. I'm sure they would want to do a bit more than that. They would want to run tests. They would want to, perhaps, have the animal under observation, and then make a diagnosis, basing it on science.

If the person then decided they did not like that diagnosis, they may be able to go to vet No. 2 and go through the same process. Vet No. 1, who made the first, I guess, diagnosis and didn't feel they were being complied with could forward a recommendation to the chief veterinarian officer, and then that person would have to act at the end of it as an arbiter. We would have two vets, and the chief veterinarian officer would be the top of the vet pile.

L. Popham: So if not the provincial vet but a different veterinarian were to make a recommendation, and the owner felt that they didn't agree with that, I don't see any provisions that allows them to challenge the decision of the vet.

Hon. D. McRae: That's right. Again, that would be the role of the chief veterinarian officer of the province of British Columbia — to examine the evidence and also the diagnosis as it were to go through.

L. Popham: So the owner would have no way of challenging that opinion?

Hon. D. McRae: The assumption would be that if the animal is ill, there would be test results, diagnosis that does show the animal is ill. It's not based on a gut feeling.

L. Popham: So can the minister tell me: if the provincial vet made that decision but was found to be in error, where do we go in that case?

[1500]

Hon. D. McRae: I'm just going to again use a scenario, if I may. I'll say my cat has, potentially, TB. So what happens is I take it to vet A. Vet A does a swab. The swab is in error; it comes back positive. Obviously, action must be taken. Then it would go to the chief veterinarian officer. In this case, he would again do tests.

If, in theory, again the tests were done in error so that we had two false positives of TB, and the owner — myself — of the cat did not believe that the two tests, though they were not related, were correct, they could go to a third, further step and apply for a judicial review. My able colleague tells me that not complying with section 6 is also an offence. You must listen to the advice of the veterinarian officer, both the veterinarian that you may visit on the first visit and the chief veterinarian officer.

L. Popham: Where does it point out that the owner of the animal can get a second opinion from another vet?

Hon. D. McRae: There's nothing in this piece of legislation that says you cannot get a second opinion. Regardless, there will be two opinions in this TB scenario anyway, but if you want a third opinion by going to vet X, you may do that as well.

L. Popham: If someone were to, under this act, request a second opinion, that would not be challenged?

Hon. D. McRae: If the disease is a reportable, notifiable disease, and it goes to vet A, then if it is tested positive, whether it's fair or not, it would be recommended to the chief veterinarian officer to react accordingly.

If there were a scenario where the cat has the sniffles — and I don't take that in a light manner — you would be able to get a second opinion. But if it is a reportable disease, you would need to forward that information to the chief veterinarian, and the officer in that position would have to react quickly to protect animal health and human health.

L. Popham: But as I read it, you have to comply under section 5(1), so I don't understand how you would be al-
[ Page 12212 ]
lowed to get a second opinion.

[1505]

Hon. D. McRae: What could occur is that an animal comes in to a vet, and the vet does believe that the disease that is perhaps there is reportable, does tests and says to the owner: "This animal must now be kept in isolation." It turns out that the individual has no interest to do so or is misleading the vet. The veterinarian has no other option but to inform the chief veterinarian officer. However, if the animal is told to be kept in isolation, there is nothing stopping the owner of that animal to get a secondary opinion as long as the animal still remains in isolation.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

M. Sather: Section 7 says: "Except with the permission and in accordance with the instructions of an inspector, a person must not keep or deal with, in British Columbia, an animal that (a) was imported into British Columbia." This seems to exclude all domestic animals that were not imported into B.C. So for chinook farmed salmon, for example, which are native to the province, if they get a disease like ISAV, are they then exempt from this section?

Hon. D. McRae: You may wish to come back with another example. My understanding is with farmed chinook, the broodstock and the eggs are actually not imported. They're actually coming from British Columbia, as compared to maybe other animals or species.

M. Sather: Well, my point was that this section only applies, as I read it, to an animal that was imported into British Columbia. What I'm saying, then, is that since the chinook are not imported — I think that's what the minister said, also, in the case of the farm fish — they're not subject to this section?

[1510]

Hon. D. McRae: I'm going to use my example here of importing a racehorse from somewhere south of Canada. If you are trying to import a horse, importation rules are done with the federal government, and it is their jurisdiction as well as the CFIA. British Columbia does not have the right to restrict trade in that manner, but we do have the right, if we were to think that this particular horse was not healthy and posed a risk both to humans and to animals in British Columbia…. We can restrict the person's ability to own or care for that horse.

It is just an extra layer of security we could add to the level without actually stepping on the jurisdiction of the federal government, which does govern the trade issue.

M. Sather: The vast majority of farmed Atlantic salmon were born here in British Columbia in hatcheries. Only a slim minority were imported as eggs. It doesn't seem that for those fish there's any protective value in this section. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite is right. This is about animals that are being imported into Canada, not dealing with particular animals that are already here.

M. Sather: Is there another section of the bill that does deal in this manner with animals that are domestic?

Hon. D. McRae: By all means, the rest of the act is about animals and protecting them from reportable or notifiable diseases.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

M. Sather: The subject of section 8 is "Must not slaughter, destroy or dispose of affected or harmful things." Can the minister define what "things" means? No, I'm just joking.

On this one, which is of interest… It's only concerned, this section, with the disposal of fish parts, for example, which one may have reason to believe are affected by a notifiable disease. But 60 percent of sampled dead fish at farms for the provincial fish health monitoring program go undiagnosed, according to transcripts from the Cohen Commission.

This means that 60 percent die from some reason, but due to the limited ability of B.C. vets to be able to…. They can't definitively diagnose what this 60 percent of the fish die from. Can I assume, then, that anything that's not definitively diagnosed according to this regulation can be discarded?

[1515]

Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite, 60 percent does sound like a lot of fish. It could be a lot of fish — unless, of course, you're dealing with seven dead fish, and then 60 percent would be four. It all depends. If we're dealing with thousands of fish dying, in that particular case, then I think there would be an opportunity to find disease, by all means.

When fish are found dead, they are tested. If a disease is found, if it is reportable or notifiable, then it is acted accordingly. If there is no known cause — sometimes fish die for a various number of reasons; maybe they just have a genetic defect or something like that, or maybe another bigger fish in the pond didn't like them — the reality is that they are then disposed of.

M. Sather: Again, this section only refers to reportable and notifiable diseases. Again, we feel that patho-
[ Page 12213 ]
gens should be included.

Also, this regulation pays really no attention to the effects of these diseases on wild fish. Various pathogens like previously unreported forms of ISAV and piscine reovirus pose huge risks to wild fish, but their protection is ignored in this regulation. So what about the potential effects on wild commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, to member opposite, this is about reacting to notifiable, reportable diseases — diseases that we know of today that will then be put into regulation and reacted to accordingly using science and the expertise of the chief veterinarian officer.

This act also does have the ability to, again, react to diseases that may come in the future and make sure that we protect our wild stock — and, in this case, our farm stock as well — to make sure we have a healthy ecosystem.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

L. Popham: Section 11, "Licences and permits." So 11(2)(d) allows the chief vet to "issue a temporary licence or permit with or without…conditions, valid for a period of no more than 3 months." Section 11(2)(e) allows the chief vet to "issue the licence or permit with or without terms and conditions."

My question is: why the need for a temporary licence when a regular licence can be issued for a temporary period? In other words, the authority in 11(2)(e) covers what is permitted in 11(2)(d). It seems like it is just repetition. I'm wondering if maybe it can be streamlined a little bit.

[1520]

Hon. D. McRae: I see the member's point, but I think what we're also looking for is some ease of action by the chief veterinarian officer. For example, a temporary licence could be used for, say, a one-day event like a 4-H sale. There would be an opportunity there, and it has a very distinct starting time and ending time. While you could argue that (e) could also, with the conditions, because the conditions are rather vague at this stage….

We're talking about when we do craft regs down the road that there is a distinct category. You are asking for a temporary licence, or you're looking for a non-temporary licence permanently.

L. Popham: I understand that, but it seems that these two sections do exactly the same thing, do they not?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, when we do craft the regulation, it does allow us…. Though I will admit that maybe we could survive with one — I think having two isn't going to substantially change this bill — it allows us to make sure there is a clear distinction. Perhaps when we charge fees, or if we were to charge fees for such a licence, there will be a nice easy distinction between temporary and ones that are permanent.

L. Popham: Actually, that's exactly my point. If somebody is applying for a temporary licence or a regular licence for a temporary period, I think it's confusing. Will there be a different fee structure for both? How do you figure out which one pertains to your situation?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but we have taken so long to update legislation for this act. In this instance I think that if we streamline a little bit and make it a little bit clearer for people who are trying to follow the law in British Columbia, I don't think it's that big of a deal to take a look at maybe bringing this into one line.

[1525]

Hon. D. McRae: The intent is here. Licences are either intended to be temporary or annual. We want to make sure by having this in here that it is very clear that there will be different, perhaps, costs, as we go forward and through regulation, for a licence that does start at a period of time and then ends very quickly — maybe up to three months; maybe just like I said, one day — compared to ones that are annual or longer term.

L. Popham: If that's the case, then, you could have a temporary licence or perhaps an annual licence. What I'm reading is that you can have a temporary licence, or you can have an annual licence for a temporary period of time.

Hon. D. McRae: Annual licences will last for a year. Temporary licences can only be extended up to three months and then would have to be, I would assume, reapplied for after that stage.

L. Popham: So what's a temporary regular licence?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, the temporary licence is meant to capture literally temporary events — for example, a one-day sale or perhaps various 4-H auctions that take place over a number of days, maybe five days. We want to make sure that people have the opportunity, especially when we're dealing with a group like the 4-H, to buy a licence that is not going to be as onerous in terms of costs as an annual licence. This is allowing that organization, in this case, to purchase a temporary licence, have the event and move on.

Other circumstances may require an organization or a business to have an annual licence. We want to make sure there is a distinct difference between the two.

M. Sather: So this section is regarding licences or permits to engage in a regulated activity. There are a lot of
[ Page 12214 ]
regulated activities. I'm wondering: would one of these licences, for example, be a licence of occupation for an aquaculture lease?

Hon. D. McRae: The legislation is very clear. Those are under the Land Act, which is under the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, not the Ministry of Agriculture.

M. Sather: The last subsection of this section, subsection (5), says: "A licence or permit is not transferable." Can the minister just explain why they're not transferable? Would there be some situations where it would be less red tape to have a transferable licence, or is there some solid reason why they can never be transferable?

Hon. D. McRae: I think it's really important that they are not transferable. Just an obvious reason, for example — person X may apply for a licence. They may be an absolutely great individual in terms of animal care and experience. I would hate to have a situation where that licence was then allowed to be transferred to person Y, who is actually a person who is, perhaps, someone who is well known as not being of the same level of care and concern or perhaps has a history of animal abuse. To make sure we protect animals and the general public, I think it's absolutely essential that we do not allow that transfer to occur.

If a transfer were to be needed, licence A would expire and then a person could apply again through this process and, on their own merits — themselves or the organization — and providing they met the tests, they would be allowed to go forward. But I would not want to see an opportunity for someone who is not responsible to be able to have this kind of control over animals.

[1530]

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me the changes or additions in this section? Do they add any additional costs on to farmers that weren't there under the previous acts?

Hon. D. McRae: Just for the members opposite, the licences that Agriculture does have control over are fur farms, game, hide, livestock dealer, livestock agent and public sale yard. Right now we determine fees through regulation.

Again, this act will allow — maybe in five years, ten years or 20 years, as circumstances change and economies change — that fees could be raised or, potentially, I assume, lowered as we go forward. It does allow us that flexibility to charge a fee for a licence, and we do so now.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

L. Popham: Can the minister give an overview of his interpretation of section 12?

Hon. D. McRae: I remember when I looked through this act that I circled it as well. I actually wrote the word "beekeepers" right beside it, and I knew that it would be near and dear. I know, since you know a lot more about bees and you're very passionate about them, I'm not going to sit there and transfer information back and forth. I'm just going to read the information I had prepared going in, in advance. It will be in Hansard soon thereafter.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Minister, please.

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies, Madam Chair.

For the Chair: some operators of regulated activities, such as beekeepers, are not licensed. They are instead registered. The difference is that registration formally enrols an individual as a participant in a regulated activity. A licence confers permission to undertake a regulated activity. An operator may register by submitting to the chief veterinarian, in the form required, registration information and any other prescribed information or fees.

The chief veterinarian may take several steps in reviewing the request for registration, similar to reviewing an application for a licence or permit. These steps include conducting inspections, requesting additional information or records, or referring the application for evaluation to another person having special knowledge.

After reviewing the said registration, the chief veterinarian may confirm the registration by issuing a producer number or refuse to confirm the registration, providing written reasons for doing so. The chief veterinarian also may provide criteria that the person would need to meet to have the registration confirmed. Producer numbers are not transferable.

L. Popham: Is this changing the way that beekeepers are conducting their business now?

Hon. D. McRae: No, not at all.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

M. Sather: Section 14 is "Taking administrative action." Looking at section (4), it says:

"After providing the operator with a reasonable opportunity to respond in accordance with the notice provided under subsection (3) (a), the chief veterinarian may do one or both of the following: (a) delay the date the administrative action is to take effect or suspend the administrative action, if satisfied that the delay or suspension would not be detrimental to (i) animal health, or (ii) public health in relation to diseases that are or may be transmissible from animals to humans."

It seems to me that this provides a lot of opportunities
[ Page 12215 ]
here for leniency, and delaying action in a disease situation means higher risk — if you're looking at aquaculture again, for example — of dispersing disease particles to other farms and wild fish and humans.

[1535]

Does the minister agree that there's…? Well, can he comment on it? I don't expect he's going to agree with it. Can he comment on the proposition that this gives too much discretion to one person, the chief veterinarian?

Hon. D. McRae: This section is referring to licensing, not disease control. An example, though, might be that perhaps a person is reapplying for their annual licence. The annual licence comes due. Perhaps a piece of paper was not submitted in time, or it was omitted by error. Instead of having operations cease, the discretion by the chief veterinarian could say: "You must get said information in by this period; otherwise, we'll take action." There is a level, I would hope, of common sense and discretion applied here.

M. Sather: In subsection (4)(b) it says: "after considering the operator's response, if any, and any supporting records or written submissions of the operator, (i) take the proposed administrative action, (ii) take a different administrative action, or (iii) rescind the notice and take no administrative action." It seems that there should be some timelines on here. It seems awfully loosey-goosey. In the end, they may not have to take any administrative action at all. There may be no administrative action taken. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. D. McRae: We're just trying to be as reasonable as common sense would allow. I can assure the member opposite that there is no jiggery-pokery involved in this particular instance.

M. Sather: Well, I'm overjoyed to hear that, as will be the member for Cowichan Valley.

Notwithstanding the lack of jiggery-pokery, I did want to ask the minister: with regard to fish farms, I hear complaints about a lack of action, a lack of administrative action. Can the minister comment on how he sees the record of administrative actions with regard to fish farms?

Hon. D. McRae: With all due respect to the member opposite, the provincial government does not license fish farms. That is a federal responsibility. Tenure does fall under FLNRO, but this act does not deal with that particular issue. I don't feel I have the expertise to comment on the federal licensing process, because I've not been involved in that.

M. Sather: Okay. The minister mentioned earlier, I believe, that it was under Lands that the tenures are granted. What kind of licensing is he talking about that the province is not responsible for?

[1540]

Hon. D. McRae: Under this act, we are responsible for the licensing of fur farms; game, hide, livestock dealerships; livestock agents; and public sale yard. We are not responsible for occupation of a fish farm. That is a federal government responsibility. Land tenure, again, is the purview of a different act, under FLNRO.

M. Sather: Yeah. I wanted to ask the minister…. He mentioned earlier today about further agreements that may be happening with regard to fish farms, between the federal government or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, perhaps, and the province. Does he foresee the possibility of the licensing part that is now a federal responsibility becoming provincial?

Hon. D. McRae: I think any comment on that would be pure speculation on my part, and I would hate to have my speculation on record.

This act is about animal health. Right now because of the Hinkson decision, 2010, the responsibility for those issues that the member opposite refers to is currently under the federal government. I don't see it changing.

M. Sather: So when the veterinarian — Dr. Marty, I think, in most cases — goes to a fish farm in B.C. and takes disease records, there's no licensing function around that whatsoever?

Hon. D. McRae: No.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

L. Popham: Section 15, "Reconsideration." Rules for requesting that the chief vet reconsider a decision regarding a permit licence or registration, 15(4): "The chief veterinarian must provide written reasons for an action taken…and a person may not request further reconsideration."

I'm concerned about this for a few reasons. Principles of administrative law suggest that in such an important decision…. The decisions that are being made, I think, that this section is referring to, are quite large decisions that can affect the livelihoods of some of the farmers involved, potentially. When such a decision is being made — life-changing decisions, I would say — there should be an opportunity for a review from a different decision-maker.

In Ontario, section 36 of the Ontario Animal Health Act says that individuals who receive orders under the Animal Health Act can request a review by an independent body, the agriculture, food and rural affairs appeal
[ Page 12216 ]
tribunal.

I'm wondering. I know that a lot of this legislation was taken from the Ontario model and the Alberta model. I'm wondering why we didn't adopt some legislation that allows for an independent review.

[1545]

[J. Les in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: Remember, the province or the Ministry of Agriculture is only responsible for seven licences: fur farms, game, hide, livestock dealers, livestock agents and public sale yards. The reconsideration is a good vehicle to use. In the last 15 years there has been no desire to go forward for appeal. However, if reconsideration went through and the opportunity was still turned down, the final phase of appeal could be a judicial appeal.

L. Popham: Okay. I think I understand that. But I still believe that the people affected by a decision are being denied the right to an independent review the way this legislation reads.

Hon. D. McRae: The existing process for the last 15 years has worked, in staff's opinion, very well. There is the appeal process through judicial appeal if it were to come to that. But it's been rather successful for a very long period of time, and we didn't want to overbuild the piece of legislation.

L. Popham: Maybe I'm misreading it. "The chief veterinarian must provide written reasons for an action taken under subsection (3) of this section, and a person may not request further reconsideration." That, to me, seems really clear. At what point would you be able to do a judicial review, moving forward from this legislation?

Hon. D. McRae: The reality is we just don't want a scenario where a person can go back and ask for reconsideration multiple times. If the chief veterinarian officer has turned down with good cause, my belief is that they are not willing to vary their action. However, after the first reconsideration is turned down, the individual in question here would then be able to apply for a judicial review.

L. Popham: Where is that stated? Where can I find that?

Hon. D. McRae: It's not in this legislation. It's just a right that exists for all individuals to challenge a decision.

L. Popham: Okay. But when crafting this legislation, where we have seen things be put in for legalese and just because you need do that…. We have gone over the part of the legislation that was in there because that's what you're supposed to do around things. Not overbuilding this legislation doesn't really work as far as an explanation as to why this isn't in there.

This is a critically important part of fairness in British Columbia. So if we are now pushing people who don't agree with the decision of a chief vet in B.C., we're now telling them they have to go to the judiciary system.

Ontario has taken the steps for an independent review to be in place in their act. I'm not sensing that the minister is going to maybe see it my way, but I would like to have it on record that I think it is in our best interests as legislators to make legislation as fair as possible. I don't think it's overstepping anything to ask for an independent review to be built into this process.

I think we're taking away farmers' rights at this point. I don't think we have room within our judicial system to be pushing more cases that way. In fact, we just went through changing legislation that takes cases away from the judiciary system into an independent review with the Farm Industry Review Board.

[1550]

I'm not sure why it works one way for one act and one way for the other act. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. D. McRae: This is about the seven licences we have — game, hide, livestock dealers, livestock agents, public sale yards. While they maybe have an effect on the agricultural community, they're not necessarily, particularly, farmers themselves.

The process we have had for 15 years has worked quite well. My understanding is there have been no judicial appeals in that time. The common sense that we built into this act — giving the chief veterinary officer some discretion — is something that I think we can work well with. It is important.

The reality is that if situations were to change — and since we have 15 years of data that say they really haven't been an issue to be concerned with — future legislatures would have the ability bring an amendment forward, if that's the case.

My staff has passed me a note, saying: "Ontario review board is not for regulated activities." We want to pass that along to you as well.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

L. Popham: Section 16, "Protected information." I think we have all been looking forward to this section — at least I have. Section 16 has caused a lot of concern, I believe — and not just for myself but from others. I think that we are well aware of the Privacy Commissioner's opinion on this section.

Given that the Privacy Commissioner, I believe, was consulted, my assumption is that the advice around their
[ Page 12217 ]
beliefs on how this changes or overrides the freedom-of-information legislation…. I'm assuming that that was ignored. I'm assuming that legislation that we agreed unanimously on in this House as being extremely important to British Columbia and the way that we treat the rights of people has been overridden in this legislation.

I have read the letters from the commissioner. I have read comments that some of the people that the minister has consulted with. When they put in their comments during the consultation process, this was raised as well. I have copies of those letters. This is not something that is just of concern to the opposition; this is a concern by a lot of people.

I think what this does is it removes the public's right to access records relating to animal disease management outbreaks and emergencies. As Privacy Commissioner Denham has noted, "This bill would establish a separate and very broad access-to-information regime," without providing compelling evidence that such an extra step is necessary.

I'm wondering how the minister sees that there is evidence that makes this necessary.

[1555]

Hon. D. McRae: We knew this was going to be an issue of questioning, and we want very much to make sure our answers are clear and concise, so if I may read into the record.

The policy underlying the Animal Health Act is based on an analysis of disease management scenarios for which the province could be responsible in the future; an examination of animal health legislation in other provinces; and a review of disease management lessons learned in other jurisdictions, including those related to public health management, because some diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans. Whether a disease infects humans or animals, the impact is significant.

I believe that in first reading I also mentioned some examples. The SARS outbreak in 2003 is estimated to have cost the Toronto economy nearly $1 billion in reduced travel, tourism and entertainment spending. The mad cow disease, otherwise known as BSE, scare of 2003 is said to have cost the Canadian economy close to $6 billion. It has devastated the cattle industry and the communities that depend on it, despite a relatively low risk to consumers. The avian influenza outbreak of 2004 in B.C.'s Fraser Valley lasted 91 days and resulted in more than 17 million birds being culled, 410 commercial poultry farms being emptied and had a gross economic cost exceeding $380 million.

A 2012 review of legislation indicates that there are 34 other statutes currently in force that have full or partial notwithstanding clauses in them. Until now, provincial legislation was very limited and precluded the government acting with full authority to manage anything except a small number of diseases.

Instead, the federal government has assumed the primary role of disease management in the province, and the information protection provisions of the federal Access to Information Act have applied in those circumstances. Information related to animal diseases is scientific and technical in nature and submitted to government in confidence, and is protected under the federal legislation, which is the Access to Information Act, section 20.

[D. Black in the chair.]

This situation does not apply in B.C., as there are additional criteria that must be met for additional information related to third parties — for example, farmers — to be protected. Sections in this act guarantee to farmers that their information will be maintained in confidence to ensure a collaborative and cooperative approach with government in disease-monitoring programs.

L. Popham: Given the statement by the minister, I just want to point out that overriding the freedom-of-information legislation doesn't stop disease outbreak. I think the minister implied that this was around stopping disease outbreak. Really, it affects the access to information around that situation.

It reduces trust among the public, I think, because if the government is the only agency that's able to access this and there is no sharing of information, I don't think that says a lot for the public trust in government. In fact, I think it does exactly the opposite.

Commissioner Denham states: "This override would be at odds with FIPPA's policy choices approved by unanimous vote of the House, a balance between the public's right to know and individual and commercial interests of confidentiality." Section 21 of FIPPA contains provisions to explicitly protect harm to third-party business interests.

I believe that's part of what the minister was saying — that there is a need to protect the business that might be having a disease outbreak. But I think FIPPA protects that type of business and that type of situation from happening.

[1600]

I see that there are heads being shaken, but maybe we can talk about that a little bit. Is that what's driving this section — just the protection of those businesses and not the protection of the people who live in the province of B.C., who have a right to information?

Hon. D. McRae: For the Animal Health Act to be effective, it is absolutely essential that we have as much voluntary compliance with the agricultural community as possible. It is absolutely essential, as well, that members submitting samples voluntarily feel that their samples are held in trust and are analyzed with due care and process and are not taken out of context.
[ Page 12218 ]

The worst-case scenario that could happen is that if the farmers were not willing to participate in the program, disease could have an outbreak, and it would take a much longer period of time for the chief veterinary officer to learn about it and react. Sometimes time is of the essence, and it is so essential that we have agricultural producers from all parts of the province partaking in this process to ensure animal health and human health are protected at the highest level possible.

D. Routley: The Information Commissioner is explicit with her criticism of this bill in that she feels that there have been very few overrides offered to FIPPA by any other legislation and that the government has not made the case that their concerns justify an override.

In fact, she mentions the previous collision of interests around fish farming information. A previous order by the commissioner directed the government to release regular routine audits of fish farms for exactly the same reason — so that the public would have access to information that would be essential to determining for themselves the seriousness of any kind of outbreak. At the time the B.C. Liberal government defended their refusal to release the information as a protection of third-party business interests. In fact, the fish farming industry joined the opposition and environmental movement in calling for the release of those audits in order to be open and transparent.

So it seems that a government that claims to be the most open and transparent government in the universe, should hardly be finding itself taking measures to override FIPPA again, for essentially the same reasons that they did in the fish farming example, and ignoring, essentially, the order of the commissioner as extended to this context.

[1605]

Hon. D. McRae: In 2010 this was obviously an issue that was raised. As soon as we followed the adjudicator's decision and the data was released the fish farms actually stopped submitting their samples for voluntary audit. What we don't want to see is another scenario where a terrestrial creature — cattle, for example — were to be in the same boat.

We need the information from the producers, whether they are on land or in the water, because we want to make sure that we have the data there to learn about any outbreaks that may occur and react quickly and appropriately to deal with a potential disease outbreak.

D. Routley: It seems entirely inadequate that the government would then launch an assault on the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act rather than take the necessary steps to ensure that that information is available from the industry sector that we're talking about.

It seems that the first step that an open government would take would be to ensure that proper measures are in place so that those producers are obligated to provide that information and that the essential right of every British Columbian to the information that their government processes and uses to make decisions about our environment and about our personal safety shouldn't be traded off to encourage a willingness from an industry sector to participate.

The commissioner suggests that the government's interpretation that FOIPPA is out of step with other jurisdictions, she says, is wrong. "Overly onerous" is the phrase that she uses, and not supported by her office's research.

[1610]

So I think the minister and the government owe British Columbians a more adequate explanation of why they think overriding an essential freedom in this province is a better step than taking steps within the industry and within the sector to ensure there are adequate inspectors on the ground and adequate steps being taken through legislation to ensure compliance. Instead, we see the government attempting to override the Freedom of Information and of Privacy Protection Act.

Can the minister offer me a better explanation and better grounds?

Hon. D. McRae: Just for the record, there are concerns that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not provide assurance that the confidential information related to farmers and their animals will be protected. Such protection is necessary for the effective operation of voluntary detection programs, traceability programs and to minimize financial consequences to farmers affected by disease. Also, there are concerns that FOIPPA would not provide flexibility for the collection, sharing and use of that information in emergency situations.

Under B.C. FOIPPA, information supplied to government by third parties — for example, farmers in this case — can only be protected if it meets all three of the following criteria.

First, the information is scientific or technical in nature; second, the information is submitted in confidence to government; and thirdly, the information is related to the commercial or financial situation of a third party, where it is believed that undue financial loss or gain could arise from the release of the information or that similar information would not be supplied to government when it is in the public interest to receive such information.

Although the first two criteria can easily be met in the context of disease control, the last criterion can be very difficult to meet to the satisfaction of those persons interpreting the FOIPPA. This is not the situation with federal legislation or with the legislation of many other provinces, where only one of the above criteria needs to be met.
[ Page 12219 ]

The Animal Health Act provides assurance across all animal-producing sectors that third-party information is protected when it is submitted to government as part of a disease control program. Without this assurance, the voluntary submission of information will be curtailed that would lead to early disease detection, tracing and control.

A review of animal health legislation and freedom-of-information legislation in every other province and the federal government shows that some provinces, like B.C., have three criteria in their freedom-of-information legislation, all of which must be met for the third-party information to be protected. These provinces include B.C., Alberta, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.

Of these provinces, Alberta has a notwithstanding clause in its animal health legislation to protect information supplied to government that is related to animal disease control. B.C. is proposing a very similar clause. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and P.E.I. do not have such clauses in their animal health legislation, nor do they have significant animal agriculture industries, compared to the larger provinces.

All other provinces and the federal government have freedom-of-information legislation in which it is only necessary to meet one criterion in order to protect the third-party information. In these provinces, protective clauses are not necessarily required in the animal health legislation because virtually all third-party information related to animal disease control programs would be protected. However, Ontario has gone a step further by stipulating that third-party information meet one of the tests in its freedom-of-information legislation, thus removing any doubt.

D. Routley: Well, this is British Columbia, and British Columbia has since 1993 — at that time, at least — prided itself as leading this country in terms of open government, freedom-of-information legislation. That legislation over the past ten years has been undermined repeatedly by the B.C. Liberal government.

In fact, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association referred to "a sophisticated culture of avoidance" when it comes to the B.C. Liberal government's practices, when it comes to freedom-of-information legislation and their steps to undermine and sidestep the provisions of the act.

I was co-chair of the committee that reviewed the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act last year. In every case that the government brought forward, expediency for government interests was offered as a reason for undermining the protections under the act.

[1615]

The acting commissioner, Paul Fraser, used the story of two moose hunters to illustrate how expediency can sometimes lead us off course. He said that two moose hunters were out in the bush, and they shot a moose. They were dragging it back towards their truck by its hind legs, tripping, stumbling and cutting themselves, bruising themselves. They were covered in dirt and mud.

A game officer came along and checked their licences. He verified that they were indeed legitimate hunters. He looked at what they were doing, and he said: "Wouldn't it work a lot better if you were just to get on either side of the antlers and pull the moose forward?" So the two moose hunters did just exactly that.

They made great progress. They weren't tripping. They weren't stumbling. They weren't hurting themselves. One moose hunter said to the other: "That guy was right. We're making great progress." And the other moose hunter said: "Yeah, but we're getting further and further away from the truck."

It illustrates how simply taking a step that will increase expediency, that will increase the efficiency of how the minister might like to achieve a goal, might drag us away from the principle that we were originally intending to address.

The handling of information, and the freedom of access to it in a democracy, is an essential freedom. If every time the government runs up against a problem where the Freedom of Information Act and its structure, its architecture meant to protect that basic freedom, become an obstacle to the government's expediency, well, then it may appear that the easiest thing to do is to simply dismantle that architecture.

In fact, the commissioner is saying that the act is not properly interpreted by the minister and by the government, that their research is faulty. Unless the government is telling the commissioner that her office and their research are faulty, that in fact the act is an impediment to public safety…. If the minister is saying that, then the minister should address the Freedom of Information Act directly, not simply try to undermine its provisions with this section of this act.

From my reading of the commissioner's letter, she is clear that the government has not offered enough support for the argument that the Freedom of Information Act should be undermined in order to offer that expediency of collecting information, and that in fact the government needs to take adequate and proper steps to ensure that the information is available and to use the act to protect the interests of third parties where necessary, but under the existing provisions of the act.

The minister needs to offer a better explanation than simply that the freedom-of-information acts in other provinces don't protect the public's right to know in this similar case. This isn't Alberta. This isn't Ontario. This is British Columbia. We have our own Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. This is a province with a Premier who claims to have the most open government in the universe.

How can the minister justify undermining that essential freedom in order to achieve this expediency?
[ Page 12220 ]

[1620]

Hon. D. McRae: I want to assure the members opposite and the general public that this action was not taken lightly and was one of much discussion. In fact, we as a ministry engaged the commissioner, looking for some common ground, and we are very respectful of the fact that her job is to protect freedom and privacy. For those reasons, we are glad to work with her, and we're glad to have her.

But based on our experiences in other jurisdictions, there has not been a successful animal disease control program anywhere in the world — the chief veterinary officer for British Columbia, who has extensive international experience, is my source for this — without voluntary farmer cooperation. It would have been absolutely great to have found that common ground. However, the goal of this act is to protect human and animal health, and cooperation of the producers is absolutely essential.

Without information, without data, government and the chief veterinary officer cannot react accordingly. We do not want to act in a vacuum, where we are surprised by a disease — at its degree when it is much harder to control than at the very early stages — if possible.

D. Routley: Why is a judge more effective than the priest, I might ask? The priest can warn us that sin will eventually lead us to condemnation. A judge can assure us of that.

The provisions of law assure us that our essential freedoms will be protected. The promises, the assurances, of the minister and the government that somehow they are going to not take these steps lightly and will protect these essential freedoms, while they are engaged in undermining them, are hardly reassuring.

The commissioner, as did the former acting commissioner, points to a lack of understanding on the part of bureaucrats and the government itself of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act — in fact, that these goals of the government can be achieved without undermining the Freedom of Information Act.

The language that the commissioner uses is strong, and this is a commissioner who isn't prone to bold statements about the government's actions and has been quite restrained in judgment. But this language is very assertive. It says: "The broad and sweeping strokes taken by this bill adjust the long-established balance of interests between access to information and confidentiality."

That is a very big statement, and it's a very big step for the government to take in any legislation — to take broad and sweeping strokes at undermining an essential freedom, the freedom of information, the right of the public to its own information. Former Premier Gordon Campbell referred to the government's information not as the government's information but the public's information.

Any steps taken to undermine that freedom of access are to be taken cautiously, are to be resisted thoroughly. It seems to me that at every step this B.C. Liberal government…. Whether it be health legislation, where they're carving out whole sections of health authority activities from scrutiny, or whether it be this bill dealing with agriculture, there's consistent undermining of the structures and provisions of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act.

[1625]

To illustrate that point, the Information and Privacy Commissioner writes that she believes that the ministry is granting itself unlimited powers. Now, that's referring to a separate section, but it illustrates the kind of concern that the commissioner has when it comes to any steps that might be taken by a government to offer the bureaucracy an expediency that comes at the expense of the protection of the freedom of information.

While the minister says the chief veterinary officer tells us that there's no animal health regime anywhere in the world that has been successful without voluntary compliance, has the minister not taken any steps to create an atmosphere where voluntary compliance can coexist with the current Freedom of Information Act? It seems that the commissioner is saying that the government and the minister haven't made the case that that can't be achieved.

Hon. D. McRae: Earlier I raised the issue of the fish farm example, where when the information submitted by the fish farm was not protected, data stopped coming in. That's an example of where, if we do not protect, have some level of confidentiality, we do not know what's happening.

Again, I want to assure the members opposite that we have worked extensively, and this is taken very cautiously. We've canvassed privacy experts extensively within government.

I want to assure the members opposite that this section of the bill is not about expediency. It's about protecting human and animal health. For that, using the fish farm example and other examples in other jurisdictions, we need the cooperation of the producers to make sure that we have the data there.

The worst thing that we could have is a producer who has a potential disease potentially hide that disease and us not know about it, and it gets worse and worse. I use the examples about the billions of dollars that could be impacted, whether it is through SARS, avian bird flu or BSE.

L. Popham: The protected information, section 16, states that, except as permitted under section 17 or 18, "a person must refuse" — despite the freedom-of-information legislation — "to disclose the following."

There is no qualifier on person in this section. I'd like
[ Page 12221 ]
to know if this is a drafting error, because in the following section, section 17, it does limit the meaning of persons. This suggests that the broadness of the term was deliberate in section 16.

Hon. D. McRae: Section 16 must be read within the context of the acts. The references in section 16 to section 17 and 18 imply that the person in section 16 takes its meaning from those sections. In section 17 person is implying employees and former employees of the ministry of the minister, each inspector or former inspector, persons engaged or previously engaged in the administration of the act, a person responsible for administering a laboratory and an employee or former employee of a laboratory identified for the purposes of section 16.

[1630]

L. Popham: I'm going to read this again. Except as permitted under section 17 or 18, a person must refuse, despite the freedom-of-information legislation, to disclose the following: information that would identify or reveal (a) the identity of a person responsible for an animal, (b) a specific place where animals are kept, (c) information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present, (d) information that would reveal that an animal or an animal product affected by a notifiable, reportable disease is in a place or owned by an identifiable person or body, (e) info derived from a sample under this act.

So we go back to the reference to a person, and it looks to me like, on the face of it, the government is trying to prohibit all people from communicating about the existence or even the possible existence of a notifiable or a reportable disease. In my interpretation, and in many other people's interpretations, this is a big overreach, and it would apply to everyone. If you follow the law that we are now debating, it would apply to journalists, independent scientists, concerned neighbours, interested individuals, etc.

This law reads that it applies to everyone. I don't think that, if you read…. As I read it, and I've had legal consultations, this is a big concern. It's trying to block information.

I understand the idea that trust must be built between businesses and the government, allowing for freedom of information. But I don't think British Columbians have chosen to live in the dark about issues. I don't think that when the freedom-of-information legislation was voted on in this House, it was passed unanimously with the idea that it could be used whenever the government wanted to and then if the government didn't want to, it wasn't important.

Does section 16 apply to the media and independent scientists and anyone who would want to inquire around information of a potential disease outbreak or a disease outbreak? Why would this information be kept from the public and anyone else who may have a concern about it?

Hon. D. McRae: The term "person" in this act does not refer to the media. It does not refer to independent scientists or individuals making inquiries. The term "person" does refer to the section 17, subsection (1)(a) through (e) — which I quoted earlier, and I think it's already in the record, but it was particularly to those (a) through (e) individuals. Again, to the member opposite, it does not refer to the media, independent scientists or the general public making inquiries.

L. Popham: If the media, if independent scientists, if other advocacy groups were to inquire around information, around disease outbreak or potential disease threats, would the information be given to those people? Would the information be shared with the media so that the media could then report out on it? I don't think the legislation says that that would happen.

[1635]

Hon. D. McRae: Again, we're referring in this act to the word "person." It refers particularly to the positions I mentioned in section 17(1)(a) through (e). However, if a person involved in the media, an independent scientist or the general public were to inquire to the individual farmer about a test's results and the individual farmer wished to share them, he or she would be more than able to do so. If the farmer were to provide consent to the ministry, we would also be able to provide that information.

L. Popham: Well, that's the minister's interpretation, but I think that section 16 creates an obligation for the person to refuse to give information. In fact, that's exactly the point. If they don't refuse, they could be incarcerated; they could be charged. I mean, there are severe penalties for disclosure of this information.

There's some headshaking going on, and I understand that there may be some frustration. But the interpretation….

I didn't come up with all of this information on my own. I have also had legal advice, and it is concerning. So if it's not the intention of section 16 to basically create a gag clause within this legislation, then I think this section 16 needs to be reworded so it's more clear, because the advice that I've been given is that this may be an unintended gag clause, but it's a gag clause.

Hon. D. McRae: Again, in section 16, the person refers to those mentioned in section 17(1)(a) through (e). Again, I won't read them off. It is talking about employees of government, inspectors, persons engaged in administration of the act. It is not referring to media, independent scientists or people making individual inquiries to such an act.
[ Page 12222 ]

L. Popham: Okay, so there was an outbreak on a poultry farm, and there were neighbours surrounding that poultry farm. The ministry, the provincial vet, made a decision to deal with the disease outbreak in whatever way the provincial vet saw fit. The owner of that business shared information on either how the disease started or a timeline of the disease outbreak. They requested that that information not be shared.

This legislation then kicks in, because I think if the owner of that business does not want that information shared, then there is no way that the ministry can share that information. But perhaps the neighbour overheard the conversation and spoke to the media. Is that an instance where the minister can see that this puts the neighbour and the media in jeopardy of sharing information that was confidential as far as the owner of the business is concerned?

I guess that what I do need is some reassurances that around any information shared around outbreaks of disease, disease that pertains to the Animal Health Act, there will be no incarcerations and no fines levied against anybody reporting information out that they may have obtained on their own accord.

Hon. D. McRae: Section 16 does not apply to the neighbour, nor does it apply to the media, nor an independent scientist, nor individuals making inquiries or people in the general public who happen to overhear information and then spread it.

L. Popham: Can the minister see, in any part of this act, where that might kick in?

[1640]

Hon. D. McRae: There is no offence attached to section 16.

L. Popham: Given that I perceive frustration on the other side of this House, I would like to again state that I'm not making this up. They're not just my concerns. They're valid concerns from reputable agencies, including the BCSPCA.

The BCSPCA submitted a letter today, and I think the minister has a copy of that, regarding Bill 37 and regarding the same concerns I'm bringing up right now. I'm going to read the first three paragraphs, which I think apply to this section.

"I am writing to provide comments on Bill 37, the Animal Health Act, tabled Monday, April 30, 2012. While the BCSPCA is supportive of the intent to modernize the outdated B.C. Animal Disease Control Act to better address animal disease prevention and eradication, we feel it's necessary to raise critical concerns we have about the scope of the provisions proposed in the new act.

"We believe that this bill is written with a broad scope that does not adequately address the intended subject that was described in the initial consultation announcement of November 2010. Instead, unclear wording allows for multiple interpretations that may pose unintended limitations on the sharing of information necessary for the enforcement of other legislation, such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and for transparency in public access to information about animal use.

"Specifically, we wish to echo Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham's request to remove section 16. The implications of this section of the law are far-reaching, particularly one. 'Except as permitted under section 17 [duty to keep information confidential] or 18 [personal information], a person must refuse, despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to disclose the following: (a) information that would identify the person responsible for an animal or an animal product or byproduct.'

"This broad language is not in keeping with British Columbia's existing standard of clear and enforceable legislation."

I think that's the problem. I will believe that the minister's understanding of the legislation and the intent of the drafting of the legislation is there. I believe that the government side of the House believes that this doesn't contravene any of the issues that I've been talking about. But law is about interpretation. You have to remove the multiple interpretations that may come from legislation before it's passed so that it's good legislation and it's solid.

If the BCSPCA is also weighing in on it, the Privacy Commissioner is weighing in on it, the Freedom of Information Association is weighing in on it and we had legal representation weighing in on it, I think it's a point where an amendment would be considered by the minister to make it more clear. So if "a person" isn't a general term, I think it needs to be written into section 16. I think that that's fair.

Now, we didn't just send section 16 out willy-nilly without the context of the rest of the act. We certainly did, and it has all come back the same: that it's too broad. My request is that the minister consider an amendment. If there is no amendment, we will not support this part of the bill.

[1645]

Hon. D. McRae: We also just received the letter today, and we look forward to having conversations with the BCSPCA. They do great work, and their legal advice is very strong.

With all due respect, we think they might have some misinterpretation here. For that reason, it's important that the Ministry of Agriculture has contact with the BCSPCA.

But for the record, the confidentiality provisions related to the Animal Health Act, only not the PCAA…. The Animal Health Act deals with reportable and notifiable diseases, both of which trigger specific disease control actions.

This bill is not about animal welfare. The language of the section has been reviewed by several legal advisers, including those specializing in privacy law, and we have canvassed several times already that a person is referring to people outlined in sections 17 and 18.

L. Popham: I think the minister just made my point, that the SPCA does have good legal advice. Their inter-
[ Page 12223 ]
pretation of this law is different than the ministry may want it to be. That's the whole point. The consultation, which I don't think was enough, because we wouldn't be, at this point, trying to sort out section 16…. So yes, I hope that the ministry has an in-depth conversation with the BCSPCA, because their interpretation is different.

I don't need a comment back. I just wanted to put that on record — that the letter that was sent in was done in a thoughtful manner, and I don't think it was a wrong interpretation. It was their interpretation. That's the problem with section 16: it has many interpretations. But I have another member who'd like to comment.

V. Huntington: It's obvious that what we have here is a completely different attitude towards the public right to know. It's a deep philosophical difference in this instance. We're dealing here, as the minister said, with the protection of human and animal health. That means we're dealing with the human food chain and the communication of disease of animals and animal products that move into that human food chain.

To think that the public do not have a right to know that there is a problem existing in that food chain, then, is just such a deep philosophical divide that I don't even really know how to tackle the issue in this committee.

A producer that has permits and licences to sell into the food chain should be required by this province to provide at all and any time all the information necessary to show that those animals are healthy. To think that you have to create a situation where people are not allowed to advise the public or anybody associated with the issue that there is a problem within that chain of human food supply in order to ensure the cooperation of the producer is upside-down logic when you're dealing with human health.

[1650]

Those producers, I repeat again, should be required by their licence and permit to at all times cooperate and advise — cooperate with the province and advise them of any issue related to the health of their animal and animal product. They should be penalized heavily, and they should lose their licence if they do not cooperate as the licence would require them to.

I just think that to ensure silence on the matter of human health and food for that human food chain is wrong thinking. We've seen it happen where producers are protected and don't have to provide information, and it just provides angst throughout the public, when in fact that data should be immediately available to them at all times.

I can see where the ministry…. I think the producer has a right to protection from rumour and unsustained laboratory tests or unsustained accusation of poor health or disease. But once that disease is confirmed, there should be no necessity at all for the province to hide that fact from the public.

If this section dealt with rumour or suspicion, I could understand it. But subparagraph (c) blankets all the provision, whether "a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present." If it may be present, keep it quiet until it's confirmed or proven otherwise. But if it is present, the public has a right to know.

I'll ask a question of the minister. Does this provision…? Does section 16 prevent buyers, auctioneers, abattoirs — any operation within the food chain — to be denied this knowledge that there is a notifiable or reportable disease of an animal or within an animal product?

Hon. D. McRae: If there was a notifiable or reportable disease, and we follow protocols, it would never make it into the food chain. As well, again, we have not entered down this path lightly. We have no ability to yank licences from farmers, because the vast majority of farmers are not licensed.

So right now on Englewood Street in Courtenay the person there who may be raising nine cows is unknown to us. It is so essential that we actually have the data going forward that allows us to actually know what is being done and be able to react accordingly. But we cannot yank the licence of a person who is not behaving properly, because there is no licence to act on.

V. Huntington: All right. In those instances where farmers aren't licensed or permitted to be selling into the food chain, I can understand that. But here this provision, it would appear, prevents the ministry from — I'm reading — telling a wholesaler that there is a problem, because section 17 doesn't refer to the disease. It refers to personal information.

Would the minister please tell me where and how this information that is absolutely forbidden to be disclosed would identify the person or the animal that has the disease and how that information makes its way through the slaughter chain of command, if you will? I don't understand how you're protecting the public in this way.

[1655]

Hon. D. McRae: Let's go down sort of this hypothetical. You would hate to have a scenario where…. By the way, there is no Englewood Street in Courtenay, so I'll just use that. There is no farm on it as well.

If there were a farmer who was on Englewood Street in Courtenay with his or her nine animals, the worst-case scenario would be that the farmer sees something that maybe was reminiscent of a disease, did not consult with the vet and did not do any testing. If, out of pure fear, he were to terminate the animal's life and hide that animal, and there were seven or eight other animals on the farm which showed no disease but may have been carriers, in theory, there is a chance that that could actually enter into the processing system.

However, if we had a scenario where farmers were voluntarily submitting their information so we did know
[ Page 12224 ]
what was on that farm, we would have the ability, then, to act accordingly. It would stop it from hitting the food chain, which is one of the things we're going towards.

The other piece to go with that, if I may — to make sure I keep my train of thought here…. I've only been going for four or five hours. Oh, I've lost it. I'll tell you what. I may come back to that one. My apologies.

V. Huntington: I don't know. I don't even know where to begin. That's like saying that if company A is thinking about committing an offence and we don't find out about it, that's terrible, but if we don't have the penalty, if we don't require him to let us know that there's a problem here, that he'll cooperate with us voluntarily.

You can't hide disease from the public. You mentioned that nothing in this stops a journalist from asking the farmer. Will the minister tell me where a journalist would ever know that there was a problem when dealing with this section?

Hon. D. McRae: A good question, and it actually allowed me to remember my second point from before. For example, if it was decided that there were animals in question on a farm, the chief veterinary officer could impose a quarantine zone. A quarantine zone would not be hidden. It would be obvious. Notification would be posted around the farm to make sure. It would not be a hidden scenario at this stage. It would be something that would be very obvious to the general public, especially in the immediate area.

V. Huntington: All right. Just to satisfy me, what in these three sections — 16, 17, 18 — enables the chief veterinarian to do that? Section 18 is dealing with personal information only, and "personal information" is defined in the definition section.

[1700]

Hon. D. McRae: We'll use some examples here about diseased animals. We'll deal with situation 1, where we have a disease where the disease is not a risk to humans — for example, pig influenza. Assuming the pigs were treated and able to recover, the animals could actually work their way back into the food system if that was the case.

However, if a diseased animal had a disease that was a risk to humans — for example, avian influenza — a quarantine would be put up. A disease mitigation plan would be brought in, and that would include slaughter of the animal and disposal of the carcasses as well.

Section 17, for the member opposite, also does contain an override, where such information about the disease could be disclosed with the person's consent — the person's consent being the individual farmer — or where it is in the public interest to do so. The minister has the ability to make sure in the case that it is essential for the well-being of the general public that the public is aware.

V. Huntington: I won't go on and flog a dead horse, because I think there's just a substantial difference of opinion here. As I said earlier, I can see absolutely that where there is suspicion of a disease, it should be confirmed. The producer should be protected from any suspicion or nuance or rumour while you're confirming that.

Once the disease is confirmed, if it is going to go to quarantine, it's public then. I think that there should be no fear of advising the public.

[1705]

It's this type of confidentiality by government that creates suspicion and distrust throughout the public mind. When it's unnecessary to do so, I have no understanding of why a government would proceed in this fashion.

I ask one further question just to assure myself. A notifiable and reportable disease includes transmissible disease? The definitions aren't quite clear in that regard.

Hon. D. McRae: We were talking earlier about some of the definitions, and the definitions will be described by regulation, transferrable or reportable. I guess by definition all diseases are transmissible.

Just one other point if I may as well. It is so important that we…. We want farmers to actually act in a way that is good for animal health and good for human health. There are examples in other jurisdictions where farmers, by actually having their information about their particular farm and perhaps about a disease…. Their livelihood as a farmer was thereafter forever destroyed, because even though the disease was contained, and it would not be repeated — I would hope, anyway…. It was at the level of satisfaction of the authorities.

The reality is that people or processors would never buy off that person again. That farmer or that farm family would no longer exist. When you have a scenario where people are worried about their livelihood being forever taken away from them, you cannot prejudge what their reaction will be to a disease. The best thing we can do is make sure that people will continue to always submit samples and that government has the information that is absolutely important, which allows individuals like the chief veterinarian officer to react in a way that protects animal health and human health.

I totally understand the concerns raised by members opposite, but the reality is that if we don't have the information, the government and the chief veterinarian officer cannot act.

The Chair: Shall section 16 pass?

A Voice: Division.

The Chair: Division has been called. Pursuant to an agreement between the House Leaders, this division on section 16 will be deferred to 5:45 p.m. in the House today.
[ Page 12225 ]

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

M. Sather: This is on traceability systems. In this section, "'traceable animal' means an animal that is subject to a traceability system." What is a traceability system?

Hon. D. McRae: Traceability is an existing feature of Canadian agriculture. Tags, tattoos, brands and paper-based logbooks are all aspects of traceability that have been used for many years.

[1710]

Traceability includes the identification of animals or products, the ability to follow their movement and the identification of departure and destination of premises.

[E. Foster in the chair.]

Many industry sectors — like the cattle, like the hog industry — voluntarily already have a traceability process in place and underway.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

L. Popham: Section 23 is regarding inspections. An inspector may (a) stop a person, (c) enter a vehicle or place and inspect to determine…. In (2)(a)(i): "the presence of a notifiable or reportable disease, or (ii) whether this is otherwise a significant risk to animal health, or to public health," or "(e) to monitor or confirm compliance with…(iii) a term or condition of a licence or permit."

I don't see that an emergency has to be declared to use these powers. I think there could just be a suspicion of disease present. But first off, I need to know: what does it mean to give the inspector the power to stop someone?

Hon. D. McRae: We're talking here about actually physically, like section (b), stopping a vehicle, but this is about stopping a person. Perhaps a person is trying to leave a secure area and has not followed disease protocol or perhaps is trying to walk off a property. That's in regards to what we're doing here. We're trying to prevent.

L. Popham: That being said, I'm assuming it means to physically detain someone to stop them from doing whatever they were about to do before they were stopped.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

It's very broad, and it implies that the inspectors have higher powers or have powers of police and constables. To detain a person is quite a high level of power. The act only requires the inspector to be a vet in order to have the powers of a police officer.

It's concerning because even an inspector or an officer of the SPCA has to have certain requirements before they're able to act in this way. So what are the requirements for a vet to be empowered in order to physically detain somebody?

[1715]

Hon. D. McRae: An example would be to physically stop a person entering a quarantine zone. But we're trying to limit the spread of a disease either onto or off a farm. That's the intent here.

L. Popham: Okay. This act only requires inspectors to be vets. During an emergency, even that condition can be waived, and it would allow the provincial vet to appoint anybody to be an inspector, who would then have the powers to stop a person.

How does being a vet give them the training necessary to use physical force to stop somebody? In the act it says that, basically, you have a warrantless system for non-residences. But during an animal emergency, you can even go into a residence as an inspector.

You're entering into somebody's home, they're trying to leave, and the inspector is now required to physically restrain somebody. I'm not really sure. I think this would fall under the Police Act, not the Animal Health Act. I think we need a better explanation, or perhaps this needs to be amended.

Hon. D. McRae: For the members opposite, an inspector may stop a person or a vehicle and inspect the vehicle or place for only the following purposes: "if there is reason to believe that a notifiable or reportable disease may be present," to determine the presence of a disease, or what, if any, additional risks may exist to animal or human health. He may also do this under section 20 or 21 "to confirm the information provided in the report or to obtain further information."

They also are able "to determine whether (i) a licence or permit should be issued, or a registration should be confirmed, or (ii) a term or condition of a licence or permit" should be varied or rescinded, or terminated; and "to monitor animal health within a quarantine zone, surveillance zone or control zone in relation to the notifiable or reportable disease" identified in the order.

If the veterinarian believes that they need assistance, under section 73(1): "An inspector may call on the assistance of a peace officer for the purpose of taking an action authorized" under this act.

L. Popham: Okay. So the police may be called if the inspector or the vet feels that they need assistance. But this act is empowering the vet or the inspector to physically stop a person. There are two concerns here. One is that it puts the provincial vet and the inspectors in a
[ Page 12226 ]
potentially very dangerous situation where they're going to be in a brawl, getting injured themselves.

The other concern is that we now have people who have the powers of police and are able to physically stop people. Has there been some consultation with the police or with the RCMP around this?

[1720]

Hon. D. McRae: The key thing here is it's about "may" stop. We're not requiring vets to forcibly detain anyone. However, one thing that may be an issue is during the course…. The penalties can be quite severe. I think it would be very important that the vet would remind the person who is perhaps going to be out of compliance that penalties can be as high as $75,000 and that failure to act under the guidance of the vet might come at the peril of prosecution.

L. Popham: What bothers me is that it seems as though the legislation can be tight in some areas and sloppy in other areas. I don't care if "may" is in or out of the sentence. This legislation reads that the provincial vet or inspectors can physically stop a person. If that's the legislation that the minister wants to support, that's fine, but it leads to so many questions.

For example, what if the provincial vet stopped a person physically and they were killed in that action? Who's responsible? Who takes responsibility for the life of the provincial vet? That doesn't seem right to me. This is sounding more crazy as we go along.

Hon. D. McRae: We're not seeing a situation, or we're not contemplating a situation, where vets will be expected to physically detain individuals. If the vet believes that there is a risk to his or her well-being, by all means, we would expect them to fall back on section 73 of this act, which allows them to use a police officer for assistance.

The primary course is…. I think we see it being used in such a case where there was an individual who was walking onto a quarantine zone. We would want to have the vet with the ability to definitely raise the issue with the person potentially breaking the quarantine zone. If they felt that this was a risk to themselves at this stage, they could then bring in a police officer to assist and perhaps physically stop the individual from risking themselves and/or others.

L. Popham: Then can the minister please admit that this is too broad? The interpretation is that they can stop a person physically in any way they see fit. I mean, that's way too broad. That has to be amended.

First of all, maybe the minister could give me some indication if the minister is interpreting this the way that I'm interpreting it. Does the minister feel that physically stopping someone is the role of the provincial vet or of somebody that may be appointed as an inspector?

I also want the minister to answer the question I had around whether there has been any consultation with the police or the RCMP. How do they feel about this line in the legislation?

I understand what you're saying. If the legislation is there in order for some questions to be asked, permits to be requested, that's totally different than being able to physically stop a person. I think it needs to be cleared up. I want to know if the police have been consulted on this.

[1725]

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to section 23, the police were not consulted on this specific section. However, on section 73, which does involve police action, they were consulted in this piece.

L. Popham: So the piece of legislation that allows for a provincial vet or inspector to call for police assistance, the police were probably fine with that since that's their job. But if we don't get to that section because the provincial vet is dead, because they tried to stop somebody and it wasn't successful….

What protects the provincial vet? There's no protection. It leaves the provincial vet open for possible physical injury as well as whoever the provincial vet is trying to stop. I think there's a responsibility for the ministry to consult with the police when allowing someone to physically stop another person. I think that is incomplete legislation without consultation.

Hon. D. McRae: There is no obligation for the inspector to physically stop an individual.

We do live in Canada where we have a very clear Criminal Code. People understand that assault, murder and such are crimes that are taken very, very seriously. While there is a possibility and a circumstance that it could occur…. Assault and murder could occur anywhere, including walking on the street after we get out of this Legislature in 45 minutes, when I walk back to my hotel. Again, we have criminal law to prevent people from doing this.

L. Popham: I don't accept that answer from the minister at all. I don't accept it. I think that the unwillingness to get consultation from the police or the RCMP is poor form. I understand that the word "may" is in there. It may happen. I understand that we live in Canada, and we have somehow…. I didn't find it yet, but there's a nice clause written into this legislation. But that doesn't work, because this is the law.

If, for example, the provincial vet stops somebody, and the person that they stopped died because there was an interaction, is the provincial vet off scot-free because this legislation said that they're allowed to do that?

Let's make sure that this law is written for the purpose
[ Page 12227 ]
of what we're trying to get to. We're trying to get information from the person that the provincial vet or inspectors is trying to stop. I get that. But this is going beyond that. It doesn't protect the vet, and it doesn't protect the public.

I think we need to revisit this. I'm interested in knowing if the minister is…. We're going to have to break pretty soon. We're going to have to vote in the other House. I would request that we don't finish off section 23 and allow for the minister to do some consultations with our law enforcement agencies, and we come back to this one on Tuesday. Is the minister interested in that?

Hon. D. McRae: A couple of things. In this particular section, we did not consult with the RCMP. We did it, like I said earlier, in section 73. However, in regards to this section — section 23, if I get it right — we did have significant consultation with the vets. If the vets had raised it as an issue that was of major concern to them, we would have acted accordingly.

[1730]

I think it's important for members opposite to know that vets carry on inspections on a regular basis around the province right now, doing this. This is not something that's unfamiliar to them. They understand it.

We do not want to put them in undue pressure or undue danger. That is why we have the word "may" in here. That is why we also have the provision, as a backup, that they may engage a peace officer to assist them if they feel they are at risk.

Again, this is something that they've been doing for a very long time. If they were concerned about it, I'm sure they would have raised it. Instead of going from the RCMP down, I think we should work with the individuals actually asked to do the inspections, which in this case will be the veterinarians themselves, and they did not raise it.

L. Popham: So the minister is not interested in using the next few days, while we are not in the House, to consult with the RCMP just so that, on both sides of the House, our minds are at ease and we have made sure that the lives of the provincial vet and inspectors are not in danger?

Hon. D. McRae: Like I said earlier, I'm fairly confident from the consultation we had with the veterinarians that if this was an issue, it would have been raised. I'm sure that if there were significant issues raised in section 73 — that there was carryover— that would slide down to this particular case.

Again, we have had veterinarians doing inspections around the province of British Columbia for a substantial amount of time. They are protected, as well, by the Criminal Code, like I mentioned earlier, from assault and murder and such. So for that particular case, it's something that I don't see as a major concern at this time.

L. Popham: Are there any other provinces that use the words "stop a person"? I've looked through the Ontario legislation, and I don't think they've given anybody broad powers to stop anyone.

Hon. D. McRae: I think I'm going to finish up by saying that this act is about protecting animal health and animal health through to human health in that manner. We do have the Criminal Code of Canada, and that does protect individuals so that they are not assaulted or murdered or such.

L. Popham: Given that the minister is unwilling to consult with the RCMP or the police on this issue, I'm going to do the consultation. I know that I can't hold up this section. But I'll do that over the next five days, and I'll come back with a report of what I find, because I think it's really important.

We don't sit on this side of the House just to be a pain in the butt. We're here to make this legislation strong and to make sure it's fair and to make sure people are protected. I know what the intent of the bill is. It's around animal health. But there are implications that could happen with this section. That being said, I'll get back to you next week on what I find.

Hon. D. McRae: I assume, if you're going to do some consultations, you'll be talking to an organization, because there are thousands of police officers. I guarantee you could find an individual, no matter what side of the coin they wish to stand on, on this particular issue. If you're going to come back with some information, I'd love to hear from perhaps an organization or an association that represented a large number of officers.

L. Popham: I'll probably do that. I could visit the Saanich police. I could visit the West Shore RCMP, or I could maybe make some calls, too, if we wanted to go higher up in the organization. I can do the minister's job for him.

[1735]

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

On section 25.

L. Popham: In section 25, "Entering to inspect," with the exception of a personal residence, no warrant is required, and written notice or advance notice is not required. I'm just wondering what legal advice the minister has followed for this part of the legislation.

Hon. D. McRae: There are conditions under which an inspector may conduct inspections without providing notice. These conditions include when the thing to be inspected is on public display — maybe a science fair
[ Page 12228 ]
item — when providing notice would not be reasonably possible or practical in the circumstances and in the case when an inspection is conducted to determine compliance with the regulation. Notice may not be given when it would frustrate the purpose of the investigation.

M. Sather: If we're looking at inspections, it's all kinds of things. Of course, as the member knows, my critic area is fisheries so I think about fish farms. So (2)(a), an inspector must "take reasonable steps to notify the owner or occupier of the place of the date and time that the inspector will be entering."

Isn't that counterproductive? If the government is looking to find out what the situation is every day, on any given day, why have to give notice that you intend to make an inspection?

Hon. D. McRae: An inspector is required to give reasonable notice of an inspection before entering the premises. The exceptions to this rule are, for example, one, in the case of a regulated activity — for example, a game farm. The second one would be where giving notice could frustrate the purpose of the inspection or providing notice is not reasonably practical or possible. Frustrating the purpose of an inspection is if we believe that by telling them we're coming or that they were going to be inspected, they would hide the animals in question. The third piece is if providing notice is not reasonably practical or possible.

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

L. Popham: This is probably going to be our last exchange. Section 29 is "Reason for seizure, slaughter or destruction." Section 29(1) states that an order for seizure, slaughter of animals can only be made if an animal has a reportable disease or a thing has been exposed to a reportable disease.

Subsection (2) says that an order can be made if the chief vet "(c) cancels an operator's licence, permit or registration." It might just be an interpretation that I have from reading this, but it seems to me that a decision to cancel an operator's licence, permit or registration is sufficient grounds to seize or slaughter animals.

[1740]

Hon. D. McRae: In this act, under section 29, we can't skip through (1) and jump straight to (2). Subsection (1) would have to apply, and if (1) were to apply, then (2) would actually come into effect as well. So you can't, for seizure, slaughter or destruction, just run to subsection 29(2)(c) and then say that they are going to have the animals seized, slaughtered or destroyed because the licence, permit or registration was cancelled.

Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:41 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); P. Pimm in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

On Vote 31: Attorney General operations, $368,337,000 (continued).

M. Mungall: I have just a couple of questions, maybe even just one. It's about guide dogs. Right now the legislation that governs and regulates the use of guide dogs is very specific to people using service dogs for people who are blind. To the best of my knowledge and my reading of the act, it doesn't support the use of guide dogs and people having the right to bring service dogs into a restaurant or other locations unless they are in the service of someone who is blind.

Of course, service dogs are used for a wide variety of disabilities, including epilepsy, various other illnesses that involve seizures, and so on. I won't name everything here. The point of the matter is that people who are using service dogs to better facilitate their lives and access to their community are not covered under the current legislation. My understanding, in talking with my constituents about this issue, is that they recently received a survey, and there could possibly be changes coming forward.

I'm wondering if the minister can provide any updates on where those possible changes are and what people in my community and throughout B.C. can expect.

[1445]

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Certainly, we've spent a fair bit of time talking about service dogs in British Columbia. We know they're important. I've actually been approached on numerous occasions, and she's done a fantastic job. The Deputy Speaker has been fantastic about engaging with various organizations across the province. We've actually had a fair degree of discussion about guide dogs,
[ Page 12229 ]
service dogs.

We're going to continue that consultation. At this point we are looking at what additional legislative changes may be necessary. So very much on our radar screen and very interested in looking at protecting people's rights.

We want to make sure, though, that, for example, when there are tenancy rights for people with service dogs — and there should be, and there are — there are standards for guide dog training and service dog training. So we've had some discussion with service providers and training schools. We've had discussion with many organizations about that.

It's a project that's underway — certainly not in this legislative session. I can't imagine the reaction if we attempted to bring in any more legislation.

Basically, it's very much on our radar screen. Interested in the topic and have had some specific targeted consultation. Would much welcome any feedback or input that the member opposite has. Appreciate her interest. We share that interest, and I look forward to future improvements in the days ahead.

It's a little early to signal legislation or what that might look like, but certainly, very interested and committed to making change.

L. Krog: Going back to some extent to where we were earlier, just before lunch. The minister is no doubt aware of the special report of the Representative for Children and Youth, The Impact of Criminal Justice Funding Decisions on Children in B.C., issued in March of this year.

There were three recommendations made. The first was that the Ministry of Justice develop policy that requires that "senior Crown counsel review all cases where a prosecution affecting the welfare or safety of a child could be adversely affected by procedural or investigatory barriers."

Can the minister advise what the ministry is doing, if anything, with respect to implementation of this recommendation? Indeed, the Representative for Children and Youth had suggested that it be implemented by June 29, 2012.

[1450]

Hon. S. Bond: We have had two reports, obviously, from the children and youth rep, both of which we're working on simultaneously. Could the member just articulate which particular report it is?

L. Krog: It's the Special Report: The Impact of Criminal Justice Funding Decisions on Children in B.C., March 2012.

Hon. S. Bond: I should begin by saying that we appreciate the work of the child and youth rep. She and I have met on a number of occasions and agreed that there is work to be done. In fact, the most significant action that was taken in regard to both the report that was provided around the Schoenborn case and the subsequent report — we've agreed with the child and youth rep that there does need to be action taken.

In fact, there is an action plan. We are working with the child and youth rep. The criminal justice branch has made significant progress. We have made it clear that files that involve domestic violence or files related to children need to be more rigorously flagged.

The rep was aware of the fact that we do have a flagging system in place which makes sure that there's attention paid to those files, but she made it clear that it needed to be a more robust process.

We have worked through that particular part of the flagging system, so we are looking and, in fact, looked at changes to the technology system to make sure that we have an effective flagging system on child victims filed so that it is readily apparent to Crown counsel post-charge approval that the file involves a child victim and therefore requires close monitoring.

The issue of transcription and translation of police witnesses. That is being dealt with by the Crown Police Liaison Committee. It met early in May, and I have also met personally with the head of police agencies, both municipal and the RCMP, to make it clear that that was a decision that should not have been made and that in the future that would not happen again.

L. Krog: With respect to recommendation 1, which I read out, the recommendation was that that policy should be implemented by June 29, 2012, and that is that "senior Crown counsel would review all cases where a prosecution affecting the welfare or safety of a child could be adversely affected by procedural or investigatory barriers."

I appreciate the minister's comments with respect to transcription services. That recommendation, which was recommendation 2, states that "the Ministry of Justice ensure a reliable and appropriately funded system of access to accredited translation and interpretive services is available throughout all stages of an investigation and prosecution." Again, that was recommended to be implemented immediately.

The third recommendation was that "the Ministry of Justice produce an annual aggregate report on the outcomes of criminal prosecutions where a child has been a victim of violence, including cases that are stayed or otherwise terminated prior to trial." The recommendation was that the first report should be made, occurring in the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

[1455]

I wonder if the minister can comment on the third recommendation that I've just read out, confirm that senior Crown counsel will be involved with respect to recommendation No. 1 and that she is satisfied, with re-
[ Page 12230 ]
spect to recommendation 2, that the police and Crown are now working in concert and we won't see a situation where transcripts will not be available.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, senior Crown will be reviewing. In fact, the policy was, in essence, in place. We are reinvigorating that policy so that practice matches that — that we will have a senior Crown review those cases. That was the recommendation that the member opposite read out.

I met with the police agencies, the leadership of police agencies. As I said to the member opposite, the issue was not a resource issue from a broader perspective. It was a decision made by someone in a police detachment who made the wrong decision. That was clearly pointed out.

Transcription is not an option; it is a requirement. Like every other part of an investigation or service that needs to be provided, that should have been provided. I certainly made that clear when I read the report — publicly, as well. That should not have happened. Both municipal and RCMP leadership assured me that they agreed that it was a decision that shouldn't have been made.

As best I can prevent that from happening…. We have taken those steps. Will it ever happen again? I certainly pray not. It was an individual decision made by someone in the chain of command. It was an incorrect decision, and it certainly was not based on whether or not there should be an option to provide transcription services. That option doesn't exist. It's a requirement.

Finally, yes, the report will be done. The report will be provided for 2012-2013 at the end of the fiscal year — obviously, March of next year. I believe that timeline is acceptable to the child and youth rep.

L. Krog: With respect to this topic in general: is the ministry working with the Representative for Children and Youth with respect to child justice in the broader sense?

I come back to my point this morning about family court in apprehension cases where children are held in care for a great deal of time. Those are obviously the contested cases. The 50 percent of the folks that the minister mentioned this morning who just say at the initial hearing: "Fine. Take my child. I acknowledge that I'm not able to parent right now…." I'm generalizing when I say that. But those cases that are contested are obviously people who take a very differing view.

The ministry, on occasion, does in fact lose in court — or decisions are made at some point to return the children. But in the meantime they've been kept away from siblings — on occasion, although not generally so — and certainly family members. There are usually difficulties around access, because you have to deal with a bureaucracy in order to get access to your own children.

I'm just wondering: what sorts of discussions are occurring or have occurred between the Representative for Children and Youth and the ministry around those issues?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the particular focus around the member's questions probably more directly relate to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. At the risk of perpetuating a concern that was expressed by the child and youth rep about there being too many places to deal with, for example, domestic violence in the province, I have a great deal of confidence and respect for the work that the child and youth rep has done.

In both of the cases of the reports, we met and worked through the action plan. I think we have not had a specific discussion related to those issues. Having said that, we've seen enormous progress since the reports were presented. In fact, we have seen, in the case of domestic violence, a new domestic violence unit created in the government, where all of our ministries are required to participate so that there is a single ministry contact point.

[1500]

I believe — at least, I think it's fair to say — that the child and youth rep knows that we are interested in improving services for children and families, particularly those in these circumstances.

We have had constructive discussions. I can't answer that we have had a specific discussion about that issue. But more broadly, about the issue of violence toward children and families and how we manage those issues, we certainly have had candid discussion and agreed to work together constructively.

L. Krog: Moving on to another topic, given the time involved today. The Premier made much last fall of ensuring that the cases involving those accused of participating in the Vancouver riots were going to be televised. I'm curious to know if the ministry, before that announcement was made, had taken any steps whatsoever to determine what the costs would be of such a process.

Hon. S. Bond: We did not, obviously, do the internal work until after the announcement was made, because we wanted to make sure that in the event that it was a successful pursuit of the ability to open up the courtrooms…. In our view, it remains an important thing.

I still, actually, support the fact that courts in British Columbia belong to the people of the province, and I continue to believe that one of the ways that will have people understand the justice system better is by opening up the courts. So I'm very supportive of the decision that was made. We also respect the decision that was made by the court.

To the member's point, there was never an intent to look at a production company or a large, expensive network. We have 215 video conferencing or end points, as we would call them, across the province. The contemplation was looking at the potential for webcast. For example, I believe the Missing Women Inquiry uses a webcast type
[ Page 12231 ]
of system. There was never an intent that it would be a large production cost.

We looked at whether or not there was a need to enhance some of the equipment or the points. As I said, we have 215. So very preliminary work was done, but we honoured the intent of that announcement by paying attention when the courts said that it wasn't something they would pursue. We basically agreed with that and wait to have that discussion another day.

L. Krog: Was there any work actually done with respect to estimated or projected costs associated with televising, for television or radio access to B.C.'s courts?

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite's question: as I said, we were contemplating a modest way of sharing information. The only work that was done — because obviously, we wanted to await the outcome of the court decision, and we know the outcome of the case — was to consider contracts — for example, whether or not there was a service provider or someone that may help us with the ability to make those productions public.

In terms of was there a lot of work done, the answer is no. We awaited the outcome of the court proceeding, and ultimately what we did look at was whether or not there were service providers or others who may help us with providing that information publicly. There are no business cases or things like that. We simply did a preliminary look at what the information might contain — so not an extensive amount of work.

L. Krog: I take it that when the Premier was happy to get in front of the TV cameras and announce that these rioters were going to have their trials televised, and when the Attorney General supported her in that decision, really, there had been no work done.

In response to a freedom-of-information request from one of our researchers, when the request was for records showing estimated or projected costs associated for television and radio access to B.C. courts — timeframe is January 1, 2010, to October 7, 2011 — it's fair to say that nothing was done. The response from the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government was: "Although a thorough search was conducted, no records were located in response to your request. Your file is now closed."

I take it, it's fair to say, that this had to do a great deal more with politics than any realistic shift in government policy. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, we didn't think it was about politics at all. I mean, it may have had an element of that to the member opposite. We actually believe it would be a good public policy. That's why we pursued a court reference and insisted that there be a case presented for why we would want some form of ability for people to see into courtrooms in British Columbia. I am a believer in opening up courtrooms.

If people can get up and walk down and visit 222 Main, why is there such reluctance, for example, for that to be shared across British Columbia for people who can't do that? I believe there was a public policy imperative. It's called opening up the courts. At a time when people don't understand the justice system, I, perhaps naively, believe that one of the ways you do that is make the system more transparent.

As I said, there was never an intent for us to begin a large production company. We decided to look, if we were successful, at how we could deal with this internally. We didn't want to impose a lot of cost on taxpayers. For example, we wanted to contemplate webcasting. It's a very popular thing to do, and we have technology in place. So it would require, potentially, some upgrade to that system but certainly not a significant cost.

From my perspective, it was about a policy that we believe was important. What I loved about that was the debate that ensued after that. There was a lot of public discourse about whether or not it's important to open up courtrooms, and I think that in and of itself was valuable.

[1510]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments. I believe she used the term "imperative" at some point in her remarks just now, but the records will show that there were no documents relating to estimated or projected costs for the period January 1, 2010, to October 7, 2011.

The inference I have to draw from that is that this was not taken seriously. This was not an issue for government until the Premier decided that there was some political hay to be made in this.

Are there any documents that the minister can produce or table that would indicate that in fact this issue was taken seriously until it became something that might be politically advantageous for the Premier?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I mean, we can have this discussion all afternoon long, and I'm happy to have it. The fact of the matter is that the Stanley Cup riot impacted British Columbians right across our province. I live in northern B.C., and I can't begin to tell you how many people stopped us and said that they were offended and horrified by the behavior of people who decided to loot and vandalize and ruin the downtown of Vancouver.

So in fact, we did take it seriously at that point, and it wasn't something that we had spent a lot of time contemplating prior to that. The fact of the matter is that we believed that fundamentally, there was an act that had taken place that offended most British Columbians. What better way for us to begin to deal with the consequences of that, to deal with opening up the justice system? Even today people continue to ask me: "Where are
[ Page 12232 ]
we at with the trials?"

There were no documents because there was not a business case developed. That doesn't mean we didn't take it seriously. I very much, as I said, support the policy implications of opening up the courtrooms of British Columbia.

L. Krog: To the minister, I wonder if she can give us any idea of what it cost to bring on the applications and how much Crown time was involved in pursuing these applications before the courts, all at the very time when the evidence is fairly clear that we've got cases being dismissed because of judicial delay, particularly given the fact that the minister, after the court made its decision, said: "The province has had two goals, timely justice and greater transparency to the justice system. If we must choose between the two, we will pursue timely justice."

Hon. S. Bond: We don't calculate the time that Crown spends and then have a fiscal answer to that question. But I can tell the member opposite that it took some time on the part of two Crown counsel, and it was a one-day application.

L. Krog: I note that Neil MacKenzie, the spokesman for the justice branch, said that the branch had consistently opposed cameras in the courtrooms. At one point during this great interest in televising, he said: "At this point the criminal justice branch does not intend to ask prosecutors handling the riot cases to advocate that the proceedings be broadcast."

So I take it, then, that the decision was made at the political level to pursue this application, against the recommendation of the ministry staff. Is that correct?

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure about the complete characterization, but I'm happy to provide the answer. I directed, as I am able to as the Attorney General, that Crown pursue an application based on what I believe…. The Premier had shared that view and many British Columbians shared the view that in fact we would like to pursue the opportunity to open up courtrooms in British Columbia.

Anytime there are changes of that magnitude, I fully expect there to be people who disagree with that, including, as we discovered, Crown. I gave direction, and that is permitted. The Attorney General has that ability.

I did that. In fact, I to this day believe that while this discussion may have been ahead of its time, eventually and ultimately there will be an opportunity in courtrooms in British Columbia to share what happens on a regular basis with British Columbians in a much more transparent way.

L. Krog: Moving on to another topic — legal aid. There were significant cuts to the budget in 2001-2002. The budget dropped from $96 million to $69.7 million in 2011-12, and the cuts were more severe when they were initially made. There was a further $2.9 million cut in this year's budget, and then that was increased again, I believe.

Can the Attorney General confirm what the budget is for the Legal Services Society this year? In light of the concerns raised by various studies respecting delays in our court system and the lack of access to justice — including the comments of no less worthy a person than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada — what steps, if any, is the ministry taking to ensure that people get access to legal aid as opposed to, as I understand it, seeking further cuts to the Legal Services Society budget from the government?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, there was an increase this year. The budget at the current time, the core funding, is $68.6 million. They obviously have additional resources, and when you look at their total budget — and certainly I'm not claiming credit for the additional — it's $72.3 million.

L. Krog: Is the minister aware of what revenue the tax on legal services produces for the province of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite would know, we do not track that amount of money, because in fact that money goes into general revenue. When it was created, there were comments with the government of the day that it may well be attached to providing legal aid. But that didn't take place then, and it doesn't occur now.

[1520]

L. Krog: As the minister is well aware, the cuts to legal aid were made by her government when they came into office — not prior.

When the new ministry was announced, there was a suggestion that the minister had also asked Legal Services Society for advice on efficiencies that can be achieved. I'm just wondering what efficiencies the minister thought could be achieved. What's the status of that discussion or request? Should we expect that there will be further cuts to legal aid?

Hon. S. Bond: No, it's not about efficiencies or cuts at all. One of the things that I knew as I became the Attorney General was that Legal Services Society is actually mandated to provide advice to the Attorney General about legal aid. I made the decision to actually engage them, and they came to meet with me and talk about legal aid.

They themselves wanted to talk about the legal aid model in British Columbia. I was very interested and impressed that they would come, and, of course, there was a discussion about resources. You would expect there to be. That's part of their job. But they also said: "We should
[ Page 12233 ]
take a look at how legal aid is delivered. We're interested in having a look at that." And I said: "I would like to formally ask you." Since there is a statutory relationship where they provide advice, I thought that's probably a very good idea.

In fact, there is a mandate. I have asked them to consider a number of things: whether or not there is a different way to deliver legal aid in the province — it's part of the mandate, and I formally requested the advice from them — and whether there was a way to consider reform from the perspective of incentives.

For example, if it takes four appearances to deal with a legal aid case…. I'm not talking about short shrift here. But if it takes four appearances, rather than dealing with the tariff for the lawyers involved and simply saying we're just going to continue to increase the tariff…. We should be clear. Legal aid funding is primarily related to the tariff that lawyers receive.

What I suggested or thought that together we should look at is whether or not there are some incentives to improve the efficiency of the system and potentially look at tariffs that are attached to that kind of improvement. I specifically said: "Is there a way we can look at tariffs providing incentives for efficiencies and reform, at the use of telecommunications and at how Legal Services might diversify its revenue stream to look at non-governmental revenues?" — so a very broad mandate.

In December, in addition to asking for help and advice, we did announce an additional $2.1 million in funding to legal aid to make sure we could maintain current service levels.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can outline what specifically has come back from legal aid in terms of recommendations.

Hon. S. Bond: The time frame that we agreed upon was the end of July.

L. Krog: The minister is well familiar, I am sure, with the Public Commission on Legal Aid and its recommendations that were made — very distinguished leadership in that particular commission and a lot of support from lawyers and others across the province. A great deal of hearings were held. A number of individuals came forward to express their views.

I'm just wondering if the ministry has made any progress in implementing any of the recommendations made by the Public Commission on Legal Aid.

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, our team is well aware of the work that was done, and we appreciate it. Obviously, a highly reputable and well-known commissioner.

There were a number of recommendations. Our course of action has been to review and analyze the recommendations. One would expect us to do that. There were significant financial implications in the report, when you look at the recommendations that were presented.

Legal Services Society has been engaged to contemplate, I think, some of the types of issues that have been raised in the Doust report. We await their work. I have not seen any preliminary work that's been done by Legal Services Society, so we await that work. In addition to that, Geoff Cowper certainly is aware of the work that was done by Leonard Doust and will be considering that as well.

In terms of if I can specifically check off progress that's been made on the Doust report's specific recommendations — no. There's been an analysis, and we are including that in the work that has been done. We continue to provide support to more than 28,000 British Columbians who are in need of support with legal services.

It is a very important component of accessible justice, and we understand that. We're aware of the report, have read it and analyzed it, and we will be incorporating it into some of the work that's been asked of Legal Services Society and Geoff Cowper.

L. Krog: One aspect of the report related to the report's suggestion that there will be significant long-term cost consequences to the underfunding of legal aid — that, in fact, over time this will lead to further increased costs. It's penny wise and pound foolish, in other words. I think that's the simplest way to put it. I'd be curious to know what the minister's position is on that. If the minister is satisfied the budget is adequate, I would like to hear that from her. If she's satisfied it's inadequate, I'd like to hear that. And then, what are her plans to deal with the inadequacy of that funding for legal services?

There is no question…. I think it's fair to say — given what the reports have said, given what the lawyers in the community say, given what most people say — there is a general consensus that legal aid as we knew it is simply not functioning in the way that it should and that people are going into courts unrepresented, which creates further delays in our court system, which creates further problems down the road. I would be curious to hear the minister's response to that.

Hon. S. Bond: I think my concerns have been demonstrated and expressed in my request to the Legal Services Society to ask questions that are broader than simply adding additional resources, as I've said consistently, where appropriate and when necessary and certainly within the context of the resources we have. In fact, we added $2.1 million — that is not an insignificant sum — in December of 2011. We will look for ways to continue to increase support.

I recognize the importance of legal aid services. What I'd like to do is have the Legal Services Society come back and look at whether there are ways we can innovate. Are
[ Page 12234 ]
there ways we can deliver a different model?

My concern is providing support to those who need it. I would agree with the member opposite that there is a growing concern about unrepresented litigants. It is a concern in the system. That concern is not all tied to the provision of legal aid. There are people who just choose to make that the way they appear in a court. There is concern, and I've certainly heard it from the Canadian Bar Association and trial lawyers and others who face that — the judiciary as well.

We found the money to ensure that there was not an erosion of services and added $2.1 million. At the same time, we've gone to people who are interested in looking at that whole area and asked them to provide advice, which will be coming back to me by the end of July.

[1530]

C. Trevena: I'm switching topics, Attorney. I'm going to be asking a few questions about the Bountiful case.

In 2011 we got the ruling from Justice Bauman about Bountiful, upholding the polygamy laws. That was back in November. It took four months for the government to decide not to take this to a higher court, to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I was wondering why it took the ministry so long to make that decision.

Hon. S. Bond: Considering the fact that polygamy has been an issue for a very long time in British Columbia, I didn't feel it was inappropriate to take four months to review what was a landmark decision in British Columbia.

I could not be more proud of the work that the team did to pursue what was a very solid, very profound ruling by the courts. It means that in British Columbia, should the police find the evidence and go through their process, there could actually be charges laid in British Columbia for polygamous behaviour.

I was proud of the ruling. I think it was a phenomenal piece of work that was done by an amazingly dedicated team. We took four months because we had to ascertain what, if anything, the amicus was going to do. There were other considerations.

From my perspective it is a file that this government took seriously and, I think, allowed for a landmark decision that changes the face of polygamy in this province.

C. Trevena: I have no question that it took a long while to get to this stage, but it did then take a long while — obviously, a lot of consideration. One of the concerns that has been raised is that while we have the ruling from the B.C. Supreme Court, this could be challenged, and whether the Attorney looked at the possibility or sought any advice about whether it should go to a higher court to have the ruling given the extra weight by the higher court.

Hon. S. Bond: Of course we sought advice. In fact, I have an exceptional legal team and a deputy that I respect and trust implicitly when it comes to these decisions. Not only that, but their course to the successful outcome would have demonstrated that they actually knew what they were doing.

We believed, and the advice I was provided was, that we would not have done any better than we did in terms of the judge's outcome. We certainly wouldn't do any better on appeal.

The other thing that played a key role for me was the decision that a lot of people went through a very difficult time during that process. I did not want to bring witnesses and others to have to go through that process again when I had been advised that the outcome of the case was strong enough in British Columbia that we could continue to do the work that we have been doing.

Nothing stopped during that period of time. In fact, a new special prosecutor has been appointed, and should the police be able to find the necessary evidence to proceed with polygamy charges once we decided not to refer the case, the ability to pursue criminal charges related to polygamy were added to the mandate of the special prosecutor.

[1535]

The work is underway. There is a great deal of passion on this team about making sure that we have done everything we can to deal with the issue of polygamy and the exploitation of women and children in this way.

C. Trevena: The minister says that it's very difficult and people went through a lot of difficulty up to this point. I think people still are going through a lot of difficulty with the whole polygamy issue, with Bountiful. Bountiful still exists. We've still got the children there and the wives there.

I wonder if the minister could tell me what is being done at the moment by her ministry and possibly others, if she can refer to that, to ensure that there is no harm to the children. At the time of the ruling Justice Bauman reinforced the notion that the state is obligated to take positive measures to prevent harm to the children.

We're signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and this would seem to be a prime example of ensuring that the rights of those children are protected. I'd like to know what the ministry is doing to ensure those rights are protected.

Hon. S. Bond: I think that — I'm trying to be thoughtful about how to answer this — for the first time in the history of British Columbia, police agencies have the ability to lay criminal charges for polygamy.

What have I done? What I've done is made sure that this government saw through a court case that brought a landmark decision. For the first time, we have assurances that should the police find the evidence necessary….

I'm not in a position, nor should I be, to direct the investigation. There is an active police investigation. There
[ Page 12235 ]
is a special prosecutor. As soon as I became aware of the need to appoint a special prosecutor, that's exactly what I did. I gave the special prosecutor…. The special prosecutor's mandate was to include pursuit of sexual exploitation charges where that would be appropriate, and the ability to look at polygamy was added once the decision not to refer was made.

This is something that has been applauded, and it's the team that did the work. It was the team that passionately laid out the case and, in fact, won what was a significant enough decision that the advice was that we would not do any better on appeal.

I think that is a remarkable accomplishment. I have every confidence that the police agencies, the special prosecutor, will do their jobs as they should. It is not something that I can direct them to do.

C. Trevena: I'm not questioning the validity nor the import of the decision nor the appointment of the special prosecutor. I think everybody welcomes that. What I was asking the minister…. Maybe she didn't quite hear my question. Justice Bauman did, in his ruling, reinforce the fact that the state is obligated to take positive measures to prevent harm to the children. We are signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[1540]

While we have the special prosecutor working on investigation and prosecution, I want to know from the minister what she as Attorney General is doing in the role to ensure that the state's role of protecting the child is being enforced.

Hon. S. Bond: I've done everything that the Attorney General in British Columbia should do and can do, which was, in fact, making sure that our pursuit of confirming the constitutionality of the process was completed. That's precisely what we did.

For the first time in British Columbia, this government took a very unusual stand, an aggressive stand, and was successful. So in fact, in the role of the Attorney General, we have completed the work that is necessary to allow other agencies to do their work. That means the police investigate; the special prosecutor prosecutes.

So the work that was needed, from the Attorney General's perspective, has been done, and I am very confident that there is an active police investigation underway. There is a very competent special prosecutor. That's the job of the Attorney General, and that work has been done.

C. Trevena: I understand that that work has been done, and I'm surprised at the minister's sort of slight hostility, maybe, on this. I was just wondering what is being done now for the children.

Having had the ruling from the Supreme Court, what is now, today, being done for the children? While the special prosecutor does his work, is the state, through the Attorney General's office, going to be doing anything further?

Hon. S. Bond: Not at all hostility — passion. If there is any hint or reference to the fact that not enough is being done, I think that that is inaccurate at best.

Perhaps the member opposite would like to talk to the Minister of Children and Family Development. My role is the role of the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Solicitor General. That means that my job is to pave the way for police agencies in British Columbia to lay criminal charges for polygamy. It is also to ensure that we have a special prosecutor in place to deal with that. That work has been done.

I can assure the member opposite that there is probably not a file where I have seen a more dedicated team of people in the Attorney General's ministry who care deeply about the women and children who may be caught in this circumstance.

I think that the judge's ruling clearly points that out. I think that our work was well done. There is more work to be done, but that work will be done by the police. From a legal perspective and a justice perspective, it will be done by the police and the special prosecutor.

C. Trevena: Apparently, evidence seized in a 2008 raid in Texas allegedly indicates that there was forced underage marriage involving girls from Bountiful. I wondered why the process to lay charges and bring this issue to trial has taken four years.

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: I am precluded from saying very much because there is an active police investigation. I, of all people, do not want to put the investigation and the procedure at risk. But I know this: when the police believe a child is at risk, they take action.

C. Trevena: My final question to the minister on this subject: having had the special prosecutor appointed and work underway — I think everybody is very pleased to see that — when is the Attorney expecting the special prosecutor to complete his work and report back?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things I learned early on as the Attorney General is that a special prosecutor is a special prosecutor because he or she is completely independent. I have no idea; that is, the investigation, the process, is completely under the purview of the special prosecutor.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to ask some questions now about Bill C-10. I don't know if you need to make any changes. I can certainly wait for a second.

As I said, I'm going to ask some questions about Bill C-10. The first question I have is…. Through freedom-
[ Page 12236 ]
of-information requests, we were provided with a briefing note, essentially, that was dated November 3, 2011.

We received the package, and the minister knows, because we've asked about this in question period. The Maple Ridge News received a slightly different package with just a little bit more information. It had some headings in there saying "Costs," "B.C. Costs," "Estimated Costs."

I'm wondering if the minister could tell me: did those areas that were blanked out under those titles in fact include costing estimates for the impact on British Columbia?

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: We’re going to get there, because we're going to end up explaining this. Certainly, freedom of information and the way that it's decided are not decided by me or my staff. It's done by the professional public service.

What we've been discovering is that there are a lot of assumptions, and that's what the briefing note would contain — a series of assumptions. The challenge we have is that in order to do accurate costing, assumptions aren't good enough, especially when assumptions are changing all the time.

If you look at a bill like C-10, it is incredibly complex, and as I'm reminded by my staff, there are a significant number of levers contained in Bill C-10. I've said this consistently, and I will continue to say it. It's not that we're not doing homework. It's not that we're not discussing assumptions. But I am not in a place, and neither is our staff, that we believe that we have all of the assumptions narrowed down in a specific enough way to speak to a specific dollar amount or even a range.

The member opposite reminds me regularly about Ontario. Let me tell you why Ontario is different. Ontario announced the cost of one prison, roughly, when they were trying to get the attention of the federal government. Their prison will cost over $900 million — for one facility — so it's pretty easy to just say: "Well, it's going to cost Ontario $1 billion."

I can assure the member opposite that other jurisdictions are grappling with this bill and the impacts and that we are, for British Columbia. That concern is shared across the country. Ontario was quickly out of the gate because they have one — that must be quite the prison — for $900 million.

We have a series of assumptions. We continue to look at a moving target. The assumptions change virtually daily in some cases, so when I tell British Columbians that there's going to be an impact, I want to be sure that we know as best we can what that impact will be.

K. Corrigan: Well, I didn't ask about assumptions, but I appreciate that. I think it's legitimate, and I understand that.

What I asked very specifically was: did that document that had those headings contain some even preliminary estimate of what the cost impact would be in Canada or on British Columbia? There was a heading that had "B.C." in it. Was there an even preliminary estimate of what the impact was going to be on British Columbia?

[1555]

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite previously, I'm not even actually certain of the exact document the member is referencing. I understand the request was for 400 pages of information, so I'm not specifically sure of the specific document.

Again, the answer is the same. The discussion was about assumptions. In the work that we have been doing there are a significant number of assumptions, and there have been no policy decisions that we have formalized or looked at. We are still trying to sort out the breadth of the bill, looking at all of the factors that are inherent in those changes.

A good example of that would be the fact that we can't predict how a judge is going to sentence. It's as straightforward as that. So that's an assumption.

Some of the concern we have…. It depends on how many police officers are on the street, how many charges are laid, how many are successful. There is a long list of factors that have to be considered.

I think that the important work we have to do is make sure that as we get to narrow down when the bill will be implemented, what the implications will be. We're going to make sure that we have a solid, defensible number for British Columbians.

K. Corrigan: Well, the briefing note of November 3 indicated as being approved by two deputy ministers that are in this room. I'm not sure why they wouldn't have been aware of that or why the minister wouldn’t be aware of that. And it does have these headings.

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that because it came back differently to us with slightly different wording than somebody else that there's anything untoward about that. All I'm saying is that a later version that came to Maple Ridge had these specific headings. Somebody, I believe, is bringing that document up to me now, and I would be very pleased to share it with the minister when it gets here, because it has those headings.

I guess I'll just ask again. Was there, at that time, an estimate? Whether it was just ballpark, "Give me a number" or "We'd like to provide you with some kind of estimate," was there an estimate done at that time?

Hon. S. Bond: There was a discussion of assumptions. And to the member opposite, just for her benefit, it is likely a document that I haven't even seen. When the preliminary policy work is being done by the ministry, I can't even assure the member opposite that the document that she's referring to is a briefing note that was prepared
[ Page 12237 ]
for my perusal.

This is a complex file, and I have a team of people that are working on this continuously. I am advised that there was a discussion of assumptions, that those assumptions have not been locked down even today. We continue to explore what the assumptions are and what the impacts are.

Actually, one of our team gave me a really good example of why we need to be careful here. A previous bill that was approved by the federal government implied…. There was a lot of work done in terms of estimates, of what might happen and what the impacts would be of that particular bill. In fact, when the bill was implemented and we began to look at the impacts — which, by the way, take several years, which is another issue that we have to consider, that Bill C-10 doesn't get brought into force and then overnight we start seeing the impacts of that — the estimates that were done by the ministry were not, eventually, accurate. What was anticipated did not happen.

[1600]

What we're doing is making sure that as we look realistically at Bill C-10, as are other provinces, what we can legitimately look to as a cost, if any, for British Columbians.

K. Corrigan: It has been months and months, and I do believe that the people of British Columbia deserve some kind of answer about what this impact is going to be.

I'm wondering, as an alternative, if the minister could talk about what kinds of assumptions we're talking about.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I have been outlining those assumptions since the first time the member opposite asked these questions. Assumptions would have to be made about sentencing patterns. I don't know about the member opposite, but even as the Attorney General, my ability to predict the sentencing pattern is probably not all that accurate. I think British Columbians, just as side note, feel that way on some days as well.

You have to look at sentencing patterns. I can't predict what judges will do. In fact, we've seen recently, with a case that looked at mandatory minimums, that there were statements made by the judiciary about the use of mandatory sentences — in fact, in a very recent case.

We have to consider the number of police, for example, and how they will interpret Bill C-10. There is an ongoing list of things — our inmate counts, for example. Our daily inmate counts change daily. That's why they're called daily inmate counts. In fact, we've seen those numbers dropping. We've seen the crime rates dropping.

All of those things are not tangible. That's why, when we do this work, it is important to look at what the assumptions we can make are and how we can legitimately assign costs to them. I think what's most important, from my perspective, is that the team from the Solicitor General's side in particular, but the Attorney General as well, had the foresight to look at corrections capacity. In fact, one of the biggest concerns that other provinces have is: are we going to have room for the supposed number of people, which no one really knows, that are going to be impacted by Bill C-10?

There is also a theory — and in fact, Minister Toews has been very outspoken about this — that many of the mandatory minimums will actually impact the same group of inmates and keep them incarcerated for a longer period of time.

There are a lot of things that we have to look at. What I do know and what British Columbians deserve to know is that we support Bill C-10, we support people facing consequences for behaviours as heinous as some of the ones addressed in Bill C-10, and we're going to make sure that we can meet the needs that the bill creates.

K. Corrigan: I now have a copy of the justice services branch briefing note of November 3, 2011.

"Topic: costs of the federal omnibus bill, The Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill C-10. Purpose of note: only for information of Attorney General; meeting required, yes, at minister's request. Issue: how significant will the cost impacts of C-10 be on British Columbia's justice system? Executive summary." And then under that there is "Predicted costs," and the rest is blanked out.

On the next page there is "Background." Then there's a little bit of a background about what is going to be included, the various elements, and then there's another heading, "Costs," highlighted and then blanked out. Then there's another highlight, "British Columbia Costs."

That briefing note was prepared by the director of the FPT criminal justice, approved by assistant deputy minister — I won't use names here; there's no need for that — approved by Deputy Attorney General and approved by Deputy Solicitor General.

[1605]

I'm happy to provide a copy of this to the minister. With that, I'd like to, again, ask the question: did that document, which was approved by several people in this room, include an estimate of what the cost impacts might be on British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the staff is looking through 400 pages to deal with the request. The fact of the matter is that if this material was actually not provided publicly, there would be a very good reason for that. This is a working document that contains information that is not appropriate, in terms of some of the content, to be shared. It is covered under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy.

I know that the member has taken the opportunity to suggest to British Columbians that this is about hiding numbers. It is not about that at all. Freedom of information and protection of privacy has standards which are
[ Page 12238 ]
applied to all documents that come through the government.

I am, (a), committed to ensuring that Bill C-10 is implemented as…. In fact, we lobbied for parts of Bill C-10. Secondly, we continue to do the work. The team continues to try to balance the assumptions against reality. In fact, I believe that the federal government initially came out and said that they were going to build new prisons — I'm supposed to use that terminology — to accommodate Bill C-10.

We've seen recently that, in fact, they're going to close prisons and not hire nearly as many people, because as they do their analysis as well, the numbers continue to change. This is about being pragmatic, working to ensure we can get the assumptions narrowed down as best we can and, at the same time, continuing to lobby the federal government so that we have as reasonable a period of time to implement Bill C-10 as we can possibly have.

K. Corrigan: I certainly appreciate that there are legitimate reasons why documents have parts of them redacted, and that's perfectly consistent with the legislation — and appropriate. Sometimes people appeal, and sometimes they're successful, and sometimes they are not.

I was not asking for that information. What the question was — and what I would like to ask again — was not what the numbers were, if the numbers were there, but I just simply would like to know: was there an estimate? I do not see any reason in the world why that would be information that would have to be withheld.

[1610]

I'm simply asking if there was an estimate of the predicted costs — the costs and/or the British Columbia costs.

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member, there was a discussion of assumptions that looked at a broad range of issues and numbers. That's why we want to make sure that we fine-tune, work hard, narrow down, lock down assumptions. A discussion of assumptions includes a discussion of numbers. Freedom of information protects information for appropriate reasons. I'm not going to share the specifics, as they were dealt with through freedom of information, and there are appropriate reasons for that.

Assumptions mean we look at everything possible. So of course there would be a discussion of numbers, of issues. There are numerous triggers in Bill C-10. We even look at things like Provincial Court days, Supreme Court days, youth criminal justice clinical access, cost per annual average inmate count. How do we deal with legal aid? What do we do…? In fact, there are a number of factors. All of those would be in the mix as those assumptions were discussed.

We're going to continue to narrow that down, and we're going to make sure that when we share the information that we have it's accurate as possible. Most importantly, we're going to make sure C-10 works in British Columbia.

And most critically, if we bring the discussion, Mr. Chair, back to the estimates for this year, there are no impacts on our 2012-2013 budget.

K. Corrigan: The minister is confirming — I just want to make sure I've got this straight — that in that document that I have been asking about there was a broad range of assumptions and numbers. So there was some kind of — even if it's over a range — cost estimate of the impact on British Columbia in that document.

Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, this is beginning to be repetitive. I will answer the question again, one more time. There was a discussion of assumptions that included things like Provincial Court days and those kinds of issues — that long list of examples of things that we need to finalize.

I think the key answer to the member's questions regarding estimates this year is that there is no impact on the 2012-2013 budget.

The Chair: Member, I think we've canvassed this quite well now, so continue a different line of questioning.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister is obviously not willing to finally answer the question, and it's now decided that we are going to go on a different…. I simply want to know: were there dollar figures in that document?

Hon. S. Bond: There were a number of assumptions, and obviously we would be looking at fiscal impacts. I've said clearly that when we cannot lock down the assumptions…. That shouldn't surprise the member opposite. What I don't want to do is be careless or speculate about numbers that cause there to be concern about pressures that don't need to exist. We're actually going to make sure we lock down the numbers as much as we can.

Of course this team is dealing with financial numbers. That's what the challenge is. We have assumptions that have to be made around a long list, not only of changes to the law, but we can't predict sentencing. We don't know how many police are involved. Of course they're dealing with financial information. That's what they've been spending the last number of months doing.

We're simply not going to speculate. I will not, like Ontario, simply say, "We need $1 billion," when in fact their number relates to a single prison.

K. Corrigan: The minister has said that there is no impact on the budget for 2012-2013, but at the same time there have been several acknowledgments that there is an impact. Now, I heard the minister today saying: "If there is an impact…."

We now are clear that there was some kind of estimate
[ Page 12239 ]
as early as November 3, 2011. It may be a range, perhaps. But I'm wondering why it is that the minister felt that it was appropriate not to provide for any kind of impact on the 2012-2013 budget.

[1615]

Hon. S. Bond: Precisely because these are 2012-2013 estimates.

Mr. Chair, I've asked and answered that question. The fact of the matter is there is no immediate impact in this year's budget, which is the estimates we're discussing.

K. Corrigan: There is no immediate impact. But I do also recall that in this same document, I think it was, there was a comment:

"The federal government has indicated that they wish to pass C-10 within 100 sitting days of parliament and will set implementation dates almost immediately after royal assent. Most of the provisions will come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council. Other provisions will become law upon royal assent.

"It is the usual federal practice to ask provinces and territories how much time they require for implementation of major federal crime bills. However, the federal government has indicated that they prefer no delay in the legislation coming into force.

"When legislation is introduced, branches require time for developing new operational policies and forms, hiring new staff, training personnel and, in some cases, making the necessary adjustments to facilities.

"Policies, forms and training must be based on the legislation as it received royal assent, not as it was introduced, due to changes that can occur over the course of hearings and debates. Therefore, the time at which officials can begin to instruct staff or develop new policies is at the point of royal assent."

That was now two months ago.

The federal government said that they did not want to delay the legislation coming into force. Given that, I would have thought that when the 2012-2013 budget was being prepared, there would have been an assumption by the minister that the impacts would start to happen almost immediately.

Again, I'm wondering why it is that there was a very specific provision in the budget that this budget did not take into account any impacts of Bill C-10.

Hon. S. Bond: You don't decree a law and see the impacts tomorrow afternoon. In the case of Bill C-25 this team…. I was not the minister at the time. Bill C-25 was anticipated to have…. It was a simple bill — one element in that bill. The plan was for a three-year ramp-up. That's another reason why it's challenging to actually be able to pin down the numbers. You don't decree the law and then assume that tomorrow afternoon the whole system changes.

In fact, we went and lobbied the federal government, and it has not yet been brought into force. It has not been implemented yet, and this is weeks and months after that discussion. We went and spoke directly with Minister Nicholson as a group across the country and said: "Please give us some flexibility. Help us as we move forward so that we can look, analyze and estimate and look at our assumptions." And he agreed to that.

In fact, we're still in that position, and the negotiations about that length of time continue. So there are no impacts to this budget year because, first of all, the bill is not in place and the impacts are not felt immediately, which also accentuates the challenge in locking down the numbers.

K. Corrigan: Is it not usual practice, when putting together a budget…? That's exactly what a budget is. The document is the Estimates. It's the estimate of how much it was going to cost. Is the minister then saying that this is not an issue of not knowing but rather the confidence that there will be no impact in the year 2012-2013?

Hon. S. Bond: The bill has not been brought into force. The estimates we are discussing…. There are no impacts of C-10 in these estimates.

The Chair: Member, I think that has been canvassed quite nicely.

[1620]

K. Corrigan: The audit that we talked about previously…. I'm just going to refer to it in the context of what we're talking about now. This was the internal audit and advisory services, Ministry of Finance, audit.

It says that "Bill C-16 and Bill C-25 are forecast to result in 200 and 270 additional inmates respectively, which is a 17 percent increase over the current average inmate count. At the current per diem rate, the additional 470 inmates will cost the branch approximately $31 million per year."

When were Bill C-16 and Bill C-25 brought into force?

Hon. S. Bond: Bill C-16 did not move forward. It was rolled into the omnibus crime bill, and so we are not dealing with that. While the audit may have wanted to contemplate that, it got rolled into C-10. So we haven't seen any impact.

We believe that C-25 — and again, I wasn't there, and we don't know the number exactly — was brought into effect approximately two years ago. Again, that's the bill where I pointed out that despite all of the best work, assumptions and estimates, none of the impacts.… Or at least, the impact that was predicted by the ministry was inaccurate.

That's actually why we laughed back here. One of my staff admitted that despite all of their work, looking at all of the assumptions — and it was a relatively simple bill — all of the projections that were linked to the impacts of C-25 have not come to actually be a challenge for the ministry.
[ Page 12240 ]

K. Corrigan: The minister is then saying that the audit that was done by the Ministry of Finance was faulty in the estimate? I mean, who did that estimate of Bill C-16's and Bill C-25's impact on the budget?

Hon. S. Bond: Probably this is a really good demonstration of why I'm going to make sure we do all of the work necessary to lock down the assumptions.

Bill C-16 would have been a failed minority bill. What the audit is, and the member opposite holds up part of the document, is an identification of potential risks. So the number that's associated, for example, with Bill C-25 was likely — and I didn't do the audit — the worst-case assumption around the impacts of Bill C-25.

Bill C-16 did not actually come to be. It was rolled into the omnibus crime bill. But again, it was a risk looming on the horizon.

These are obviously numbers that were based on assumptions, and the fact of the matter is if the number associated with Bill C-25 is 270 additional inmates, that would have been the most conservative assumption that was made.

[1625]

In fact, that number was later downgraded to 70 additional inmates, and to date, none of those have materialized more than two years later.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister said that we can't predict the cost of Bill C-10, yet one of the constituent elements of it — there was an estimate of what it was going to cost. I find it interesting that the Ministry of Finance document says not anything about the most, the largest expected or whatever. It says: "Bill C-16 and Bill C-25 are forecast to result in 200 and 270 additional inmates respectively, which is a 17 percent increase…."

I'm glad to hear that the result has been that the Ministry of Finance forecast was completely erroneous, which is what the ministry is saying, but I also find it concerning that the audit document does not say that it's the outside range but that this is what the forecast is. It does give me some concern about the abilities of the Ministry of Finance to audit something.

I thank the minister for the answers that we have so far on Bill C-10. I'm wondering. I know the minister has talked about what some of those impacts are. Has the ministry been talking to, been working with the various entities that will be impacted through the branches? I'm talking about the courts, the judges, the corrections officials, and so on.

Hon. S. Bond: I absolutely have to make sure the record is clear. The Ministry of Finance and the audit…. They're not erroneous. That's absolutely inaccurate. They are reflecting the assumptions and the estimates that the ministry provided for Bill C-25.

That brings home the point that, using the best expertise that we could put together and all of the agencies related to a simple bill…. And it was simple, compared to C-10. The most conservative estimates that were provided — that wouldn't be the Ministry of Finance; that would be us providing that data — were that there would be a significant increase in inmate counts.

My point through this entire discussion has been and will continue to be that that's the problem. We made a projection around a simple bill that showed a potential increase of over 200 inmates. That was later downgraded to 70 inmates. And as I said today, there has been no impact as a result of Bill C-25.

We've learned our lesson. We want to make sure
[ Page 12241 ]
that as we build the estimates, we nail down the assumptions. We want it to be as accurate as possible.

The Ministry of Finance was not erroneous. That's not correct. It was our conservative estimates that were included.

[1630]

The discussions to date have been branches within the ministry, working with the expertise within their sections — corrections, criminal justice, justice services, police — everyone working to try to figure out what the impact of this bill will be on the ground. We want it to be accurate. We want it to be….

We learned a lesson in C-25. The predictions were dramatic. In fact, they've been virtually unnoticeable. The projections around C-10 across the country, dramatic — including the federal government saying: "We're going to build prisons. Oops, now we're not." We're going to continue to do our work.

I also want to clarify this as we, I hope, move forward to discuss the estimates for this year. It's not that we are not sharing information. At this point in time we want to lock down the assumptions as best we can before we have a projection like we did with Bill C-25.

K. Corrigan: So it was the ministry that provided that forecast, and it was the ministry that was in error — vastly in error, apparently. I'm wondering, then, how it is that minister expects, when we have a major review…. If we can't predict what the impact is going to be of a change, how is it that we're going to ever change anything for the better — if we have no idea what the impact is going to be when we do make changes?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not even sure I understood the question, but I can tell you this. What I can tell the member with certainty is that we lobbied for Bill C-10. We support the content in Bill C-10.

And the ministry wasn't wrong. The ministry did its work. The ministry projected a very conservative estimate. They continued to refine those numbers and dropped the number to 70. We are going to refine our work. We are doing the work.

We actually support Bill C-10. We want to make sure that as we move forward, the implications of Bill C-10 are fully understood. We're not talking about Bill C-25, which had one particular emphasis, a singular-type bill. We're talking about Internet luring. We're talking about looking at new drug laws. We talking about looking at the way youth are dealt with. This is a complex bill.

The ministry weren't wrong. They were actually doing their work, and as they did it, they continued to refine the numbers. The audit reflects the most conservative — and if I use the phrase — worst-case scenario in terms of risks.

That's exactly what we should be doing. We should be looking at what the worst-case risks are, modifying that, looking at the assumptions, narrowing them down and providing accurate information to British Columbians. That's exactly what we're going to do.

K. Corrigan: As we are looking at the estimates for 2012-2013, it's clear, then, that we don't know what the costs are. We will know at some point, I guess.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Does the minister have any concern about supporting and in fact lobbying for legislation, much of which we have supported as well, without having really any idea of how much the fiscal impact was going to be on British Columbia?

[1635]

Hon. S. Bond: What I know is this. As a government we believe there are appropriate consequences for people who attempt to lure children over the Internet.

Actually, we went to Ottawa and lobbied for many of the provisions in Bill C-10. We are working to ascertain what the impacts of Bill C-10 are across a large number of sectors. From my perspective, this is about public safety. It is about the priority issues that are contained in Bill C-10. We are working diligently to ensure that when the bill is brought into force, we will be able to, over a period of time, work to manage the implementation.

The biggest issue that I heard at the ministers table from across the country…. The biggest concern I heard from people — ministers — was corrections capacity. That's why British Columbia is ahead of many other provinces.

We are going to bring new capacity on line this year at Alouette, next year at Surrey Pretrial, and in the not-too-distant future — probably very nicely timed with any potential impacts from Bill C-10 — Okanagan correctional centre.

Really, that has been the primary cost consideration for many provinces, as I pointed out, including Ontario, who I believe are about $900 million, roughly speaking — I don't know the exact numbers, but we'll certainly find out — of their billon-dollar concern is a corrections facility.

K. Corrigan: I did just want to point out — and I know the minister is aware of this, but for the vast watching public — that the budget this year does, in fact, recognize, at least my interpretation is, that there will be an impact on the system. It says: "The current average number of adults in custody is 2,590, of which 70 percent are double-bunked, and is projected to increase by 1.5 percent annually prior to any potential impact of the federal Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill C-10." So it is a recognition, and I'm assuming that the minister is saying that there will be some impact.

Now, it is also my understanding that the minister is…. This was in a Rob Shaw article today in the Times Colonist, where the minister said she is "continuing to discuss the issue with her federal counterparts over cost implications on B.C." I'm wondering: what is the nature of those discussions? How many consultations has the minister had to date with federal counterparts?

Hon. S. Bond: Just to perhaps accentuate the concerns that I have expressed and the view that I have taken of this, the number that the member opposite quoted in terms of the 1.5 increase and the impacts. In fact, that was based on a number of 2,590 inmates.

As of today, the number is 2,519, and it continues to drop. Even the numbers that are included in the budget are not accurate, because in fact the circumstances change every day. That is my point, that the number reflected there…. We should not make the assumption that anyone made a mistake. They didn't make a mistake. It is a very fluid system.

Our capacity is currently at 149 percent. Yes, inmates are double-bunked. They are double-bunked all across the country. There is a very significant protocol that determines how inmates are placed in corrections facilities. The safety of our corrections officers is our number one concern, so there's a very significant protocol about how inmates are placed within facilities. Double-bunking is not new. It is an issue across the country.

Our inmate population is dropping. The number I see just today, that my staff passed to me, is actually lower than the one I saw a week ago. That is the challenge. Inmate population is dropping. That's a good thing, but it does make looking at the numbers more complex.

[1640]

Senior staff are working with senior staff across the country. They have regular updates in terms of looking at what the impacts are. I personally have spoken to Minister Nicholson on more than one occasion — probably two or three. I have spoken to Minister Toews on many occasions over a variety of topics but as recently as several weeks ago. In addition to that we had a discussion about Bill C-10 at the ministers' meeting that was held this past winter, where all the ministers from the territories and provinces and the federal ministers were present.
[ Page 12242 ]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me when it is expected that it will be possible to provide an update to the opposition but, more importantly, to the people of British Columbia about what the impacts on the justice system are going to be of Bill C-10.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have a specific date. I'm going to continue to ask my staff to work as aggressively as they do, and they work very hard every day, to try to narrow down the impacts. Obviously, one of the outstanding issues is the implementation, the bringing into force of Bill C-10. That will be a critical factor.

We're going to continue to look at how we work through these issues. They are working very aggressively to do that. We're going to continue to debate and discuss and negotiate with the federal government the bringing into force of Bill C-10 as well.

K. Corrigan: One of the concerns that was expressed by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said:

"The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is concerned about both the short-term and long-term costs of putting more people in jail, particularly in light of the increasing overrepresentation of aboriginal Canadians and offenders with mental health and addiction problems in Canadian prisons. Given the many problems raised by this bill, the CCLA believes that it should be significantly amended if it is to become law."

I'm wondering if the minister could broadly, I guess, address this concern that has been raised by the CCLA about overrepresentation of aboriginals and offenders with mental health and addiction problems.

Hon. S. Bond: It is a concern for us and it is a fact that the aboriginal population is overrepresented. We would not disagree with that.

[1645]

In fact, just a couple of weeks ago we completed an aboriginal strategy in the corrections area which is very much focused on that very issue. How do we grapple with the fact that there is an overrepresentation of the aboriginal population incarcerated? There are a lot of root causes for that. It's not something that, certainly, the Ministry of Justice or the Attorney General can solve on its own, but it is a focus for us.

We have an aboriginal strategy, as I've suggested, that just two weeks ago or so is beginning to be circulated now. But we have paid particular attention to supporting aboriginal individuals. Obviously, we'd prefer they don't end up there, and there are ways we need to work together, certainly, with a systemic approach to that.

But once we do have an aboriginal offender, there are a number of exceptional programs to support them in unique ways. For example, we have aboriginal liaison workers in every institution in every corrections facility in the province because we recognize that there needs to be culturally sensitive approaches.

We also recognize the challenge with individuals with mental health and addictions, and we have very innovative programs to try to, first of all, train and support our corrections officers.

So it's a recognized issue. Our team continues to look at a strategy related to supporting our aboriginal offenders, but also, we need to look at prevention so that we don't have the same situation continue in the future.

K. Corrigan: I also mentioned offenders with mental health and addiction problems, and of course, there's a whole spectrum of representation in our prisons in a variety of ways — overrepresentation by aboriginals, offenders with mental health and addictions, certainly. So I'm wondering if the minister could address that part of the questions — the concern about those with mental health and addiction problems.

[1650]

Hon. S. Bond: We actually have a number of constructive, I think, and excellent programs regarding offenders with mental health and addictions issues. I think one that I had the absolute privilege to go and visit was the Vancouver drug court. We don't simply rely on ending up in a corrections facility.

The Vancouver drug court is a partnership between the federal and provincial government. There are only five of them across the country, and in fact, when we met with Minister Nicholson and Minister Toews, all of the provinces were lobbying for an expansion of the drug court concept. It's fantastic.

I heard firsthand the success of some of the outcomes of the Vancouver drug court. So again, a diversionary type of program with wraparound services.

We also have the downtown community court, which looks at integrated support. When we talk about mental health and addictions in our corrections facilities, we actually lead the country. Other provinces and other jurisdictions look to us because of the work that's been done here related to mental health.

For example, when someone enters a corrections facility, they are screened, looking directly at issues related to mental health. In fact, then appropriate referrals are made. As we have other support workers for aboriginal individuals, we have mental health workers that are provided. Our officers are also trained, so there are actually two forms of support for mental health.

We have alcohol and drug counsellors, and courses are taught within the institution regarding substance abuse, and we have in place now 100 aboriginal justice workers who actually deliver programs like substance abuse and prevention and deal with those types of issues.

I also had the pleasure of visiting, in Nanaimo, the therapeutic community program there. It's just a fantastic way, an example of innovation, where inmates have a choice — those who have drug and alcohol issues — of becoming part of a very specific therapeutic commun-
[ Page 12243 ]
ity. It was fantastic to visit. Again, some very outstanding outcomes.

K. Corrigan: One of the concerns that I've heard expressed is that Bill C-10 will have a negative impact on exactly the kind of programs that the minister is talking about, particularly because there is an overrepresentation. So if we do have an increased prison population as a result of C-10, then we will likely again have that community, the aboriginal community and offenders with mental health and addictions problems, overrepresented.

Is the minister concerned about the fact that we will be exacerbating what is already a problem because of C-10?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not going to speculate on projections, and certainly, my past experience with other numbers that haven't materialized.

Our first goal is to make sure that our staff, and the exceptional job they do, are safe. That is our number one concern. It's a very complex and difficult task.

But we're going to continue to look to support offenders in the same quality way today that we do in the future. Again, as I pointed out to the member opposite, our inmate count is down again today, so in fact, we're seeing a relief.

We're seeing some of the pressure relieved — not that we're satisfied with a 149 percent occupancy rate, which is why we will have added hundreds of new cells and corrections officers in the next couple of years. So we're going to continue.

People who work in corrections, and certainly in my team, starting from the assistant deputy minister on down, recognize that when someone ends up in a corrections facility, we would rather they didn't have to come back again. So we are concerned about recidivism.

[1655]

We're concerned about adequate and appropriate supports, so we're going to continue to be leading the country with the kind of thinking that we do. One of our staff, actually, is part of the team that is developing a national strategy around mental health issues related to offenders. I know that our team is very proud of the leadership that's been demonstrated. We're going to continue to do that in the future.

K. Corrigan: Another question. We're heading a little bit into corrections, which is good, because that's where my next area of questions is going to be anyways.

Does it not concern the minister that Bill C-10 will take away some of the discretion within the justice system, particularly with judges in sentencing — the discretion which provides for alternative types of sentences or diversion or other mechanisms — and that this will particularly impact aboriginal offenders?

[1700]

Hon. S. Bond: I know it's often challenging for all of the other participants in this process to sit and wait. I have to say that there are times when being able to have that kind of discussion in an estimates process…. We don't get to spend this long together on a regular basis, so we're actually catching up on a whole bunch of policy discussions.

To the member opposite's point, certainly, with the introduction of minimum mandatory sentences, there will be less discretion related to certain offences. As a government, we did lobby and believe that there is an appropriate place for that with certain very serious issues. Certainly, Bill C-10 contains a number of those.

Having said that, what I'm always reminded of — and frequently — by the team that I work with is that the Criminal Code is not our jurisdiction. We don't get to determine the Criminal Code and the implications of that. Our job is to administer it. As the changes are brought down, our job will be to implement and ensure that British Columbia is able to accommodate the changes in the Criminal Code.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I do appreciate that criminal law is the purview, the responsibility, of the federal government, but the minister did say that the province of British Columbia took it upon itself to lobby for some of these changes. So there is certainly an interest.

I'll give you an example, and I am taking, I know, one of the more controversial examples. Obviously, we've all been quite clear about some of the provisions that we would fully support, but one of the mandatory minimum sentences is, for example, the production, possession and trafficking in drugs, including marijuana. That's the kind of example that I have concerns about, specifically within the context of talking about aboriginal offenders.

I'm wondering if the minister could comment on what kind of impact — what negative impact, potentially — this could have on the good work that seems to be being done in terms of aboriginal liaison workers and diversion and all sorts of different ideas.

In that case, if, say, an aboriginal young man or woman is charged under these sections that are changed, then they could end up having a mandatory minimum. I would assume that the judge would not have the opportunity to say, "We think that there's a better route that can be taken for this person," taking into account, as they should, the fact that this is an aboriginal offender.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I can't speculate on that, because the mandate that I have and our ministry has…. Our job is that we administer the Criminal Code. We have made our views very clear to the federal ministers responsible about sections of C-10. Our job will be to administer the Criminal Code as it is determined.

K. Corrigan: The minister has said that the ministry
[ Page 12244 ]
is looking at the impacts of C-10.

[1705]

I'm wondering if the impact on these programs, which the minister and the ministry are rightly proud of in terms of providing specific supports and alternatives for aboriginal offenders…. Has there been any assessment of the impact in that particular area?

Hon. S. Bond: No, as we do our work, we look at the inmate population as a whole. I think, though, it should provide some reassurance to the member opposite that the inmate counts continue to drop, and we are hopeful they'll trend in that direction. In fact, we provided services with a much more significant population than we have today, and we will continue to focus on inmate needs in the same way that we do today.

We do have a special director of aboriginal programs and relationships. That will continue to exist to meet the needs of our inmate population, whatever the demographic breakdown.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to be clear that I understood that minister is saying that although we do have the aboriginal liaison workers and the aboriginal justice workers and that there is a national strategy being formulated — all good things — the ministry is not specifically assessing what the impact will be of Bill C-10 on the numbers and/or types of offenders that are going to come into the system and is not looking at what's going to happen to the number of aboriginal offenders, specifically, related to C-10.

Hon. S. Bond: We are not doing our work by an ethnic breakdown.

K. Corrigan: Okay. Well, that's interesting. There are many areas where we do look at that because of the disproportionate impacts. But that's fine to know.

I want to go on now. I will go specifically into corrections, just to confirm the budget for 2011-2012. It's an area where, in corrections, there has been an increase. It's $191.843 million for 2011-2012, and there will be in increase — it's my understanding — in the budget, to $200.503 million. Is that correct?

[1710]

Hon. S. Bond: Fatigue is setting in. My deputy and I are having a discussion about what we heard or didn't hear.

The corrections budget would be moving from $191.843 million to $200.503 million. I think that may have been what the member said.

K. Corrigan: We can both read numbers. That's a good start. Thank you.

Now, it's my understanding that that increase largely will be taken up by an increase resulting from bringing into operation the new Surrey pretrial facility. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: There is an $8.66 million increase to address operational requirements. It will fund expanded services and, as I have mentioned on numerous occasions, new services at Prince George Regional Correctional Centre and Alouette, as well as project work on Surrey Pretrial.

It's important to note that Surrey Pretrial, the operating funds…. This is project work there. Surrey Pretrial is not likely to open in terms of operation until the latter part, so it would not be captured in this budget year. But this will also support community corrections. We're training probation officers.

K. Corrigan: The budget says in a bullet on page 28, "$81 million over the next three years to fund the operating costs of the 216-cell expansion to the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre to be completed in 2013 to address inmate overcrowding as well as to fund higher adult custody and community corrections caseloads" — that, as well as those other things.

Then the amount for this year was $11 million. There seems to be a little…. Is that correct — $11 million for 2012-2013, for, largely, Surrey but also some of the other things that are in the budget and that have been mentioned by the minister?

[1715]

Hon. S. Bond: The number that we reflected of $8.6 million is actually net of the dollars that go to Labour and Citizens' Services and also to corporate services, which we discussed at length last night. That covers things, when it goes to Labour and Citizens' Services, like building, occupancy maintenance — those kinds of things. The $81 million is obviously a cumulative number. The $8.6 million is net of what we actually send to Labour and Citizens' Services and corporate services.

K. Corrigan: The total $81 million — yes, I appreciate that that's, over three years, cumulative. The number in the budget and fiscal plan is $11 million. So that number, $11 million, is about right? I think that's a rounding-off in that particular case. So the net to this ministry, then, is $8.6 million. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: We have $8.6 million. The corrections budget for 2011-2012, we've established, was almost $192 million. Then for 2012-2013 it's $200 million. Is it safe to say that the lion's share of the increase for 2012-2013 is going to go into the operations or the preoperations of the Surrey Pretrial Centre?
[ Page 12245 ]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, no. The bulk would not be going to Surrey Pretrial. The Surrey Pretrial is not going to open until, we believe, late next year. So in fact, the significant operating costs come into play once the facility is operational. In fact, when we bring new cells on line partway through a fiscal year, obviously, when the full fiscal year hits, the impact is significant.

The funding actually is going to provide the operational services, full services, for Prince George Regional Correctional Centre, where we added 20 cells, and Alouette, where we're adding 104. But this budget increase also looks at providing an additional 21 full-time-equivalent corrections officers.

And I should have said that Surrey Pretrial will be opening in late 2013. I am not sure what I said, but I was handed a piece of paper with "2013" underlined. So I need to correct it, I presume.

[1720]

K. Corrigan: I know we're looking ahead, but it is in the budget. For 2013-14 it's expected that the increase will be $30 million, which I presume will be another $19 million, increasing in 2013-14 over the $11 million because it's carried on. So I'm wondering: is that to take into account the Surrey Pretrial becoming operative?

Hon. S. Bond: It's the same story. Yes, it would. There would be a more significant portion for Surrey Pretrial because it will be introduced partway through a year. But it will be operational near the end of 2013, so yes, the next budget year there would be increased costs. Then, of course, by 2014 we would have a full operational year.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to talk a little bit about the capacity as well as the ratio of inmates to staff. I know we've had discussions about this before in various ways, or questions have been asked. First of all, the minister mentioned that the capacity is…. We're now at 149 percent, but my understanding is that the pretrial facilities are significantly higher than that. I'm wondering if we have the number for how much over capacity we are in pretrial facilities at this point.

Hon. S. Bond: While I'm looking up that number, I just would like to ask respectfully if the critic plans to deal with the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles or victim services this afternoon. If not, I would like to allow the staff to leave.

K. Corrigan: No.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have easy access to the breakdown of that, but we'll certainly add that to our list of information to get for the member.

K. Corrigan: Thank you. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what is believed to be an appropriate inmate-to-staff ratio.

[1725]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, looking at staffing corrections facilities is a complex issue, and it is not based on a formula that would simply have the same staff-to-inmate ratio in every facility or in every circumstance.

The model that's used in corrections first of all considers risk. That is the key factor in determining how you can assign, potentially, in some facilities a greater number of inmates to a corrections officer.

What supports that is the configuration of the institution. So depending upon the facility itself, there are ways that you can increase the number of inmates that are supervised by a corrections officer. It will include….

We should point out that while a number may appear to be higher — well, actually, in fact is higher — in a model like this there are indirect supervisory resources provided as well. It isn't as simple as saying that there is a formula that would apply to all institutions and all circumstances.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister, then, has any comment on the 2007 B.C. Corrections, Adult Custody Division: Highlights of 2007 Organizational Health Assessment Report and Recommendations. It was actually published in February 2008 by Fisher and Associates, I do believe, for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. I believe that the recommendation was that an inmate-to-staff ratio of 20 to 1 is recommended.

Hon. S. Bond: I obviously was not there in 2008, so I admit that I'm not familiar with that specific report. We do not have a copy of it with us because we couldn't lug any more materials over here than we already have.

My staff advise me and assure me that the report was taken very seriously. In fact, it wasn't specifically about staff-to-inmate ratios. There may have been commentary there. I'm not aware of that, and the member read it for us.

[1730]

It was about organizational health, about operational health. As a result of that work, our staff actually met with everyone who worked in a prison to talk to them about what the kinds of things are that hinder a feeling of safety and all those things.

We have a view that it isn't about a number. It isn't a formula that works for every single circumstance. A very, very careful evaluation is done about how…. It's based on risk, and I think that's a very appropriate consideration. We look at the staff-to-inmate ratio, and it's determined based on risk. We look at the type of facility, because as new facilities are built, they are built with that in mind — efficiency, safety and how we actually manage a population in new ways.
[ Page 12246 ]

Depending upon the facility and the risk, the ratio will be different in different facilities.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if we could just go through the high-security facilities — we won't go through the other ones — in the province. I'm not sure; I can't recall. There are maybe seven of them — are there? What, it's believed, are the appropriate inmate-to-staff ratios in those various facilities?

[1735]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, not an easy question to answer. It's not as simple as: "In this facility, it's this number." Of the secure facilities, there are six of them — Prince George, Surrey, Kamloops, North Fraser, Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre and Fraser. Those are the six secure centres. Within those centres there are open-, secure- and medium-custody inmates.

Probably the best way to describe the staffing is that there would be one staff person assigned to each unit within those facilities. Then additional staff would be added, based on risk, and additional staff assigned to work through those units in a number of ways. That's probably the best way we can describe the inmate-to-staffing arrangements in those secure facilities.

K. Corrigan: Well, we've only got a few minutes left today. I do believe we'll be coming back — I assume we're going to be coming back — after next week to continue on, so if the minister could perhaps bring back a little more information for the week after next, it would be appreciated.

Although I do understand that it's not going to be the same throughout one institution or between institutions, an overall average for those six secure facilities would be appreciated, for each of them — just for the whole facility, acknowledging that there is a blend of open-, secure- and medium-security offenders incarcerated there.

Would the minister acknowledge, then, what the corrections officers are saying, which is — I could probably find a quote or two, but I'll paraphrase here — that essentially, of those that are incarcerated there seem to be more gang members in the prison, that the level of violence is increasing, that the level of risks and the number of assaults are increasing and that the corrections officers do believe it has to do, at least partially, with the inmate-to-staff ratio in the prisons?

Hon. S. Bond: I've had the opportunity, certainly early in my appointment as the Solicitor General, to meet with the BCGEU and their representatives. That would certainly be the case that they articulate. I simply want to reiterate what I said to them: our number one concern is the safety of the staff that works in our facilities.

Our statistics differ from the presentation that is often made, but it doesn't for one minute — I don't, and my staff doesn't — underestimate the complexity and the potential risks of being a corrections officer in British Columbia and anywhere, in any jurisdiction.

Certainly, we believe that the inmate-to-staff ratio is only one consideration. It is always done carefully, based on risk. I have heard the same comments, and have heard them personally, in my discussions with the BCGEU.

With that, hon. Chair, I thank you for your work this afternoon, and I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:39 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada